HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda 11-05-2014 Jefferson County
Planning C0mmission
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 AGENDA
Tri-Area Community Center
November 5, 2014
6:30 pm
OP
E
N
I
N
G
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of 10/01 Meeting Minutes
Staff Updates
Commissioner Announcements
6:45 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.
7:00 pm
CO
N
T
I
N
U
E
D
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
Topic Speaker Page(s)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Joint Land Use Study Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager 4 - 22
Housing Anna Bausher, Assistant Planner 23 - 41
UDC AMENDMENTS
In-Lieu Fee Program Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner 42 - 65
Final Plat Vesting Carl Smith, DCD Director 66 - 68
Recreational Marijuana Colleen Zmolek, Associate Planner 69 - 93
8:45 pm
CL
O
S
I
N
G
BU
S
I
N
E
S
S
Summary of today’s meeting
Follow-up action items
Agenda Items for 12/3 meeting at 6:30 pm at Brinnon Community Center
9:00 pm ADJOURNMENT
Jefferson County
Planning C0mmission
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
October 1, 2014
Page 1 of 3
Call to Order at 6:33 pm
ROLL CALL
District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present
Coker: E-Absence Smith: Present Brotherton: Present Carl Smith, DCD Director
Felder: Present Farmer: Present Giske: E-Absence Stacie Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager
[Vacant position] Sircely: E-Absence Hull: Present Elizabeth Williams, DCD Administrative Clerk
Zoe Ann Lamp, PW Transportation Planner
Guest Speaker: Cindy Jayne, Climate Action Committee Chair
Public in Attendance: 7
Approval of Agenda: Richard Hull moved to approve the agenda.
Approval of Minutes: Tom Brotherton moved to approve meeting minutes for 08/06/2014.
Lorna Smith seconded. 5 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstained.
STAFF UPDATES
Sign Code
Carl Smith: Ready to request an approval from BOCC for a public hearing in October. Revision included:
Allowable heights and the number of days prior to an event (temporary signs) that they can
be posted.
Marijuana Moratorium
Carl Smith: The public hearing is scheduled for this Monday, 10/6 at 10:30 am at the Cotton Building.
Planning Commission Vacancy
Carl Smith: The District 1 vacancy will be open for the extent of October to allow for more applicants.
Planning Manager Vacancy
Carl Smith: The vacancy closed yesterday. Interviews will be scheduled in October.
Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR)
Stacie Hoskins: Still waiting on the Water/Sewer Plans and the Economic Report as required by the Board
of County Commissioners. A new timeline has been provided by planner, David Johnson. All
reports are due to the consultant by Oct 6. A date of Nov 3 has been set to have a finished
draft EIS.
Thorndyke Resources “Pit-to-Pier” project
Stacie Hoskins: Additional studies are currently underway for the project. We expect to have all the public
comments available for viewing by mid-Nov. The pending court cases against Dept. of
Natural Resources and the Navy have moved up to Federal Court. However, Dept. of Natural
Resources is contending that their agency is not within Federal jurisdiction.
Comprehensive Plan Surveys
Elizabeth Williams: Surveys are provided in the packet and were not distributed before tonight.
Carl Smith: We are still allowing an open period for more surveys to be submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sylvia White: Submitted comment as e-mail to Planning Commission members on 9/22/14. Supports
creating restrictions for recreational marijuana producing/processing in Rural Residential.
Would like the County to ban more than 10 plants in Rural Residential. Perhaps the County
should consider providing more Industrial zoning in more areas than just Glen Cove. Plans
to attend the Moratorium Hearing on Monday.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 1 of 93
Jefferson County
Planning C0mmission
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
October 1, 2014
Page 2 of 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
FEMA Biological Opinion
Stacie Hoskins: Ready to request an approval from BOCC for a public hearing in Oct. DCD is already using
“Door 3” to comply with the Biological Opinion required per the lawsuit.
Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)
Stacie Hoskins: First outreach meeting was conducted and a survey is available online.
Tom Brotherton: Was the “Laundry List” of issues for Jefferson County high?
Stacie Hoskins: Much of the areas of concern were suited for the Bremerton area.
Lorna Smith: Which jurisdiction is drafting the strategies and policies?
Stacie Hoskins: A private consultant is compiling the information with Jefferson County. The Navy is paying
for the plan. Kitsap County is the primary recipient of the grant. The consultant works for
Kitsap County. We will be pulling the recommendations that pertain to Jefferson County
and will be required to go through the public process for any amendments.
Population Projections
Carl Smith: Our projections have changed based on the Office of Financial Management (OFM)
The previous projection for 2024 was 40,000+ from back in 2004.
The new projection for 2025 is 37,914.
Tom Brotherton: Shouldn’t we be prepared to exceed the current growth goals and attract people to the area?
Lorna Smith: The philosophy of the Growth Management Act is to prepare and accommodate for the
projected growth rate.
Patricia Smith: If you read the survey results, it appears that may not be the goal of the citizens.
Affordable Housing
Stacie Hoskins: Anna Bausher is lead on the topic. The Port Hadlock Sewer project is top goal in order to
provide housing. Kevin Coker is a part of our Shelter to Housing Network, which is modeled
around Clallam County’s housing network. It looks at a range of housing options ranging
from shelters to home ownership. Housing providers including OLYCAP and Habitat for
Humanity are also a part of the group.
Tom Brotherton: Perhaps the County could consider allowing more than 1 ADU per property?
Stacie Hoskins: Per state law, the property owner must still live in one of the units, but we have not yet
looked to see if more than 1 ADU is permitted by the state.
Lorna Smith: The Small Flows Journal provided information on low-interest loans for multi-family
housing. Unsure if the journal is still being published.
Transportation Plan
Zoe Ann Lamp: The Quimper Transportation Plan and also the SR 19 Corridor Study done by DOT are
important to be familiar with when updating the Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC recently
adopted the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) on 09/15/2014. It
highlights the improvement projects expected to take place over the next 6 years and
potential funding for the projects. 30% of the program expenditures is for non-motorized
transportation.
Stacie Hoskins: Public Works has done well at implementing the improvements, such as the Olympic
Discovery Trail and “Safe Routes to School”.
Zoe Ann Lamp: Public Works just applied for a grant to install sidewalks from the Chimacum Grange to HJ
Carroll Park and also up Cedar Avenue. Met with the School Director of Transportation last
week to discuss the plan. Other planned projects include West Valley Road culvert
replacement is to allow a fish passage, South Discovery Road realignment, where a steep
cliff has been wearing away, and a portion of Center Rd has required constant maintenance
and the County plansto repave.
Tom Brotherton: Since the opening of the pot shop in Discovery Bay, off Uncas Rd, there has been 1 fatality
and 1 accident. Is it possible to install a turn lane?
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 2 of 93
Jefferson County
Planning C0mmission
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
October 1, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Stacie Hoskins: Applicants must pay for the impact of their development/project.
Zoe Ann Lamp: There are limited financial resources and I can supply you with the contact information for
Washington State DOT for you to discuss this issue with them.
Capital Facilities
Stacie Hoskins: Tim Woolett is lead on these amendments. The list of proposed changes are in the packet.
Essential Public Facilities
Stacie Hoskins: Frank Gifford, of Jefferson County Central Services, will be working on this section of the
Comprehensive Plan, aand he originally drafted this Chapter in the 1998
Climate Change
Cindy Jayne: The line in/line out changes was created in anticipation of climate change and their impacts.
Comprehensive Plans for other jurisdictions, including King County and City of Olympia
were reviewed. The North Olympic RC&D was awarded a grant. The organization partnered
with a consultant who specifically works in climate change and adaptation. The East
Jefferson area will be benefitting from the grant, but not West Jefferson. Our first workshop
will be scheduled in early November for determining vulnerable areas.
County-Wide Planning Policies (CWPP)
Carl Smith: The County will not be making changes to the CWPP, and will be adhering to the Plan when
collaborating with the City of PT to determine the population projections.
Agriculture in Critical Areas
Carl Smith: DCD researched court cases with David Alvarez, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney, and
provided them at the Aug 24th Agricultural workshop. Cheri Scalf, of WDFW, presented data
at the meeting that indicated Chum and Coho runs have increased over the last 10 years.
DCD will be providing the Planning Commission with a report.
UDC AMENDMENTS
In-Lieu Fee Program
Stacie Hoskins: The Hood Canal Coordinating Council led the way on this program, partnering with
Jeffesron County and Kitsap County. Donna Frostholm is the planner assigned to this topic.
The developer/applicant pays into the program and Hood Canal Coordinating Council
provides the “mitigation”. DCD coming up with a list of improvements we would like to
direct the monies toward.
Lorna Smith: Is this ILF proposed or already implemented?
Stacie Hoskins: The ILF program is already codified in JCC 18.25 Shoreline Master Program, and we would
like to codify it in our Critical Areas Ordinance
Lorna Smith: Would like to discuss this subject further, as there are many drawbacks.
MARIJUANA REGULATIONS
Group discussion regarding the marijuana moratorium and state regulations. No action was taken.
Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 11/5/14 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center.
Adjourned at 8:18 pm
These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2014.
________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________
Kevin Coker, Chair Elizabeth Williams, PC Secretary/Administrative Clerk
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 3 of 93
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: October 27, 2014
RE:Staff Update for November 5 Meeting: Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Results from Workshop andSurvey 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
JLUS Results:
You are being provided with a summary of results from Workshop & Survey 1 of the Joint Land Use Study(JLUS). This is an 18-page color document dated 10/10/2014 from MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design.
The document summarizes data collected from an Issues Identification workshop conducted in each of Jefferson
and Kitsap counties, and from an online survey. It organizes issues information about the community and Navy ingeneral, by Navy installations, demographics of respondents, and analyzes weighted responses to various issues.
Note: The report primarily uses a “stacked bar chart” format for displaying data. All responses to a question =
100%. The percentage of an individual response category is measured by the amount of that color on the scale.The colors are in the same order. This allows you to visually scan and quickly see relative importance and
strength of response per question.
JLUS Talking Points:
The majority of survey respondents perceived Navy installations as a valuable asset to their region; and
saw bases as having a positive effect on the local and regional economy.
Issues specific to Naval Magazine Indian Island (NAVMAG II) include: concern about safety; recreationalboating/fishing/crabbing; communication between NAVMAG II & public; preservation of cultural
resources.
The JLUS is being conducted to provide planning strategies for compatible development with the Navyand surrounding communities. Results are implemented in the Comp. Plan update.
The Growth Management Act mandates planning between military installations and surroundingcommunities.
Items for Planning Commission action:
1)We welcome you to please visit our project website: www.kiijlus.com
2)In January 2015, a Draft Conflict Resolution Strategies document will be posted for a 30-day public
comment period. This document will incorporate the issues identified in the materials you just received,and propose draft Conflict Resolution Strategies. The draft will be made available to you during the
comment period for your review & comment.
3)There will be a second workshop series and survey conducted in May (to be announced) to gather publicinput on the Final Resolution Strategy Recommendations and Report. You are all encouraged to attend.
Future JLUS Work Plan Elements & Timeline:
Current Conditions Write-up (October/November, 2014)
Conflict Analysis (November, 2014)
Final Resolution Strategies (February/March, 2015)
Final JLUS Report (June, 2015)
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 4 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 1
10/10/2014
Survey 1 Results
Survey 1 was open online from September 3 to October 2, 2014, and 254 people responded. The survey asked
participants about their demographics, familiarity with Naval Base Kitsap (NBK)—Bremerton, Bangor, Keyport,
Jackson Park and Hospital, and Camp Wesley Harris—and Naval Magazine Indian Island (NAVMAG II), and how the
Naval presence—in terms of quality of life and economic impacts—affects them.
Key Takeaways
Who responded?
Participants represented the study area fairly well in terms of where they live and work, with the most densely
populated zip codes presenting the most respondents. Marrowstone Island had a slightly greater than
representative response rate for its population. The bulk of respondents are long-time residents (over 10 years),
and over half have worked in the area over 10 years. Only 7 of the 254 respondents currently live on a Navy
installation, but nearly one-third work or have worked on a Navy base, most of whom work(ed) on Bremerton
or Bangor.
Perceptions of Naval Installations
Survey 1 showed a strong positive perception of the Naval installations included in this Joint Land Use Study project.
Seventy percent of respondents believed that the Navy is a valuable asset to their region, and the vast majority saw
all bases—especially Bremerton, Bangor, and Keyport—as having a positive effect on the local and regional
economy. Most people believed the bases have both positive and negative, positive only, or no effects on their
quality of life.
In general, participants were more familiar with NBK-Bremerton and NBK-Bangor and felt they were the most
impactful in both positive and negative ways. Respondents were least familiar with NAVMAG II. All installations but
Camp Wesley Harris were perceived to have “very important” missions, and even Camp Wesley Harris’s mission was
seen as “important.”
Issues Identification
The survey asked participants to rate “issues” that were identified through project partner interviews on a range
from “completely acceptable” to “unacceptable” and to add their comments and additional items. Issues that were
rated “somewhat unacceptable” or “unacceptable” by more than 15% of the respondents are highlighted below.
NBK-Bremerton
Over one-third of participants perceived NBK-Bremerton as having both positive and negative impacts on their
quality of life, and just under one-third saw only positive impacts. The most concerning issues included:
1.Amount of available parking. Notably, parking around Bremerton is the only issue on the survey that scored in
the negative range, with a slight majority of people indicating that it is somewhat or completely unacceptable.
2.Amount of automobile traffic was the second-most concerning issue (although scoring overall on the positive
side), and the open-ended responses honed in on a variety of traffic issues with an emphasis on Gorst.
3.Natural habitats conservation was the third most-concerning issue. Five people also commented on
environmental issues, while one noted many positive environmental steps the Navy has taken.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 5 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 2
10/10/2014
4.Communication between NBK-Bremerton and the public nearly tied with item 3 above, and three comments
suggested better notification regarding drills, noises, and carrier dockings.
Comments emphasized that NBK provides living wage jobs and is an economic driver for the region. Other issues
raised in the comments include the impact of the Navy’s parking garage on neighbors, fears over a rumored “buffer
zone,” transience in schools, and appreciation of Navy amenities (e.g., PXs and commissaries).
NBK-Bangor
Like Bremerton, about a third of respondents felt that NBK-Bangor has a positive and negative impact on their
quality of life, and just under a third perceived only positive impacts. One-fifth believed it does not impact them.
The most concerning issues (again, these all score positively overall, and even more so than the top Bremerton
issues) were:
1.Conservation of natural habitats, with three comments addressing ways the Navy and Kitsap County could
better address environmental issues,
2.Communication between NBK-Bangor and the public, especially regarding traffic delays at the Hood Canal
Bridge,
3.Recreational boating, fishing, sea plane flying, etc., with one comment on reduced public access to water and
land,
4.Amount of automobile traffic, with other comments related to the base gates, bridge closings, speeding
motorists, and a dangerous intersection, and
5.Preservation of cultural resources. Other comments did not address this, so some exploration is needed to
understand if participants were primarily referring to Tribal cultural and religious resources or other historic
architectural.
Other comments reported on NBK-Bangor as an economic driver for the region, its amenities for the retirement
community, and the sense that nuclear capabilities increases risks for the community.
NBK-Keyport
Fewer than 18% of respondents rated any NBK-Keyport issues as somewhat acceptable or unacceptable. The most
concerning issues (although overall, not seen as issues) included:
1.Conservation of natural habitats, with comments both touting the Navy’s environmental stewardship and
voicing concern over rumored unreported oil spills,
2.Recreational boating, fishing, sea plane flying, etc, and
3.Communication between NBK-Keyport and the public, with one comment expressing concern over Navy
secrecy.
A few respondents commented that the underwater museum is a wonderful educational resource, and the Navy’s
role in maintaining economic stability in the region was reiterated here.
NAVMAG-Indian Island
Less than half the respondents completed the question on NAVMAG II issues; 40% noted that NAVMAG II does not
impact them and 28% were unsure. Of those who responded, 55% believed it has positive economic impacts, and
12% believed it has negative economic impacts (interestingly, this is the greatest number of responses for the
negative alone option of all the bases). The issues of most concern include:
1.Sense of safety, with five comments related to fear of ordnance storage and handling, as well as two concerns
over the base being a target for enemy attack,
2.Recreational boating, fishing, crabbing, sea plane flying, etc, with one respondent noting a hindrance to sailing
in Port Townsend Bay,
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 6 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 3
10/10/2014
3.Communication between NAVMAG II and the public, with two participants commenting that they would like
more information on the potential risks in the area, and
4.Preservation of cultural resources.
In addition, three people voiced concern over contaminants entering the water.
Full Survey Responses
Live/Work Demographics
In what zip code do you live?
Number of respondents by
jurisdiction:
•Kitsap County (excluding
Bremerton): 112
•City of Bremerton: 84
•Jefferson County: 48
•Other: 7
•Skipped Question: 3
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 7 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 4
10/10/2014
In what zip code do you work?
