Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZON2004-00007
s 6s J b Lit t'�.-�i J r 44 .p i r- ) 9N:Ni TO c t ':.,,.;e F: C OM i Li c. Ire', 2 '' '#D 4 AND$ E !g OMI h x F l Ea.v :z.' . 1 .t..� 5EV a 3`dfi., z:;)� f3.:a5.'. Olympia.Washington ge�,.n 9 C. 525 e35 ,� ?XS-4900 (�l ���rrr 4 V January 24,2005 D , ,, 1( Mr.Al Scalf Director of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan Street Ca Port Townsend,Washington 98368 ./ Dear Mr. Scalf: Enclosed is your signed original contract amendment between Jefferson County and the Department of Community,Trade, and Economic Development for your FY 2004 Growth Management Update Grant. If you have any questions about the contract,please call me at(360) 725-3067. Sincerely, MIF:11........- Keith Maw,AICP Assistant Planner Growth Management Services Enclosure JAN 2 8 2005 .:, w�' CONTRACT NO. SO4-62600-040A WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1. GRANTEE: 2. EFFECTIVE DATE 3. AMENDED END JEFFERSON COUNTY FOR AMENDED DATE: 621 SHERIDAN STREET FUNDS: December 31,2004 PORT TONSEND,WASHINGTON 98368 NNA W 4. ORIGINAL SOURCE OF FUNDS: 5. AMENDED SOURCE OF FUNDS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES $75,000 $75,000 6. GRANTEE REPRESENTATIVE: 7. CTED REPRESENTATIVE: NAME: AL SCALF NAME: DOUGLAS PETERS PHONE: (360) 379-4450 PHONE: (360) 725-3046 FAX: (360) 379-4451 FAX: (360) 753-2950 E-MAIL: ascalf @co.jefferson.wa.us E-MAIL: douglasp @cted.wa.gov 8. PURPOSE FOR CONTRACT AMENDMENT: ® BUDGET MODIFICATION: The amount of the contract is modified as follows: The total funds to be reimbursed to the GRANTEE for costs incurred during the contract period shall be a sum not to exceed$ 75,000,which represents no change from the original$ 75,000 award. The Budget will be modified to reflect the line item changes and payment disbursement schedule changes as shown in Attachment B: Revised Budget. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the payment disbursement schedule. The total funds to be • reimbursed to the GRANTEE for costs incurred during the contract period shall not be changed. The Budget will be modified to reflect the funding source change as shown in Attachment B: Revised Budget. ®WORKPLAN MODIFICATION: The Workplan as detailed in the CONTRACT shall reflect modified tasks as shown in Attachment A: Revised Workplan. ii,d C 'k ' 2 2004 GROVIT 4-c ' Lt a'L+ '@m+O I V 1 of CONTRACT NO. SO4-62600-040A A copy of this contract amendment shall be attached to and made a part of the original contract between the DEPARTMENT and the CONTRACTOR. Any reference in the original contract to the"CONTRACT"shall mean the"CONTRACT AS AMENDED." All other terms and conditions of the original contract shall remain in full force and effect. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: FOR THE CO T• : , Nancy K. Ousley,Assistant Director NAME AND TITLE #' . fi Local Government Division , ` DATE: Lt. e 4 DATE: ; '._ i ) : I APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Approved as g.o tor"x Signature on file r 14 9)0 y Melissa Burke-Cain,Assistant Attorney General i f ', Office of the Attorney General of Washington g )�`�? ec DATE: May 6, 2004 Jefferson Co. Prosecutor - Office Oc-r, 4111/1V1 °04- 2 of 5 • CONTRACT NO. SO4-62600-040A ATTACHMENT A: REVISED WORKPLAN Grantee: Jefferson County Summary: To update, as necessary, all elements of the Comprehensive Plan based on Jefferson County's September 2003 adoption of update population projections. Estimated Completion Dates &Activities: Goals/ Description Start End Date Actions/ Date Deliverables Goal Update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect current conditions and updated population projections Action Review Comprehensive Plan to identify areas needing update 7/1/03 1/30/04 Action Prepare line in/line out amendments to Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the 2/1/04 5/30/04 planning commission Action Public review through planning commission including public hearing(s) 6/1/04 7/30/04 Action Make revisions based on public process— 8/1/04 9/30/04 send to CTED for 60 day review Deliverable Draft Comprehensive Plan amendments 11/30/04 Deliverables: Draft Comprehensive Plan amendments Status reports due by: December 15, 2003,June 15, 2004, and December 15, 2004 Products to be submitted by: December 15, 2004. • 3 of 5 CONTRACT NO. SO4-62600-040A ATTACHMENT B: BUDGET The budget shall consist of the following elements: 1. Category of Expenditure SFY 2004 SFY 2005 Total Salaries and Benefits $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Goods and Supplies Professional Services Other Goods and Services Total $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 2. Budget Summary SFY 2004 SFY 2005 Total CTED Funds $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Other Funds Total $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 3. Payment Disbursement Schedule Upon final signing of contract and before June 30,2004: $25,000 After submission of first status report and before June 30, 2004: $25,000 After submission of second status report, after July 1, 2004 and before $17,500 December 31, 2004: Upon completion of the contract, after July 1,2004 and before December $7,500 31,2004: 4. Special Budget Provisions A. For CONTRACTS over$30,000 the total amount of transfers of funds between line item budget categories shall not exceed ten(10)percent of the total budget. If the cumulative amount of these transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed ten percent, the total budget shall be subject to justification and negotiation of a CONTRACT amendment by the GRANTEE and the DEPARTMENT. B. For CONTRACTS under$30,000 the total amount of transfers of funds between line item budget categories shall not exceed twenty(20)percent of the total budget. If the cumulative amount of these transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed twenty percent,the total budget shall be subject to justification and negotiation of a CONTRACT amendment by the GRANTEE and the DEPARTMENT. C. A sum of ten(10)percent of funds shall be withheld until all tasks, activities, and final products defined in ATTACHMENT"A"have been successfully completed by the GRANTEE and accepted fully by the DEPARTMENT. 4 of 5 CONTRACT NO. SO4-62600-040A • 5 of 5 ,, y begins , oun lan u a in e growth on wildlife and the tip of the county just before Officials Clap f leet again next 1.- meek environment,->and assessing the Hood Canal Bridge; and the .need for public facilities over a general fear of too much to discuss growth management improvements that will serve growth. growing populations. "Contrary to .what you've BY JAN gong leaf county commissioners • eventu- They also help designate heard or read,.T'in not a `no- PENINSULA DAILY NEws ally adopt the comprehensive urban growth areas which growther,'" said Nancy Dor- plan update. may be annexed into cities. gan,a Port Townsend resident PORT HADLOCB = It's a That move will follow rec- Port Townsend is the only active in civic affairs. monumental task put to those ommendations from the incorporated city within Jef- "But there are areas of who run cities and counties county Planning Commission. ferson County boundaries. growth that concern me. And across the state. State law requires compre- this is how it happens--step - Jefferson County. officials `Realty value°input hensive plans to project needs by step,good or bad." are a taking the challenge of for a 20-year period,but coun- Peters said people should updating their comprehensive Peters said it was helpful to for and cities must submit attend public meetings,contact plan very seriously, according get as much input from the updated plans every seven to several department heads public as possible. aunty staif'and elected officials years. and access a detailed presanta- who appeared Tuesday "We really value what our Jefferson County officials tion of the comprehensive nts- evening at a.`roundtable to citizens have to say, and we were denied a request to delay chronology on the county's inform the public about their want to know how they feel," their next update until 2005. Department of Community progress. Peters said. Development Web site, About a dozen persons Stemming from the Growth Divided opinion w vel pmeefferson.wa.us, attended the session, held at Management Act passed by com�.1 a rt the Washington State Univer- state lawmakers in 1990,corn- Advance planning for The velopme Commission sity Cooperative Extension prehensive plans force cities growth raises controversial will meet Planning 15 to advance a office in Port Hadlock. and counties to plan for expan- topics`often at the heart of will meet proposal osal for the They heard from officials sion by targeting resources land-use debates and philo- general P p who are scrambling to make where they will be most sophical disputes over eco- update process. long- and short-range plan- needed. expansion That will open up a formal nomic a sign versus envi- 1� P ring decisions on how growth They include accommodat- ronmental protection. comment period. be „ ill Jef'erson ing residential and commer- That divide was present It will run from Sept. 22 to . t*'. st »�, ,xf. ` planning- Tuesday Qct.6, t' F„ �; Then the Planning C®nnnis- °���: ' � � sportation� � Residents con � public hung,; `reit deda that routes and rastructure to cerns over the lack of build- sion will hold aim day's session was''one of sev- move growing populations; able lots,allegedly due to over- and adopt a final proposal to be ,oral public meetings scheduled implementing policies to mini- reaching land-use regulations; evaluated by the three county to take place before the,three mize the impact of area over traffic congestion at the commissioners in November. mow p,insurance po a vesse Tigre bus the tribes dock was in , site, t u ka d rg a such p condition that the reports tit 6* company declined have eta con'tributed'$1,000 of More to .coverage . restorothe vesseL With 25 donors of $1:000 and 1,5E10t hearing ' giving less�th n,$100. •. a During a recent hearing does not include those , fox Court Judg that have provrci . weer Ken " maces to t General�, state Resistant , 4 n P '`!eke .:and' '1 tt r v'enema Terence ': f� r %4 p .,va �.: In the pew, es s te state and tribe '''P-'1').;q ,.. N estimated t at J `t ntiall f !1: g S 3 xtor " %a ;< the �a into.a float- t economic losses if the " r s g.;F,, a�I t . '0`+ t , f fi $z uig museum and restaurant . bra free of its moor- ,; a 'k>'; ja f had a rte ---or sinks. �' p of$13 milli es told "'e: ,< , icy ��r �."�r'� �° � t � .,. s a � a. to$15 million. Rodri Williams: 4„ Whenhe O e are going" to move the .q "x x *� t « a? raxaed fours ,motion, he,egad he it_sax", a , Monthman s to succeed ae,gave fund- May 4, the Makeh _ 'k � £ ' � en b rt it, iced" Ta bat,Council gave Rodrigues o•�f ip : , =, ` 's g4,' : i7e he notice that he had.10 days to .; _. y fi a.clear vision of restoring and .remove the vessel from the Mooring the Itolakata in Port' tribbe's leasehold land in the ■ y i . , ,Angeles Harbor east"cif the Red bay.odrigues has repeatedly Timber: Lion I1atel,he still has several legal hurdles to cross, stated. various — and some Rodrigues a rc"h t1 the times acting — plans for at an „,,,„44,,auction last re ring the ferry,which once CONTINUED FROM Al 'the harvest levels a and rev- �� Oct er said ' immediately r betwe n,Port Angeles and • Johnson said 39 million enues from what now,” has; began' accruing use and occu- Vitt. fewer board feet harvested said. iaa ey'fees for the`boat. Martmac Shipyard in every year means fewer jobs "I'm somewhat surprised; Until 'it was moved last Tema,which Rodrigues said created—and less revenue for they didn't,go with the higher: to Neah ;l ,y, it was was where e�ould tow the ferry, taxing districts such as Clal- number in the final environ. .on stateaiiwne 1 prop_• as iy out of the.picture lam County, the city of lt'orks mental impact statement." -, arty isn Seattle's because it wants too much I�atcI ` e money'upfront. Tthe hos rtai distrac el. t t 'ar st The harv'' level selected masses;toe*.~,ar al--harvest than , 20,' ? 'for the five , • b the boar i' 1a ' Y so was not one taet of3fi million bosom, months the boat sat in Lake , t ale dreams? studied an either the draft or feet by 25 percent, then the Union, according to` .court final environmental impactnc3'will be harvesting just records. _ On his Web site, Rodrigues statement, which could leave much timber as it is;now As of'July 1, he was also .looks to the future: the decision open to a legal "What's the point?," he' charged $1.0 day for the " "Today,we are master 1: chalk s_ ,. , said. Staff vs. Planning Commission Recommendation General Updates References to Interim designations and ordinances, outdated population figures,policies that have been accomplished(e.g. establish a process by which the Comp Plan and Land Use map can be amended.) Relationship with Other Plan Elements tables have been removed from the Comp Plan Introduction Summary of changes Update population figures referenced in Narrative Moved Plan Implementation and Monitoring to Introduction 9occ Planning Commission Recommendation Pg 1-19 remove"and away from areas where growth would threaten valued Pc ‘.,/ natural features PL Pg1-21 add"needs"as a growth management indicator Land Use and Rural element Summary of Changes Updated official population projections and allocation Reorganization of narrative Updated number of lots created through land divisions Updated acreage for commercial and industrial zones Incorporation of Appendix G Review of Drainage,Flooding, Stormwater Management& Polluted Discharges "Matrix of Opportunity"removed from LURE Planning Commission recommendation 3-22, 23,69, & 97 Chimacum Crossroads be evaluated for RVC / 3-70 thru 76 Remove policies regarding operations of cottage industries and ltA))C home businesses Housing element Summary of Changes Population and Housing data from 2000 census Affordability calculations '1 Planning Commission recommendation �� n�' ✓ 5-1 replace"complexity"with"existence" 5-19 insert"such as"after"environmental quality" and before"public re- health,and saftery standards" Open Space,Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation element Summary of Changes New information regarding park facilities Planning Commission recommendation 6-3 add"National Forests, private"to Open Space table under fif Resource Open Space, before "forests,and shellfish beds." 0 6-8 Replace references to"Jefferson Land Trust"or Land Trust with rl "non-profit" (et, hn " 6-23 Delete"Limiting the amount of lot coverage"from ullet list of techniques for preserving open space 6-24 Create a new policy by dividing policy 9 into two policies at"A 5-6/..CF special program . . ." insS da creY given fiece� Va v Q (o+ W . Economic Development element Summary of Changes Updated Narrative Planning Commission recommendation ✓ 7-9 Under Future Economic Development Prospects, add Sf6 "accountable"before organizations. 004411'(‘ U,,_ - 7-19 delete policy 9.1 "Promote economic development that does not �� c ' adversely impact the natural or built environment." Pe— lox -akrf cr 5e 3 Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B Proposed Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Introduction Mpg 1-7) The Comprehensive Planning Process The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee was created in 1991 to oversee the development of GMA planning in Jefferson County. The Steering Committee consisted of three representatives from the City of Port Townsend,the only incorporated city in Jefferson County, and the three County Commissioners. The Steering Committee was formed with a provision that, should additional Urban Growth Areas be designated,the Steering Committee would be expanded to accommodate representation from the newly designated UGA. The Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce may submit the names of two residents who reside within the UGA to the 01-itr BOC C to represent the lrondalcH dlock community to the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. (pgl-12) The County-wide Planning Policy 3. Joint county,non-municipal UG:A.and/or city planning within Urban Growth Areas; s/ (pgl-13) Table 1-1 Relationship Between County-wide Planning Policies and Plan Elements 2. Joint County and Gity-UGA presentation Land Use/Rural Element Planning within Urban Growth Areas (pgl-15) The Decisions of the Growth Management Hearings Boards The Growth Management Hearings Boards, which are comprised of three-member panels appointed by the Governor, were created to review comprehensive plans and associated development regulations for compliance with the goals and procedural criteria of the Growth Management Act. The•-Heiwings 13 , guidance on-k through the-review of plans in general or of specific flan elements, goals or policies. For the purposes of developi-rrg--th i s--C=.omp • --e-atie haw —:As--easy-law -the-dec , t - ; : . 'fre guidance--on--auhie r compliance-- ` 'foments 04 GMA. in ,e- , a '. . rulir+gs. state how_a-._plait,---e-lert ent, goal or policy is not consistent with GMA. Through...the analysis-of these-decisions,additional-guidance Tarr--be ehtairre#-as--to-- ppr-opriate...-land uses and Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B November 15,2004 The Growth Management Hearings Boards' decisions provide not only legal guidance for Jefferson County,but also a solid framework for preparation of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Individual Elements in this Comprehensive Plan have been crafted after review of applicable Growth Hearings Board's decisions. To the extent that decisions of our regional He wings Board may be inconsistent or co.ntradi.ctory,thcCounty understands that the ✓ / State Legislature intended to have our regional Hearings Board show deference to a decision ✓ made by a local government such as this County in an effort to reconcile or remedy those inconsistencies or contradictions. A discussion of relevant decisions applicable to compliance for each of the Plan's elements is contained in Appendix D of this Plan. Q �-lGU Land Use and Rural element 7 I NP 3.7 Provide a density exemption to allow the segregation of lots on a parcel 60 $ a'lealf containing more than one dwelling unit and one septic system•Consd' ..Ciej tvleidY -)-t &J-vpIits^ oc -tm- CP rm. Avvc-1- U DC ceive4.3 Utilities di; a, (Pg 11-13) � PUD and PUD Satellites: PUD Systems(2004)are listed below: / few SJ�ct_ lqQ . For current information check the PUD CWSP • Bywater Bay • Gle.. ` r-System{ • Quimper Water System Tri-Area Water System Glen Cove South V Lladloc,k 37, 1 LJD ;'3 South Hastings Loop Marrowsione Island Water System Indian Island Water System Fort lagler Water System. • Lazy"C" Water System(LUD No. 8) • LUD--tN :3--(4astings L-eep-South) • LUD No. 1 (Gardner) • Triton Cove Estates-Marshal Addition-(LUD No. 6) • Valianr. • Skywater • Mats View Terrace • Snow Creek. • Vandecar (pg 11-17) SURFACE WATER/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITIES • Operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities. Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B November 15,2004 ' •„ . . z. 11146430/0 tfreS" , / It is recognized that the Puget Sound Action Team(PSAT)low-impact development standards meet the requirements of the Stonnwater Management Manual. Economic Development element GOAL: EDG 5.0 Provide regulatory incentives to encourage and facilitate economic opportunities within the County. 61 5. . . . . 5 /. Dv,/, ,..e, EDP 5.4 Develops planned action under SEP.A for geographic areAnaster planned resor_L 4r-d.irhan Growth Area, LiAtvi i ft C75" Environment element / ENG 8.0 Protect the habitability,environmental quality and natural beauty of Jefferson County from the adverse impacts of development with respect to viewsheds and noise and mitigate impacts based on the conditions. Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B November 15,2004 EALLELLEL Ci W i - 5 zi 4 '� ASSOCl AS C of REALTORS® JEFFERSON COUNTY DOD REAl1OR' 504 East 14th,Suite 200 P.O.Box 719,Olympia,WA 98507-0719 (360)943-3100 1-800-562-6024 FAX(360)357-6627 www.WARealtor.com August 19, 2004 AL SCALF,DIRECTOR 621 SHERIDAN ST PORT TOWNSEND,WA 98368-2439 Dear AL SCALF,DIRECTOR: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Washington Association of REALTORS®, as we are committed to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in the communities where we live and work. Due to the very nature of our business, we know communities very well. As a vital part of every community, REALTORS®have the same concerns that you do for ensuring economic vitality, providing housing opportunities, protecting our property owners, preserving the unmatched beauty of the environment for our children, and building better communities with good schools and safe neighborhoods. Because of these mutual concerns, we ask that during the comprehensive plan update, you carefully consider the economic and housing needs, as well as the buildable lands inventory and whether it is sufficient to accommodate the growth projections for your community over the next 20 years. As every city and county updates their comprehensive plans,they are required to include "an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth" (RCW 36.70A.070(2a)) AND " provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth" (RCW36.70A.115). In doing so, each jurisdiction will need to update their comprehensive plan to include the most recent population projection allocated by the county to each jurisdiction; determine the household size at the end of the 20 year planning period; and then determine the number of housing units needed to accommodate the projected growth. Finally, the jurisdiction must ensure sufficient land capacity is available (and zoned accordingly)to allow for the number of housing units to be built. The comprehensive plan must include these provisions and provide policies (in the land use and housing elements)to ensure the community achieves its goals to accommodate The term REALTOR®and the identifying logo are federally registered collective membership marks identifying real estate professionals who are members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®and subscribe to its strict Code of Ethics I. growth. The Washington Association of REALTORS®has helpful policy guides that can assist with this part of the planning process. Each jurisdiction should be able to "show their work" for how they arrived at their ) -a- - conclusion that the jurisdiction has sufficient land capacity to accommodate then number of housing units necessary to accommodate growth(ie: where/how does c) the zoning provide for the number and type of housing units needed). C) c.D This is necessary as the work can be solicited by a public records request. If deficiencie- ,, are not corrected in the comprehensive plan prior to adoption,there would be grounds ti °' Li— challenge the jurisdiction for not doing what is required by the GMA. Failure to include these mandatory requirements of the Growth Management Act not only jeopardizes the validity of the Comprehensive Plan, it threatens the ability of the.County to adequately plan for a community where safe, decent and affordable housing is available for all our citizens. A necessary consideration must be the fact that the Growth Management Act(GMA) goals encourage development inside the urban growth areas (UGAs) and the reduction of low-density sprawling development(RCW 36.70A.020(1) & (2). Further,urban growth at urban densities shall be encouraged within the UGA(RCW 36.70A.110 (1). To address these issues and carry out the goals and requirements of the GMA, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB) has adopted a"bright line"rule that comprehensive plans and development regulations must have a minimum density of no less than four dwelling units per net acre for all lands within the UGA. (Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry Brink, et al. v. Pierce County,Case No. 02-3-0010 and CPSGMHB, Case No. 95-3-0039c). The density"is clearly compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act" (Case No. 95-3-0039c). Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited." The board has clarified that all properties have to be designated and zoned at four or more housing units per net acre. In the LMI/Chevron case,the Central Board held that, "the GMA requires every city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." In MBA/Brink,the Board cautioned against using applicant initiated rezones or planned unit developments to reach their minimum of four units per acre density. "It should be an exception, rather than the rule, that lands within the UGAs do not yield a minimum density of 4du/acre. In such exceptions, a variety of flexible regulatory mechanisms are available to local governments to accommodate new development when challenged by difficult topography, parcel shapes or other localized constraints (MBA/Brink-Case# 02-3-0010). The four housing units per acre minimum should be allowed as of right. In fact, in order to meet the other requirements for the Growth Management Act and wisely use our 2 limited land resources, most residential zoning should have maximum densities much higher than four units per net acre. The Central Board has also addressed the issue of whether capital facility deficiencies affect the duty to accommodate growth. The board answered no: "Notwithstanding maintenance backlogs, RCW 36.70A.110 clearly imposes a duty upon local governments to accommodate urban growth. There is no question that the Act requires local jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate new growth projected by OFM and allocate by the County [FN 15]. Thus, capital facilities plans must certainly identify, locate, and take steps to finance those capital facilities that are needed to accommodate new growth. There is no provision in the GMA to suggest that the Act allows a jurisdiction not to accommodate new growth. Because it has a capital facilities maintenance backlog, or it has not guaranteed funding to remove any maintenance backlog, or it is postponing indefinitely its duty to accommodate new growth until its maintenance backlog is removed or reduced. To do so would fly in the face of one of the cornerstones of the GMA (West Seattle Defense and Neighborhood Rights Campaign v. Seattle, Case# 96-3-0033). With that said, one might induce that a lack of capital facilities in the UGA would not allow densities lower than four dwelling units per acre. Rather, the city is required to plan for and finance the capital facilities needed to accommodate compact urban development at a minimum of four dwelling units per acre. Four dwelling units per acre is a floor. There are other Growth Management Act provisions that will require higher residential densities, they include: • The Growth Management Act goal to encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state and promote a to variety of residential densities and housing types (RCW 36.70A.020(4). 6;. y' • The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development 4141,, =1 regulations, shall include mandatory provisions for the preservation, 14- improvement and the development of housing. co H„ '. C) • The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development '�� z regulations, shall identify sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited ttiht,c= 3 C) to, government-assisted housing,housing for low-income families, µ;b L�cc manufactured housing, multi-family housing, and group homes and foster care "' LA- facilities. ,._ S L • The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development regulations, shall make provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. • The requirement that the UGA shall include"areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period." It will be important to remember that when planning for urban densities almost all of the land within the UGA will require a density of four housing units per net acre and most will require greater densities to achieve community goals and to comply with all of the 3 • goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act. Four units per net acre is the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act" (Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039). We encourage your city to adopt higher density zones. While the four dwelling unit per acre minimum helps, it is not sufficient in itself. As REALTORS I),we know that these higher densities are necessary to support and encourage housing affordability for all income levels. We do recognize that a proposal to change zoning densities can be controversial. We are ready to publicly support the necessary changes needed during the comprehensive plan and development regulations update. We consider the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan another essential to the quality of life of our communities.The GMA requires each community to establish ...local goals,policies, objectives, and provisions for economic growth and vitality and a high quality of life" (RCW 36.70A.070(7). Without a meaningful Economic Development Element,the community may fail to take into account a critical piece of planning for future growth, as well as an inability to plan for and attract increased economic opportunities for the community. c� Through an economic strategy based on market analyses and feasibility studies that gY Y tY g c) identify current inventory, and needs, a community can set the stage for fy D', � n' g (-) sustainable economic growth by planning and implementing proper zoning and development regulations, and providing the incentives, infrastructure and amenities necessary to attract economic development. Benchmark indicators and performance measures should be established to gauge how —W- � "a each jurisdiction is achieving its goals and accommodating planned growth. Performance measures will provide a process to ensure accountability in planning through baseline indicators that track the achievement of desired goals. Roads, good schools, and beautiful open space do not come cheap.To achieve the quality of life citizens want we must first set the economic goals and development practices that will generate jobs and public investment. Adding this element to a local plan underscores the importance of economic vitality to achieving other community goals. Finally, investing in infrastructure—roads,bridges, water and sewer systems, along with school and parks is critical to provide housing opportunities,to attract businesses that supply the jobs, and to the workers that fill them. Infrastructure provides the essential foundation to a healthy community. In addition to plans for sufficient buildable land capacity, and the housing and economic development elements in the comprehensive plans,there should be a concerted effort to invest in well-planned and adequately maintained infrastructure to meet the demands of growth. Properly financed infrastructure helps to accommodate and direct the quality growth to benefit the entire community. To do otherwise, a community is ignoring the realities of the future. 4 Please contact Bryan Wahl at Bryan.Wahl @warealtor.com to let us know about hearing or other opportunities for public involvement where our support would be helpful. We respectfully submit this letter to be considered as part of the public record in the review of your 2004 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update. Sincerely, Jo^r ,e L�1� 4 AUG Z 5 2604 Mike Flynn President, Washington Association of REALTORS® JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD For additional information: The following policy guides are presented by the Washington Association of REALTOR41) as part of our ongoing efforts to provide the best expertise to our local communities in which we live,work and play to help improve housing opportunities and to contribute to building better communities. A hard copy of any or all of these are available by contacting Barb.Lally @warealtor.com. Policy Guide: Washington Growth Management Act; After Ten Years: the Duty to Accommodate Growth, Perkins Coie,LLP Policy Guide: Planning for Growth Projections: Importance of Accurate Growth Projections,by Jack Petrie. Policy Guide: Land Supply: A Critical Issue for Housing,by Roger Almskaar Policy Guide Housing in the Community: Choice, Availability, and Affordability, by John Spangenburg and Mike McCormick Policy Guide: Economic Development Planning Guide, by John Spangenburg and Mike McCormick A Prosperous Community: Economic Development Outcomes, Goals and Policies, by John Spangenburg and Mike McCormick All of our policy guides can be accessed at: http://www.warealtor.com/government/qol/po licies/Po licyindex.asp 5 r Josh Peters From: Josh Peters Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:28 AM To: 'Maw, Keith (CTED)' Cc: 'Peters, Douglas(CTED)' Subject: Closeout Report Importance: High Gentlemen: Please find attached to this email correspondence a complet era$11040400WOrOW2061 GRWith Management ypda#e Grant. - - GMA Update Grant Closeout 12.1... The deliverables for this project, namely proposed Comprehensive Plan and development code amendments representing the revisions required under RCW 36.70A.130(4),were mailed in hard copy format to CTED shortly after their release of September 22, 2004. The County's response to the required update is presented under file number MLA04-28, Part A as part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. Appendix items 12 through 18 in the staff report are part of MLA04-28. The staff report is posted on this webpage,where PDF files of the report body and appendix items are available: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004DocketStaffRpt.htm Information about Jefferson County's 2004 growth management update is also presented on this webpage dedicated to the process: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.u s/com mdevelopm ent/2004update&C Preview.htm Via postal mail,we are sending a signed copy of the A19-1A invoice voucher for the final payment under this'04 Update Grant. Please inform us if there are any additional tasks to complete as part of the closeout process. We thank you sincerely for your assistance on this project. Regards, Josh D. Peters,A1CP Senior Planner-Lead, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 Direct: (360) 379-4466, Main: (360) 379-4450, Fax: (360) 379-4451 Email:jpeters @co.jefferson.wa.us Web: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment • 1 2004 GMA UPDATE GRANT CLOSE OUT REPORT In order to close out the Update Grant projects and streamline the processing of final payments, please complete this closeout report in the following format and return it to us along with any remaining deliverables. Please provide us with the necessary information by completing all sections of the form, especially the 500-word(approximately) description of your project accomplishments and grant budget sections. If you have any questions or need assistance in completing this report, please call Keith Maw of Growth Management Services at(360) 725- 3067. SECTION I Jurisdiction Name: Jefferson County Contact Name: Al Scalf Title: Director of Community Development Address: 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Telephone: (360) 379-4450 Fax: (360) 379-4451 Email: ascalf @co.jefferson.wa.us Please use the table provided below to give us the status of your GMA planning activities identified in the Scope of Work in the current grant contract(please use additional pages if needed for more comments or explanation): Milestone or Deliverable Due Date Completed If not completed, explain Date and indicate proposed completion date Complete review to identify Jan. 30, June 30, plan elements and 2004 2004 regulations needing update Prepare amendment May 30, Sept. 22, proposals and release for 2004 2004 public review SECTION II Please summarize what was accomplished with your grant. It should include how much money was awarded, the intent of the grant, and major accomplishments. Your description may be used to represent your grant project as a good example of planning activities in the State of Washington. Please do not exceed 500 words. If you have any questions, please contact Keith Maw at(360) 725-3067 or email to keithm @cted.wa.gov. RCW 36.70A.130(4) requires that local jurisdictions "take action to review, and if needed, revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter." Pursuant to subsection (4)(a), Jefferson County is required to take this action prior to December 1, 2004. After conducting an initial review and determining that revisions were needed, Jefferson County requested grant funding from CTED to assist with the preparation of Comprehensive Plan and development code amendments that would constitute the required revision under RCW 36.70A.130. CTED provided Jefferson County with $75,000 through this contract agreement for this project. Through combined efforts of the County Departments of Community Development, Public Works, and Central Services, two consultants specializing in the environmental sciences, and the volunteer Planning Commission, the County developed amendment proposals for the Comprehensive Plan and development code and analyzed those proposals through an integrated staff report and SEPA addendum. The proposals focused on planning goals and policies associated with population projections, capital facilities, transportation, utilities, as well as regulatory protections for environmentally critical areas. The staff report and corresponding proposals were released for public comment on September 22, 2004, followed by a public hearing before the Planning Commission, recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) from staff and the Planning Commission, and a public hearing before the BOCC. The final step of this process will be the adoption of ordinances enacting revisions required under RCW 36.70.130. SECTION III Are the work activities listed in your scope of work submitted as part of this contract the only activities that are needed to meet the update requirements in RCW 36.70A.130? Yes No X If no, please list all other work activities not included in your scope of work that your jurisdiction plans to perform to comply with the update requirements in RCW 36.70A.130. Your answer will assist us in designing future technical and financial assistance programs. The final deliverable under the scope of work for this contract agreement is the preparation and release for public review of proposed amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations as a required step in achieving compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. The legislative body of the County must take action on the proposed amendments in order to fully comply with RCW 36.70A.130. This action could not be