Number of respondents by
jurisdiction:
• Kitsap County (excluding
Bremerton): 75
• City of Bremerton: 66
• Jefferson County: 37
• Other location (e.g., Seattle,
Olympia, Everett): 26
• Skipped Question: 3
47 respondents (14%) noted that
they are retired.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 8 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 5
10/10/2014
8%
11%
13%
69%
0-1 years
2-5 years
14%
17%
17%
52%
0-1 years
2-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10
years
The majority of respondents are long-time residents (more than 10 years) of the area, and over half of all
respondents have worked at their current location for more than 10 years. The remaining respondents are split
relatively evenly in the other three categories for both live and work duration.
Do you live on a Navy installation?
Of the 254 respondents, only 7 live on base (3 on NBK Bremerton, 3 on NBK Bangor and 1 in Jackson Park).
How long have you lived there? How long have you worked there?
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 9 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 6
10/10/2014
Association with Navy
Nearly one third of respondents
currently work or have worked
on a Naval base in the past.
At which Navy installation do you or have you worked?
Of the 77 respondents who work(ed) at a Navy installation, most are or were at NBK Bremerton and NBK Bangor.
Other responses included Hawaii, Seattle, San Diego, Japan, Guam, Portland, and others.
36%
26%
13%
10%
6%
5%
3%
0%
NBK Bremerton
NBK Bangor
Other
NBK Keyport
Multiple NBK Installations
NBK Jackson Park & Hospital
Naval Magazine Indian Island
NBK Manchester
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
8%
(19) 23%
(59)
69%
(176)
Yes, I currently work on a Navy installation.
Yes, I used to work on a Navy installation.
No, I've never worked on a Navy installation.
Do you currently work or have you worked in the past on a Navy installation?
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 10 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 7
10/10/2014
Positive and Negative Impacts of Naval Installations
Does Naval Base Kitsap or NAVMAG II impact you or your community’s quality of life
(e.g., increases economic opportunity, causes traffic or other nuisances, preserves
natural environment, etc.)?
(# of respondents: Bremerton: 248, Bangor: 238, Keyport: 229, NAVMAG II: 229)
Respondents perceived Bremerton, followed by Bangor, as having the greatest impact—both positive and negative,
with greater perceived positive than negative alone—on quality of life. For Keyport and NAVMAG II, the most
common answer was that these installations have no impact on their quality of life. Respondents are least familiar
with NAVMAG II, and NAVMAG II tied with Bremerton on the most votes for negative impacts.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Positively Negatively Both positively
and negatively
Does not impact
me or my
community
Not sure/don't
know
#
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
Bremerton Bangor Keyport Naval Magazine Indian Island
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 11 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 8
10/10/2014
How would you characterize Naval Base Kitsap or NAVMAG II's impact
on the local and regional economy?
(# of respondents: Bremerton: 192, Bangor: 164, Keyport: 99, NAVMAG II: 75)
Participants see the bases, particularly Bremerton and Bangor, as having a positive impact on the economy, with
some people noting both positive and negative impacts. Only a few respondents noted negative economic impacts
(less than 10 in regards to each base), and again, respondents are least familiar with NAVMAG II.
Navy as a regional asset
Are you familiar with the Navy's mission on the installations?
Over half of respondents said they are familiar with the Navy’s mission at Bremerton and Bangor. For Keyport,
Jackson Park and Hospital, NAVMAG II, and Manchester, 38-46% of respondents are familiar with the Navy’s
mission. Respondents were least familiar with the mission at Camp Wesley Harris.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Positive Negative Both positive and negative Neutral/unsure
Bremerton Bangor Keyport Naval Magazine Indian Island
121 123 100 83 98
39
92
45 43
41 44 39
41
47
51 50 75 89 79
135
79
0
50
100
150
200
250
NBK-
Bremerton
NBK-Bangor NBK-
Keyport
NBK-
Manchester
NBK-
Jackson
Park and
Hospital
NBK-Camp
Wesley
Harris
Naval
Magazine
Indian
Island
No
Somewhat
Yes
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 12 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 9
10/10/2014
How important do you think the Navy's mission is at these installations?
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the Navy’s mission at each of the installations as not very
important, important, and very important, which corresponded to respective values of 1, 2, and 3. All installations
were seen as important, and all but one as very important.
Issues Identification
The following series of charts shows the community’s view of the issues identified during project partner interviews.
The charts combine the online Survey 1 results with the Workshop Series 1 posters feedback. 254 people
responded to the online survey, and approximately 25 people attended the workshops. Open-ended responses to
naval installation impacts on them or their community are summarized with a number in parentheses indicating the
number of respondents who raised the issue.
2.70
2.70
2.60
2.57
2.53
2.53
2.29
NBK-Bremerton
NBK-Bangor
NBK-Keyport
NBK-Manchester
NBK-Jackson Park and
Hospital
Naval Magazine Indian
Island
NBK-Camp Wesley Harris
Yes
70%
No
6%
Neutral/
unsure
24%
Important Very Important
Is the military presence in the
study area a valuable asset to
your community?
Yes,
28.2%
No,
56.8%
Neutral/
unsure,
15.0%
Do you benefit financially from NBK or
Naval Magazine Indian Island?
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 13 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 10
10/10/2014
NBK-Bremerton Issues
How would you rate the following matters currently related to the areas
around NBK-Bremerton? (185 respondents)
The following issues are ranked in order of the most concerning to participants to least concerning. Note that all
except parking received more completely acceptable (dark green) and somewhat acceptable (light green) votes than
the neutral (blue) and negative (brown and red) categories.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Amount of available parking
Amount of automobile traffic
Conservation of natural habitats
Communication between NBK-Bremerton and the
public
Ability to develop property
Sense that I, my property, or my home are safe
Ability to take a boat out, go fishing, crabbing, etc.,
or fly a sea plane
Noise levels around the base
Ability to find housing
Preservation of cultural resources
Glare from structures on or related to the base
Ability to run a business
Response time of emergency vehicles
Ability to fly private aircraft (other than sea planes)
Percentage of Responses
Completely acceptable Somewhat acceptable Neutral/not applicable
Somewhat unacceptable Unacceptable Not sure/don't know
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 14 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 11
10/10/2014
Other Bremerton responses
• Generates living wage jobs, positive economic influences (8)
• Parking and traffic (would like to see base contribute to infrastructure and contain impacts to base) (7)
Gorst traffic should be #1 priority (3)
Build bridge across Sinclair Inlet to help alleviate Gorst traffic
Speeding at Gorst, National and Kitsap Way (and running red lights)
High safety risk for car and non-motorized transportation
Busses too full to pick up non-Navy during half the day
Upgrade Highway 16 south to accommodate more vehicles afternoon peak
Stagger shifts more
Manette Bridge choke point – add roundabout
More carpooling and commuter busses needed
Coordinate stop lights better, especially at Burwell Street and Park Ave
NBK Bremerton needs an additional parking structure
Belfair needs a high speed truck bypass
Dust from traffic
• Heavy metals in water, pollution, accumulated environmental impacts (5)
• Light pollution (parking garage, streets, etc.) (4)
• Better communication (notification of carrier dockings, security drills, alarming noises, etc.) (3)
• Parking garage impact on neighbors (noise, speeding drivers, lowered property values) (2)
• Fears over rumored Gregory Way “buffer zone” (2)
• Noise (loudspeakers, nighttime drills, sea lions?) (2)
• Transience in schools – hard to predict movement when crews/staffing change (2)
• Makes area target for hostile attack (2)
• Navy communicates well with the community (2)
• Off limits bottom fish, shell fish, clams, oysters
• Reduces public access to land and water
• Recognition of environmental efforts by Navy
• War based industry
• Barricade at end of Shorewood Drive blocks path and prevents residents’ interaction
• Camp Wesley Harris – eyesore
• Pressure on low-income housing and services from Navy personnel
• Navy supports the retirement community
• Bad for the image of Bremerton
• Would Navy release security camera footage if a robbery took place in the alley facing the base?
• Community members use the PXs and commissaries
• Motorists littering
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 15 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 12
10/10/2014
NBK-Bangor Issues
How would you rate the following matters currently related to the areas
around NBK-Bangor? (160 respondents)
The following issues are ranked in order of the most concerning to participants to least concerning. Note that all
received more completely acceptable (dark green), somewhat acceptable (light green), and neutral (blue) votes than
the negative (brown and red) categories.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Conservation of natural habitats
Communication between NBK-Bangor and the
public
Ability to take a boat out, go fishing, crabbing, etc.,
or fly a sea plane
Amount of automobile traffic
Preservation of cultural resources
Sense that I, my property, or my home are safe
Ability to develop property
Ability to find housing
Ability to fly private aircraft (other than sea planes)
Glare from structures on or related to the base
Noise levels around the base
Amount of available parking
Response time of emergency vehicles
Ability to run a business
Percentage of Responses
Completely acceptable Somewhat acceptable Neutral/not applicable
Somewhat unacceptable Unacceptable Not sure/don't know
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 16 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 13
10/10/2014
Other Bangor responses
• Economic driver for region (5)
• Hood Canal Bridge delays and lack of notification (4)
• Nuclear capabilities puts community at risk (3)
• Benefit to retired community (2)
• Transportation:
Driver behavior: speeding on the highway and at Trigger Gate
Traffic at main gates
Better scheduling of bridge openings
Dangerous at Greaves Way and Highway going south in Silverdale
• Environmental:
• Kitsap County prioritizes economy over the environment
• Navy should participate more in Clear Creek restoration, especially with fish culvert issues, and Trident
pond discharge)
• More transparency on underwater testing effects on marine mammals
• Appreciation for easement blocking commercial development in nearby waterfront
• Concerns over pit-to-pier development—impacts boating access, bridge, pollution
• Reduces public access to land and water
• Target for foreign enemies
• Negative effect on schools (transient population with single-parent households for much of the time)
• Nighttime light pollution
• PX and Commissary are used
• Keyport Museum is asset to community
• War-based industry
• Military spouses take jobs even when not needed, lowering overall acceptable wages in the community
• Smell of diesel when ships are in canal
• Disclose information about accidents that could impact the community
• Navy should coordinate with City of Poulsbo on UGA—do not allow it to expand
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 17 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 14
10/10/2014
NBK-Keyport
How would you rate the following matters currently related to the areas
around NBK-Keyport? (98 respondents)
The following issues are ranked in order of the most concerning to participants to least concerning. Note that all
received more completely acceptable (dark green), somewhat acceptable (light green), and neutral (blue) votes than
the negative (brown and red) categories.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Conservation of natural habitats
Ability to take a boat out, go fishing, crabbing, etc.,
or fly a sea plane
Communication between NBK-Keyport and the
public
Ability to develop property
Preservation of cultural resources
Amount of automobile traffic
Glare from structures on or related to the base
Sense that I, my property, or my home are safe
Ability to fly private aircraft (other than sea planes)
Response time of emergency vehicles
Ability to find housing
Ability to run a business
Amount of available parking
Noise levels around the base
Percentage of Responses
Completely acceptable Somewhat acceptable Neutral/not applicable
Somewhat unacceptable Unacceptable Not sure/don't know
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 18 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 15
10/10/2014
Other Keyport responses
• Underwater museum is a wonderful educational resource (3)
• Economic stability
• Appreciation for preserved open space/wildlife habitat on Keyport
• Example of great environmental stewardship on Navy’s part
• Environmental issues (unreported oil spills)
• Nighttime glare from lighting
• Survey oversimplifies issues
• Concerns over Navy secrecy
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 19 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 16
10/10/2014
Naval Magazine Indian Island
How would you rate the following matters currently related to the areas
around NAVMAG II? (76 respondents)
The following issues are ranked in order of the most concerning to participants to least concerning. Note that all
received more completely acceptable (dark green), somewhat acceptable (light green), and neutral (blue) votes than
the negative (brown and red) categories, with a strong recognition of conservation of natural habitats at NAVMAG II.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sense that I, my property, or my home are safe
Ability to take a boat out, go fishing, crabbing, etc.,
or fly a sea plane
Communication between Naval Magazine Indian
Island and the public
Preservation of cultural resources
Conservation of natural habitats
Ability to develop property
Ability to find housing
Ability to fly private aircraft (other than sea planes)
Glare from structures on or related to the base
Response time of emergency vehicles
Amount of automobile traffic
Noise levels around the base
Ability to run a business
Amount of available parking
Percentage of Responses
Completely acceptable Somewhat acceptable Neutral/not applicable
Somewhat unacceptable Unacceptable Not sure/don't know
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 20 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 17
10/10/2014
Other Indian Island responses
• Fear of ordnance storage and handling (accidental detonation) (5)
• Keep pollution/contaminants from entering water (3)
• Worry about living near place with risk of tactical strike against U.S. (2)
• Would like more information about potential risks (2)
• Transportation:
Marrowstone needs safe walking and biking path along Flagler Road – would like space between
roadway and fence
Traffic impacts during exercises
Prospect Ave/SR 19 intersection is dangerous; needs better pullout for buses and bike infrastructure
Oak Bay Road needs better maintenance
• Positive: preserves open space and wildlife habitat
• Hinders ability to sail in Port Townsend Bay
• War-based industry
• Potential for toxic spills
• Interrupts satellite dish server
• Appreciate Navy’s good work
Communication
Where do you get most of your information about the Navy installations?
Respondents received Navy installation-related information from a variety of sources. Over half of respondents get
their information through word of mouth (the top three categories), with roughly ¼ of respondents receiving
information either from the media or directly from someone working on an installation. The responses for the
“other” category are summarized below.
• Multiple sources (9)
• Employment with navy (5)
• Retired Navy(4)
• Other employment (4)
• From the navy (2)
• Online (2)
• Regulatory (1)
• Base visit (1)
24.5%
11.4%
17.7%
27.7%
6.4%
12.3%
Directly from someone who works there
From friends/family who know people
who work there
From general discussion in the
community
From the media
I don't know anything about them
Other (please specify)
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 21 of 93
MAKERS architecture and urban design 18
10/10/2014
Future workshops
Would you attend a community workshop about the JLUS?
47% of respondents expressed interest in attending a community workshop (responses for “Yes” and “I will try”).
41% were unsure, and 12% would not attend a workshop.
What time is best for you to attend a community workshop?
Yes,
35%
No, 12%
Unsure,
41%
I will
try,
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Weekday daytime Weekday evening Weekend morning Weekend afternoon
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 22 of 93
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: Anna Bausher, Assistant Planner
DATE: Oct. 24, 2014
RE: Proposed amendments of section 2.2 of the Comp Plan Update ______________________________________________________________________________________
One important element of the Comprehensive Plan update is the Housing Element, particularly addressing affordable housing.
Information contained in Chapter 5: Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan is largely supported by data. The majority of the data found in Chapter 5 is proposed to be updated based off of the 2010
Census data ensuring the use of best available information. This 2010 data will replace the data being used from 1990. Any additional sources for statistics in relation to updating the statistics in this section is welcomed.
The Housing Action Plan adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioner on
November 6, 2006 by Resolution No. 69-06 and an amendment to the plan on July 9, 2007 by
Resolution No. 59-07, contains a broad range of strategies for affordable housing. DCD staff has drawn information from the Housing Action Plan in support of the goals outlined in these strategies. Proposed draft language in support of suitable goals in relation to the County’s capacity has been incorporated in
the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Staff looks forward to discussing this topic with the Planning Commission at the November 5th meeting.
Page 1 of 1
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 23 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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.
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 ruralresidential neighborhoods.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-1 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 24 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 percent (69.5% 78.1%) of Jefferson County
households were comprised of one or two persons. Less than seven 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%
2 44.3% 45.9 58.9% 15.6%
3 12.7% 10.7 18.7% 1.3%
4 9.3% 6.8 14.3% 0.4%
5 3.4% 2.6 5.5% 0.2%
6 1.2% 1 1.9% 0.0
7+ 0.6% .8 0.7% 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
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-2 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 25 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-3 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 26 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-4 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 27 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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
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.