taken prior to the end of the timeline established in the grant agreement. The Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County is expected to adopt ordinances in December 2004 that enact amendments to the Comprehensive Plan intended to achieve compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. SECTION IV Using the Project Budget Worksheet provided below,please present a financial report that is consistent with the scope of work of your contract. Costs should be estimated through the end of the contract period, December 31, 2004. Please show a breakdown of project costs and funding source(s), i.e. was the cost charged to CTED grant or was it provided through another source. If no funds were expended in a category, please enter a zero. Eligible items are listed and further explained below. If you have any questions, please contact Keith Maw at(360) 725-3067 or email to keithm@cted.wa.gov. Project Budget Worksheet Eligible Costs CTED Grant Funds Other Funding Total Cost Sources Personnel/Staff $75,000 $75,000 Consultant Services/ Subcontractor Project-Related Expenses Travel Total $75,000 $75,000 Eligible Costs Personnel/Staff: Salaries and benefits for project employees based on the length of the project and actual time put into the project. Consultant Services/Subcontractor: This includes consultant fees,or fees paid to subcontractors for the project. Project-Related Expenses are: • Materials and Supplies: Items used specifically for this project. • Communications: Telephone, fax, postage, etc, directly related to the project. • Printing and Reproduction: Printing, photocopying, or photography costs. • Workshop or training: costs to attend and/or sponsor a training event or citizen participation activities. Travel: Includes mileage, lodging, and meals for staff and volunteers. Consultant travel belongs under consultant services. Examples of Other Funding Sources • Department Budget • In-Kind • Other Grant/Loan 'y pc AND ECO OM i a'31, f s'', e;,.r Washington 96504-2525 r... * (36 725-4C-CC November 24, 2004 L C1 lVE Mr. Al Scalf DEC 3 2004 -)1 Director of Community Development Jefferson County JEFFERSON COUNTY 621 Sheridan Street DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Mr. Scalf: Congratulations on the work you have accomplished with your 2004 Growth Management Update Grant.As your contract ends on December 31, 2004,I wanted to remind you of some important deadlines and obligations contained in your grant contract with the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Your contract requires the submission of a final status report(or Closeout Report)no later than December 15,2004. We have emailed the required forms to you at ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us. Please complete Section IV,Budget,using the most recently available expenditure information plus estimated costs to completion(December 31, 2004). In addition to the standard status information,we are also asking that you provide a brief description(500 words or less) of project accomplishments funded by the grant contract. Electronic submission to GMSgrants @cted.wa.gov is preferred,but you may also return your Closeout Report by mail to: Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Attention: GMS Grants Your contract also calls for sending any remaining deliverable(s)to the Department no later than December 15, 2004. The deliverables are the work products completed using grant funds, and may consist of an amended comprehensive plan, an element of a comprehensive plan, a subarea plan, development regulations or other documents prepared in support of your Growth Management plan. Specific deliverables due under your grant contract are listed in the work plan,Attachment A to your grant contract or amendment. Draft copies of deliverables are acceptable to meet the terms of your contract. Please remember as you finalize work on this grant that some materials may need to be submitted to the state for 60-day review. Submitting materials as grant deliverables will not automatically meet this requirement. If you do wish to submit the grant deliverable for 60-day review,please clearly indicate this intention in your cover letter and submit either three hard copies or a single electronic copy(either as an email attachment or a CD-ROM). We have also enclosed an Al9 Invoice Voucher for your final grant payment. Please complete and sign the voucher as appropriate and return to the above address using the enclosed return envelope. We-must receive the voucher no later than January 9,2005, Your final payment voucher will be processed upon satisfactory review of the Closeout Report and deliverables. Failure to respond in a timely manner will put your jurisdiction at risk of not receiving this final grant payment. If you require hard copies of the forms, or if you have any questions about the contract or this report,please call me at(360) 725-3067 or email at keithm@cted.wa.gov. Sincerely, 611-11‘‘" Keith Maw Assistant Planner Growth Management Services Phone 360.725.3067/Fax 360.753.2950/keithm@cted.wa.gov Enclosures Josh Peters From: Josh Peters Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 4:21 PM To: Doug Peters Cc: Al Scalf Subject: Jefferson Co. June 15 GMS Grant Status Report Importance: High Greetings Mr. Peters: Attached below please find a digital copy of Jefferson County's June 15 Grant Status Report for the GMA Update Grant provided to us through your Growth Management Services program. Also attached is an Excel spreadsheet referenced in the Status Report that represents the County's long-range planning schedule for the second half of 2004. This schedule includes the projects supported by the GMA Update Grant. June 15 Status 2004 2nd half Report Form.do... schedule 6.14.04... Please forward this information to the appropriate staff at CTED and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Regards, Josh D. Peters, Senior Planner Lead Planner-- Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 Direct: (360) 379-4466, Main: (360) 379-4450, Fax: (360) 379-4451 Email:jpeters©co.jefferson.wa.us Web: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment 1 I 4/ B STATg 4.0.... is � ';7889* STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128-10th Avenue SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 • (360)725-4000 Growth Management Services Grant Status Report Jurisdiction: Jefferson County, Washington GMS Grant Category: GMA Update Grant for jurisdictions with a December 1, 2004 Deadline Staff completing status report: Al Scalf,Director of Community Development Date Status Report Due: June 15, 2004 Statement of Work Goal/Action Due Percent Comments (if behind schedule, Deliverable Date Complete why; etc.) Action—Review Action 75% This action is nearly complete,with the CP to identify End possibility left open of identifying other areas areas needing- Date is of the CP and implementing DRs for update January amendment during the planning process. We 30, 2004 are focusing on review of the Land Use and per Rural Element of our CP to reflect the adoption scope of of an updated population projection for the work 2004-2024 planning horizon based on the most recent Office of Financial Management ten- year population forecast. Action—Prepare Action 50% In order to develop a proposal for the 2004 line-in/line-out End update,we have been using a strategy of early amendments to Date is involvement of the Planning Commission in CP for May 30, the process. Two Planning Commission consideration by 2004 per Committees (CP Review&UDC Review) the Planning scope of have been meeting twice a month,with the Commission work public invited,to develop a preliminary proposal for amendments that will be combined with staff proposals from DCD, Central Services and Public Works into a package for public and State agency review. The 2004 2nd-half schedule for Long-Range Planning was set by the Board of County Commissioners on June 14(spreadsheet attached). The GMA update proposal (file number MLA04-28)is scheduled to be available to the public and State agencies for review on September 22. The principal constraint is the time allotment required for consultants contracted by Public Works to complete analysis related to update the CP Capital Facilities Element. Action—Public Action 25% As described above,the Planning Commission review through End review is occurring in two phases. The first Planning Date is phase is the development of preliminary Commission July 30, proposals through public meetings of two including public 2004 per Planning Commission Committees. A public hearing(s) scope of hearing for the 2004 Comprehensive Plan work Amendment Docket,which includes MLA04- 28 (GMA update package), is scheduled to occur on October 6. Additional Comments: The planning process for the Irondale &Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area(UGA),under file numbers MLA04-29 and-30, is nearing completion, in terms of the adoption of goals,policies, internal land use districts, and development regulations. The capital facilities component of the UGA planning process is essential information for the 2004 update of the CP funded through this CTED grant. Relevant information from the UGA planning process will be integrated into the overall 2004 CP update (MLA04-28),particularly in relation to land use,population and capital facilities information in the CP. 2 There are additional schedule constraints related to the development of the 2004 update proposal (MLA04-28). These include the timeline for completion of a Channel Migration Zone study being performed by the Federal government in coordination with the County and the projected availability of wetland protection and related guidance materials developed by the Dept. of Ecology. This information will be incorporated into the review of`best available science' in association with the County's critical areas protections. Budget End date for reporting on fmancial information: Financial information is reported for the period of July 1, 2003 to May 31, 2004. July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004 to Total June 30, 2004 June 30, 2005 EXPENSES Salaries and $39,500 $39,500 Benefits Goods and Supplies Professional Services Other Goods and Services Total $39,500 $39,500 REVENUE CTED Grant 0 0 Funds Other Funds Total 0 0 3 F. 2004 2nd Half Schedule for Long-Range Planning Month Date Day Project Item 8 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtg; Discussion of schedule for proposal development and review 9 Wed 2004 Cycle PC Comp Plan Committee mtg &continuing development of recommendation for CP amendment per PC 5-year review ,, .}ri i. - ;.t••ry P�- fir -'i. 1%7. #.... ..mm ark." SY�v fyq�r .S 4�y,;.t .-.. ` r '-','"3 .F#':a 4,e�r'- n ... nn.F ""Sr.'; .,1 v?:ivlT. - • 1 �+b,'� i.- Y. a Y * ff wry*) w6 '1,-'16.-•. -:�c yd.' , .. �i , ,r,}' 5 � =�� a �Sp��k:i::::H M �e- ,ht''T ;. `: t'�.Yi:_-.`. [t.. .mss.. ';,�k :! `�. ���". �� � :,.3 •r� � '."fir - � � � ::%+' ..� {. -. -.�. -f , it +Y+ �: 1 ) 1'= 'a -A"if6j r .1.+i..f,0 +� g i ,,l d. .�ti,F •1 YF,. i V+ ni i1.- 'K_ 1 . W 'f.; ry kY". ,�•_ }t.' -..l.' 5.. 4s �.':y:' :� *' ... i.�-.�K.5..... . ..�t:::.•+ ....- ::s3.'n'..:k'- '' :;.nj. . -.r..� � a ,..4.1-Mr...,.%.. ,.fi.-'.X r, t�.Yi•. '•. . .. - C`',r .. 22 Tues l-Code June 28 agenda req for draft resolution adopting I-Codes 22 Tues 2004 Cycle PC Ag Lands Committee mtg &continuing development of recommendation concerning redesignation of parcels to Ag Lands 23 Wed 2004 Cycle PC CP Committee mtg 23 Wed 2004 Cycle Ag open house(one topic is designation of Ag Lands parcels) 28 Mon 1-code BOCC resolution adopting International Codes (building, etc.), effective July 1 y .i .. . .-' -;,...1.-`,,.' i ', -(. -'--- '".. -e- ;fai 'R' C' 6- ,..,i_!. ._-ry :6•1 y, ' ._ ;: . 6 s' . ..i:' +t - �., *Y " �►�i rk =fp -kp• �mv ' ,t '# ���rtP� B* Y�r�■ .a —c'�a , : C_r'p {�p - s I '.-i , rf 30% -Lwl '.. ' T . .. .f-: t iZ-. ...LAS' 'Ar:_''5' # "c .-f.:.,11.-.E :N.•ya.-. t , -• -I• 29 Tues 2004 Cycle PC Ag Lands Committee mtg (continuted from June 22) July 5 Mon 4th of July holiday-- BOCC regular agenda on Tues, July 6 wl;.,> :'' 7 Wed 2004 Cycle PC meeting; Discussion of proposal working drafts ® zan'e. -4 '4.d 13 Tues 2004 Cycle PC Ag Lands Committee mtg 14 Wed 2004 Cycle PC CP Committee mtg s .:.. 7'4 'V,h-..'.r 7 --f r. '44S7P'"," '•erA--.ti,�..o-,yr fit .. 21 Wed 2004 Cycle PC meeting; Discussion of proposal working drafts 27 Tues 2004 Cycle PC Ag Lands Committee mtg 28 Wed 2004 Cycle PC CP Committee mtg 30 Fri 2004 Cycle Deadline for"opt in" request forms for Ag Lands designation Aug 4 Wed 2004 Cycle PC meeting; Discussion of proposal working drafts 9 Mon 2004 Cycle PC Airport Committee mtg to review prelim staff recommendation 10 Tues 2004 Cycle PC Ag Lands Committee mtg 11 Wed 2004 Cycle PC CP Committee mtg 18 Wed 2004 Cycle PC meeting; Discussion of proposal working drafts 23 Mon 2004 Cycle PC Airport Committee mtg &completion of rec for prelim proposal 24 Tues 2004 Cycle Public Works receives Transportation work from consultants 24 Tues 2004 Cycle PC Ag Lands Committee mtg &completion of rec for prelim proposal 25 Wed 2004 Cycle PC CP Committee mtg &completion of rec for prelim proposal Page 1 2004 2nd Half Schedule for Long-Range Planning Month Date Day Project Item 27 Fri 2004 Cycle Central Sent, Pub Wks & Nat Res staff work due to DCD for integration into MLA04-28 package(capital facilities&critical areas) 14 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtg & continuing development of recommendation relim!nary proposal 15 Wed 2004 Cycle PC meeting; Presentation to PC of draft prelim proposal 20 Mon 2004 Cycle Pub request by 2:00 for Sept 22 notice 22 Wed 2004 Cycle Legal notice for Oct 6 PC hrg; Date of prelim proposal (MLA04-28); 60- day notice&SEPA determination 28 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtg Oct 6 Wed 2004 Cycle PC public hearing & deliberation 12 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtg 20 Wed 2004 Cycle PC deliberation 26 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtg Nov 3 Wed 2004 Cycle PC deliberation & recommendation 9 Tues 2004 Cycle Nov 15 agenda req for presentation of PC rec son 9 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtg 15 Mon 2004 Cycle PC recommendation presented to BOCC 16 Tues 2004 Update Nov 22 agenda req for resolution on 2004 Update 16 Tues 2004 Cycle Nov 22 consent agenda req for Nov 24 notice of Dec 6 public hrg 17 Wed UDC Omnibus PC meeting; Discussion of proposal working draft& relation to PC recommendation for Comp Plan amendments under MLA04-28 22 Mon 2004 Update BOCC resolution (prior to Dec 1 deadline for 2004 Update) 22 Mon 2004 Cycle Consent agenda; Pub request by 2:00 for Nov 24 notice of Dec 6 hrg 23 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtq 24 Wed 2004 Cycle Legal notice for Dec 6 BOCC public hrg • Dec 1 Wed 2004 Update Deadline for BOCC action (GMA); 2004 Update is part of 2004 Cycle 6 Mon 2004 Cycle BOCC public hrg on proposal as noticed Nov 24 (optional) 7 Tues 2004 Cycle Dec 13 agenda req for draft ordinance adopting proposal mem 7 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mt 13 Mon 2004 Cycle Deadline for BOCC action (UDC); BOCC decision &ordinance adoption 13 Mon 2004 Cycle Pub request by 2:00 for Dec 15 notice of ordinance adoption 15 Wed 2004 Cycle Legal notice of ordinance adoption (could be Dec 22) s. { d1�J8 /1• r�I�`'.� r r:ti °PS}• L'Ti.+ir - raa <iFC?-4. �IEJt�f�f�lif4ao-s.�i44� •:,r �ikiY . s .. F'... 21 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UD ommittee mtg (likely to be cancelled for holid Page 2 2004 2nd Half Schedule for Long-Range Planning Month Date Day Project Item 2005 Jan 5 Wed UDC Omnibus PC meeting; Discussion of proposal working draft & 2005 Cycle 11 Tues UDC Omnibus PC UDC Committee mtg & completion'of rec for preliminary proposal 17 Mon UDC Omnibus Pub req by 2:00 for Jan 19 notice 19 Wed UDC Omnibus Legal notice for Feb 2 PC hrg; Date of prelim proposal (MLA04-25); 60- day notice & SEPA determination; Presentation to PC mon mom= Feb 1 Tues 2005 Cycle Deadline for applications for consideration during the 2005 Comp Plan Amendment Cycle 1 Tues UDC Omnibus Feb 7 agenda req for BOCC workshop on MLA04-25 proposal 2 Wed UDC Omnibus PC public hrg &deliberation 7 Mon UDC Omnibus BOCC workshop on MLA04-25 proposal 16 Wed UDC Omnibus PC deliberation & recommendation (unless additional PC meetings required to complete recommendation) 22 Tues UDC Omnibus Feb 28 agenda req for presentation of PC rec &draft March 2 notice for March 16 BOCC hearing 28 Mon UDC Omnibus PC recommondation presented to BOCC; Decision on March 14 hrg March 2 Wed UDC Omnibus Legal notice for March 14 BOCC public hrg ' 8 Tues UDC Omnibus March 14 agenda req for draft ordinance adopting PC rec 14 Mon UDC Omnibus BOCC public hrg on proposal as noticed March 2 & potential ordinance adoption 14 Mon UDC Omnibus Pub request by 2:00 for March 16 notice of ordinance adoption 16 Wed UDC Omnibus Legal notice of ordinance adoption (could be March 23) Page 3 Page 1 of 1 NOT &fir (//34-k C Josh Peters From: Roseann Carroll Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 9:42 AM To: Josh Peters Subject: Kyle Alm Info Importance: High Kyle started with DCD on January 20, 2004 Hourly rate of$20.00 Hours Jan 44 Feb 152 Mar 161.5 Apr 145 May Should be able to get a good estimate from Kyle. 160 Hope this helps. - .Q ao , ;.s-o • o0 As i Sap if." . fug. 1x r -7 ✓ tos t, os0 h ao .4 a( 000 - 10 r W° ( -{� Gov. 3o f' ) (e 6 . 3- i 5O �✓{ -' 1 Z�.I', coo KY J 4tf1 boo Jtcr2 i514 000 (01W r C°12 13iafo IFY ■•■••••■••■■■•• .7 2, 15 ace? ZN..> vD i� P°52,r 7c V jimy t y 5/25/2004 35/ S`oc t wAre 21/Ciab k lc„rP I 1 II II I 1 • 1 I N oo 00 oob 1 , ` j k ! \CD Oo 000 1V0�0O b m 000,1 ` ■ \ \ np' 00 b b n x W . . . •CO n 000 0 0000 00 p pV W O O b ONO CO m N O M 000 • •O 000 p H b • NN Obm NO m0 H 000 p O 000 elm '.0'"'� b 01N 000 b Op 000 bM N A d d wry NNwwa�on H oo _ inu�.i ,� n•N MN r•1 M di KI ul N N 0'4* m ` F m H N M N O U o . H Y4 0 F o W Z ° w w a w W Icl 0 Q H O (a] L 2' W CO H y 0 O z z a F y a °vo wow o ° i lEg! II w x° °w P w uca u n aa' o a R awaHww 11110 w Ww:aww w u wf.u w waa wuH " Ha zW O £ !zRC Ha7. W WW W a RUWW azk, po C4 H co) 3 Q Co NCoCoOWNHO zH £wa n �+C9W CL Fa OWa .Ogg H WOa H. HH wa W OH wgz ,'� h A Ag AF aW WH Q,W a aDH Co N qq w °z a RF po-.ia �D z E" AF£ WW� >zW'�zw z°W Ooawrx qu zz FA .`1 H �J�Ww�H r"'�zH Hr�y zw��.Y'H.HC4 WWHOHHeg 04 'yW Vulu1.'[.W' Y W F . W 04 W Wa wa W�� ZN0o oaw"'ww° aHa aaa o wn w FFFF zw,gp, C w P4 zzzo z�0 X00y6°nwwE, wwwuww� >wwa wwaa a w • U HHpZE. HO0 HFF awaauuE°, a0a£ntt,aP g> o Hw00 wO qq >aw 0o c 0 C000H opo ,,.g ZAFF EO+ 0CQ4 O 0 N V 0 0 N H 0 O OObb HNr1 0 O H 0 0000 000 H H O N N M Co M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O T p1 01 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 C>H 0 0 O O O O H N Vi C a Ol 41 O 0 el, 0 ON b b 0 OO q' 0 O N Co 1 m �W W OD b bb 1p0 OO 00 NN r �N u1 U1 um'/ mm b bb bb Co m m m CO Co m"m Co Co oN mm mm Co m mm mm Roseann Carroll From: Josh Peters Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:27 AM To: Roseann Carroll Cc: Al Scalf Subject: I Like "Ike" Hi Rose Ann. Just letting you know that I called Ike and took care of his questions. He'll be sending us an amended contact for our signature. Won't affect the total amount,just when we get the money. I didn't end up needing to provide him any other info;just needed to acknowledge that we're working on the project and expect to spend the money. By the way, including Kyle's estimated May hours (160), we've spent$13,250 on him this year. If he were to average 150 hours for the rest of the year,that would be another$21,000, for a total of$34,500, which is well short of the$75,000. think we need to spend all the money this year, so... Let's talk to Al about how we want to spend the rest(professional services, my salary, his salary, etc.). 1 n Z. STATg � `-'l fs,--. L.)._ ,) , (z_./' \ / , l 4k4.I n �Oy DD 103-0 mommommum STATE OF WASHINGTON 3E30E PAGE 0: 1 RPT DWP827IN VENDORS REMITTANCE ADVICE JEFFERSON CO DEPT OF COMM. REVEL PAYMENT DATE: 09/10/04 621 SHERIDAN STREET WARRANT alb: 701353T PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 VENDOR NUMBER: 0916001322-11 BATCH: SW-400 FROM: COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC BEVEL QUESTIONS CALL (360) 725-2744 INV DATE INVOICE#-MESSAGE ACCOUNT# DOCUMENT# AMOUNT 504-62600-040 ATTN: AL SCALE 22087 17,500.00 GMA UPDATE GRANT 3RD PYMT 17,500.00 * liP41 -4, GO 4. . 90 v I 1 • THIS AA ARE AN I,CO\IAINS AN ARTIFICIAL AX ATLRALARK.ON THE I31CIi.HOLD AT ANGLE TO VILNA IF NOT PRESENT,DO NOT'CASH. STATE OF WASHINGTON t5 7 013 5 3 T OFFICE OF STATE TREASURER OLYMPIA COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV 1 Reg No I Agency .I Sub.ASY.I Walnut No I IAo. I D I YG j (360) 725-2744 04254 1030 701353T 09 10 2004 4014 If? P ) THIS 1 I T PAY TO THE 00 *( 11-1)11Y0* 6n • O '^ ORDER OF '11'/1'11'111"11"il'11111/'1'1h1'/1'flll'Illl'1i11/1'1'1'1' ABLE FOR Ble DAYS ON OR AFTER ABO VE DATE JEFFERSON CO DEPT OF COMM. REVEL 621 SHERIDAN STREET PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 ------7 MICHAEL J. MURPHY, STATE TREASURER 01, 3 2 Li" 1: L 25L055761: 70L353200 4- 4k, ‘kw / '14; . t `4 1889 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128- 10th Avenue SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (360) 725-4000 September 14, 2004 FOECEIVE The Honorable Glen Huntingford, Chair Jefferson County Planning Commission Post Office Box 1220 Port Townsend,Washington 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Capital Facilities Planning Tool Dear Chair Huntingford: As part of the on-going mission of Growth Management Services to provide technical assistance to jurisdictions implementing the Growth Management Act,I am pleased to announce a new tool called the Capital Facilities Planning(CFP)Template. The CFP Template is a computer application developed in Microsoft Excel. It is designed to use policies from your comprehensive plan to guide CFP development—from conceptual projects through the rating and ranking of the projects across programs to production of a formatted CFP document and presentation graphics. The key purpose of the CFP Template is to provide a tool for cities and counties to improve and streamline capital facilities planning. We would like to invite you to a Planners' Forum being held in your area to learn more about our new CFP Template. At that meeting, you will receive a demonstration of the program, an overview of capital facilities planning, and an overview of our plan to distribute the Template. FORUM: Olympic DATE: October 14, 2004 TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: Poulsbo Enclosed please find a copy of the training plan. As you can see from the plan, priority for training will go to those cities and towns with a population of less than 5,000 and counties less than 50,000. We are only providing training to a limited number of jurisdictions annually so we can provide the necessary support to make the Template successful. If you are interested in the training, either let us know at the Forum or you can contact Wendy Compton-Ring at (360)725-3051 or wendycr @cted.wa.gov. We anticipate holding the trainings in early 2005 at a local community college so staff will get hands-on training in a computer lab. C) The Honorable Glen Huntingford September 14,2004 Page 2 We hope to see you at the Planners' Forum. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, • Leonard Bailer_, .Managing;D#tctor •�. Gfavulli Vi Bement-Services Unclosat 1I lee = .cc: Al Scalf,Planning Director —s'os h ellk§4 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 621 Sheridan Street• Port Townsend •Washington 98368 60/379-4450. 3601379-4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment GROWTH MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE (GMSC) AGENDA Tuesday, September 21, 2004 First Floor Conference Room Jefferson County Courthouse • 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM 10:00 Call to order—Glen Huntingford, BOCC Chair 10:05 Review of County-Wide Planning Policies (CWPPs)for potential update in the year 2005 10:20 Discussion on potential GMSC representation for the Irondale & Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) and/or Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) 10:45 Update on County and City progress on statutorily-mandated 2004 Updates to Comprehensive Plans and development regulations • Consider the relationship between the CWPPs and the established or proposed processes for siting Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) in the County and City 11:05 Update on discretionary County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment proposals 11:20 Discussion of Industrial Land Banks (ILB) and Major Industrial Development (MID) 11:45 Public comment 11:55 Agenda, date and time for next meeting 12:00 Adjournment NOTE: Times above are estimated to help guide the meeting. The Committee may extend the time for a topic(and subtract from another)as needed,as well as discuss and take action on other items not listed on this agenda. • 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review Page 1 of 6 t Jefferson count y . , a . ..,.„,,,,......,,.....„{„.„.. c,4 7, .. L7, - -,, - ....--:-. .---- Home ' County Info Departments a rch Community Development 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review DCDiQuicklLinks lk- Comprehensive Plan • New Items Unified Development Pt • Background Code (UDC) • 2004 Update ■_ Permit Information & Pt o Comprehensive Plan Application Forms o Environmentally Critical Areas k\ Permit Database Search • Planning Commission Assessment 'N & Map Tools • More Information ADDRESS Go back to the general 2004 Comprehensive Plan 621 Sheridan Street Amendment Cycle page. Port Townsend, WA 98368 PHONE Phone: 360.379.4450 New Items Fax: 360.379.4451 HOURS Page last updated: 9/16/2004 Monday - Friday 9:00 to 4:30 The Planning Commission will discuss its public review proposal for amending the Comprehensive Plan at its Weekends September 15 meeting. See the press release. Closed Background The information on this page pertains to two related Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals. The first involves Jefferson County's response to Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements under RCW 36.70A.130 to review our Comprehensive Plan and development regulations in 2004. The second involves line-in/line-out amendments associated with the Planning Commission five-year assessment of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 9, subsection 9.5.4, of the Unified Development Code (UDC). Proposals related to each of these efforts will be reviewed as part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle under file number MLA04-28. http://www.coje ' fferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004update&CPreview.htm 9/21/2004 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review Page 2 of 6 Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan. was adopted in 1998 after eights years of community effort and debate. The Plan is a set of guidelines in the form of goals, policies and strategies to give growth and development both context and direction, aimed at promoting the best environmental, social and economic future for Jefferson County citizens. Although the Plan has been amended each year after its adoption, this is the first time the Plan is proposed to be thoroughly updated to reflect where we are now, six years later. 2004 Update Jefferson County must take action every seven years to review and, if needed, revise its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to ensure that the Plan and regulations continue to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The deadline to complete this first seven-year update is December 1, 2004. The State-mandated review includes the following three basic actions: 1. Establish a public participation program that identifies procedures and schedules for the review, evaluation, and possible revision process; 2. Review relevant plans and regulations and analyze whether there is a need for revisions to comply with the GMA; and 3. Take legislative action. For more information on the State-mandated update, visit the webpage of the State Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) Growth Management Services. CTED has a portal page for information on the update process, including these frequently asked questions about the update process. The County staff response to these requirements will be released on September 22, initiating a formal public comment period. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposal, as well as other items on the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, on October 6. The preliminary proposal as developed by staff will include amendment proposals to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC), the set of development regulations that implement the http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004update&CPreview.htm 9/21/2004 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review Page 3 of 6 Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Development (DCD) is coordinating a multi- departmental effort involving DCD, Central Services and Public Works to develop the staff proposal. County staff hosted a public roundtable discussion on September 7 regarding the 2004 update process. Here are the press release and agenda. Comprehensive Plan The focus of the County staff response to the 2004 update requirements is on the following areas of the Comprehensive Plan: Population, Capital Facilities, and Transportation. Pre-release versions of the staff proposals are available September 7, 2004 in conjunction with a public roundtable workshop hosted by staff. (See the press release.) The staff report with analysis and environmental review will be released September 22. Population • 80CC Resolution 55-03updating population projections and allocations September 22, 2003 • Interdepartmental memorandum re: population projections and the 2004 update June 18, 2004 • Table: Annual Population Projections 2005-2024 Capital Facilities • Capital Facilities Element September 7, 2004 NOTE: Tables have been replaced (i.e., not line-in/line-out from 1998 Plan). Transportation • Transportation Element--"clean" representation of how Element would appear as proposed: September 14, 2004 NOTE: Does not include Figures. • Transportation Element--Goals & Policies partial line-in/line-out version • Transportation Element--1998 comparison full line-in/line-out version • Figures NOTE: Under 1 MB except where marked. o 10-1 Functional Classification of Roads • 10-la East Jefferson County Roads • 10-lb West Jefferson County Roads http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004update&CPreview.htm 9/21/2004 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review Page 4 of 6 o 10-2 Transit Routes o 10-3 Ports & Airports 1.8 MB o 10-4 Bike Routes o 10-5 Multi-Purpose Trails o 10-6 Existing Traffic Volumes & Level of Service (LOS) Standards • Tables o 10-6 Existing & Forecast ADT & LOS Environmentally Critical Areas The Unified Development Code (UDC) includes protections for "critical areas," a term of art in the GMA that involves environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas. The critical areas sections range from UDC 3.6.4 through 3.6.10. The GMA was amended in the late 1990s to include the requirement that local jurisdictions consider "best available science" (BAS) when establishing protection measures for critical areas. [See Part Nine of Chapter 365-195 WAC.] Jefferson County considered BAS during the review and adoption process for the UDC in the year 2000. County staff and consultants are reviewing current BAS this year to determine whether amendments to critical area protections in the UDC are warranted. When the preliminary proposal is completed, it will be posted here. Planning Commission Assessment Over the last several months, the Comp Plan Review Committee of the Planning Commission has been working on a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal for the five-year assessment of the Comprehensive Plan called for in Section 9, subsection 9.5.4, of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The five-year assessment process has been linked to the 2004 update process described above and included on the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004update&CPreview.htm 9/21/2004 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review Page 5 of 6 requested that the Planning Commission review the Comprehensive Plan and UDC with the aim of simplifying the documents. The request came in a letter dated January 6,2004. The full Planning Commission considered the Comp Plan Review Committee recommendation and, through discussion at regular Planning Commission meetings, established a public review proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan on September 1. The public review proposal involves the following elements of the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are posted in "line-in/line-out" amendment format. The size of these PDF files ranges from 178 to 433 KB: • 01 Introduction - Implementation and Monitoring NOTE: The Implementation & Monitoring chapter has been integrated into the Introduction. • 03 Land Use and Rural • 05 Housing • 06 Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation • 07 Economic Development • 08 Environment The Planning Commission proposal also includes one site-specific re-zone. The Planning Commission proposes that the 18.1-acre parcel that houses the Wheel-In Motor Movie drive-in theater off Theater Road and just south of the intersection of SR 19 and SR 20 be re-designated General Crossroad (a rural commercial designation) from its current Rural Residential 1:10 (RR 1:10) designation. The parcel was down-zoned to RR 1:10 from commercial in 1998 with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. • Parcel Number 001-282-007. Click here to view a map of the parcel and vicinity using the Internet Map Server. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this proposal and others on the 2004 Docket on October 6. More Information Visit the webpage of the State Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) Growth http://www.co.j efferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004update&CPreview.htm 9/21/2004 , 7004 Update & Comp Plan Review Page 6 of 6 Management Services. Contact: Long-Range Planning Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Email: Phone: 360-379-4450 Fax: 360-379-4451 jrg Jefferson County HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH , Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later 66 Windows - Mac httn://wvpw.cn 'cffermmu.vva.uu/c U CProvievphtm 9/21/2004 SEPA, SMA, GMA Critical Areas Presentation Planning—Josh a. � L� -f Pia -� x o je ?fot n ►nnil� coyorru-co ' Planning Enabling Act erwhS SEPA l6111 tta b GI IVgloi 4+ I9& SMA p11/ GMA— Critical Areas 16190 Long-Range Planning in Jefferson County — • SMP update • 2004 GMA update — Critical Areas (Best Available Science) • Housekeeping Omnibus Permitting— Kevin Computer Demo (Mapping is subject to margin of error **used as indicator for investigation.) Shoreline Development (Permitting process **types of permits) • -Single Family Dwellings- Setbacks/Buffers • -Mooring Buoys • -Docks/Floats • -Bulkheads • -Tightlines Environmentally Sensitive Areas (a.k.a., GMA "critical areas") • Streams- • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas- • Wetlands- • Geohazard Areas- • Floodplain- • Critical Aquifer Recharge / SIPZ - Josh Questions and Answers "' Res surce Lams 3:oo P(aro -f- A ✓&_ r ,oN oo JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend •Washington 98368 "~ 360/379-4450. 360/379-4451 Fax 4S$I14 /,1/4) http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Agenda Roundtable Workshop on the "2004 Update" Tuesday, September 7, 2004 6:30 PM, WSU Extension, Hadlock The following times are approximate. Topics may take more or less time than allotted here. 6:30—6:50 Introduction: 2004 Update & Participating County Staff (Al Scalf and Josh Peters, Dept. of Community Development— DCD) By December 1, 2004, Jefferson County is required to take legislative action to review, and if necessary, revise Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations to ensure compliance with the State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70, as amended. The County originally adopted the"Comp Plan" in 1998. 6:50—7:00 Audience Introduction: Issues of Interest and Concern What are your areas of interest and concern in this process? There will also be opportunities to ask questions and make informal comments during each of the four"Topic"sessions outlined below. 7:00—7:10 Topic: Population (Kyle Alm, DCD) Jefferson County adopted a resolution in 2003 that updates population projections and planning allocations through the year 2025. These figures have been used for drafting the updated Capital Facilities and Transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 7:10—7:20 Topic: Capital Facilities (Allen Sartin, Central Services) budget information and The 2004 Update includes updated capital bud p p level of service (LOS) standards for public capital facilities—such as community centers and County administration buildings. 1 7:20—7:35 Topic: Transportation (Jim Pearson, Public Works) The 2004 Update includes updated traffic volume information and LOS standards. 7:35—7:55 Topic: Critical Areas (Dave Christensen, Natural Resources) The Unified Development Code (UDC) includes protections for "critical areas," a term of art in the GMA that involves environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas. The GMA was amended in the late 1990s to include the requirement that local jurisdictions consider"best available science" (BAS) when establishing protection measures for critical areas. [See Part Nine of Chapter 365-195 WAC.] Jefferson County considered BAS during the review and adoption process for the UDC in the year 2000. 7:55-8:00 or so Wrap-Up Any final questions or comments? For more information, please visit our web pages. The following sites are listed beginning with the most general and ending with the most specific. Jefferson County—the "Home Page"for the County http://www.co.Jefferson.wa.us Department of Community Development — everything related to building permits & development review http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Long-Range Planning—everything for land use planning & policy development, with a section for the Planning Commission http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/LRP.htm 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle—specific to the review process for the whole "Docket," including the "2004 Update" and other items (e.g., proposals related to the Airport and Agricultural Lands) http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004%20Comprehensive%20Plan %20Amendment%20Cycle.htm 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review — where you can find background information and documents related to the mandated "2004 Update" of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, as well as the Planning Commission five-year assessment of the Comp Plan http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004 update&C Preview.htm •Page 2 9/7/04 2004 Update: Roundtable Workshop Agenda a � � �f x n :t .. •5, ax I, - "'3, S" Irv' , $ z . ' ��..