• 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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-5 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 28 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 33%
632 23% 2,955
1,386
69%
25% 2,217 35%
20% to 24 %
251 12% 294
11% 498
1,068
12%
19% 1,137 18%
25% to 29%
248 12% 255
10% 265
651
6%
12% 718 11%
30% to 34% 168 8% 275 10% 180 499 4% 9% 587 9%
35% or more
550 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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-6 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 29 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 5-5 4 Gross Monthly Rent Data based from 2010 Census
Less
than
$200
$200 to$299 $300 to$499 $500 to$749 $750 to$999 $1000 ormore No cashrent Median(dollars)
Gross Rent 2000 160 147 468 883 459 262 327 595
Gross Rent 2010 77 145 510 803 908 950 470 796
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 $0-272 $0- 185 $0-228
Very Low Income 31% to 50% of Median $11,361- 18,935
$14,530-
23,435
$285-473 $363-586 $227-379 $289-469 $192-320 $244-396
Low Income 51% to 80%
of Median
$18,936-
30,295
$23,904 –
37,496
$474757
$598-937
$391-625
$493-773
$331-530
$418-656
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-7 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 30 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
Moderate
Income
81% to 95%
of Median
$30,296-
35,976 $37,965- $44,527
$758-899
$949-1,113
$644-764
$806-945
$ 549-652
$687-807
Middle Income 96% to 120% of
Median
$35,977-45,443
$44,995-
54,532
$9001,136 $1,125-
1,363
$787-966 $984-1,159 $ 675-852 $844-1,022
Upper
Income
Greater than
121% of
Median
Greater than
$45,444
$56,713
Greater than
$1,136
$1,417
Greater than
$994 $1,240
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 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
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-8 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 31 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 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
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-9 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 32 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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
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-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-10 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 33 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-11 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 34 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 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
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-12 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 35 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-13 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 36 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-14 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 37 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-15 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 38 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 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.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-16 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 39 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 ofhousing demands and monitor the achievement of the housing policies and housingtargets 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 toaccommodate 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 owner builder amendment to Building Code to allow owner occupancy prior tothe 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 EconomicDevelopment (CTED), identify funding sources such as “Planning-Only” grant funds topursue 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)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-17 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 40 of 93
HOUSING ELEMENT
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 sharehousing 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 bothjurisdictions 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 supportapplication 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
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 5-18 Revised by ORD#07-0707-08
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 41 of 93
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: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist
DATE: November 5, 2014
RE: In-lieu Fee Mitigation Program/Draft Code Language ______________________________________________________________________________________
Jefferson County Department of Community Development has been coordinating with other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies as well as local tribes and the Puget Sound Partnership to develop
and implement the Hood Canal In-lieu Fee Mitigation Program. This program went into effect in June
2012 and, as part of the critical areas update, language needs to be added to the Jefferson County Code to clarify that this mitigation option is available to applicants who have property within a Hood
Canal drainage basin. This program does not alter existing mitigation requirements in the code; it provides applicants with another mitigation option to meet the current code requirements.
DCD has drafted language, which is included in your packet.
Page 1 of 1
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 42 of 93
1
Proposed Line-in/Line-out Development Code Language
All header references are to the Jefferson County Code, Title 18 Unified Development Code
Chapter 18.10 Definitions
18.10.090 I definitions
“In-lieu fee” (ILF) means a program involving mitigation (such as restoration, establishment, enhancement,
and/or preservation) of unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources and associated buffers through funds paid to a
governmental or non-profit natural resources management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation
requirements for permitting. An ILF program sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose
obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to an ILF program sponsor. The operation and
use of an ILF program are governed by an ILF program instrument.
Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas
Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs)
18.22.195 Compliance Alternatives
Article VI sets forth the prescriptive requirements. Applicants for development permits or approvals subject to
this Article VI may elect to comply with the Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) provisions set forth in Article IXof this Chapter in lieu of the prescriptive requirements set forth herein.
18.22.200 Classification/Designation
(1) Classification. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) are those areas identified as being of
critical importance to the maintenance of endangered, threatened, or sensitive species of fish, wildlife and/orplants, or species of local importance. These areas are typically identified either by known point locations of
specific species (such as a nest or den) or by habitat areas or both. All areas within the County meeting thesecriteria are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this article.
(2) Mapping. The approximate location and extent of identified fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
(FWHCAs) are shown on the County’s critical area maps. These maps are to be used as a guide and do not
provide a definitive critical area determination. The County shall update the maps as new FWHCAs areidentified or new information related to updates to existing maps becomes available.
(3) Designation. The following are designated as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs):(a) Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species listed by the federal or state government
have a primary association.(i) Federally designated and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that are in danger ofextinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Services should be consulted for current listing status.(ii) State endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those species native to the State of
Washington identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife that are in danger ofextinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become
endangered within the state. The state maintains the list of these species in WAC 232-12-014(endangered species) and in WAC 232-12-014 (threatened and sensitive species). The State
Department of Fish and Wildlife should be consulted for current listing status.(b) Rivers and Streams not otherwise protected under Washington State Forest Practices regulations (RCW
76.09 and Chapter 222 WAC) that have FWHCAs are protected according to stream type.(c) Lands covered under the Forest Practices Act. Forested areas in Jefferson County provide protection as
FWHCAs under the Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09) and Forest Practices Regulations (Chapter 222WAC).
(d) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas, including designated Shellfish Habitat Conservation Areas(note: shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private tidelands and bed lands suitable for
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 43 of 93
2
shellfish harvest are allowed uses; such activities include but are not limited to bed marking, preparation, planting, cultivation, and harvest).
(e) Kelp and eelgrass beds. (f) Surf smelt, Pacific herring, and Pacific sand lance spawning areas.
(g) Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas. (h) All areas designated by the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) through the
Washington Natural Heritage Program as high quality wetland ecosystems and high quality terrestrial ecosystems.
(i) Species and Habitats of Local Importance established pursuant to the process delineated in JCC 18.22.210.
18.22.210 Process and Requirements for Designating Habitats of Local Importance as Critical Areas
(1) Purpose. This section describes the process for designating species and habitats of local importance that are not
covered by the Federal and State sensitive, threatened or endangered species regulations. Accordingly, this section details the requirements for designating and monitoring species and habitats of local importance, as well
as removing such species and habitats from designation if necessary. (2) Definition. The use of the term “habitat” in this section includes areas designated as “wildlife corridors.”
(3) Procedure for designation – generally. An application/nomination to designate a habitat of local importance as a critical area shall be processed according to the procedures for Type V land use decisions established in Chapter
18.40 JCC. (4) Nominations/applications. Any person, organization, or Jefferson County agency may nominate and apply for
designation a species or habitat of local importance. A nominating person or organization must be a resident of, or headquartered in, Jefferson County.
(5) Nomination/application submittal. (a) The applicant shall provide information demonstrating that the species or habitat is native to Jefferson
County existing on or before the date of adoption of the regulations codified in this chapter. (b) All nominations/applications for designation of a species/habitat of local significance shall include the
following: (i) Identification of the species including its scientific and locally common name(s);
(ii) Identification of the geographic location, including Jefferson County Parcel Numbers, and extent of the habitat associated with a nominated species or the nominated habitat itself if not
associated with a nominated species; a map of an appropriate scale to properly describe the location and extent of the habitat will accompany the nomination, as well as geo-referencing
information sufficient to allow mapping of the habitat site in the county GIS mapping system; (iii) The status of the species or the occurrence of the type of habitat in surrounding counties and in
the rest of the State has been considered in making this nomination; (iv) A management strategy for the species or habitat;
(v) Indications as to whether the proposed management strategy has been peer reviewed, and if so, how was this done and by whom;
(vi) Where restoration of habitat is proposed, a specific plan, including how the restoration will be funded, must be provided as part of the nomination;
(vii) Recommendations for allowed, exempt, and regulated activities within the area; (viii) Recommended buffer and setback requirements and their justification;
(ix) Seasonal requirements; (x) A monitoring plan must be practical and achievable and includes the following:
(A) Baseline data and a description of what measurements will be used to determine the success of the project. The plan shall include the criteria and time period required to
evaluate the success of the plan. (B) A contingency plan for failure.
(C) A list of all parcels not included in the nomination but affected by the monitoring process. (xi) The nomination must also include an economic impact, cost and benefits analysis. The
nomination must also include an analysis of alternative solutions to formal designation of the habitat of local importance as a regulated critical area under this chapter.
(c) The applicant shall be responsible for paying all fees and all expenses incurred by Jefferson County to process the application.
(6) Review and approval criteria. (a) Species nominated for designation under this section must satisfy the following criteria:
(i) Local populations that are in danger of extirpation based on documented trends since the adoption of the Growth Management Act;
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 44 of 93
3
(ii) The species is sensitive to habitat manipulation; (iii) The species or habitat has commercial, game, or other special value such as locally rare species;
(iv) The nomination includes an analysis of the proposal using best available science; and (v) The nomination specifies why protection by other county, state or federal policies, laws,
regulations or non-regulatory tools is inadequate to prevent degradation of the species or habitat and for which management strategies are practicable, and describes why, without designation
and protection, there is a likelihood that the species will not maintain and reproduce over the long term, or that a unique habitat will be lost.
(b) Habitats nominated for designation under this section must satisfy the following criteria: (i) Where a habitat is nominated to protect a species, the use of the habitat by that species must be
documented or be highly likely or the habitat is proposed to be restored with the consent of the affected property owner so that it will be suitable for use by the species; and, long term
persistence of the species in Jefferson County and adjoining counties is dependent on the protection, maintenance or restoration of the habitat;
(ii) Areas nominated to protect a particular habitat must represent either high quality native habitat or habitat that has an excellent potential to recover to a high quality condition and which is either of
limited availability or highly vulnerable to alteration. (iii) The nomination specifies the specific habitat features to be protected (e.g., nest sites, breeding
areas, nurseries, etc.). In the case of proposed wildlife corridors, the nomination shall specify those features that are required for the corridor to remain viable to support and protect the
nominated species. (7) Review and approval process.
(a) The Department of Community Development shall determine whether the application submittal is complete. If deemed complete, the department shall evaluate the proposal for compliance with the
approval criteria set forth in this section and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission based on those criteria. The department shall also notify all parcel owners affected of the terms and contents of
the proposal. (b) Upon receipt of a staff report and recommendation from the department, the Planning Commission shall
hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners based upon the approval criteria set forth in this section.
(c) The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall consider the recommendation transmitted by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public meeting, and may then adopt an ordinance formally
approving the designation. Should the Board wish to vary from the Planning Commission recommendation and alter or reject the application, such action may only occur following a separate
public hearing conducted by the Board. (d) Upon approval, the ordinance designating and regulating the species or habitat of local importance shall
be codified in this article for public information and implementation by the department, and a notice to title shall be placed upon all parcels affected by the designation.
(e) Each ordinance creating a species or habitat of local importance shall include periodic review of reassessment of the initial designation. The length of the periodic review may be dependent on the
characteristics of the species or habitat. (8) Removal from designation. Species or habitats of local significance may be removed at any time, PROVIDED,
that they no longer meet the criteria set forth in JCC 18.22.210(5). (e.g., as a result of a natural catastrophe or climatic change event), and PROVIDED FURTHER, that the procedural requirements of this section and the
procedural requirements established for Type V land use decisions set forth within Chapter 18.40 JCC.
18.22.220 Sources used for Identification
Sources used to identify fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. (2) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Water Type Index Maps.
(3) Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Non-Game and Priority Habitats and Species databases. (4) Public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest and identified by the Washington
Department of Health’s classification system and shellfish protection districts established pursuant to Chapter 90.72 RCW.
(5) Kelp and eelgrass beds may be classified and identified with the Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Program and the Department of Ecology (note: many locations are compiled in the Puget Sound Environmental
Atlas).
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 45 of 93
4
(6) Herring and smelt spawning times and locations are outlined in WAC 220-110-240 through WAC 220-110-250, Hydraulic Code Rules, Technical Report No. 79, and the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas.
18.22.230 Fish and wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) Maps
County maps identifying FWHCAs have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory
devices forming an integral part of this Article VI.
18.22.250 Regulated Activities
Any land use or development activity that is subject to a development permit or approval requirements of this code shall be subject to the provisions of this Article VI. These include, but are not limited to the following
activities that are directly undertaken or originate in a FWHCA or its buffer, unless otherwise exempted under JCC 18.22.070.
(1) Stream Crossings. Any private or public road expansion or construction which is proposed and must cross streams classified within this article, shall comply with the following minimum development standards:
(a) The design of stream crossings shall meet the requirements of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish passage shall be provided if necessary to address manmade obstructions on-site. Other
alternatives may be allowed upon a showing that, for the site under review, the alternatives would be less disruptive to the habitat or that the necessary building foundations were not feasible. Submittal of a
habitat management plan which demonstrates that the alternatives would not result in significant impacts to the fish and wildlife habitat area (FWHCA) may be required;
(b) Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other reasonable crossing site exists. For new development proposals, if existing crossings are determined to adversely impact salmon
spawning or passage areas, new or upgraded crossings shall be located as determined necessary through coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife;
(c) Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed either within the floodway or between the ordinary, high water marks unless no other reasonable alternative placement exists;
(d) All stream crossings shall be designed based on the 100-year projected flood flows, even in non-fish bearing Type Np and Ns streams. In addition, crossings for Type S and F streams should allow for
downstream transport of large woody debris; (e) Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible; and
(f) Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a culvert, the culvert shall be the minimum length necessary to accommodate the permitted activity.
(2) Utilities. Placement of utilities within designated fish and wildlife habitat areas may be allowed pursuant to the following standards:
(a) Construction of utilities may be permitted in FWHCAs or their buffers, only when no practicable or reasonable alternative location is available and the utility corridor meets the requirements for installation,
replacement of vegetation and maintenance outlined below. Utilities are encouraged to follow existing or permitted roads where possible.
(b) Construction of sewer lines or on-site sewage systems are not permitted in FWHCAs or their buffers, except that they may be permitted in a buffer area when the applicant demonstrates it is necessary to
meet state and/or local health code requirements; there are no other practicable alternatives available; and construction meets the requirement of this article. Joint use of the sewer utility corridor by other
utilities may be allowed. (c) New utility corridors shall not be allowed in FWHCAs with known locations of federal or state-listed
endangered, threatened or sensitive species, except in those circumstances where an approved habitat management plan is in place.
(d) Utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the environment of fish and wildlife habitat areas and their buffers.
(i) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible to avoid cutting trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half feet) measured on the uphill side.
(ii) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation at not less than preconstruction vegetation densities or greater, immediately upon completion of construction or
as soon thereafter as possible due to seasonal growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such vegetation survives for a three-year period.
(e) Utility towers should be painted with brush, pad or roller and should not be sandblasted or spray-painted, nor shall lead-base paints be used.
(3) Bank Stabilization.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 46 of 93
5
(a) A stream channel and bank, bluff, and shoreline may be stabilized when naturally occurring earth movement threatens existing legal structures (structure is defined for this purpose as those requiring a
building permit pursuant to the building code), public improvements, unique natural resources, public health, safety or welfare, or the only feasible access to property, and, in the case of streams, when such
stabilization results in maintenance of fish habitat or improved water quality, as demonstrated through a habitat management plan or equivalent study or assessment. Bluff, bank and shoreline stabilization shall
follow the standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, geologically hazardous areas provision in this chapter, and the floodplain management ordinance.
(b) The administrator shall require that bank stabilization be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington with demonstrated expertise in hydraulic actions of shorelines. For bank
stabilization projects within FWHCAs, the applicant must provide a geotechnical report that demonstrates that bioengineering solutions (vegetation versus hard surfaces) are infeasible. The report must document
the engineering rationale why bioengineering solutions are infeasible in a manner that can be confirmed through review by other engineering professionals. Bank stabilization projects may also require a
hydraulic project approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that will be determined after consultation with WDFW.
(4) Gravel Mining. Gravel mining is discouraged within FWHCAs or their buffers, and it shall not be permitted if it causes unmitigatable significant adverse impacts, but it may be allowed following the review and approval of a
habitat management plan, including a detailed mining and reclamation plan pursuant to the applicable performance standards in Chapter 18.20.240 JCC or as otherwise required in this code.
(5) Forest Practices, Class IV General. Timber harvesting with associated development activity involving land conversions from forest use, or otherwise meeting the DNR definition as a Class IV General application, shall
comply with the provisions of this article, including the maintenance of buffers, where required. (6) Road/Street Repair and Construction. Any private or public road or street expansion or construction which is
allowed in a FWHCA or its buffer shall comply with the following minimum development standards: (a) No other reasonable or practicable alternative exists and the proposed road or street serves multiple
properties whenever possible; (b) Public and private roads are encouraged to provide for other purposes, such as utility crossings,
pedestrian or bicycle easements, viewing points, etc.; (c) The road or street construction is the minimum necessary, as required by the department of public works’
guidelines. Minimum necessary provisions may include projected level of service requirements; and (d) Construction time limits shall be determined in consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife in order to ensure species and habitat protection. (7) Outdoor Recreation, Education and Trails. Activities and improvements that do not significantly affect the function
of the FWHCA or regulated buffer (including viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted in FWHCAs or their buffers.
(a) Trails and other facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or other previously disturbed areas;
(b) Trails and other facilities shall be planned to minimize removal of trees, shrubs, snags and important wildlife habitat;
(c) Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, benches and access to them, shall be designed and located to minimize impacts to wildlife, fish, or their habitat and/or critical characteristics of the affected FWHCA;
(d) Trails, in general, shall be set back from streams so that there will be minimal impact to the stream from trail use or maintenance. Trails shall be constructed with pervious surfaces when feasible and trails within
FWHCAs are not intended to be used by motorized vehicles. (8) Chemical Application or Storage. Chemical applications are not permitted within FWHCAs unless expressly
approved as part of a farm plan, forest practices application, or for the control of invasive or noxious plant species. In cases where approved chemical applications occur as part of a forest practices application or farm
plan, proper reporting procedures shall be followed. Chemical storage shall not be permitted within a FWHCA or its buffer.