` ( , `.� Y�41 51219 ' ` 1° t' S12:?1'�= z a. a,1` ..rV ' I "� �I X4"`4"s i'� s3 ro k.14 '-)e:' 11"Ondaoe R0.1d = LOS-E ) ; !1'; ;�"- r s i � !' Los-c ���II 3 1 ip0117:4414:,-;:.1.% ��' ♦-�`'� � �` !"'�� 4,250 ADT 16,000ADT $ ;; i1� z' I g t z t l -"� x,��_ 4.01-,,,,-; ::„.',:::11 I` r SR 116 r ;S R 116 .r.� rr .Sf,`�i`, r 1 w•�-1' r ,1?`.. y- - LOS-C ` � �r '-1ti�. ,� ; �• ,,: LOS-B ADT 7,100 ADT —r � 4�` Ct►imacum Road ;� ).. . I - Y �'°- [ i ce 15101 j ; ' a r. SLOADT R r 11,00 ADT � 4 SR 20 ",� R I Center Road LOS-C � , - - !� 9 — / . LOS-B T)r{ ,.t., sc,...,,,,,i,,,:.,:::•,-...-,:,::.1,:-,.;,•,.1,,--!,,,,I4 ii„„ts.,-:-.:„.:_-,„,..,,,,,,1,0„,r,,,,,,..1,,,,A,,,,,r.1:561:44-11,-it:-..,,,,„6.,,,,„„ii.-r.„.„-4.7, 4,400 ADT )1 -' �' 2,946 ADT SRl04 0 ^4 ` , Co s ' : .=z- LOS-C 6 '. 7,700 ADT 1 �� �� .� ' S1Z 19A j LOS-E r �° ' ,i, `'_ �• � 6,200 ADT R1, `�� ` 3 1 SR r £ fir a Clellu Gou � oa �� la oo,i �j\ ` . S Jetteirson County; 3.f t ~ y r., 1.'" '" a Center Road ;v ' >, ' LOS-B L Ai; 1 a`,c " 2,385 ADT "' �.: J '' .` , ; --' 1 .' F ,..` ,,, �.� t W y''t � 'R 1��-1. gv a7 - ( -11--a. ; � -� LOS-D v 11 l a 17,00 ADT ti.l I 111 - ''t A tu(. 9 e Loyd vY,,' ,'�'yt 4 LOS-C -- i' C count 3,000 ADT �� :� ��' ' ---'1 '--- i iitSS*.i,i5P�— �� �' sg•\.‘,„ . .. -,,,, . ., ..Y $+p� .� yr' :,• �h _, � aa � Figure 10-6 Jefferson County Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS Table 10-1 Level of Service Definitions-Roadways Level of Service Category Definition Level of Service A Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal. Level of Service B Represents reasonably unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tensions. Level of Service C In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream, and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. Level of Service D Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. Level of Service E Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns. Level of Service F Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations, and operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves which are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more,then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Source: Transportation Research Board,Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Frequently Asked Questions Regarding GMA Updates Information regarding the GMA Update requirement for local governments is provided in three technical bulletins produced by the Office of Community Development's (OCD)Growth Management Services program. These bulletins are available by calling(360)725-3000 or at www.ocd.wa.gov/growth. In addition to the information provided in the technical bulletins,the following is additional information in response to frequently asked questions regarding the GMA Update process and the requirement to update urban growth areas(UGAs). What are the requirements for jurisdictions to update their comprehensive plans and development regulations under the Growth Management Act(GMA)? For counties and cities not planning under RCW 36.70A.040(i.e.,planning for critical areas and natural resources only): Action Deadline Take legislative action to review, and if needed, At seven-year intervals according to the revise policies and development regulations time schedule in RCW 36.70A.130(4). regarding critical areas and natural resource lands RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) to ensure they comply with the GMA's requirements. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) For counties and cities planning under RCW 36.70A.040: Action Deadline Take legislative action to review, and if needed, At 7-year intervals according to the time revise comprehensive plan and development schedule in RCW 36.70A.130(4). regulations(including those addressing critical RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) areas and natural resource lands)to ensure they comply with the GMA's requirements. RCW 36.70A.130(1Xa) Review designated UGA boundaries,densities, At least every 10 years. and patterns of urban growth, and revise the May be combined with update required boundaries and permitted densities as needed to under RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a). accommodate the urban growth projected in the May be combined with review and county for the succeeding 20 years.RCW 36.70A.130(3) evaluation required under RCW 36.70A.215. RCW 36.70A.130 Specified counties and cities must establish a Data evaluation every five years,with review and evaluation program to determine the the first evaluation not later than quantity and type of land suitable for development September 1,2002. RCW 36.70A.215(2)(b) (i.e.,buildable lands). RCW 36.70A.215(2)(a) S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 1 of 6 May a county or city update its comprehensive plan before its plan update deadline? Yes, a county or city may update its comprehensive plan and development regulations under RCW 36.70A.130 before the statutory deadline. RCW 36.70A.130(5)(a) (added by SSB 5841) explicitly provides for this: Nothing in this section precludes a county or city from conducting the review and evaluation required by this section before the time limits established in subsection (4)of this section. Counties and cities may begin this process early and may be eligible for grants from the department, subject to available funding, if they elect to do so. Special provision for counties and cities subject to the first statutory deadline. Those counties and cities subject to the first deadline,December 1,2004, are covered by a special provision in RCW 36.70A.130(6) (added by SSB 5841). To qualify under this special provision,these counties or cities must satisfy two criteria: (1) The county or city must have adopted an ordinance establishing a schedule for periodic review of its comprehensive plan and development regulations; and (2) Pursuant to the schedule in that adopted ordinance,the county or city must have conducted a review and evaluation of its comprehensive plan and development regulations and taken legislative action in response to that review and evaluation on or after January 1, 2001. If these criteria are met,the review and evaluation constitute the 2004 update, and no subsequent review and evaluation is necessary prior to December 1, 2004. The next review and evaluation will be due seven years later, in 2011. The affected counties are Clallam,Clark,Jefferson,King, Kitsap,Pierce, Snohomish,Thurston, and Whatcom and the cities within those counties. If a county or city updates its comprehensive plan before the prescribed statutory deadline, is the new deadline calculated from the statutory deadline or from date when the first update was completed? Even if the county or city completes its GMA update before the deadline,the subsequent seven- year deadline should be calculated using the initial statutory deadlines set out in RCW 36.70A.130(4),as follows: Counties Deadlines Clallam, Clark,Jefferson, King, Kitsap,Pierce, Snohomish, 2004,2011, 2018, 2025, etc. Thurston, Whatcom Cowlitz, Island, Lewis,Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania 2005,2012,2019, 2026,etc. Benton, Chelan, Douglas,Grant,Kittitas, Spokane,Yakima 2006,2013, 2020, 2027,etc. Adams, Asotin, Columbia,Ferry,Franklin, Garfield, Grays 2007,2014, 2021, 2028, etc. Harbor, Klickitat,Lincoln, Okanogan,Pacific,Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum,Walla Walla,Whitman S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 2 of 6 What is the effect if a jurisdiction does not meet its initial statutory deadline? If a jurisdiction's initial review and update is not completed by the deadline specified in RCW 36.70A.130(4), it would be listed in the OCD database as not in compliance with the GMA Update requirement and would be vulnerable to a"failure to act"determination by the growth management hearings board. It would also be subject to the provisions of RCW 43.155.070(2) and not eligible to apply for funding from the Public Works Trust Fund,and subject to RCW 70.146.070(2)and not eligible to receive funding from the Centennial Clean Water Fund. Other state funding agencies also would consider its non-compliance status in making decisions on whether to provide funding to that jurisdiction. It should be pointed out that"failure to act"appeals to the growth management hearings boards are open-ended; they may come at any time following the statutory deadline. However,if the jurisdiction's legislative body takes action prior to the deadline to review and update its plan and development regulations,that action is presumed valid and any challenge to that action must come within 60 days after the action has been taken. (RCW 36.70A.290) Should the legislative action required in RCW 36.70A.130 be adopted by ordinance or resolution? No particular form of legislative action is specified; however, it would be prudent for the legislative action to be taken by ordinance because of its permanent character. More information is available from the Municipal Research and Service Center(MRSC)Web site (www.mrsc.org), from which the following information was taken: Generally,ministerial and administrative acts may be exercised by resolution. [State ex rel. Morrison v. Seattle,6 Wn.App. 181,492 P.2d 1078 (1971).] Legislative acts,however,it has been suggested, should be made by ordinance. ["Ordinances,Resolutions and Motions: When to Use Which-How to Adopt Personnel Policies,"by James K.Pharris, Senior Assistant Attorney General,and Robert J.Fallis,Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington. WSAMA Proceedings,November 8-9, 1985,pp. 155- 168.] What is a"legislative"action? The general guiding principle is that"[a]ctions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are usually regarded as legislative,and those providing for subjects of a temporary and special character are regarded as administrative." [Durocher v. King County,80 Wn.2d 139, 153, 492 P.2d 547 (1972).] Are new cities that have recently adopted their first comprehensive plan and development regulations required to review and update by the deadlines in RCW 36.70A.130? What about other cities or counties that only recently adopted their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations as required by the GMA? While RCW 36.70A.130 is not clear on this question,we recommend that all jurisdictions take specific legislative action to review and,if necessary,update their plan and development regulations,regardless of how recently the original plan and development regulations were adopted. As mentioned in response to the previous question, this action would be presumed valid and must be challenged within 60 days after the action has been taken. If the city or county S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 3 of 6 does not take legislative action to complete its review and update,it could be subject to a"failure to act"appeal before the growth management hearings boards at any time after the deadline has passed. There may be an exception to this recommendation for those counties and cities subject to the first review and update deadline, December 1, 2004. The review and update for these jurisdictions are covered by a special provision in RCW 36.70A.130(6) (this special provision is described in more detail above on page 2). If these cities or counties have adopted their first comprehensive plan and development regulations after January 1,2001, and have met the other criteria for this provision,the adoption of the plan and development regulations may constitute the December 1,2004 update. May a county update its UGA before its UGA evaluation deadline? Yes. RCW 36.70A.130(3)requires counties and cities to review densities and patterns of urban growth in UGAs and revise their comprehensive plans as needed to accommodate the urban growth projected in the county for the succeeding 20-year period. This review and revision must be undertaken"at least every ten years." RCW 36.70A.130(3) (Emphasis added). This requirement sets an outside time limit for the update; there is nothing in the statute that prevents a county from updating its UGA before ten years has elapsed. May the deadlines for comprehensive plans and UGAs be combined? Yes. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a)explicitly allows the review and revision of comprehensive plans under RCW 36.70A.130(1)to be combined with the review and revision of UGAs under RCW 36.70A.130(3). The most direct way to combine these two update requirements is to do them at the same time. There also are procedural and logical reasons to combine the two update requirements. For example, RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a)and(3)both require a review and update of adopted comprehensive plans,and both subsections require the review and evaluation to consider the population growth projected for the county or city. Do the two deadlines have to be combined? No, the language in RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) is permissive,not mandatory. Who has to review UGAs? Is it only counties? Both cities and counties have review obligations under RCW 36.70A.130(3)that are to be done concurrently and cooperatively. Counties. At least every ten years, each county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 must review each designated UGA and the densities permitted in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of each UGA. Based on that review and on the concurrent review by the cities in the county, the county must amend its comprehensive plan by revising UGA boundaries and the densities permitted in the UGAs as needed to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the next 20 years. RCW 36.70A.130(3) S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 4 of 6 Cities. Technically,cities do not review UGAs,because the county designates UGA boundaries. (See RCW 36.70A.110). However,because the size of a UGA depends in part on permitted densities in both incorporated and unincorporated portions of the UGA, adjustments to permitted densities in cities must be considered in determining whether to adjust UGA boundaries. RCW 36.70A.130(3)therefore specifically requires cities to take certain actions to participate in the UGA review process. In conjunction with the county's review,each city in a UGA must review the densities it permits and determine the extent to which urban growth in the county has located in the city and in the unincorporated UGA. Based on that review and determination and on the concurrent review by the county,each city must amend its comprehensive plan by revising the densities permitted in the city as needed to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the next 20 years. RCW 36.70A.130(3) [Note: Even though RCW 36.70A.130(3)requires only the review and updating of comprehensive plans, it is important to recall that any revision of a comprehensive plan to change permitted densities cannot be enforced until that change is implemented in development regulations. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873-74, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997).] Is the deadline for UGA review the ten-year anniversary date of the adoption of the county's plan? Yes, if the final UGA is not challenged in a petition for review to a growth management hearings board. RCW 36.70A.130(3)requires the review of UGAs"at least every ten years,"but it does not specify the starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline. No growth management hearings board decision has attempted to clarify the deadline. Since the provision sets a period of time, rather than a specific date, the logical interpretation is that the ten-year deadline begins to run when a final UGA is adopted as part of a comprehensive plan. If the final UGA is not challenged in a petition to a board,the date of adoption should be considered the starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline. If, on the other hand, a final UGA is challenged in a petition to a growth management hearings board,the starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline may be reset depending on the outcome of review by the board. Where the board has invalidated a comprehensive plan provision or development regulation affecting UGAs,the starting date for calculating the ten- year deadline period should begin to run when the board files its order lifting invalidity in response to actions taken by the county.' The starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline should be reset to the date of the board's order lifting invalidity even where the board's determination of invalidity is appealed in court. Under the Administrative Procedure Act,the reviewing court generally may not make the ultimate determination in place of the board. RCW 34.05.574(1) Rather,the court generally is required to remand the matter to the board for further proceedings consistent with the reviewing court's order. S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 5 of 6 Are cities obligated to review their UGAs within ten years of adoption of their plan? No, the ten-year deadline in RCW 36.70A.130(3)references counties,not cities. Counties ultimately are responsible for reviewing and updating UGAs,so RCW 36.70A.130(3)references counties when setting the ten-year deadline: "Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review,at least every ten years, its designated urban growth area or areas. . ."(emphasis added). However, cities are obligated to participate in the UGA review and update undertaken by counties according to the ten-year deadline imposed on counties. Since the county is ultimately charged with reviewing and updating the UGAs,the deadline for UGA review and update should be tied to the adoption of the county's comprehensive plan. How do county-wide planning policies affect the process for designating and reviewing UGAs? County-wide planning policies can define the process for designating and evaluating UGAs,but they cannot change the deadline for this process,nor can they change the substantive obligations imposed on counties and cities under RCW 36.70A.110. If county-wide planning policies do not allow counties and cities to take the actions required under RCW 36.70A.130 according to the schedules set therein,the county-wide policies must be amended accordingly. See King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 138 Wn.2d 161, 176,979 P.2d 374 (1999). If a jurisdiction has not yet included the best available science in its critical areas ordinance as required by RCW 36.70A.172,must that be done before the statutory deadline for its review and update established in RCW 36.70A.130? No. If a local government wants to comply with GMA, it should be sure its existing critical areas ordinance includes the best available science,regardless of the deadlines in RCW 36.70A.130. However,there is no action-forcing requirement that requires an update until those deadlines,therefore, if a local government wants to put off compliance as long as possible, it may wait until the applicable deadline in RCW 36.70A.130. Please note,though,that a critical areas ordinance that is badly out of date may become unenforceable. See Honesty in Environmental Analysis and Legislation v. City of Seattle,96 Wn. App. 522, 533-34, 979 P.2d 864 (1999). S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 6 of 6 6%k F r FORK,' 2' 3 /-c) ��,. Y STATE OF WASHINGTON W CY USE ONLY" •Al 9-1A," ut E'''''''''q:''''N(1 tC fiVTI T+NO ©R GAA"t TH N10. INVOICE VOUCHER 103 SO4-62600-040 ''rs:,3x„ r .. #;. ° ‘. .:;._= .'s 9.,; �,.:.g' �.