18.22.265 Habitat Management Plans – When Required
When a development proposal is located on lands which may contain a habitat for a Protected Species other than Bald
Eagle nesting territories, or when the applicant proposes to alter, decrease or average the standard buffer, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be required, consistent with the requirements of JCC 18.22.440.
18.22.270 Protection Standards
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 47 of 93
6
(1) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated FWHCA or its buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth in this section.
(2) Drainage and Erosion Control. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan, as specified in this chapter.
(3) Grading. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a grading plan, as specified in this chapter.
(4) Vegetation Retention. The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply: (a) All trees and understory lying outside of road rights-of-way and utility easements shall be retained (except
for hazard trees) during clearing for roadways and utilities; provided, that understory damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned.
(b) Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing activities shall be minimized by directional felling of trees to avoid critical areas and vegetation to be retained.
(c) Retained trees, understory and stumps may subsequently be cleared only if such clearing is necessary to complete the proposal involved in the project application.
(5) Buffers – Standard Requirements. The administrator shall have the authority to require buffers from the edges of all FWHCAs in accordance with the following:
(a) Buffers generally. (i) Buffers shall be established for activities adjacent to FWHCAs as necessary to protect the
integrity, functions and values of the resource, consistent with the requirements set forth in Tables 18.22.270(1) and 18.22.270(2) of this section.
(ii) A building setback line of five feet is required from the edge of any buffer area, however, nonstructural improvements such as septic drain fields may be located within setback areas.
(iii) Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition, however, minor pruning of vegetation to enhance views or provide access may be permitted as long as the function and character of the
buffer are not diminished. (iv) Lighting shall be directed away from the FWHCA.
(b) Prescriptive FWHCA Buffers. (i) The standard buffer widths required by this article are considered to be the minimum required to
protect the stream functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation to protect critical area functions, the administrator may deny a proposal for
buffer reduction or buffer averaging. (ii) The standard buffer shall be measured landward horizontally on both sides of the stream from the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as identified in the field. Nevertheless, the required buffer shall include any adjacent regulated wetland(s), landslide hazard areas and/or erosion hazard areas
and required buffers, but shall not be extended across paved roads or other lawfully established structures or hardened surfaces. The following standard buffer width requirements are
established, provided that portions of streams that flow underground may be exempt from these
buffer standards at the administrator’s discretion when it can be demonstrated that no adverse
effects on aquatic species will occur.
TABLE 18.22.270(1): STREAM BUFFERS*
STREAM TYPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT
Type “S” - Shoreline Streams 150 feet
Type “F” – Fish Bearing Streams 150 feet
Type “Np”- Non-Fish Bearing Perennial
Streams
75 feet
Type “Ns” – Non-Fish Bearing Seasonal Streams greater than or equal to 20% grade 75 feet
Type “Ns” – Non-Fish Bearing Seasonal
Streams less than 20% grade
50 feet
* Note:
(a) The buffers set forth above shall apply to culverted streams; though in limited circumstances, a variance may be made in the application of stream buffers under Article IX of JCC Chapter
18.40.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 48 of 93
7
(b) Stream type shall be determined using the criteria set forth in WAC 222-16-030.
(iii) Buffers for other FWHCAs. The administrator shall determine appropriate buffer widths for other FWHCAs based on the best available information. Buffer widths for non-stream habitat conservation
areas shall be as follows:
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 49 of 93
8
Table 18.22.270(2): Buffers for Other FWHCAs
FWHCA Type Buffer Requirement
Areas with which federally listed species have a primary association
Buffers shall be 150 feet provided that local and site specific factors shall be taken into
consideration and the buffer width based on the best available information concerning the
species/habitat(s) in question and/or the opinions and recommendations of a qualified
professional with appropriate expertise.
Commercial and recreational shellfish areas Buffers shall extend one hundred-fifty (150)
feet landward from ordinary high water mark of the marine shore.
Kelp and Eelgrass Beds Buffers shall extend one hundred-fifty (150) feet landward from ordinary high water mark of
the marine shore.
Surf Smelt, Pacific Herring, and Pacific
Sand Lance Spawning Areas
Buffers shall extend one hundred-fifty (150)
feet landward from ordinary high water mark of the marine shore. Natural Pond and Lakes Ponds under 20 acres - buffers shall extend 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark; Lakes
20 acres and larger - buffers shall extend 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark,
provided that where vegetated wetlands are associated with the shoreline, the buffer shall be based on the wetland buffer requirements.
Natural Area Preserves and Natural
Resource Conservation Areas
Buffers shall not be required adjacent to these
areas. These areas are assumed to encompass the land required for species
preservation.
Table 18.22.270(2), continued: Buffers for Other FWHCAs
FWHCA Type Buffer Requirement
Locally Important Habitat Areas
The buffer for marine nearshore habitats shall
extend landward 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
The need for and dimensions of buffers for
other locally important species or habitats shall be determined on a case-by-case basis,
according to the needs of the specific species or habitat area of concern. Buffers shall not be
required adjacent to the wildlife corridor. The administrator shall coordinate with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other state, federal or Tribal experts in
these instances, and may use WDFW PHS management recommendations when available
and applicable.
(6) The administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by case basis, provided that the
specific standards for avoidance and minimization set forth in JCC 18.22.350(1) shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all of the following criteria are met:
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 50 of 93
9
(a) The buffer reduction shall not adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the adjacent FWHCA or other critical area.
(b) The buffer shall not be reduced to less than seventy-five (75) percent of the standard buffer. (c) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and the gradient does not exceed 30
percent. (7) The administrator shall have the authority to average buffer widths on a case-by case basis, provided that the
specific standards for avoidance and minimization set forth in JCC 18.22.350(1) shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all the following criteria are met:
(a) The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer and all increases in buffer dimension are parallel to the FWHCA.
(b) The buffer averaging does not reduce the functions or values of the FWHCA or riparian habitat, or the buffer averaging, in conjunction with vegetation enhancement, increases the habitat function.
(c) The buffer averaging is necessary due to site constraints caused by existing physical characteristics such as slope, soils, or vegetation.
(d) The buffer width is not reduced to less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the standard width. (e) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and the gradient does not exceed 30
percent. (f) Buffer averaging shall not be allowed if FWHCA buffers are reduced pursuant to subsection (6) of this
section. (8) Buffer Marking. The location of the outer extent of required buffers shall be marked in the field as follows:
(a) During Construction: Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per
parcel or every 100 feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction
activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: “Buffer – Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native
Vegetation.” (9) In the case of short plat, long plat, binding site plan, and site plan approvals under this code, the applicant shall
include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the FWHCA. (10) The applicant may also choose to dedicate the buffer through a conservation easement or deed restriction that
shall be recorded with the Jefferson County auditor. Such easements or restrictions shall, however, use the forms approved by the prosecuting attorney.
18.22.### Mitigation
A habitat management plan (HMP) shall be prepared based on special report requirements in Article VIII of this chapter or
a critical areas stewardship plan (CASP) shall be prepared based on CASP requirements in Article IX of this chapter for impacts to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer (based on buffer widths in Tables 18.22.270(1) and
18.22.270(2) of this section). The HMP or CASP addresses mitigation for impacts or alterations to a fish and wildlife conservation area or a buffer, with the overall goal of mitigation being no net loss of fish and wildlife habitat conservation
area function, value, and acreage. The mitigation sequence in JCC 18.22.350(1) shall be used.
As an alternative to permittee-responsible mitigation, an in-lieu fee program may be used to compensate for impacts or alterations to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or a buffer, if an established in-lieu fee program is available for
the project area. Use of the in-lieu fee program to address impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and/or buffers shall adhere to the in-lieu mitigation requirements in JCC 18.22.350(5).
18.22.280 Conditions
(1) General. In granting approval for a project application subject to the provisions of this Article VI, the administrator
may require mitigating conditions that will, in the administrator’s judgment, substantially secure the objectives of this article.
(2) Basis for Conditions. All conditions of approval required pursuant to this article shall be based upon either the substantive requirements of this article or the recommendations of a qualified professional utilizing best available
science, contained within a special report required under this chapter.
Article VII - Wetlands
18.22.290 Stewardship Alternative
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 51 of 93
10
Article VII sets forth the prescriptive requirements for wetlands. Applicants for development permits or approvals subject to this Article VII may elect to comply with the Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) provisions set forth
in Article IX of this Chapter in lieu of the prescriptive requirements set forth herein. CASP may be applied within Category II, III, & IV wetlands and buffers, and within buffers in Category I. They cannot be used in Category I
wetlands.
18.22.300 Classification/Designation
(1) Classification. Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology’s Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended. Wetland rating
categories shall not be determined based upon illegal modification of the land. Wetland delineations shall be determined by using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, or as
amended hereafter. (2) Designation. As determined using the 1997 Washington State Department of Ecology’s Washington State
Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication #96-94 or as amended), wetlands shall be designated as critical areas and regulated under this article regardless of size; PROVIDED that Category IV
wetlands less than one-tenth (0.1) acre (4,356 square feet) shall be exempt from the requirements of this article when all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The wetland does not provide breeding habitat for native amphibian species. Breeding habitat is indicated by adequate and stable seasonal inundation, presence of thin-stemmed emergent vegetation, and clean
water; (b) The wetland does not have unique characteristics that would be difficult to replace through standard
compensatory mitigation practices; (c) The wetland is not located within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
(FWHCA) as defined in the section of this ordinance dealing with FWHCAs, and is not integral to the maintenance of habitat functions of an FWHCA;
(d) The wetland is not located within a floodplain; (e) The wetland is not associated with a shoreline of the state as defined by the County’s Shoreline Master
Program; (f) The wetland is not part of a mosaic of wetlands and uplands, as determined using the guidance provided
in the Wetland Rating System. (3) Sources Used for Identification. The following sources should be used to identify potential wetland locations.
Sources include, but are not limited to: (a) United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory.
(b) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Jefferson County Areas, Washington.
(c) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hydric Soils List, Jefferson County Area.
(d) County Critical Areas Mapping. The wetland maps prepared by the county have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this article.
18.22.310 Regulated Activities
Any land use or development activity shall be subject to the provisions of this Article VII, including, but not limited
to, the following activities that are directly undertaken or originate in a regulated wetland or its buffer, unless exempted under JCC 18.22.070:
(1) The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of material of any kind, including the construction of ponds and trails;
(2) The dumping, discharging of any material, or placement of any fill; (3) The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland water level or water table;
(4) The driving of pilings; (5) The placing of obstructions;
(6) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; (7) The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning,
application of herbicides or pesticides, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland; provided, that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under Chapter 76.09 RCW
(Forest Practices Act) and its rules; or (8) Activities that result in:
(a) A significant change of water temperature;
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 52 of 93
11
(b) A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources, including quantity; or
(c) The introduction of pollutants.
(9) Wetland Buffers. In addition to those activities allowed in regulated wetlands in this article, the following activities are allowed within wetland buffers without having to meet the protection standards, or requirements for wetland
studies or mitigation set forth in this article; provided, that impacts to buffers are minimized and that disturbed areas are immediately restored except as specifically allowed in JCC 18.22.070.
(a) Activities having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on regulated wetlands. These include low intensity, passive recreational activities, such as pervious trails, nonpermanent wildlife
watching blinds, scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing or hunting. Trails within buffers shall be designed to minimize impacts to the wetland, and shall not include any impervious surfaces.
(b) Within the buffers of Category III and IV wetlands only, vegetation-lined swales designed for storm water management or conveyance when topographic restraints determine there are no other upland alternative
locations. Swales used for detention purposes may only be placed in the outer 25 percent of the buffer. Conveyance swales may be placed through the buffer, if necessary.
18.22.330 Protection Standards
(1) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated wetland or its buffer shall
adhere to the requirements set forth below. (2) Delineation. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a wetland
delineation report as specified in JCC 18.22.450. Additionally, the following provisions shall apply: (a) The location of the wetland and its boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field
investigation utilizing the methodology contained in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, or as amended hereafter.
(b) If the wetland is located off of the property involved in the project application and is inaccessible, the best available information shall be used to determine the wetland boundary and category.
(c) The wetland boundary shall be staked or flagged in the field. (d) This requirement may be waived under the following circumstances:
(i) Single-Family Residences. The requirement for a wetland delineation and special report may be waived by the administrator for construction of a single-family residence on an existing lot of
record if DCD staff or a qualified wetland evaluator determines that: (A) Sufficient information exists for staff to estimate the boundaries of a wetland without a
delineation; and (B) The single-family residence and all accessory structures and uses are not proposed to be
located within the distances identified in Table 18.22.330(1), below, from the estimated wetland boundary.
“Qualified wetland evaluator” means an individual recognized and acceptable to the Administrator
in using the most current edition of the Department of Ecology’s Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington (2004), Ecology Publication # 04-06-025, or as amended in categorizing and rating wetlands.
(ii) Subdivisions and Short Subdivisions. The requirement for a wetland delineation and special report will be waived for subdivisions and short subdivisions of an existing lot of record if a site
assessment made by a qualified wetland evaluator indicates the following: (A) Sufficient information exists to estimate the boundaries of a wetland without a delineation;
and (B) Building envelopes or building setback lines are not proposed to be located within the
distances identified in Tables 18.22.330(1), (2) and (3), below, from the estimated wetland boundary.
(3) Wetland Buffer Requirements. Wetland buffer widths shall be prescribed and established based upon the category of the wetland, the wetland rating scores and the impact level of the proposed land use. The resulting
buffers are shown in Tables: 18.22.330 (1), (2), and (3) [for low, moderate and high impact land-uses]. (a) The category and rating scores of a wetland shall be determined by a qualified wetland evaluator who
must be: recognized and acceptable to the Administrator and use the most current edition of the
Department of Ecology’s “Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and
managing Wetlands” (DOE Publication #05-06-0008) in categorizing and rating wetlands. (b) There are three (3) Land-Use Impact Level types. Each type is presented with the Table containing the
buffer widths that would be prescribed for its associated wetland category.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 53 of 93
12
(c) Proposals for development will have three options for deciding what their buffer distance will be. A buffer distance is the closest distance the proposed development can be to the wetland boundary.
(i) The Stewardship Plan Option, as detailed in Article IX of this Chapter 18.22. (ii) The Professionally Delineated Boundary Option: A prescriptive buffer distance based on an
actual delineation of the wetland boundary as determined by an qualified wetland evaluator (cost is the responsibility of proponent). This buffer distance will be measured outward from the
delineated wetland boundary. Refer to the column in the Tables with the word “delineation” in the heading.
(iii) The Apparent Boundary option: A prescriptive buffer distance based on the apparent location of
the wetland boundary as proposed by the county’s wetland specialist. In these cases the buffer
will be the total distance calculated using the buffer distance as shown in the “delineation” column of the Tables plus an additional twenty (20) to fifty (50) feet, depending upon wetland category
(shown in the “non-delineation” column of the table). This calculated buffer distance will be measured outward from the apparent wetland boundary.
(4) Drainage and Erosion Control. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan as specified in this chapter. The plan shall discuss, evaluate and recommend
methods to minimize sedimentation of designated wetlands during and after construction. (5) Buffer Marking. Upon approval of the delineation report the location of the outer extent of the wetland buffer shall
be marked in the field as follows: (a) A permanent physical indicator along the upland boundary of the wetland buffer area shall be installed
and permanently maintained. (b) During construction activities, buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one
per parcel or every 100 feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved
construction activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: “Wetland & Buffer – Do Not
Remove or Alter Existing Native Vegetation.” (c) In the case of short plat, long plat, binding site plan, and site plan approvals under this code, the applicant
shall include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the wetland and its buffer. (d) The applicant may also choose to dedicate the buffer through a conservation easement or deed
restriction that shall be recorded with the Jefferson County auditor. Such easements or restrictions shall, however, use the forms approved by the prosecuting attorney.
(6) Buffers – Standard Requirements. (a) The administrator shall have the authority to require buffers from the boundaries of all wetlands as
established by this article, and in accordance with the following criteria. (i) Wetland buffer widths shall be measured along a horizontal line perpendicular to the wetland
boundary as marked in the field during delineation if required, or based upon site investigation, aerial photographs, or LiDAR images.
(ii) Functionally isolated buffer areas are those areas separated from a wetland that do not protect the wetland from adverse impacts. Buffers need not include areas that are functionally isolated
and physically disconnected from the wetland by a substantial developed surface such as a dike, building, parking lot, or road. In determining whether or not a buffer area is functionally isolated,
the administrator shall take into consideration whether or not the isolated buffer area is used by wildlife to gain access to the wetland. In instances where substantial wildlife use is documented,
the area shall be retained as buffer despite being otherwise isolated or disconnected from the wetland.