�,'; %#," f t ,€- 40���-..,� # "� - � :<' '� x..r:,'''� 4, �'l Department of Community,Trade&Economic Development 11 In Nye absence of a detailed invoice,submit this form to claim payment for Growth Management Services materials,merchandise or services. Show complete detail for each item. Post Office Box 42525 Olympia,Washington"985©42525: ", Vendor's Certificate: ATTN:Keith Maw I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and totals listed herein are proper charges for materials,merchandise or services furnished to the , ;, __ f(tAiOrrattt iS to b05 State of Washington,and that all goods furnished and/or services rendered have Jefferson County been provided witho . .crimination because of age,sex,marital status,race, 621 Sheridan Street c r e e d,c o l o r,nati.t it•andicap,religion,or Vietnam era or disabled ah.Port Townsend,Washington 98368 vetera"'status. ATTN:Al Scalf 001% : 'nk) A tEC,TOZ.. of 693401 1)F--1/ 8 t of, (Title) (Date) FEDERAL I.D.NO.OR SOCIAL SECURITY NO. RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED 91-6001322 �I w' r 'z .tx s �� S� `V�t P mo Third Payment GMS 04 Update Grant $17,500 ClOitb )°. PREPARED BY(Fiscal) DATE DIVISION APPROVAL DATE DOC DATE CURRENT DOC NO REF DOC NO VENDOR NUMBER VENDOR MESSAGE: M GMA Update Grant SUB TRANS 0 APPN PROGRAM SUB SUB INVOICE GENERAL SUF CODE D FUND INDEX INDEX OBJ OBJ CNTY CITY PROJECT AMOUNT NUMBER LEDGER 001 012 62600 NZ 0040 6058 $17,500 SO4-62600-040 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT BY FISCAL DATE WARRANT TOTAL $17,500 Approved CTED Form A19-1A (10/15/95) 1 ,.• • ,. 4.-, ♦� discuss. N or Transportation ounty staff will be - fundS, growth present from the Department of primary topics Community Development, �/ Central Services, Public PENINSULA a DAILY NEws '11`'1`"7 Works and Natural PORT HADLOCK—Jeffer- Resources to discuss son County residents can take issues, answer questions part in a roundtable discussion and hear • fOrTlla1 of the county comprehensive plan Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. in comments. the Spruce Room at Washing- ton State University Learning Center,201 Patison St., nel migration' zones and 1 Under state law,the county wildlife core habitat areas and must review its comprehensive corridors will also be available. F` plan and development regula- These are new maps from tions by Dec. 1 to see if they studies developed over" the need revision. _ past few years. "The primary topics we'll be A week later,on Sept. 15;at discussing at the'public Work- 6:30 p.m,,, also in the. ce shop will include"planning,Tir t Room At+the WBU ,'the capital facilities and trans- county Planning'rCenir[iission Aortatian, accommodating will hold another public work- expected population growth, shop to discuss its five-year and protecting environmen- assessment for the compre-—; tally critical areas' said Josh hensive plan and corr.espond-, Peters, _long-range planner ing proposal for amending the with the county Department of plan. Community Development. "This is a great opportunity Opportunity for public. for the public to come and talk with county staff members This will be an opportunity,.' about these important areas. for the public to ask questions"; "We'll be available to and offer informal comment answer questions,and to hear on these issues before the for-' ' comments from citizens that mal public comment"period is'; will help us in making recom- initiated later this month mendations to the Planning The session will be in tan- '; Commission and Board of dem with the release of a staff County Commissioners," report on all of the items on'1 Peters said. this year's comprehensive County staff will be present plan amendment docket. from the Department of Com- The public review proposal munity Development, Central will be posted on the Jefferson Services, Public Works and County Web site at www.co., Natural Resources to discuss jefferson.wa.us in anticipation issues, answer questions and of the public workshop on hear informal comments. " Sept. 15. ; Preliminary information The Planning Commission will be available indicating is expected to hold a formal ' planned levels of service for public hearing on its proposals,; public capital facilities--such and other 'docket items on as community centers and Oct.6. county administration build- For more information,con ings and for area roads and tact Peters at 360-379-4466 or highways. via e-mail at jpetera@a Draft maps=showing char- cajefferson.wa.us. chef of crepe , y Theatre and Restaurant. ' "West Coast Live"is broad- crawly cuisine cast live via,satellite to San Francisco before being sent to cooks In PT audiences around the world. Tickets for the live radio PORT TOWNSEND— broadcast are$12 in advance Chef David George Gordon, and$15 at the door.Children 12 and younger pay$5. cooker of creepy,crawly cui- Film festival pass holders sine,returns to the Farmers Market on Saturday. may purchase tickets for$10. Demonstrations are ached- Tickets may be obtained by calling"West Coast Live" tiled for 11 a.m.and-1 p.m. at the performance stage on voice mail,415-664-9500,or at Tyler Street between the Port Townsend Film Festi- Lawrence and Clay streets. office,211 Taylor St., Suite 16. Gordon is the author of Eat-a-.Bug Cookbook,a collet- "West Coast Live"is broad- tion of 33 recipes for cooking cast on KUOW2. People can with grasshoppers,crickets, also listen via the Internet at dragonflies,scorpions and www.kuow.org. their kin. Water lab closed He has given cooking PORT ANGELES—Clal- demonstrations in 26 states and Canada. lam County Environmental Gordon has appeared at the Health Division has temporar- Smithsonian Institution, ily closed its water-testing lab- American Museum of Natural oratory because the employee History and Singapore's Food staffing the position resigned Festival 2003. with little notice. During his Farmers Market County Health Officer Dr. demonstration,Chef Gordon Tom Locke said a state-certi- will prepare an assortment of fied lab technician would have dishes from the cookbook,in to be recruited and hired,and addition to unveiling a few he expected that could take at new delicacies,including bat- least a month. tered and deep-fried tarantula Because the position is spiders. vacant,the county cannot accept well-water samples for i11n fest on NPR testing. PORT TOWNSEND—The State-accredited labs are Port Townsend Film Festival listed in the phone directory, and county o will be featured on National officials are direct Public Radio,during a two- ing those needing their drink- hour airing of"West Coast ing water tested to those labs. Live," Environmental Health, on Sept.25. The fifth annual film festi- part of county Health and val runs Sept.24-26. Human Services,has arranged for the closest lab,TWISS of Headliners from the film o,to pick up samples festival,including Jane Pow- Tuesdays ell,will be interviewed by Tuesd at the county court- "West Coast Live"host Sedge house,223 E.Fourth St. Thomson from the Upstage TURN TO BRIEFLY/A9 3 Payment $69 Home • t $210 000 tr Q E� Call Jack 4V» 681.2026 Divorce Recovery and Personal Growth Seminar -- •,o; ,-tt)n ' • c).. - ounty to —ost comp -plan roundta e : . 'iA roundtal%e dismission has ,awl protec4ng.environnontallY nity.centers and comer..admire The Igellning connnindOn is n slated to •' gm the critical areas,"said Josh Peters, istration buildings and:for.:-exPected to .approve'a public ptncess of reviewing and, if.. long range planner for the area roads and highways.Draft reVietv':draft of its criaprehen- needed, revising the Jefferson comity Department' ' of maps showing channel - sive plan amendment propoial nty.Comprehet ve'Plan. Community Development. Lion zones :and wildlife core at its-' ting this Wednesday, Residents are invited to join This'is a great opportunity habitat corridors will also be Sept. 1.The public review'pro- .a at6:30 p.m.Tuesday,Sept.7 in for the public to and talk, available. point will be posted on the • the duce,Rome et`WSu in with county'staff members A.:week.later, at 6:36,Nu. Jeff tint. County tC websi at nld`'.Business'Path. in Port about tlese .Important areas,"'. Wednesday, Sept 1S, also in '1 nn.co efetson.wa. com- padlock- he said..;' the Spruce Room`at.WSU,the mdevelopMent in anticipation ,; ` Amendments to the plan,if County staff will be present county planning commission: of the public workshop on any, Are to;be completed in from the Department:. "of, hosts another public.'wo kst Sept..'15 ..The planning c r s<. Dece'mber. Community Development, to discuss its five-year assess-;. inisaionis expected to hold a "Tue ..pnmary, .tppi.cs• we'll Central Services,Public Works meat for the.comprehensive formal *Mk'imc hearing on its ... be discussing..at.;;die public and Natural' Resources. plan and corresponding pro- proposal and other docket. workshop;will include e,pleat- Preliminary information will posal for amending the.:plan on Oct.6.: ti.. ning for capital fa ties".and be available indicadng.planned This will be an opportwuty for Por more.information transportation,a�+ ting .: levels of service for public-cap- the public to ask questions'..and tact:-:Peters at 379-4466. or' • expected population=growth, °vital facilities—such as comma. offer comment on these issues:.. jpeteae@c .jefferson:wa:us: f r: *a it l Leader � � 9 A `8^+ k'i B,2R; Espinoza . ;I7•t white ribbon, 'B d.b#16,10.#0l,aiiiR' }t 4R;tea Evans 4k;Joanna .R-red ribbon,cam , ;' nl- l3 4 R;Judy Harder 3R,JJ.. Frans;Adult:David Abshireg 1'B,- ► ribbon,!IMO!**gol i 1B; S> t Ain 3S 1Rr Irene Hifl 1B,:3R Christine Jamison 1•B, tR;Geneva Austin :R;Patti ^.1 Rt flAule!C 3R; ;Todd Jannaosch 1 R; 3R;Bobbi Bil 2B;2R;Ray. 1B.1R;.J�, 20;2R,ION; -Done0`Kimball 1B••3R;Robin Broders 29B 19R, 4W; Theresa t y is Jucyt '#4ennedy 1R, ;2W; Karen l ekenes'1 R;Shelia Ladder 1E, Chedoen 1W;Bozo DeLeo-1 B, 1117,- 'Madita`G gelk`>� K '' i tretyn�c . 34 Wendy Loa Oft•Susan Irene Denton 4B, 3R; Nancy ,.1 B; Sarah.--R 18; e�,'fit f 3RTodd Edgerton 1 B John Edwards 3B, la " ( 1W„J �Y:•BOS 'P :.Newm n .1R; Jean - . 2B,2R,2HON; , 113,i r ichman iR,iW;;I Evans 1W; 3ydtPY fiarlR Len f orttt<»2B,%1Fi;use 0Dorean Bonnie lost if3,2R;Teresa ; Caroline Fischer-3B, 1R; r ,I y; Mason lB, ;Kris der 3R, ,` Kitty Gibson.2B;Irene•Guti 1R; ••Whalen lB. 2B; Marge:'`Olsen, 1 W; Alva Karen McKenna"2R;�Phil Meariy , Joan`.Hendricks 1%,,--`3R; hand Show �:`. �; Scha IB;• J � 1W;, ‘iit,Joanne ir'phy3R;Lynn Johnson ;1,B; 'Chi Jones 1B; gold;,Marinas,Gitt 10; Ettleatte: Wilma 413,; S. usart:Zine Myers 4R;Carol°dee 1B,,2R;' Donetfe Kimball 1 B;Yee lamb 1 B: Hagerty 401d; Sarah H B;? 1f3,1R: Ruth Osborii 1 t;,Etic Page3R; SandyMelheim 1B;Catl'Namureell, Sasha•O'Meara,1it, `: Quilt<Blockt�A►dult Bobbi Larry,Poorboy 1 B,3R;,Darlene 2R;.Dick Owsley 1 B;Gl• Ricketts 1,R; lens Sharpe 1 Sydney'=,• '2R;Kathl„Johnson 't gr}e 4R;Art Bertsch 1 R; ' 1B, 1R; Dana Robe '2B; Dennis " Sherpa 1W;,A�ey' �i'10 ,113;HON;Judi.K 2R,1 W; 'Jai cfe°Rick 1B,3R,HON;Patti Schultz'3R;Lou Schwartz 3B;„Patti '• �l ale• Rooatattli By r1'8,*taco;Pat ,Shaw 2tR;Leslie Shively l R;Judy Shaw 3B,2R;Elmer Stanton 2R;1W; ',Curry 1 B;Brianne ;t Lena, 18;`+�t« ,5W: Sko i 1R;Robert Whitney 1 R; Rosie Taylor lS;3R;Jennifer Tepp• Stye-1S;' �.lR. M :.`Olson 1B, 1 A.1 W; . '. W nlnd lilt,3R; 1 R,2W;Dane'Tudh9pe=Li r 2B: . � do Sam O' Sandra Williams 4R;Nancy ,Lois Twelves 28B,4R,Jerry Williams 1S;Sydney 1B. Adult:L-ouise Afire 1 E3; in;'Shari Windle 1 R.. 1.B;Jean Wyman 2ft_•."1- R . - «a.., „• '... � 6 ..AL--- 11T: 1B Ina Slittit .4=7 611-7/01 fenkifid -tdale_ 10011(44,0 /Van - urs7n SA s -finr ea. allocec4ini fyr Cc mnteirc I'd g mots. -Foliate a - Res 55---o3 -77 ris g - . a 1/001/Z LS --� L . IS Q u r/ h %tcti►' PT G7 s4a. t55U�. ,uv . co/ up did ) AtiziA Pis ,_ huiv-ea(61 —aid /A/44/e oge,(Atax.k-eci - } .- i>ef- � 64- 2-0ett — cts-yhyrux4.2 a_ppieetno colful4i v1,04--esfsehida wv tZes cpcisfle. of can.4 sad-- ALIA — nib (d4 y . - (A3-47 -' Role 464- aft -tet! s area nor weeler .916-rrn&tick( t ?AC( L_os -61-sied 61xt- pet-6 eitve "-) ttia as-e riAlece-eol Erid-redew_d- 44*rvit (* coke/ plidet. LOS av . c hours : II -10 hmit relit- l itovviot _ "" "/` __ G- , _ ._ . enyolars_ Sf -- - r441-6 -bons- Sys - e -? q.,..q.,.. ar agieviliale ethrlIzalta: . . ,,ltit. 54.A 14'441 u r a -gym . t- /DV.,: - e4. *%, g un/l1841 - 6y -t%a -- ro?. itsas SA* -161)1),,s, t0-9 Latti4 road,. . ACA-ti‘ Are_.rta acir-ricA4 4,; SeAlk tfaIYACILISe &CAAJ. M5___.1 .. . 13r h t!'_ .�-s2.__ _ f l-4-. . re t. 1 L strit ewati godik duffs Aivetfieaate. . u,f155 CA4 Z. infl ' - 0'1 cid41 191)2- 40 fift,0486_ cepievrei*,_ liagod5 - mow. e m 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle Completion Schedule Month Date Day Time Place Item Aug 18 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC meeting; Discussion of PC CP Committee preliminary drafts 22 Sun 6:30 PM DCD PC Airport Committee mtg to review prelim staff rec 24 Tues Public Works receives Transportation work from consultants 24 Tues 1:00 PM BOCC PC Ag Lands Committee mtg &completion of rec for prelim proposal 25 Wed 1:00 PM DCD PC CP Committee mtg &completion of rec for prelim proposal 27 Fri Central Sery& Pub Wks capital facilities staff work due to DCD for integration into MLA04-28 package for mandatory 2004 Update MUM Yon 30 Mon 6:30 PM DCD PC Airport Committee mtg to continue review of prelim staff rec Sept 1 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC meeting: Discussion of PC CP Committee recommendation IM 6 Mon . Labor Day holiday BOCC regular agenda on Tues, Sep 7 Tues 6:30 PM WSU Roundtable workshop for public on GMA requirements for JeffCo review&amendment of CP& UDC (2004 Update) 15 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC meeting; Roundtable workshop for public on PC prelim proposal for CP amendments as result of PC 5-year CP assessment per UDC 20 Mon Pub request by 3:00 for Sept 22 notice 22 Wed Legal notice for Oct 6 PC hrg; Date of prelim proposal (MLA04-28); 60- day notice & SEPA determination Oct 6 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC public hearing &deliberation 20 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC deliberation Nov 3 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC deliberation& recommendation 9 Tues Nov 15 agenda req for presentation of PC rec 11 Thurs Veteran's Day holiday 15 Mon TBA BOCC PC recommendation presented to BOCC 16 Tues Nov 22 agenda req for resolution on 2004 Update 16 Tues Nov 22 consent agenda req for Nov 24 notice of Dec 6 public hrg 22 Mon TBA BOCC BOCC resolution (prior to Dec 1 deadline for 2004 Update) 22 Mon Consent agenda; Pub request by 3:00 for Nov 24 notice of Dec 6 hrg 24 Wed Legal notice for Dec 6 BOCC public hrg 25 Thurs Thanksgiving holiday. 26 Fri • Thanksgiving holiday - 29 Mon 5th Monday no regular BOCC.agenda • Dec 1 Wed Deadline for BOCC action (GMA), 2004 Update is part of 2004 Cycle 6 Mon TBA BOCC BOCC public hrg on proposal as noticed Nov 24 (optional) 7 Tues Dec 13 agenda req for draft ordinance adopting proposal 13 Mon TBA BOCC BOCC action (per:UDC); BOCC decision & ordinance adoption 13 Mon Pub request by 3:00 for Dec 15 notice of ordinance adoption 15 Wed Legal notice of ordinance adoption (could be Dec 22) Notes: Key dates are highlighted in light grey. Ag Lands=Agricultural Lands;BOCC=Board of County Commissioners,Chambers Central Sery=Dept.of Central Services;Comp Plan or CP=Comprehensive Plan;DCD=Dept.of Community Development GMA=Growth Management Act;hrg=hearing;MLA=Master Land Use Application,a file number;PC=Planning Commission prelim=preliminary;pub=publication;Pub Wks=Dept.of Public Works;rec=recommendation;req=request SEPA=State Environmental Policy Act;UDC=Unified Development Code;WSU=Washington State University Extension,Hadlock 8/23/2004 i Planner 's Update News that planners can use September 2004 Issue One Washington State Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development Growth Management Services 128 10th Avenue SW PO Box 42525 Olympia,Washington 98504-2525 www.cted.wa.gov/growth Greetings! I hope you have had an enjoyable summer here in the beautiful Pacific Northwest! As you enter what I'm sure will be a very busy autumn, I have quite a bit of information to share with you from Growth Management Services (GMS). In the past, I've sent these updates through occasional letters addressed to planning directors. I hope this new format is easier to read and you can quickly access the information that is most important to you and your city or county. It will be sent on a regular basis to the planning director and highest elected official in each jurisdiction. As always,please feel free to call me at (360) 725-3000 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Leonard Bauer, Managing Director Growth Management Services GMA Review and Update • For jurisdictions revising sions AND before the final legisla- critical areas ordinances to in- T ps fi r a ue ess �` Live action is taken under RCW Update Process 36.70A.130(1). elude best available science, include findings of fact identi- One hundred and seventeen cities • Ensure early and continuous pub- fying all sources of science and counties are working feverishly lic participation, including at least that are the basis of revisions, toward a deadline of Wednesday, one public hearing. It's especially and adequate supportive find- December 1, 2004, to review and, if important to provide the opportu- ings for any revisions that necessary, revise their comprehen- nity for public review and comment considered other non- sive plans and development regula- of all substantive changes made to scientific information. tions to ensure continued compli- a final ordinance or resolution— ance with the Growth Management even if that means scheduling an • Within ten days after final Act(GMA). This has been a chal- additional public hearing on the adoption, send final copies of lenging process for many jurisdic- changes. all revisions to comprehensive plans and development regu- tions and it's important to take all • Include findings of fact in adopt- lations, AND the final legisla- the necessary steps leading up to the ing ordinances that completely de- tive action completing the up- final legislative action to complete scribe the public participation,re- date,to CTED. This will en- it. Here are some important things view and revision processes you sure that the GMS database to remember as your jurisdiction have used, and declare specifically accurately reflects your com- completes this process: that the process has included all ap- pletion of the GMA update • Don't forget to send notice to plicable requirements of RCW requirement and your jurisdic- CTED at least 60 days prior to the 36.70A.130. tion remains eligible for all planned adoption date of any revi- state grants and loans. PAGE 2 PLANNER'S UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2004 2004 U date Grants-D Y+ u Amendment requests received after Fund or the Centennial Clean Need to Amend Your October 22 may not have adequate Water account, or to receive `©retract time for processing before Decem- preference for other grants and ber 1, 2004. loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.155.050. As the 2004 GMA Update dead- line 200 Update Grants Available Additionall jurisdictions that of December 1, 2004, ap- Y�J proaches,please take the time .. have not completed their GMA now to review the scope of work Update by the statutory deadline and deadline in your contract If your jurisdiction has a GMA would be vulnerable to a with CTED to ensure you will be Update deadline of December 1, potential"failure to act"petition able to complete the work on 2005, grant funding has been re- to a growth management time. Taking a few moments served at CTED to assist your up- hearings board. now may save problems later, as date work. Notification letters CTED will be unable to extend were mailed in June detailing If your city or county has made the timeline of the contract due these reserved amounts—but significant progress on its up- to the statutory deadline for GMS must receive a completed date, but is not able to take final GMA updates. Note that, in application from your jurisdiction legislative action to complete it most cases, the scope of work to create a contract and provide by your update deadline, it calls for draft documents to be the funding. would be prudent to demon- delivered to fulfill the contract strate good faith and progress to If you have not yet sent an appli- the public and potential peti- requirements. cation, or if you have a draft con- tioners. To do so, CTED rec- tract that has not been signed, ommends that,before the up- If it's possible your jurisdiction please contact your assigned GMS date deadline, your elected offi- isn't going to complete all work planner at(360) 725-3000. cials adopt a resolution that items in the contract scope of documents progress-to-date and work by December 1, we a schedule for completing the strongly recommend that you im- what Happens If Your update—then, of course,move mediately contact the GMS plan- Jurisdiction Doesn't Complete as quickly as possible to corn- ner assigned to review your juris- Fts GMA Update Before the plete the update according to dictions' update. (For GMS $tatuta t Peau"e, that schedule. g planner assignments,refer to our Web site at www.cted.wa.gov/ growth or call (360) 725-3000. CTED cannot waive or extend a jurisdiction's update deadline, Your GMS planner can suggest which is established by law in options for amending your con- RCW 36.70A.130(4). Only a city tract's scope of work to more ac- or county that has taken the final curately reflect your actual pro- legislative action required to gress and prospects for comple- complete its update may be con- tion. If you are contemplating sidered eligible to receive funds such an amendment,please send from the Public Works Trust us your revised scope of work no later than October 22, 2004. SEPTEMBER 2004 PLANNER'S UPDATE PAGE 3 Legislature Assigns Studies to CTED CTED is working on several studies assigned by the State Legislature in 2004. More information is available at www.cted.wa.gov/growth. Agriculture Lands Costs of Reporting Permitting Timelines SB 6488 requires a report on the designation of ag- HB 2811 amended local government requirements ricultural lands with long-term commercial signifi- for project permitting timelines and annual reporting cance in King, Chelan, Lewis, and Yakima coun- on each type of permit application. The bill applies ties. Contact: Betty Renkor at (360) 725-5035. only to buildable lands counties and cities within Annexation them over 20,000 population. The bill also requires CTED to provide a report on the projected costs as- A proviso in the adopted state supplemental budget sociated with the annual report requirement of the (ESHB 2459) calls for a study of annexation in the bill. CTED has sent an email survey to affected six"buildable lands" counties— Snohomish, King, counties and cities to gather information for that re- Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston, and Clark. Contact: port. Contact: Wendy Compton-Ring, (360) 725- Dahra Latham at (360) 725-5036. 3051. Expedited Review and click on plans and regulations Affordable by or contact David Andersen at Available (360) 725-3052. Design 'Shows The 2004 Washington State GMS Web site Housing Options Legislature authorized CTED to grant expedited review by state Updates CTED's Web page,Affordable by agencies of certain development Design, is part of a program regulations adopted or amended by Visit our GMS Web site at www. intended to further public local governments [R a cted.wa.gov/growth for lots of awareness of well-designed, helpful information on GMA affordable and higher density 36.70A.106(3)(b)]. If granted, Updates, specific planning topics, housing being developed within expedited review allows cities or and other assistance available from counties to adopt minor Washington's urban growth areas. development regulations in a CTED. We continue to work hard Under the GMA,the term shorter time period than 60 days. to upgrade and add to the "affordable housing" applies to Expedited review is intended for information available on the site, housing for all economic levels of amendments to development and encourage you to visit the community. regularly. Recent additions regulations in cases where state include a es on the CTED agencies typically would not p g While the GMA encourages the comment on the proposal and studies underway on agricultural creation of affordable housing lands designation and annexation, through innovative planning, many where, without expedited review, and the most recent update of our the standard state agency review p communities continue to search time period of 60 days would popular summary of the Growth for the right tools to achieve their needlessly delay the jurisdiction's Management Act and Related affordable housing goals. adoption process. For more Laws, 2004 Edition. information on expedited review, go to www.cted.wa.gov/growth, Please turn to page 4 scroll down to Program Functions, PAGE 4 PLANNER'S UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2004 Continued from page 3 `Affordable by Design'provides The paper discusses the Olympic Region, Poulsbo information and outstanding importance of providing for and examples of housing encouraging urban density of October 14, 2004 developments whose principles of development within UGAs under Island Lake County Park planning, design, and the GMA. It includes Community Center implementation can be applied in descriptions of various tools that 1087 NW Island Lake Road other communities. It is a good local governments can use to resource for local governments, achieve the GMA goals of Northwest Region, Mount land use planners, developers, encouraging development in Vernon planning commissions, elected urban areas and reducing sprawl. officials, citizens, and housing It also provides summaries of October 20, 2004 financiers, containing detailed pertinent decisions by the Central Best Western Cotton Tree Inn information on award-winning Puget Sound Growth 2401 Riverside Drive housing developments, best Management Hearings Board on practices, and publications on this topic. Southwest Region, affordable housing. We at GMS appreciate the many Vancouver Please also consider using the helpful comments that were Web site feature to submit received during the drafting of October 21, 2004 additional projects from your Vancouver City Hall p J Y this guidance paper, which 210 East 13th Street community that are outstanding improved the usefulness of the examples of well-designed document. housing. NOTE: All forums will be held Urban Residential Upcoming from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with Planning Forums lunch on your own. Density Guidance If you have any questions,please Paper Completed As part of our mission to provide contact Cynthia Ritchey at technical assistance to (360) 725-3000. GMS staff have been working jurisdictions implementing the with local governments on a GMA, CTED is pleased to invite guidance paper that addresses the you to the following four difficult issue of providing for planners' forums, co-sponsored urban levels of residential density with the Planning Association of throughout urban growth areas Washington and the American (UGAs). This paper is now Planning Association— available on the GMS Web site at Washington Chapter: www.cted.wa.gov/growth. While Eastern Region, Moses Lake the paper is intended primarily for Central Puget Sound jurisdictions, it may be helpful to any local October 13, 2004 government working on this issue. Best Western Hallmark Inn I-90 Exit 176 4�sTnrgop .� Oy STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128- 10"'Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 •Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 •(360) 725-4000 The Planning Association of Washington and The Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development Present A Short Course on Local Planning Sponsored by Jefferson County Tri-Area Community Center 6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. August 9, 2004 Chimacum,Washington Moderator: Ted Gage, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Services Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development (360)725-3049 tedgActed.wa.gov 7:00-7:15 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Ted Gage 7:15-8:15 THE LEGAL BASIS OF PLANNING IN WASHINGTON STATE Phil Olbrechts The statutory basis of planning in Washington State,Constitutional issues in land use planning,the Open Public Meetings Act,the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine,conflicts of interest,quasi-judicial and legislative functions of the planning commission,ex parte communications and how to deal with them,the conduct of meetings,the uses(and misuses) of email,and recent case law affecting land use planning. 8:15—8:45 UPDATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Laura Ditmer All counties in Washington State planning fully under the Growth Management Act are required to update their comprehensive plans. Kitsap County is well underway with its update process. This presentation will provide an overview of the Kitsap County approach. 8:45—9:00 BREAK 9:00—9:30 THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Deborah Johnson Thoughts on the role of the planning commission,and suggestions for building good working relationships among the planning commission, elected officials, and staff. 9:30— 10:00 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Everyone Presenters Phil A. Olbrechts Attorney at Law Ogden Murphy Wallace 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle,WA 98101-1686 (206)447-7000 polbrechts @omwlaw.com Laura Ditmer Planning Manager Kitsap County Department of Community Development 614 Division Street—MS 36 Port Orchard,WA 98366 (360) 337-4848 lditmer @co.kitsap.wa.us Deborah Johnson Senior Planner City of Lakewood 6000 Main Street S.W. Lakewood, WA 98499 (253) 983-7770 dj ohnson(a,c i.lakewood.wa.us scuvo JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 _.., ,� 360/379-4450.360/379-4451 Fax e http://www.cojefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Agenda Roundtable Workshop on the "2004 Update" Tuesday, September 7, 2004 6:30 PM,WSU Extension, Hadlock The following times are approximate. Topics may take more or less time than allotted here. 6:30—6:50 Introduction: 2004 Update & Participating County Staff (AI Scalf and Josh Peters, Dept of Community.Development- DCD) By December 1, 2004, Jefferson County is required to take legislative action to review, and if necessary, revise Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations to ensure compliance with the. State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70, as amended. The County originally adopted the"Comp Plan"in 1998. 6:50—7:00. Audience Introduction: Issues of Interest and Concern What are your areas of interest and concern in this process? There will also be opportunities to ask questions and make informal comments during each of the four"Topic"sessions outlined below. 7:00-7:10 Topic: Population (Kyle Alm,DCD) Jefferson County adopted a resolution in 2003 that updates population projections and planning allocations through-the year 2025. These figures have been used for drafting the updated Capital Facilities and Transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 7:10–7:20 Topic: Capital Facilities(Allen Sartin, Central Services) The 2004 Update includes updated capital budget information and level of service(LOS) standards for public capital facilities—such as community centers and County administration buildings. 1 7:20—7:35 Topic: Transportation (Jim Pearson, Public Works) Tht•2004 Update includes updated traffic volume inf standards: ormafion and LOS 7:35—7:55 Topic: Critical Areas (Dave Christensen,Natural Resources) The Unified Development Code(UDC) includes protections for "critical areas,"a term of art in the GMA that involves environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, geologically hazardous areas,critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas. The GMA was amended in the late 1990s to include the requirenient that local jurisdictions consider"best:available science" (BAS)when establishing protection measures for critical areas. [See Part Nine of Chapter 365-195 WAC.j Jefferson County considered BAS during the review and adoption process for the UDC in the year 2000. 7:55-8:00 or so Wrap-Up Any final questions or comments? For more information please visit our web pages. The following sites are listed beginning with the most general and ending with the most specific. Jefferson County—the"Home Page"for the County http:/lwvww.co.ieffersorrwa.us Department of Community Development- everything related to building permits & development review http://vvvwv.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Long-Range Planning-everything for land use planning & policy development, with a section for the Planning Commission http://www.co.Jefferson.waus/commdevelopment/LRPhtm 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle—specific pecfc to the review process for the whole "Docket," including the "2004 Update" and other items (e.g., proposals related to the Airport and Agricultural Lands) http:i .c ajefferson.wmus/commdevelopment/2004%20Cotnprehensive%20Plan %20Amendment%20Cycle:htm 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review - where you can find background information and documents related to the mandated "2004 Update" of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, as well as the Planning Commission five-year assessment of the Comp Plan http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004update&CPreview.htm •Page 2 2004 Update: Roundtable Workshop Agenda 9. ,cuv COt, JEFFERSON COUNTY $' , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1-3 r 621 Sheridan Street• Port Townsend •Washington 98368 i '4' 360/379-4450.360/379-4451 Fax ISGIQ http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Agenda Roundtable Workshop on the "2004 Update" Tuesday, September 7, 2004 6:30 PM,WSU Extension, Hadlock The following times are approximate. Topics may take more or less time than allotted here. 6:30–6:50 Introduction: 2004 Update & Participating County Staff (AI Scalf and Josh Peters, Dept. of Community Development— DCD) By December 1, 2004, Jefferson County is required to take legislative action to review, and if necessary, revise Comprehensive Plan policies .73. 674 and development regulations to ensure compliance with the State . Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70, as amended. The County originally adopted the"Comp Plan" in 1998. 6:50–7:00 Audience Introduction: Issues of Interest and Concern What are your areas of interest and concern in this process? There will also be opportunities to ask questions and make informal comments during each of the four"Topic"sessions outlined below. 7:00–7:10 Topic: Population (Kyle Alm, DCD) Q005. Jefferson County adopted a resolution in 2003 that updates population a projections and planning allocations through the year 2025. These figures have been used for drafting the updated Capital Facilities and Transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 7:10–7:20 Topic: Capital Facilities (Allen Sartin, Central Services) The 2004 Update includes updated capital budget information and level of service (LOS) standards for public capital facilities—such as community centers and County administration buildings. 1 7:20—7:35 Topic: Transportation (Jim Pearson, Public Works) The 2004 Update includes updated traffic volume information and LOS standards. 7:35—7:55 Topic: Critical Areas (Dave Christensen, Natural Resources) The Unified Development Code (UDC) includes protections for "critical areas," a term of art in the GMA that involves environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas. The GMA was amended in the late 1990s to include the requirement that local jurisdictions consider"best available science" (BAS) when establishing protection measures for critical areas. [See Part Nine of Chapter 365-195 WAC.] Jefferson County considered BAS during the review and adoption process for the UDC in the year 2000. 7:55—8:00 or so Wrap-Up Any final questions or comments? For more information, please visit our web pages. The following sites are listed beginning with the most general and ending with the most specific. Jefferson County—the "Home Page"for the County http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us Department of Community Development — everything related to building permits & development review hftp://www.cojefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Long-Range Planning— everything for land use planning & policy development,with a section for the Planning Commission http://vvww.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/LRP.htm 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle—specific to the review process for the whole "Docket," including the "2004 Update" and other items (e.g., proposals related to the Airport and Agricultural Lands) http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004%20Comprehensive%20Plan %20Amendment%20Cycle.htm 2004 Update & Comp Plan Review — where you can find background information and documents related to the mandated "2004 Update" of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, as well as the Planning Commission five-year assessment of the Comp Plan http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004update&CPreview,htm •Page 2 9/7/04 2004 Update: Roundtable Workshop Agenda 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle Completion Schedule Month Date Day Time Place Item Aug 18 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC meeting; Discussion of PC CP Committee preliminary drafts 22 Sun 6:30 PM DCD PC Airport Committee mtg to review prelim staff rec 24 Tues Public Works receives Transportation work from consultants 24 Tues 1:00 PM BOCC PC Ag Lands Committee mtg &completion of rec for prelim proposal 25 Wed 1:00 PM DCD PC CP Committee mtg & completion of rec for prelim proposal Central Sery&Pub Wks capital facilities staff work due to DCD for 27 Fri integration into MLA04-28 package for mandatory 2004 Update _y.