(iii) When a buffer is on a slope steeper than forty percent (40%), and/or lacks adequately dense and diverse vegetation, the administrator may deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer
averaging.
(b) The prescribed buffer widths shall be established on the basis of the following factors: (i) The wetland's value and sensitivity to disturbance, based on its category (I, II, III, IV) as
determined by the total score on the rating form for the Wetland Rating System; (ii) The expected level of impact of the proposed adjacent land use, as determined from the tables in
18.22.330 (1), (2), and (3), below. The administrator may determine, on the basis of detailed information from the applicant about the site conditions, scope, and intensity of the proposed
development, that the proposed land use will have a lesser level of impact on the wetland than indicated by similar land uses on the list.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 54 of 93
13
TABLE 18.22.330(1)
WETLAND CATAGORIES, RATING SCORES & BUFFER WIDTHS
FOR LOW IMPACT LAND USES
Low Impact Land-Uses shall include the following:
Private driveways serving no more than two (2) residential parcels;
Unpaved trails (when not exempted by 18.22.070);
Utility corridors (private or public) without a maintenance road;
Landscaping, lawns, gravel driveways, etc.
Wetland Category Wetland Characteristics
Habitat (H)
Water Quality (WQ)
Buffer Width with an
Identified Wetland
Boundary
(Delineated)
+ An Additional Distance
from an Apparent
Wetland Boundary
(Not Delineated)
IV
(Total of scores for all
functions is less than 30 points)
[Total of scores less than 30 points] 25 feet +20 feet
III
(Total of scores for all functions is 30 – 50
points)
[With H score 20 – 28 points]
[Not meeting above characteristic]
75 feet
40 feet
+30 feet
II (Total of scores for all
functions is 51 – 69 points or having
“Special
Characteristics”
identified in the rating form)
[WQ score 24 - 32 points and H score less than 20 points]
[H score 29 – 36 points] [H score 20 – 28 points]
[Estuarine] [Interdunal]
[Not meeting above characteristics]
50 feet
150 feet 75 feet
75 feet 75 feet
50 feet
+40 feet
I
(Total of scores for all functions is more than
70 points or having
“Special
Characteristics” identified in the rating
form)
[WQ score 24 - 32 points and H
score less than 20 points] [H score 29 – 36 points]
[H score 20 - 28 points] [Coastal Lagoon]
[Estuarine] [Natural Heritage Wetland]
[Bog] [Forested]
[Not meeting above characteristics]
50 feet
150 feet
75 feet 100 feet
100 feet 125 feet
125 feet Buffer width based on
score for H functions or WQ functions
50 feet
+50 feet
Note: Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology’s Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 55 of 93
14
TABLE 18.22.330(2)
WETLAND CATAGORIES, RATING SCORES & BUFFER WIDTHS
FOR MODERATE IMPACT LAND USES
Moderate Impact Land-Uses shall include the following:
Single-family residential use on parcels of one (1) acre or larger;
Private roads of driveways serving three (3) or more residential parcels;
Paved trails;
Passive recreation areas;
Utility corridors (private or public) with a maintenance road;
Class IV-General forest conversions, including conversion option harvest plans.
Wetland Category Wetland Characteristics:
Habitat (H)
Water Quality (WQ)
Buffer Width with an
Identified Wetland
Boundary
(Delineated)
+ An Additional Distance
from an Apparent
Wetland Boundary
(Not Delineated)
IV (Total of scores for all
functions is less than 30 points)
[Total of scores less than 30 points] 40 feet +20 feet
III
(Total of scores for all functions is 30 – 50
points)
[With H score 20 – 28 points]
[Not meeting above characteristic]
110 feet
60 feet
+30 feet
II (Total of scores for all
functions is 51 – 69 points or having
“Special
Characteristics”
identified in the rating form)
[WQ score 24 - 32 points and H score less than 20 points]
[H score 29 – 36 points] [H score 20 – 28 points]
[Estuarine] [Interdunal]
[Not meeting above characteristics]
75 feet
225 feet 110 feet
110 feet 110 feet
75 feet
+40 feet
I
(Total of scores for all functions is more than
70 points or having
“Special
Characteristics” identified in the rating
form)
[WQ score 24 - 32 points and H
score less than 20 points] [H score 29 – 36 points]
[H score 20 to 28 points] [Coastal Lagoon]
[Estuarine] [Natural Heritage Wetland]
[Bog] [Forested]
[Not meeting above characteristics]
75 feet
225 feet
110 feet 150 feet
150 feet 190 feet
190feet Buffer width based on
score for H functions or WQ functions
75 feet
+50 feet
Note: Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology’s Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 56 of 93
15
TABLE 18.22.330(3)
WETLAND CATAGORIES, RATING SCORES & BUFFER WIDTHS
FOR HIGH IMPACT LAND USES
High Impact Land-Uses shall include the following:
Single-family residential use on parcels smaller than one (1) acre;
Commercial, multi-family, industrial and institutional uses;
Public Roads.
.
Wetland Category Wetland Characteristic:
Habitat (H)
Water Quality (WQ)
Buffer Width with an
Identified Wetland
Boundary
(Delineated)
+ An Additional Distance
from an Apparent
Wetland Boundary
(Not Delineated)
IV (Total of scores for all
functions is less than 30 points)
[Total of scores less than 30 points] 50 feet +20 feet
III
(Total of scores for all functions is 30 – 50
points)
[With H score 20 – 28 points]
[Not meeting above characteristic]
150 feet
80 feet
+30 feet
II (Total of scores for all
functions is 51 – 69 points or having
“Special
Characteristics”
identified in the rating form)
[WQ score 24 - 32 points and H score less than 20 points]
[H score 29 – 36 points] [H score 20 – 28 points]
[Estuarine] [Interdunal]
[Not meeting above characteristics]
100 feet
300 feet 150 feet
150 feet 150 feet
100 feet
+40 feet
I
(Total of scores for all functions is more than
70 points or having
“Special
Characteristics” identified in the rating
form)
[WQ score 24 - 32 points and H
score less than 20 points] [H score 29 – 36 points]
[H score 20 to 28 points] [Coastal Lagoon]
[Estuarine] [Natural Heritage Wetland]
[Bog] [Forested]
[Not meeting above characteristics]
100 feet
300 feet
150 feet 200 feet
200 feet 250 feet
250 feet Buffer width based on
score for H functions or WQ functions
100 feet
+50 feet
Note: Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology’s Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended.
(7) Reducing Buffer Widths. Upon submission of a special report by a qualified professional that demonstrates a
buffer reduction does not have any adverse impact on the existing functions and values of the wetland, the administrator shall have the authority to reduce the prescribed buffer widths, [within a defined area], listed in the
section above, provided that all of the following shall apply:
(a) The buffer of a Category I or II wetland is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required buffer or 50 feet, whichever is greater;
(b) The buffer of a Category III or IV wetland is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required buffer, or 25 feet, whichever is greater;
(c) The applicant implements reasonable measures to reduce the adverse impacts of structures and appurtenances on the subject parcel as determined by the Administrator.
(d) Buffer area reduction shall be minimized to accommodate only those structures and appurtenances as approved by the administrator.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 57 of 93
16
(8) Averaging Buffer Widths. Upon submission of a special report by a qualified professional, that demonstrates a buffer reduction does not have any adverse impact on the existing functions and values of the wetland, the
administrator shall have the authority to average wetland buffer widths on a case-by-case basis, provided that all of the following shall apply:
(a) The buffer averaging does not have any adverse impact on the functions and values of the wetland; (b) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that which would be contained
within the prescribed buffer, and the buffer boundary remains more or less parallel to the wetland
boundary in order to avoid the creation of “panhandles”;
(c) The most sensitive, or highest value, areas of the wetland have the widest buffer dimensions, and the buffer boundary takes into account variations in slope, soils, or vegetation to optimize the overall
effectiveness of the buffer; (d) The minimum buffer width is no less than 75 percent of the standard prescribed buffer width;
(e) The buffer has not been reduced in accordance with section (5) above. Buffer averaging is not allowed if the width of the entire buffer has been reduced already.
18.22.340 Non-Compensatory Enhancement
Non-compensatory enhancement projects are those which are conducted solely to increase the functions and
values of an existing wetland and which are not required to be conducted pursuant to the mitigation requirements of JCC 18.22.330. There are two types of non-compensatory enhancement:
(1) Type 1 Non-compensatory Enhancement. Type 1 non-compensatory enhancement projects involve the filling, draining, or excavating of a regulated wetland. All applications for Type 1 non-compensatory enhancement
projects shall be accompanied by an enhancement plan prepared in accordance with subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this section, which demonstrates that the proposed activities will result in an increase in wetland
functions and values. (a) The enhancement plan must be submitted for review, and approved by the administrator.
(b) The enhancement plan must either be prepared by a qualified wetlands consultant or accepted in writing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Washington
Department of Ecology. (2) Type 2 Non-compensatory Enhancement. Type 2 non-compensatory enhancement projects involve wetland
alterations that do not include the filling, draining, or excavating of a regulated wetland. Such projects might involve the removal of non-native plant species or the planting of native plant species. All applications for Type 2
non-compensatory enhancement projects shall be accompanied by an enhancement plan prepared in accordance with subsections (2)(a) through (2)(c) of this section, which demonstrates that the proposed activities will result in
an increase in wetland functions and values. (a) The enhancement plan shall be submitted for review, and approved, by the administrator;
(b) The enhancement plan must include a detailed description of the activity including the following information:
(i) The goal of the enhancement project; (ii) What plants, if any, will be removed or planted;
(iii) How the activity will be conducted, including the type(s) of tools or machinery to be used; and (iv) The qualifications of the individual who will be conducting the enhancement activity.
(c) The enhancement plan must either be prepared by a qualified wetlands consultant or accepted in writing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Washington
Department of Ecology.
18.22.350 Mitigation
The overall goal of mitigation shall be no net loss of wetland function, value, and acreage. (1) Mitigation Sequence. Mitigation includes avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse impacts to regulated
wetlands or their buffers. When a proposed use or development activity poses potentially significant adverse impacts to a regulated wetland or its buffer, the preferred sequence of mitigation as defined below shall be
followed unless the applicant demonstrates that an overriding public benefit would warrant an exception to this preferred sequence.
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions on that portion of the site which contains the regulated wetland or its buffer;
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 58 of 93
17
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. (2) Compensatory Mitigation – General Requirements. As a condition of any permit or other approval allowing
alteration which results in the loss or degradation of regulated wetlands, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Chapter 18.50 JCC, compensatory mitigation shall be required to offset impacts resulting from the actions of the
applicant or any code violator. (a) Except persons exempt under this article, any person who alters or proposes to alter regulated wetlands
shall restore or create areas of wetland equivalent to or larger than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. The following table specifies the ratios that apply to creation or restoration that is in-
kind, on-site, and is accomplished prior to or concurrently with alteration:
Table 18.22.350 Required Replacement Ratios for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation
Category and
Type of Wetland
Impacts
Re-establishment
or Creation
Rehabilitation
Only 1
Re-establishment or
Creation (R/C) and
Rehabilitation
(RH) 1
Re-establishment
or Creation (R/C)
and Enhancement
(E) 1
Enhancement
Only1
All Category IV
1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 1:1RH 1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1
All Category III 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1RH 1:1 R/C and 4:1 E 8.1
Category II
Estuarine
Case-by-case 4:1
Rehabilitation of an
estuarine wetland
Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case
Category II
Interdunal
2:1
Compensation has
to be interdunal
wetland
4:1
Compensation has
to be interdunal
wetland
1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH
Compensation has to
be interdunal wetland
Not considered an
Option 2
Not considered an
Option 2
All other
Category II
3:1 6:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 8:1 E
12:1
Category I
Forested
6:1 12:1 1:1 R/C and 10:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 20:1 E
24:1
Category I
based on score
for functions
4:1 8:1 1:1 R/C and 6:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 12:1 E 16:1
Category I
Natural Heritage
site
Not considered
Possible 3
6:1
Rehabilitationof a
NaturalHeritage site
R/C Not considered
possible 3
R/C Not considered
Possible 3
Case-by-case
Category I
Coastal Lagoon
Not considered
Possible 3
6:1
Rehabilitation of a
coastal lagoon
R/C not considered
possible 3
R/C not considered
Possible 3
Case-by-case
Category I
Bog
Not considered
Possible 3
6:1
Rehabilitationof a
bog
R/C Not considered
Possible 3
R/C Not considered
Possible 3
Case-by-case
Category I
Estuarine
Case-by-case 6:1
Rehabilitation of an
estuarine wetland
Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case
1 These ratios are based on the assumption that the rehabilitation or enhancement actions implemented represent the average degree
of improvement possible for the site. Proposals to implement more effective rehabilitation or enhancement actions may result in a lower ratio, while less effective actions may result in higher ratio. The distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement is not clear-cut.
Instead, rehabilitation and enhancement actions span a continuum. Proposals that fall within the gray area between rehabilitation and enhancement will result in a ratio that lies between the ratios for rehabilitation and the ratios for enhancement. 2 Due to the dynamic nature of interdunal systems, enhancement is not considered an ecologically appropriate action.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 59 of 93
18
3 Natural Heritage sites, coastal lagoons, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform some functions that cannot be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of compensation is proposed.
(b) Compensation must be completed prior to wetland destruction, where possible. (c) Compensatory mitigation must follow an approved compensatory mitigation plan pursuant to this article,
with the replacement ratios as specified above. (d) Compensatory mitigation must be conducted on property that will be protected and managed to avoid
further development or degradation. The applicant or code violator must provide for long-term preservation of the compensation area.
(e) The applicant shall demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial resources, including bonding, to carry out the project. The applicant must demonstrate the capability for
monitoring the site and making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (f) Compensatory mitigation must monitor the impact and take appropriate corrective measures.
(3) Compensatory Mitigation – Type, Location, and Timing. (a) Priority will be given to in-kind, on-site compensation if feasible and if the wetland to be lost has a
moderate to high functional value. (b) When the wetland to be impacted is of a limited functional value and is degraded, compensation may be
of the wetland community type most likely to succeed with the highest functional value possible. (c) Out-of-kind compensation may be allowed when out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified goals
(for example, replacement of historically diminished wetland types). Where out-of-kind replacement is accepted, greater acreage replacement ratios may be required to compensate for lost functional values
(d) Off-site compensation can be allowed only if: (i) On-site compensation is not feasible due to hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors;
(ii) On-site compensation is not practical due to probable adverse impacts from surrounding land uses;
(iii) Potential functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than the lost wetland functional values; or
(iv) Off-site compensation will be conducted in accordance with subsection (4) of this section (Cooperative Compensation Projects).
(e) Except in the case of cooperative compensation projects, off-site compensation must occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurs; provided, that Category IV wetlands may be replaced
outside of the watershed if there is no reasonable technical alternative. The storm water storage function provided by Category IV wetlands must be provided for within the design of the development project.
(f) Except in the case of cooperative compensation projects, in selecting compensation sites applicants must pursue locations in the following order of preference:
(i) Filled, drained, or cleared sites which were formerly wetlands and where appropriate hydrology exists; and
(ii) Upland sites, adjacent to wetlands, if the upland is significantly disturbed and does not contain a mature forested or shrub community of native species, and where the appropriate natural
hydrology exists. (g) Construction of compensation projects must be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora.
Construction must be timed to assure that grading and soil movement occurs during the dry season. Planting of vegetation must be specifically timed to the needs of the target species.
(h) A mitigation plan shall include a monitoring plan. The duration, frequency and methods of monitoring
depend on a project’s goals, objectives, and performance standards. In general, monitoring is required
for at least five (5) years. If a scrub-shrub or forested vegetative community is proposed, monitoring may be required for ten (10) years or more. Monitoring may be extended if interim performance standards are
not met. (4) Cooperative Compensation Projects. The county may encourage, facilitate, and approve cooperative projects
where one or more applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a compensation project if it is demonstrated that:
(a) Creation of one or several larger wetlands may be preferable to many small wetlands; (b) The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively;
(c) The group demonstrates that long term management of the compensation area can and will be provided; and
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 60 of 93
19
(d) There is a clear potential for success of the proposed compensation at the identified compensation site. Conducting compensation as part of a cooperative process does not reduce or eliminate the required
replacement ratios outlined in this article.
(5) In-lieu Fee (ILF) Program. An applicant may opt to use the ILF program to compensate for impacts to aquatic
resources (critical areas) and/or buffers based on criteria listed below. Use of the ILF program transfers the responsibility of providing compensatory mitigation from the applicant to the ILF program sponsor. The
sponsoring organization is required to provide mitigation that complies with all mitigation requirements of this chapter.
(a) The ILF program may be used by an applicant as a way to mitigate for project impacts if the impacts to the critical area or buffer occur within an ILF Program Service Area. If an impact occurs outside of an ILF
Program Sevice Area, an applicant may request that Jefferson County investigate the possibility of using the ILF program as mitigation. The ILF program sponsor is under no obligation to accept mitigation
responsibilities for impacts outside a ILF program service area. (b) The applicant shall determine if there is a preference for using the ILF program over permittee-
responsible mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts. The county may encourage an applicant to use the ILF program, but shall not require an applicant to use ILF for mitigation.
(c) The administrator may approve an application using the ILF program for mitigation if the ILF program sponsor accepts the mitigation responsibility. The sponsoring organization has the right to deny the
request if the sponsoring organization cannot fulfill all ILF program mitigation requirements. If the sponsoring organization does not accept the mitigation responsibility, the applicant shall be responsible
for providing mitigation that complies with this chapter. The administrator shall not approve a permit involving ILF mitigation until (1) the applicant has purchased the appropriate number of credits from the
sponsoring organization and (2) the sponsoring organization has completed a statement of sale. Once the ILF program sponsor completes the financial transaction with the applicant, the sponsor becomes
responsible for completing the mitigation effort to comply with Jefferson County Code critical areas requirements and the applicable approved in-lieu fee program instrument.
Article VIII - Special Reports
18.22.360 General Requirements
(1) The administrator may require a special report or reports when critical areas are impacted.
(2) Special reports for critical areas shall include a scale map of the development proposal site and a written report. (3) The special report shall identify and characterizes any critical area as a part of the larger development proposal
site, assess impacts of the development proposal on any critical area on or adjacent to the development proposal site, and assess the impacts of any alteration proposed for a critical area.
(4) The special report shall propose adequate protection mechanisms that may include mitigation, maintenance and monitoring plans, and performance surety.
(5) Special reports shall include documentation certifying the qualifications of the preparer.
18.22.370 Waivers
The administrator may waive the requirement for a special report when an applicant demonstrates all of the
following: (a) The proposal involved will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes and
objectives of this code. (b) The minimum protection standards required by this chapter are satisfied.
18.22.380 Retaining Consultants
Jefferson County may retain consultants to assist in the review of special reports outside the range of staff
expertise. The applicant shall pay for the costs of retaining said consultants.
18.22.390 Acceptance of Special Reports
(1) The administrator shall verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all special reports within 42 calendar days of their submission.
(2) If the administrator finds that a special report does not accurately reflect site conditions, or does not incorporate appropriate protections mechanisms, the administrator shall cite evidence (e.g., soil samples, well log data, etc.)
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 61 of 93
20
that demonstrates where the special report is insufficient or in error. The applicant may then either revise the special report and submit another special report, or appeal the administrative determination pursuant to this code.
18.22.400 Aquifer Recharge Area Report
(1) General. Aquifer recharge area reports serve as the primary means for Jefferson County to verify the accuracy of
its critical aquifer recharge area map and to determine specific aquifer protection measures to be applied to prevent significant adverse groundwater quality impacts.
(2) Aquifer Recharge Area Report Content. An initial evaluation shall be made by a qualified groundwater scientist/engineer. The aquifer recharge area report shall include:
(a) A detailed description of the project, including all processes and other activities that have the potential for contaminating groundwater;
(b) A hydrogeologic evaluation that includes, at a minimum: (i) A description of the hydrogeologic setting of the aquifer region;
(ii) Site location, topography, drainage, and surface water bodies; (iii) Soils and geologic units underlying the site;
(iv) Groundwater characteristics of the area, including flow direction and gradient, and existing groundwater quality;
(v) The location and characteristics of wells and springs within 1,000 feet of the site; (vi) An evaluation of existing groundwater recharge; and
(vii) A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon groundwater recharge; (c) A contaminant transport analysis for the uppermost groundwater supply aquifer assuming an accidental
spill or release of project specific contaminants or on-site sewage discharge, or both if applicable; (d) A discussion and evaluation that details available on-site spill response and containment equipment,
employee spill response training, and emergency service coordination measures; (e) Proposed best management practices to minimize exposure of permeable surfaces to potential pollutants
and to prevent degradation of groundwater quality; and (f) Requirements for a monitoring program with financial guarantees/assurances that the monitoring program
will be implemented. (3) Professional Qualifications. The minimum qualifications for groundwater scientists and engineers performing
groundwater and contaminant transport evaluations and preparing aquifer recharge area reports shall be established pursuant to acceptable industry standards for training and experience and as established by the state
of Washington in the Washington Administrative Code or by statute. (4) County Review. Reports shall be forwarded to the Jefferson County environmental health division for technical
review. The environmental health division shall review the reports within 30 days of receipt to determine their adequacy. The county may request additional information in order to determine the adequacy of the reports. The
administrator shall determine appropriate conditions as identified in the report to mitigate proposed land uses. The administrator shall be authorized to collect fees necessary to recover costs associated with processing and review
of aquifer recharge area reports, implementation of the protection standards contained in this chapter, and administration of the general provisions of the critical aquifer recharge area provisions of this code. Such fees will
be incorporated into the Jefferson County Fee Schedule.
18.22.410 Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
(1) General. This plan shall address best management practices that are physical, structural or managerial practices, that when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce pollution of water.
(2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer, except for small parcel erosion control plans.
(3) Information Requirements. The design standards and information requirements for submission of drainage and
erosion control plans shall be established in accordance with the Department of Ecology’s Storm water
Management Manual currently adopted by Jefferson County.
18.22.420 Geotechnical Report
(1) General. This report shall include a description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposal, and opinions and recommendations on the suitability
of the site to be developed. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer, a
professional geologist, or a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable in regional geologic conditions with professional experience in landslide, erosion, or seismic hazard evaluation.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 62 of 93
21
(3) Information Requirements. (a) A description of the geologic setting of the region, based upon readily available data, including:
(i) Site location and topography; (ii) Soils and geologic units underlying the site; and
(iii) The location and characteristics of springs within 1,000 feet of the site; (iv) Level of hazard in CMZ.
(b) An evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon existing geological hazards. (c) A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon existing geological hazards.
(d) Recommendations on appropriate protection mechanisms, if necessary, to minimize the risk of erosion or landslide.
18.22.430 Grading Plan
(1) General. This plan shall identify the proposed development project including the movement of material on-site,
along with the proposed and existing contours of the site, and cross-sections thereof. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Grading plans shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or an
individual with at least three years experience in the preparation of grading plans who is knowledgeable of soil conditions and geology in Jefferson County.
(3) Information Requirements. (a) A description of the general vicinity of the proposed site.
(b) The property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. (c) Limiting dimensions, elevations of finish contours to be achieved by the grading, and proposed drainage
channels and related construction. (d) Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective
devices to be constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work together with a map showing the drainage areas and the estimated runoff of the areas served by any drains.
(e) The location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 15 feet of the property or
which may be affected by proposed grading operations. (f) A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed grading upon designated critical
areas. (g) Recommendations on appropriate protection mechanisms, if necessary, to prevent degradation of
designated critical areas and to ensure public safety.
18.22.440 Habitat Management Plan
(1) General. This report shall identify how the development impacts of the proposed project will be mitigated. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations shall
be the basis for this report. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Habitat management plans shall be prepared by persons who have a minimum of a
bachelor’s degree in wildlife or fisheries habitat biology, or a related degree in a biological field from an accredited college or university with a minimum of four years experience as a practicing fish or wildlife habitat biologist.
(3) Information Requirements. (a) A map(s) prepared at an easily readable scale, including the following information:
(i) The location of the proposed development site, including property limits; (ii) The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and cultural features;
(iii) The nature and density of the proposed development or land use change; (iv) Proposed building locations and arrangements; and
(v) The boundaries of forested areas. (b) A legend that includes the following information:
(i) A complete and accurate legal description as prescribed by the triggering application form (the description shall include the total acreage of the parcel);
(ii) Title, scale and north arrows; (iii) Date, including revision dates, if applicable; and
(iv) Certificates by a professional biologist as appropriate. (c) A report that contains the following information:
(i) A description of the nature, density and intensity of the proposed development in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon identified fish and wildlife habitat;
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 63 of 93
22
(ii) The applicant’s analysis of the effect of the proposed development, activity or land use change upon the fish or wildlife species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
within the identified priority habitat, utilizing the management guidelines; (iii) A plan by the applicant that shall explain how any adverse impacts created by the development
will be mitigated. (iv) A mitigation plan shall not be required of the applicant if the ILF program (as specified in JCC
18.22.###) is used to mitigate project impacts. (d) Possible mitigating measures that may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Establishment of buffer zones; (ii) Preservation of critically important plants and trees;
(iii) Limitation of access to habitat area; (iv) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and
(v) Establishing a timetable for periodic review of the plan.
18.22.450 Wetland Delineation Report
(1) General. This report shall be required when a proposed development encroaches upon a designated wetland or its buffer, and shall be used to identify the boundaries and classification of the designated wetland.
(2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Wetland delineation reports shall be prepared by a biologist with wetlands expertise, a Professional Wetland Scientist certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists.
(3) Information Requirements. (a) A map(s) prepared at an easily readable scale, including the following information:
(i) Wetland boundaries; (ii) Sample site and sample transects;
(iii) Boundaries of forested areas; and (iv) Boundaries of wetland classes if multiple classes exist.
(b) A legend that includes the following information: (i) A complete and accurate legal description as prescribed by the triggering application form (the
description shall include the total acreage of the parcel); (ii) Title, scale and north arrows;
(iii) Date, including revision dates, if applicable; and (iv) Certificates by a professional biologist as appropriate.
(c) A report that contains the following information: (i) A discussion of the delineation methods and results, with special emphasis on technique used
from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, or as amended hereafter;
(ii) A description of relevant site information acquired from the National Wetland Inventory maps and the Soil Survey for Jefferson County;
(iii) The acreage of each wetland on the site, based on the survey, if the acreage will impact the buffer size determination or the project design;
(iv) All completed field data sheets numbered to correspond to each sample site; (v) Project cross-sections, both before and after completion, in relation to the surface elevation of the
wetland must be indicated for proposed activities that involve cutting or filling operations within the wetland or its proposed buffer;
(vi) Classification of the wetland in accordance with the standards adopted in this chapter and a detailed written analysis of the existing regulated wetland including: vegetation communities
classified per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Deepwater Habitats (1979); species composition of vegetation communities, including presence and percent cover; existing
soils; and existing hydrologic conditions including inflow/outflow, source of water within the system, relative water quality, and seasonal changes in hydrology, if applicable;
(vii) A detailed analysis of wildlife species use of the wetland and its buffer; (viii) A detailed analysis of the existing wetland buffer including species composition and percent
coverage, whether the buffer is disturbed or not, and the functional value of the buffer in relation to the regulated wetland;
(ix) If the development activity would eliminate all or part of a regulated wetland then a detailed compensatory mitigation plan as outlined in subsection (4) of this section must be provided.
(4) Mitigation Plan Contents. All wetland restoration, creation, and enhancementmitigation projects required by this code, either as a condition of project approval or as the result of an enforcement action, shall follow the mitigation
requirements of JCC 18.22.350. a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified specialist as defined herein and conducted in accordance with the requirements described in this code. The applicant or violator must receive
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 64 of 93
23
written approval of the mitigation plan by the administrator prior to commencement of any wetland restoration,creation, or enhancement activity.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 65 of 93
JJEEFFFFEERRSSOONN CCOOUUNNTTYY
DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT OOFF CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________
SquareONE Resource Center | Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning
To: Jefferson County Planning Commission
From: Tim Woolett, Assistant Planner
Date: October 27, 2014
Re: Deadline for Filing and Vesting Periods for Final Plats
This is a summary of the recommended changes to the UDC for the above referenced final platprovisions and provided as an attachment to this memo.
The 2012 Legislature amended to RCW 58.17.140 extending the time period after preliminary plat
approval within which a subdivider has to file for final plat approval, two years after the Legislature’sprevious extension of that time period.
The 2013 Legislature has, effective July 28, 2013, again amended that statute and extended that time
period in SHB 1074 (Laws of 2013, ch. 16), which extended that time period for filing a final plat to tenyears from the date of preliminary plat approval, if the date of preliminary plat approval was prior to
January 1, 2008 and the plat is not subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), chapter 90.58
RCW.
Under the 2012 legislation, that time period had been extended to nine years, but only if the plat was
within the boundaries of a city and not subject to the SMA. The 2013 Legislature removed the
requirement that the plat be with a city’s limits.
The time period for submitting a final plat when the preliminary plat approval was on or after January 1,
2008 – or before that date when the plat is subject to the SMA – was not changed by this 2013legislation. That period is seven years, if the preliminary plat approval is before January 1, 2015, and
five years if the preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015.
So, in summary, here are the applicable time periods for filing a final plat as of July 28, 2013 (theeffective date of SHB 1074):
Preliminary plat approved before January 1, 2008 and not within SMA jurisdiction: ten years
Preliminary plat approved before January 1, 2015, including those approved before January 1,
2008 and within SMA jurisdiction: seven years
Preliminary plat approved on or after January 1, 2015, regardless of where located: five years.
In addition to extending the time period for filing a final plat, SHB 1074 amends RCW 58.17.170 to
extend the time period after final plat approval under which the plat approval is vested, in a manner
parallel to the extension of the time period for filing a final plat. That vesting period is extended to tenyears, if the date of final plat approval was prior to January 1, 2008 and the plat is not subject to the
SMA. The plat need no longer be within a city to qualify for this extended vesting period.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 66 of 93
2
So, for qualifying plats, the plat can be developed according to “the terms of approval of the final plat,
and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval” for a period of ten years after final plat approval. After ten years have expired, development of the plat, if it has not already
occurred, would be subject to any applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations that had been enacted or amended since final plat approval.
The vesting period for other final plats remains unchanged from those set by EHB 2152 in 2012.
So, the applicable vesting periods for final plats are, as of July 28, 2013 (the effective date of SHB 1074), as follows:
Final plat approved before January 1, 2008 and not within SMA jurisdiction: ten years
Final plat approved before January 1, 2015, including those approved before January 1, 2008
and within SMA jurisdiction: seven years
Final plat approved on or after January 1, 2015, regardless of where located: five years.
Staff looks forward to discussing this topic with the Planning Commission at the October 1 meeting.
Attachments: Proposed UDC Revisions
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 67 of 93
18.35.400 Time limitation on final long plat submittal.
(1) Approval of a preliminary long subdivision shall be valid as follows:
(a) For preliminary long plats approved on or after January 1, 2015, regardless of where located, Tthe original and
three copies of a final long plat meeting all requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW shall be transmitted by the
administrator to the board of county commissioners within five years of the date of the preliminary long plat
approval. No extensions shall be granted. A plat granted preliminary approval but filed for final long plat
approval following the applicable time period shall be null and void. The department of community
development shall not be responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending preliminary long plat
expiration. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
(b) For preliminary long plats approved before January 1, 2015, including those within the shoreline jurisdiction
before January 1, 2008, the original and three copies of the final long plat meeting all requirements of Chapter
58.17 RCW shall be transmitted by the administrator to the board of county commissioners within seven years
of the date of the preliminary long plat approval.
(c) For preliminary long plats approved before January 1, 2008 and not within the shoreline jurisdiction, the
original and three copies of a final long plat meeting all requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW shall be
transmitted by the administrator to the board of county commissioners within ten years the date of the
preliminary long plat approval.
(2) No extensions shall be granted. A plat granted preliminary approval but filed for final long plat approval following
the applicable time period shall be null and void. The department of community development shall not be
responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending preliminary long plat expiration. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
*Code reviser’s note: “Within five years” is now seven years until December 31, 2014, under state law – go to: .
18.35.410 Effect of an approved final long plat – Valid land use.
(1) Any lots in a final long plat filed for record on or after January 1, 2005, regardless of where located shall be a valid
land use notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of five years from the date of filing. A long
subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final long plat, and the statutes, ordinances and
regulations in effect on the date of preliminary long plat approval for a period of five years after final long plat
approval unless the board of county commissioners finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the
public health or safety of residents within or outside the subdivision. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
(2) Any lots in a final long plat filed for record before January 1, 2015, including those approved before January 1, 2008
and within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be a valid land use notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period
of seven years from the date of filing.
(3) Any lots in a final long plat filed for record before January 1, 2008 and not within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be a
valid land use notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of ten years from the date of filing.
(4) A long subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final long plat, and the statutes, ordinances and
regulations in effect on the date of preliminary long plat approval for a period of five years after final long plat
approval as provided in (1), (2), and (3) of this section unless the board of county commissioners finds that a change
in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety of residents within or outside the subdivision.
[Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 68 of 93
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
Colleen Zmolek, Associate Planner
RE: Land Use Regulations for Recreational Marijuana (I-502)
DATE: November 5, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________________
Background
On August 11, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance # 07-0811-14,
(attached) establishing a six month moratorium on accepting or processing applications for recreational marijuana businesses in certain land use zones. A public hearing was held on Monday, October 6, 2014 at
10:30 a.m. in the Cotton Building, 607 Water Street Port Townsend. Approximately 40 people attended and
many gave oral or written comments.
The moratorium prevents new applications for marijuana producing or processing in areas zoned rural
residential, rural commercial, public, and UGA. Other zones are not affected. Marijuana retailing is not affected, pursuant to existing regulations. The rationale for the moratorium are well stated in Ordinance #07-
0911-14. To briefly summarize, the moratorium provides the County the opportunity to review and amend its
regulations that would apply to marijuana growing and production, so that potential impacts can be avoided, reduced or mitigated. Evidence of potential impacts include the following facts and findings:
•At the time of the moratorium, there were a total of 36 primary applications for Washington StateLiquor Control Board (WSLCB) licenses in Jefferson County. Of those, 17 propose locating in rural residential
lands, with 13 of those proposed in Rural Residential 1:5; the County’s smallest residential zone and one typically used for residential uses.
•One application in a RR 1:10 zone proposed 40,000 square feet of buildings, 30 parking spaces and a
septic system sized for 50 people.
•The WSLCB has confirmed that they will not screen license applicants for local and other state
requirements. Only WSLCB requirements will need to be met for license issuance.
•The unprecedented interest in this form of agriculture in residentially zoned land gives rise to
concerns over the potential scale and intensity of marijuana operations, and potential impacts to other land uses.
Ordinance #07-0811-14 includes a workplan to prepare and approve regulations for the control of
recreational marijuana in Jefferson County.
Pursuant to JCC 18.05.050(2), amendments to the Unified Development Code are subject to review
and recommendation to the BOCC by the Planning Commission.
Analysis
There are two fundamental approaches to regulation of recreational marijuana (MJ).
Page 1 of 2
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 69 of 93
1. Treat MJ as a non-agricultural land use. With this approach, the regulation of MJ can be
tailored to address issues particular to MJ, without affecting other agricultural uses.
2. Treat MJ as an agricultural land use just like any other agricultural land use. With this
approach, any regulation intended to address MJ will also apply to all other agricultural uses.
DCD staff leans toward the first approach, finding that MJ is significantly different from other forms of agriculture and therefore warrants regulations tailored to its particular issues. Ways in which MJ
is different from other agriculture include:
• MJ has resulted in a demand for residentially zoned land in the County that has not historically
occurred for other types of agriculture. This gives rise to concerns for compatibility of MJ uses with residential uses. Evidence of this is that out of 36 primary applications for MJ licenses, 17
propose locating in rural residential lands, with 13 of those proposed in Rural Residential 1:5; the
County’s smallest residential zone and one typically used for residential uses.
• MJ licensing requirements by the State Liquor Control Board are stringent and unlike anything required for other forms of agriculture. These requirements include:
o Criminal background checks of applicants. o Notice to local jurisdictions of pending licensees.
o Stringent requirements for record keeping, tracing, handling, labeling, transporting
of MJ and destruction of waste products. o 25% excise tax paid to the state at each stage of producing, processing and
retailing. o MJ operations cannot be located within another business or a residence. o 24 hour video surveillance and alarm systems of premises and operations.
o All employees must wear I.D. badges. o Outdoor growing must be surrounded by 8’ high sight obscuring fence. o Prohibition of anyone under the age of 21 on site.
o Law enforcement inspection of premises prior to opening and at random times thereafter.
o 1,000 exclusion zone between MJ land uses and certain other land uses, including
primary and secondary schools, public parks and playgrounds, recreation centers, game arcades not restricted to those over age 21, daycare facilities, libraries, transit
facilities.
• MJ is still a “class 1 controlled substance”, illegal under federal law.
• In 2014, the State Legislature passed SB #6505 (commonly called the Hargrove bill for its
sponsor) declaring that MJ is not agriculture for purposes of property tax assessment or tax exemption under the open space act.
Recommendation
For these reasons, staff proposes to regulate MJ as a separate land use, so that regulations can
be specific to the issues of MJ, and avoid impacting other traditional agriculture. The matrix provided with this staff report presents staff’s initial ideas on regulations for MJ.
G:\PLANNING\I-502\I-502\PC cover memo re MJ -meeting of 11-5-14.docx
Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 70 of 93
November 5, 2014, presented to the Planning Commission
I-502 Recreational Marijuana Matrix Summary
At a staff level a matrix was prepared that described existing zoning districts and intent of the district in
our regulations. Outlining the pros and cons, a brief analysis, and potential recommendations.
The summary below provides an overview of staff’s initial recommendation in:
Retail (Currently the State I-502 law does not allow Retail and Producing/Processing on same site).
Allow in:
•Rural Village Center (RVC)
•General Crossroads (GC)
•Neighborhood Crossroads (NC)
•UGA Urban Commercial
•MPR Village Commercial
•Industrial Zones (All)
•Public lands
Allow but consider adding limits:
•Resource lands (ag, forest)
•Rural Residential (RR)
•Inholding Forest (IF)
Prohibit in:
•Convenience Crossroads (CC)
•Mineral Resource Lands (MRL)
•MPR all residential zones.
•UGA Visitor-Oriented Commercial(VOC), Public (P)
•UGA all residential zones (ULDR), (UMDR), (UHDR)
Producing and Processing
Allow in:
•All Industrial Zones
•Resource lands except Mineral Resource land Overlay (MRLO) And Forest Transition Overlay
(FTR)
Allow with limits:
•Rural Residential Lands RR1:20, RR1:10 RR1:5
Prohibit in:
•All Rural Commercial: Rural Village Center (RVC), General Crossroads (GC), Neighborhood
Crossroads (NC)
•All MPR & UGA residential zones.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 71 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 1
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
Rural Industrial
Light Industrial/Manufacturing LI/M) –
Quilcene & Eastview
The purpose of this district is to provide for
rural economic development by regulating
light industrial and manufacturing uses in
the Quilcene area. The light industrial uses
and activities associated with this district are
intended to be compatible with the rural
character. There are two light
industrial/manufacturing districts in
Jefferson County: Quilcene and Eastview.
Retail Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone. Only
incidental retail sales of product
processed on site is allowed per JCC
18.20.220(1)(c).
*Retail not consistent with district
purpose or with state law when
coupled with JCC regulations.
JCC18.20.220(1) (c) Retail sales and
services incidental to a principally
permitted use are allowable,
provided:
(i) The operations are contained
within the main structure which
houses the primary use;
(ii) Retail sales occupy no more than
15 percent of the total building
square footage;
(iii) No retail sales or display of
merchandise occurs outside the
structure; and
(iv) All products offered for retail
sales on the site are manufactured,
warehoused, or assembled on the
premises (except for products sold at
colleges or technical schools).
No changes to JCC in LI/M
Producing/
Processing
Consistent with
Intensity
Level/Purpose.
Economic
Potentially displaces other Industrial
Uses.
No state approved public water supply
currently exists in this zone.
This zone doesn’t have full build out,
empty lots and buildings exist to
accommodate this use.
Growing/Processing could be done at
Allow Producing and
Processing in LI/M
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 72 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 2
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
Development
opportunity
industrial scale and level of intensity.
Increased setbacks exist when
abutting a residential district
JCC18.30.050 table 6-1 Note 3 & 4
Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C) – Glen Cove
The intent of this district is to facilitate
economic development and provide for a
broader range of light industrial and
associated commercial activities in the Glen
Cove area. Associated commercial activities
are intended to directly serve the needs of
the land use activities existing within this
district.
Retail
Public water
supply available.
Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone. Only
incidental retail sales of product
processed on site is allowed per JCC
18.20.220(1)(c).
*Retail not consistent with district
purpose or with state law when
coupled with JCC regulations.
JCC18.20.220(1) (c) Retail sales and
services incidental to a principally
permitted use are allowable,
provided:
(i) The operations are contained
within the main structure which
houses the primary use;
(ii) Retail sales occupy no more than
15 percent of the total building
square footage;
(iii) No retail sales or display of
merchandise occurs outside the
structure; and
(iv) All products offered for retail
sales on the site are manufactured,
warehoused, or assembled on the
premises (except for products sold at
colleges or technical schools).
No changes to JCC in LI/C
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 73 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 3
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
Producing/
Processing
Consistent with
Intensity
Level/Purpose.
Economic
Development
potential
Potentially displaces other Uses. This zone doesn’t have full build out,
empty lots and buildings exist to
accommodate this use.
Growing/Processing could be done at
industrial scale and level of intensity.
Increased setbacks exist when
abutting a residential district
JCC18.30.050 table 6-1 Note 3 & 4
Allow producing and
processing in LI/C
Glen Cove Light Industrial (LI) – Glen Cove
The purpose of this district is to facilitate
economic development and provide for a
broad range of light industrial uses. The light
industrial uses and activities associated with
this district are intended to be compatible
with the Glen Cove area.
Retail
Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone. Only
incidental retail sales of product
processed on site is allowed per JCC
18.20.220(1)(c).
*Retail not consistent with district
purpose or with state law when
coupled with JCC regulations.
JCC18.20.220(1) (c) Retail sales and
services incidental to a principally
permitted use are allowable,
provided:
(i) The operations are contained
within the main structure which
houses the primary use;
(ii) Retail sales occupy no more than
15 percent of the total building
square footage;
(iii) No retail sales or display of
merchandise occurs outside the
structure; and
(iv) All products offered for retail
No changes to JCC in LI
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 74 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 4
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
sales on the site are manufactured,
warehoused, or assembled on the
premises (except for products sold at
colleges or technical schools).
Producing/
Processing
Public water
supply available.
Consistent with
Intensity
Level/Purpose.
Potentially displaces other Uses. This zone doesn’t have full build out,
empty lots and buildings exist to
accommodate this use.
Growing/Processing could be done at
industrial scale and level of intensity.
Increased setbacks exist when
abutting a residential district
JCC18.30.050 table 6-1 Note 3 & 4
Allow producing and
processing in LI
Heavy Industrial (HI) Port Townsend Paper Mill
The intent of this district is to facilitate
economic development and regulate
development of more intensive heavy
industrial and manufacturing activities,
including and associated with the Port
Townsend Paper Mill.
Retail
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
JCC18.20.220(1) (c) Retail sales and
services incidental to a principally
permitted use are allowable,
provided:
(i) The operations are contained
within the main structure which
houses the primary use;
(ii) Retail sales occupy no more than
15 percent of the total building
square footage;
(iii) No retail sales or display of
No changes to JCC in HI
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 75 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 5
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
merchandise occurs outside the
structure; and
(iv) All products offered for retail
sales on the site are manufactured,
warehoused, or assembled on the
premises (except for products sold at
colleges or technical schools).
Producing/
Processing
Public water
supply available.
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Increased setbacks exist when
abutting a residential district
JCC18.30.050 table 6-1 Note 3 & 4
Allow producing and
processing in HI
Resource Based Industrial (RBI) – Gardiner,
Center Valley and the West End.
This district recognizes existing forest
resource-based industries in Jefferson
County, in particular active sawmills and
related activities. The district is intended to
facilitate the continued operation of existing
functional sawmills and related resource-
based industrial activities in the county.
There are three resource-based industrial
site designations in Jefferson County:
Gardiner, Center Valley, and the West End.
Retail
Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone. Only
incidental retail sales of product
processed on site is allowed per JCC
18.20.220(1)(c).
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
*Retail not consistent with district
purpose or with state law when
coupled with JCC regulations.
No Commercial use allowed in
JCC18.15.040 USE TABLE
No changes to JCC in RBI
Producing/
Processing
Economic
Development
potential
Established
Industrial
structures under-
Increased setbacks exist for
industrial uses when abutting a
residential district JCC18.30.050 table
6-1 Note 3 & 4
Allow producing and
processing in RBI
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 76 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 6
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
utilized.
Forest Transition Overlay 1 Unit/5 Acres
(FTO 1:5)
This category provides a transitional area
between forest resource lands and abutting
rural residential lands characterized by pre-
platted lots of density greater or equal to
one acre in size. The FTO category does not
automatically attach to any lands, but
parcel(s) may be approved for such
designation in accordance with the
provisions of JCC 18.15.571. Its intent is to
promote the continued viability of resource-
based activities in rural areas by minimizing
the potential for conflict and incompatibility
between these uses and surrounding
residential uses. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Retail
This zoning district’s purpose is primarily
residential
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban retail in FTO
Producing/
Processing
This zoning district’s purpose is primarily
residential.
Currently no land is designated FTO.
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in FTO
Public
Park, Preserves and Recreation (PPR)
This land use district consists of state and
county parks, preserves and recreational
sites. It is intended to provide for public
recreational opportunities consistent with
the rural character of the county and
preserve significant natural amenities of
special or unique character.
Retail
Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone.
These uses cannot be located near
public parks
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
No Commercial use allowed in
JCC18.15.040 USE TABLE
No Change to JCC in PPR
Producing/
Processing
These uses cannot be located near
public parks
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in PPR
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 77 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 7
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
County Waste Management Essential Public
Facility (CWMEPF) Retail
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
No Change to JCC in
CWMEPF
Producing/
Processing
Public Land
Can’t use Federal dollars and cannot be
located near public parks
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in CWMEPF
Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF)
Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF). This
land use district consists of land owned by
the Port of Port Townsend that directly and
indirectly supports operations of the
Jefferson County International Airport as an
essential public facility. It is intended to
promote compatible land uses and the long-
term economic viability of the JCIA
consistent with county goals regarding
essential public facilities, the preservation of
rural character, and economic development.
Retail
Obtain Port of Port
Townsend input
Producing/
Processing
Ask Port their
opinion
Obtain Port of Port
Townsend input
Resource Lands
Agricultural Resource Lands (AG)
Agricultural Lands (AP-20)
The purpose of the prime agricultural lands
district is to protect and preserve areas of prime
agricultural soils for the continued production of
Retail
Retail of agricultural products grown on
site is allowed as an accessory use per
JCC 18.20.030.
*Retail not consistent with state law
when coupled with JCC regulations.
Allow retail with limits in
AP-20
Producing/ Growing on larger Outdoor grow operations may need Consistent with purpose of land use Allow producing and
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 78 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 8
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
commercial crops, livestock, or other agricultural
products requiring relatively large tracts of
agricultural land. It is intended to preserve and
protect the land environment, economy and
lifestyle of agriculture in Jefferson County. These
lands must be protected as “agricultural lands of
long-term commercial significance.”
Processing parcels allow
reduced impact to
neighbors.
If done on small
portion of land,
may be accessory/
complementary to
preserving our
resource lands.
Keeping AG lands
for AG use.
agricultural soils whereas indoor
growing could be done on lands not
characterized by prime agricultural soils.
State based program for tax reduction
“Open Space Act” does not allow 1-502
recreational marijuana production to
participate in the tax reduction program.
A minimum of 1 acre or if greater the
area participating in I-502 would be
removed from the program. The
Assessor would need to be notified and
compensating taxes would have to be
paid.
district.
Maximum allowed impervious
surface 10% JCC18.30.050 table 6-1.
Impervious surface include roads,
structures, parking and impermeable
surface.
processing in AP-20 with
limits through
development standards.
Agricultural Lands of Local Importance (AL-20)
The purpose of the agricultural lands of local
importance district is to protect and preserve
parcels of land which, while not necessarily
consisting of prime agriculture soil or relatively
large acreage, are still considered important to
the local agricultural economy, lifestyle and
environment. As such they deserve protection as
“agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance.”
Retail
Retail of agricultural products grown on
site is allowed as an accessory use per
JCC 18.20.030.
*Retail not consistent with state law
when coupled with JCC regulations.
Allow retail with limits in
AL-20
Producing/
Processing
Growing on larger
parcels allow
reduced impact to
neighbors.
If done on small
portion of land,
may be accessory/
complementary
Keeping AG lands
Outdoor grow operations may need
agricultural soils whereas indoor
growing could be done on lands not
characterized by prime agricultural soils.
State based program for tax reduction
“Open Space Act” does not allow 1-502
recreational marijuana production to
participate in the tax reduction program.
A minimum of 1 acre or if greater the
area participating in I-502 would be
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Maximum allowed impervious
surface 10% JCC18.30.050 table 6-1.
Impervious surface include roads,
structures, parking and impermeable
surface.
Allow producing and
processing on AL-20 with
limits through
development standards.
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 79 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 9
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
for AG use. removed from the program. The
Assessor would need to be notified and
compensating taxes would have to be
paid.
Forest Lands
Commercial Forest (CF-80)
The purpose of the commercial forest district is
to ensure large tracts of forest lands of long-
term significance are protected from
incompatible uses thereby sustaining the ability
of forest resource extraction activities to be
maintained as a viable commercial activity.
Retail Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone.
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Allow retail with limits in
CF-80
Producing/
Processing
Can be
accommodated
on small portion
of property and
keep rest of parcel
in timber
production.
Timber buffers
from other
adjacent
proprieties/uses.
Economic
Development
Potential for conversion of entire parcel.
Water Supply could be an issue in some
areas.
Day to day employees, traffic, noise,
light, glare greater than would occur
with timber harvest. Timber harvest
occurs once in many years.
State based program for tax reduction
“Designated Forest Act” does not allow
1-502 recreational marijuana production
to participate in the tax reduction
program. A minimum of 1 acre or if
greater the area participating in I-502
would be removed from the program.
Timber lands a minimum of 5 acres are
allowed in the program. If the acreage
participating in the program is smaller
than 5 acres all acreage will be removed
Could have area limit on conversion.
Consider increased setbacks from
property lines.
Consider indoor vs outdoor grow
operations.
Maximum allowed impervious
surface 10% JCC18.30.050 table 6-1.
Impervious surface include roads,
structures, parking and impermeable
surface.
Allow producing and
processing in CF-80 with
limits through
development regulations
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 80 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 10
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
from the program. The Assessor would
need to be notified and compensating
taxes would have to be paid. The state
based program is not restricted by
zoning districts. Participation in the tax
reduction can be in any zoning district.
Rural Forest (RF-40)
The purpose of the rural forest district is to
ensure forest lands of long-term significance are
protected from incompatible uses thereby
sustaining the ability of forest resource
extraction activities to be maintained as a viable
commercial activity, while allowing for diversity
in the size of forest tracts.
Retail Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone.
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Allow retail with limits in
RF-40
Producing/
Processing
Can be on 2 or
less acres and
keep rest of parcel
in timber
production.
Economic
Development
Potential for conversion of entire parcel.
Water Supply could be an issue in some
areas.
Day to day employees, traffic, noise,
light, glare greater than would occur
with timber harvest. Timber harvest
occurs once in many years.
State based program for tax reduction
“Designated Forest Act” does not allow
1-502 recreational marijuana production
to participate in the tax reduction
program. A minimum of 1 acre or if
greater the area participating in I-502
would be removed from the program.
Timber lands a minimum of 5 acres are
allowed in the program. If the acreage
participating in the program is smaller
Could have area limit on conversion.
Consider increase setbacks from
property lines.
Consider indoor vs outdoor grow
operations.
Maximum allowed impervious
surface 10% JCC18.30.050 table 6-1.
Impervious surface include roads,
structures, parking and impermeable
surface.
Allow producing and
processing in RF-40 with
limits through
development regulations
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 81 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 11
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
than 5 acres all acreage will be removed
from the program. The Assessor would
need to be notified and compensating
taxes would have to be paid. The state
based program is not restricted by
zoning districts. Participation in the tax
reduction can be in any zoning district.
Inholding Forest (IF)
This district encompasses parcels at least 20
acres in size that are entirely surrounded by
designated forest resource lands and that
are not vested for development under
Washington State law.
Retail
Retail sales and services as a standalone
use are not allowed in this zone.
*Retail not consistent per state law.
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Allow retail with limits in
IF
Producing/
Processing
Can be on 2 or
less acres and
keep rest of parcel
in timber
production.
Economic
Development
Potential for conversion of entire parcel.
Water Supply could be an issue in some
areas.
Day to day employees, traffic, noise,
light, glare greater than would occur
with timber harvest. Timber harvest
occurs once in many years.
State based program for tax reduction
“Designated Forest Act” does not allow
1-502 recreational marijuana production
to participate in the tax reduction
program. A minimum of 1 acre or if
greater the area participating in I-502
would be removed from the program.
Could have area limit on conversion.
Consider increased setbacks from
property lines.
Consider indoor vs outdoor grow
operations.
Maximum allowed impervious
surface 10% JCC18.30.050 table 6-1.
Impervious surface include roads,
structures, parking and impermeable
surface.
Allow producing and
processing in IF with limits
through development
regulations
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 82 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 12
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
The Assessor would need to be notified
and compensating taxes would have to
be paid.
Mineral Resource Lands (MRL)
Mineral Resource Lands Overlay District (MRL).
The mineral resource land district is to provide
for the conservation of mineral lands of long-
term commercial significance (Article VI-C of this
chapter). The intent of this district is to aid in
sustaining and enhancing mineral extraction and
processing activities of long-term commercial
significance by protecting designated lands from
incompatible development and to allow for the
continued contribution of mineral lands to the
Jefferson County economy.
Retail
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban retail in MRL
Producing/
Processing
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in MRL
Rural Commercial
Rural Centers (Rural Village Center) (RVC)
Quilcene/Brinnon
Rural village centers provide for most of the
essential needs of the surrounding rural
population and the traveling public. These areas
supply a variety of basic goods and day-to-day
services, while also providing a limited range of
professional, public and social services. They are
Retail
Economic
development
Large portions of these LAMIRDs are
within the state exclusion zone for
proximity to schools and public parks.
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Increased setbacks when abutting a
residential district JCC18.30.050 table
6-1 Note 3 & 4
Allow retail in RVC
Producing/ Large portions of these LAMIRDs are Not Consistent with purpose of land Ban producing and
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 83 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 13
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
typically small, unincorporated commercial and
residential community centers that provide rural
levels of service and serve as a focal point for the
local population. The boundaries of the rural
village centers are predominantly defined by the
contained, built environment as it existed in
1990 or before, as required by RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d). Designated rural village
centers include: Quilcene and Brinnon.
Processing within the state exclusion zone for
proximity to schools and public parks.
Potentially displaces other
retail/services uses.
use district.
processing in RVC
General Crossroads
SR 19/20 intersection “U-Haul”
General crossroads are existing historic
commercial areas that provide a broad range of
commercial goods and services for a larger
population base in the northeastern part of
Jefferson County. There is one general
crossroads designation identified in Jefferson
County: SR 19/20 Intersection.
Retail
Not an exclusion
zone due to
proximity to
public parks or
schools
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Increased setbacks when abutting a
residential district JCC18.30.050 table
6-1 Note 3 & 4
Allow retail in GC
Producing/
Processing
Potentially displaces retail/services uses Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in GC
Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC)
Neighborhood/visitor crossroad districts serve
the nearby rural neighborhood and the
commuting or traveling public. These historic
areas typically provide an extended range of
goods and services by establishment of
restaurants, taverns/bars, auto part stores,
hotel/motels and a limited range of specialty and
professional services. There are five
neighborhood crossroads identified in Jefferson
Retail
Consistent with
existing marijuana
retail shop open in
Discovery Bay
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Increased setbacks when abutting a
residential district JCC18.30.050 table
6-1 Note 3 & 4
Allow retail in NC
Producing/
Processing
Displaces retail & services uses Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in NC
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 84 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 14
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
County: Mats Mats, Discovery Bay, Four Corners,
Chimacum and Gardiner
Convenience Crossroads (CC)
Convenience crossroads consist of a single
commercial property at a historical crossroads.
Typically, the existing commercial use is a
convenience or general store with associated
uses that provide a limited selection of basic
retail goods and services for the local population
and the commuting or traveling public. Land
uses are not oriented to markets beyond the
local rural population. There are three
convenience crossroad designations in Jefferson
County: Nordland, Beaver Valley and Wawa
Point. Nordland, Beaver Valley, WA WA point
(Hjelvik), Shine/104 property
Retail
Liquor Stores are prohibited in this
district.
Retail Services are Discretionary Uses
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban retail in CC
Producing/
Processing
Small Properties so won’t be near other
retail uses or services
Displaces uses more appropriate in zone
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in CC
Rural Residential
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 85 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 15
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
Rural Residential 1 Unit/20 acres (RR1:20)
The purpose of this district is to provide a buffer
in areas adjacent to UGAs and designated forest
and agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance, as well as protecting areas
identified as possessing area-wide
environmental features which constrain
development such as shoreline areas or areas of
steep and unstable slopes. The district also
protects land from premature conversion to
higher residential densities prior to an
established need.
Retail
Producer Processing site not consistent
with Cottage Industry
Per JCC Home Business or Cottage
Industry require retail sales to be of
product made on site. JCC 18.20.170
I-502 State Law doesn’t allow retail
sales to be on the same site as
producing and processing.
Allow with Cottage
Industry standards for
retail in RR1:20. Consider
additional limits on retail
sales.
Producing/
Processing
Would need limits to ensure intensity
and scale are appropriate; buffers and
setbacks
Water supply concerns
Consider including square footage of
all indoor and outdoor grow
operation in maximum allowed
standards for a cottage industry of
5,000 square feet of total building
area. JCC 18.20.170.(3)(o)
Minimum parcel size for cottage
industry is 1 acre
JCC 18.20.170(3)(r)
Cottage Industry standard for Auto
repair identify a 50 buffer from
structure to property lines. JCC
18.20.170(5) add language for 1-502
Allow producing and
processing in RR1:20 with
limits.
Rural Residential 1 Unit/10 Acres (RR1:10)
Rural Residential 1 Unit/10 Acres (RR 1:10). This
district provides a transitional area between the
Retail
Producer Processing site not consistent
with Cottage Industry.
Per JCC Home Business or Cottage
Industry require retail sales to be of
product made on site. JCC 18.20.170
Allow with Cottage
Industry standards for
retail in RR1:10
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 86 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 16
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
rural residential one per five-acre district and
the rural residential one unit per 20-acre district.
Its intent is to preserve open space, protect
critical areas, provide for the continuation of
small-scale agricultural and forestry, and
preserve and retain the rural landscape and
character indigenous to Jefferson County.
State Law doesn’t allow retail sales to
be on the same site as producing and
processing.
Producing/
Processing
Med Sized Parcel.
Would need limits to ensure intensity
and scale are appropriate; buffers and
setbacks.
Water supply concerns
Consider including square footage of
all indoor and outdoor grow
operation in maximum allowed
standards for a cottage industry of
5,000 square feet of total building
area. JCC 18.20.170.(3)(o)
Minimum parcel size for cottage
industry is 1 acre
JCC 18.20.170(3)(r)
Cottage Industry standard for Auto
repair identify a 50 buffer from
structure to property lines. JCC
18.20.170(5) add language for 1-502.
Allow producing and
processing in RR1:10 with
limits.
Rural Residential 1 Unit/5 Acres (RR1:5)
The purpose of this district is to allow for
continued residential development in areas of
Jefferson County consisting of relatively high
density pre-existing patterns of development,
along the county’s coastal areas, and within
Retail
Producer Processing site not consistent
with Cottage Industry.
Per JCC Home Business or Cottage
Industry require retail sales to be of
product made on site. JCC 18.20.170
State Law doesn’t allow retail sales to
be on the same site as producing and
Allow with Cottage
Industry standards for
retail in RR1:5
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 87 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 17
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
areas within or adjacent to rural centers and
rural crossroads. In addition, this district seeks to
support and foster Jefferson County’s existing
rural residential landscape and character by
restricting new land divisions to a base density of
one unit per five acres.
processing.
Producing/
Processing
Parcels and residential development is
typically denser than in other RR Zones.
Many nonconforming parcels that are
less than 5 acres in size.
JCC 18.15.095(1) (1) Applicability. Right
to farm and forestry provisions apply to
all resource and rural land use districts
except rural residential 1:5. The
provisions of this section are not to be
construed to in any way modify,
supersede or abridge state or county
law relative to nuisances; rather, they
are only to be used in the interpretation
and enforcement of the provisions of
this code.
Consider including square footage of
all indoor and outdoor grow
operation in maximum allowed
standards for a cottage industry of
5,000 square feet of total building
area. JCC 18.20.170.(3)(o)
Minimum parcel size for cottage
industry is 1 acre
JCC 18.20.170(3)(r)
Cottage Industry standard for Auto
repair identify a 50 buffer from
structure to property lines. JCC
18.20.170(5) add language for 1-502.
Allow producing and
processing in RR1:5 with
limits.
Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort (MPR)
consist of:
Single-Family tract Zone (MP-SFT)
This zone recognizes, maintains and
promotes single-family residential areas
within the MPR, and provides opportunities
for reasonably priced housing.
Single-Family Tract Zone (MPR-SFT)
Retail
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
May require amendment to
agreement and a meeting with the
village council.
Ban Retail in all residential
zones.
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 88 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 18
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
This zone recognizes, maintains and
promotes larger, single-family residential
tracts within the MPR.
Multi Family Zone (MPR-MF)
This zone recognizes, maintains and
promotes multifamily housing opportunities
within the MPR, in part to provide lower-
cost housing units.
Resort Complex/Community Facilities Zone
(MPR-RC/CF)
The MPR-RC/CF zone provides amenities and
services associated with a resort and the
surrounding community, and supports
existing residential uses. Uses allowed in the
RC/CF zone recognize the recreational
nature of the resort and include the existing
and planned resort complex, as well as
limited permanent residential uses, and non-
resort community facilities including a beach
club and Kehele Park. Kehele Park is located
north of the actual resort area and serves as
a community park
Recreation Area Zone (MPR-RA)
The MPR-RA zone recognizes, maintains, and
promotes the existing and future active
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 89 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 19
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
recreation activities and areas within the
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
Open Space Reserve Zone (MPR-OSR)
The MPR-OSR zone preserves in perpetuity
and enhances the natural amenities around
Ludlow Bay, the Twin Islands and other
natural areas within the MPR. Uses within
the open space reserve shall be low impact
and serve to promote or enhance the
aesthetic qualities of the Master Planned
Resort. No residential or commercial
development shall be permitted in the MPR-
OSR zone.
Producing/
Processing
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in all
residential zones.
Village Commercial Center Zone (MPR-VC)
The MPR-VC zone provides retail and
commercial uses and other services to meet
the needs of resort visitors and community
residents. In addition to retail and
commercial uses or services, other uses such
as government or community offices and
facilities, long-term care facilities, residential
uses, and visitor services are permitted
within this zone.
Retail
Liquor store is
allowed in this
zone
Would this be a considered a Major or
Minor change to the development
agreement?
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Allow retail in MPR-VC.
Producing/
Processing
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in all MPR-VC
zones.
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 90 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 20
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
Urban Growth Area Irondale and Port Hadlock
Urban Commercial (UC)
The purpose of the urban commercial
designation is to provide for a wide range of
commercial activities and uses compatible
with the expressed needs of the community
that will provide goods and services for the
UGA, nearby residents and serve the
traveling public;
Retail
Economic
Development
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Allow retail in UC.
Producing/
Processing
Displaces retail/services uses Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in all UC zones.
Visitor-Oriented Commercial (VOC)
The purpose of this designation is to recognize
the unique area of the Old Alcohol Plant and
allow commercial uses and for visitor-oriented
lodging, goods and services that supplement the
historical and tourism-related character of this
area;
Retail
Not supplemental to the historical and
tourism-related character of this area
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban retail in VOC
Producing/
Processing
Not a supplement the historical and
tourism-related character of this area
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in all VOC
zones.
Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR)
The purpose of the ULDR district is to provide for
areas of single-family urban residential
development that are separate from commercial
and industrial uses and activities;
Urban Moderate Density Residential (UMDR)
Urban Moderate Density Residential (UMDR).
The purpose of the UMDR district is to provide
for areas of mixed single-family and moderate
density multifamily urban residential
development;
Urban High Density Residential UHDR)
Retail
*Retail not consistent per state law.
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban retail in residential
zones.
Producing/
Processing
Small parcels
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in all
residential zones.
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 91 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 21
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
Urban High Density Residential (UHDR). The
purpose of the UHDR district is to provide for
areas of high density multifamily residential
development;
Urban Light Industrial (ULI)
The purpose of the ULI designation is to allow
for low intensity and low nuisance potential
industrial uses;
Retail
Processing retail sales and services must
be incidental to industrial use.
*Retail not consistent with district
purpose or with state law when
coupled with JCC regulations.
JCC18.20.220(1) (c) Retail sales and
services incidental to a principally
permitted use are allowable,
provided:
(i) The operations are contained
within the main structure which
houses the primary use;
(ii) Retail sales occupy no more than
15 percent of the total building
square footage;
(iii) No retail sales or display of
merchandise occurs outside the
structure; and
(iv) All products offered for retail
sales on the site are manufactured,
warehoused, or assembled on the
premises (except for products sold at
colleges or technical schools).
No changes to JCC in ULI
Producing/
Processing
Consistent with
Intensity
Consistent with purpose of land use
district.
Allow producing and
processing in ULI
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 92 of 93
Planning Commission November 5, 2014
Page 22
*State Law does not allow retail sales on the same site where producing/processing is occurring or approved.
Initial ideas for regulating Recreational Marijuana - Producing, Processing and Retail
Zoning Use Pro Con Analysis Potential
Recommendation
Level/Purpose.
UGA Public (P)
The purpose of the P designation is to
provide for the siting of important public
facilities and services compatible.
Retail Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban retail in UGA P
Producing/
Processing
Not Consistent with purpose of land
use district.
Ban producing and
processing in UGA P
October 29, 2014
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11/05/2014 Page 93 of 93