�._ MI30_ Mon 5th Monday--n n:o o B B r:age 1111 nda 30 Mon 6:30 PM DCD PC Airport Committee mtg to continue review of prelim staff rec Sept 1 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC meeting: Discussion of PC CP Committee recommendation y holiday-- BOCC regular,agenda on Tu.es, Sept 7.. .. 7 Tues 6:30 PM WSU workshop public GMA quirements for JeffCo review&Roundtable amendment of for CP& UDC on (2004 re Update) 15 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC meeting; Roundtable workshop for public on PC prelim proposal for CP amendments as result of PC 5-year CP assessment per UDC 20 Mon Pub request by 3:00 for Sept 22 notice 22 Wed Legal notice for Oct 6 PC hrg; Date of prelim proposal (MLA04-28); 60- day notice & SEPA determination Oct 6 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC public hearing & deliberation 20 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC deliberation Nov 3 Wed 6:30 PM WSU PC deliberation & recommendation 9 Tues Nov 15 agenda req for presentation of PC rec :91 .f!.s ,.. Veteran's Day holiday . ,• . . 15 Mon TBA BOCC PC recommendation presented to BOCC 16 Tues Nov 22 agenda req for resolution on 2004 Update 16 Tues Nov 22 consent agenda req for Nov 24 notice of Dec 6 public hrg 22 Mon TBA BOCC BOCC resolution (prior to Dec 1 deadline for 2004 Update) 22 Mon Consent agenda, Pub request by 3:00 for Nov 24 notice of Dec 6 hrg 24 Wed Legal notice for Dec 6 BOCC public hrg 25 Thurs Thanksgiving holiday 26 Fri Thanksgiving holiday - 29 Mon Sth Monday--no regular, BO�C a enda.,,'.' . ��Dec 1 Wed Deadline for BOCC action (GMA); 2004 Update is part of 2004 Cycle 6 Mon TBA BOCC BOCC public hrg on proposal as noticed Nov 24 (optional) 7 Tues Dec 13 agenda req for draft ordinance adopting proposal 13 Mon TBA BOCC BOCC action (per UDC); BOCC decision & ordinance adoption 13 Mon Pub request by 3:00 for Dec 15 notice of ordinance adoption 15 Wed Legal notice of ordinance adoption (could be Dec 22) Notes: Key dates are highlighted in light grey. Ag Lands=Agricultural Lands;BOCC=Board of County Commissioners,Chambers Central Sery=Dept.of Central Services;Comp Plan or CP=Comprehensive Plan;DCD=Dept.of Community Development GMA=Growth Management Act;hrg=hearing;MLA=Master Land Use Application,a file number;PC=Planning Commission prelim=preliminary;pub=publication;Pub Wks=Dept.of Public Works;rec=recommendation;req=request SEPA=State Environmental Policy Act;UDC=Unified Development Code;WSU=Washington State University Extension,Hadlock 8/23/2004 Frequently Asked Questions Regarding GMA Updates Information regarding the GMA Update requirement for local governments is provided in three technical bulletins produced by the Office of Community Development's(OCD)Growth Management Services program. These bulletins are available by calling(360)725-3000 or at www.ocd.wa.gov/growth. In addition to the information provided in the technical bulletins,the following is additional information in response to frequently asked questions regarding the GMA Update process and the requirement to update urban growth areas(UGAs). What are the requirements for jurisdictions to update their comprehensive plans and development regulations under the Growth Management Act(GMA)? For counties and cities not planning under RCW 36.70A.040(i.e.,planning for critical areas and natural resources only): Action Deadline Take legislative action to review,and if needed, At seven-year intervals according to the revise policies and development regulations time schedule in RCW 36.70A.130(4). regarding critical areas and natural resource lands RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) to ensure they comply with the GMA's requirements. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) For counties and cities planning under RCW 36.70A.040: Action Deadline Take legislative action to review,and if needed, At 7-year intervals according to the time revise comprehensive plan and development schedule in RCW 36.70A.130(4). regulations(including those addressing critical RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) areas and natural resource lands)to ensure they comply with the GMA's requirements. RCW 36.70A.130(1Xa) Review designated UGA boundaries,densities, At least every 10 years. and patterns of urban growth, and revise the May be combined with update required boundaries and permitted densities as needed to under RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a). accommodate the urban growth projected in the May be combined with review and county for the succeeding 20 years.RCW 36.70A.130(3) evaluation required under RCW 36.70A.215. RCW 36.70A.130 Specified counties and cities must establish a Data evaluation every five years,with review and evaluation program to determine the the first evaluation not later than quantity and type of land suitable for development September 1, 2002. RCW 36.70A.215(2)(b) (i.e.,buildable lands). RCW 36.70A.215(2)(a) S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 1 of 6 r May a county or city update its comprehensive plan before its plan update deadline? Yes,a county or city may update its comprehensive plan and development regulations under RCW 36.70A.130 before the statutory deadline. RCW 36.70A.130(5)(a)(added by SSB 5841) explicitly provides for this: Nothing in this section precludes a county or city from conducting the review and evaluation required by this section before the time limits established in subsection (4)of this section. Counties and cities may begin this process early and may be eligible for grants from the department,subject to available funding,if they elect to do so. Special provision for counties and cities subject to the first statutory deadline. Those counties and cities subject to the first deadline, December 1,2004,are covered by a special provision in RCW 36.70A.130(6) (added by SSB 5841). To qualify under this special provision,these counties or cities must satisfy two criteria: (1) The county or city must have adopted an ordinance establishing a schedule for periodic review of its comprehensive plan and development regulations; and (2) Pursuant to the schedule in that adopted ordinance,the county or city must have conducted a review and evaluation of its comprehensive plan and development regulations and taken legislative action in response to that review and evaluation on or after January 1, 2001. If these criteria are met,the review and evaluation constitute the 2004 update, and no subsequent review and evaluation is necessary prior to December 1, 2004. The next review and evaluation will be due seven years later,in 2011. The affected counties are Clallam,Clark,Jefferson,King, Kitsap,Pierce, Snohomish,Thurston, and Whatcom and the cities within those counties. If a county or city updates its comprehensive plan before the prescribed statutory deadline, is the new deadline calculated from the statutory deadline or from date when the first update was completed? Even if the county or city completes its GMA update before the deadline,the subsequent seven- year deadline should be calculated using the initial statutory deadlines set out in RCW 36.70A.130(4), as follows: Counties Deadlines Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King,Kitsap,Pierce, Snohomish, 2004,2011, 2018, 2025, etc. Thurston, Whatcom Cowlitz, Island, Lewis,Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania 2005,2012, 2019, 2026,etc. Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant,Kittitas, Spokane,Yakima 2006,2013, 2020, 2027, etc. Adams, Asotin, Columbia,Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays 2007,2014,2021, 2028, etc. Harbor,Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan,Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whitman S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 2 of 6 P What is the effect if a jurisdiction does not meet its initial statutory deadline? If a jurisdiction's initial review and update is not completed by the deadline specified in RCW 36.70A.130(4),it would be listed in the OCD database as not in compliance with the GMA Update requirement and would be vulnerable to a"failure to act"determination by the growth management hearings board. It would also be subject to the provisions of RCW 43.155.070(2) and not eligible to apply for funding from the Public Works Trust Fund,and subject to RCW 70.146.070(2) and not eligible to receive funding from the Centennial CIean Water Fund. Other state funding agencies also would consider its non-compliance status in making decisions on whether to provide funding to that jurisdiction. It should be pointed out that"failure to act"appeals to the growth management hearings boards are open-ended;they may come at any time following the statutory deadline. However, if the jurisdiction's legislative body takes action prior to the deadline to review and update its plan and development regulations,that action is presumed valid and any challenge to that action must come within 60 days after the action has been taken. (RCW 36.70A.290) Should the legislative action required in RCW 36.70A.130 be adopted by ordinance or resolution? No particular form of legislative action is specified;however,it would be prudent for the legislative action to be taken by ordinance because of its permanent character. More information is available from the Municipal Research and Service Center(MRSC)Web site(www.mrsc.org), from which the following information was taken: Generally,ministerial and administrative acts may be exercised by resolution. [State ex rel. Morrison v. Seattle,6 Wn. App. 181,492 P.2d 1078 (1971).] Legislative acts,however,it has been suggested, should be made by ordinance. ["Ordinances,Resolutions and Motions: When to Use Which-How to Adopt Personnel Policies,"by James K. Pharris,Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Robert J. Fallis,Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington. WSAMA Proceedings,November 8-9, 1985,pp. 155- 168.] What is a"legislative"action? The general guiding principle is that"[a]ctions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are usually regarded as legislative, and those providing for subjects of a temporary and special character are regarded as administrative." [Durocher v. King County,80 Wn.2d 139, 153, 492 P.2d 547 (1972).] Are new cities that have recently adopted their first comprehensive plan and development regulations required to review and update by the deadlines in RCW 36.70A.130? What about other cities or counties that only recently adopted their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations as required by the GMA? While RCW 36.70A.130 is not clear on this question,we recommend that all jurisdictions take specific legislative action to review and, if necessary,update their plan and development regulations,regardless of how recently the original plan and development regulations were adopted. As mentioned in response to the previous question,this action would be presumed valid and must be challenged within 60 days after the action has been taken. If the city or county S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 3 of 6 does not take legislative action to complete its review and update, it could be subject to a"failure to act"appeal before the growth management hearings boards at any time after the deadline has passed. There may be an exception to this recommendation for those counties and cities subject to the first review and update deadline,December 1, 2004. The review and update for these jurisdictions are covered by a special provision in RCW 36.70A.130(6)(this special provision is described in more detail above on page 2). If these cities or counties have adopted their first comprehensive plan and development regulations after January 1,2001,and have met the other criteria for this provision,the adoption of the plan and development regulations may constitute the December 1,2004 update. May a county update its UGA before its UGA evaluation deadline? Yes. RCW 36.70A.130(3)requires counties and cities to review densities and patterns of urban growth in UGAs and revise their comprehensive plans as needed to accommodate the urban growth projected in the county for the succeeding 20-year period. This review and revision must be undertaken"at least every ten years." RCW 36.70A.130(3) (Emphasis added). This requirement sets an outside time limit for the update; there is nothing in the statute that prevents a county from updating its UGA before ten years has elapsed. May the deadlines for comprehensive plans and UGAs be combined? Yes. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a)explicitly allows the review and revision of comprehensive plans under RCW 36.70A.130(1)to be combined with the review and revision of UGAs under RCW 36.70A.130(3). The most direct way to combine these two update requirements is to do them at the same time. There also are procedural and logical reasons to combine the two update requirements. For example, RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a)and(3)both require a review and update of adopted comprehensive plans, and both subsections require the review and evaluation to consider the population growth projected for the county or city. Do the two deadlines have to be combined? No, the language in RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a)is permissive, not mandatory. Who has to review UGAs? Is it only counties? Both cities and counties have review obligations under RCW 36.70A.130(3)that are to be done concurrently and cooperatively. Counties. At least every ten years, each county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 must review each designated UGA and the densities permitted in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of each UGA. Based on that review and on the concurrent review by the cities in the county,the county must amend its comprehensive plan by revising UGA boundaries and the densities permitted in the UGAs as needed to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the next 20 years. RCW 36.70A.130(3) S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 4 of 6 Cities. Technically,cities do not review UGAs,because the county designates UGA boundaries. (See RCW 36.70A.110). However,because the size of a UGA depends in part on permitted densities in both incorporated and unincorporated portions of the UGA, adjustments to permitted densities in cities must be considered in determining whether to adjust UGA boundaries. RCW 36.70A.130(3)therefore specifically requires cities to take certain actions to participate in the UGA review process. In conjunction with the county's review,each city in a UGA must review the densities it permits and determine the extent to which urban growth in the county has located in the city and in the unincorporated UGA. Based on that review and determination and on the concurrent review by the county, each city must amend its comprehensive plan by revising the densities permitted in the city as needed to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the next 20 years. RCW 36.70A.130(3) [Note: Even though RCW 36.70A.130(3)requires only the review and updating of comprehensive plans, it is important to recall that any revision of a comprehensive plan to change permitted densities cannot be enforced until that change is implemented in development regulations. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873-74, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997).] Is the deadline for UGA review the ten-year anniversary date of the adoption of the county's plan? Yes, if the final UGA is not challenged in a petition for review to a growth management hearings board. RCW 36.70A.130(3)requires the review of UGAs "at least every ten years,"but it does not specify the starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline. No growth management hearings board decision has attempted to clarify the deadline. Since the provision sets a period of time, rather than a specific date,the logical interpretation is that the ten-year deadline begins to run when a final UGA is adopted as part of a comprehensive plan. If the final UGA is not challenged in a petition to a board,the date of adoption should be considered the starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline. If, on the other hand,a fmal UGA is challenged in a petition to a growth management hearings board,the starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline may be reset depending on the outcome of review by the board. Where the board has invalidated a comprehensive plan provision or development regulation affecting UGAs,the starting date for calculating the ten- year deadline period should begin to run when the board files its order lifting invalidity in response to actions taken by the county.' The starting date for calculating the ten-year deadline should be reset to the date of the board's order lifting invalidity even where the board's determination of invalidity is appealed in court. Under the Administrative Procedure Act,the reviewing court generally may not make the ultimate determination in place of the board. RCW 34.05.574(1) Rather,the court generally is required to remand the matter to the board for further proceedings consistent with the reviewing court's order. S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 5 of 6 Are cities obligated to review their UGAs within ten years of adoption of their plan? No, the ten-year deadline in RCW 36.70A.130(3)references counties,not cities. Counties ultimately are responsible for reviewing and updating UGAs,so RCW 36.70A.130(3)references counties when setting the ten-year deadline: "Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review,at least every ten years,its designated urban growth area or areas . . ." (emphasis added). However, cities are obligated to participate in the UGA review and update undertaken by counties according to the ten-year deadline imposed on counties. Since the county is ultimately charged with reviewing and updating the UGAs,the deadline for UGA review and update should be tied to the adoption of the county's comprehensive plan. How do county-wide planning policies affect the process for designating and reviewing UGAs? County-wide planning policies can define the process for designating and evaluating UGAs,but they cannot change the deadline for this process,nor can they change the substantive obligations imposed on counties and cities under RCW 36.70A.110. If county-wide planning policies do not allow counties and cities to take the actions required under RCW 36.70A.130 according to the schedules set therein,the county-wide policies must be amended accordingly. See King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 138 Wn.2d 161, 176, 979 P.2d 374(1999). If a jurisdiction has not yet included the best available science in its critical areas ordinance as required by RCW 36.70A.172,must that be done before the statutory deadline for its review and update established in RCW 36.70A.130? No. If a local government wants to comply with GMA, it should be sure its existing critical areas ordinance includes the best available science,regardless of the deadlines in RCW 36.70A.130. However,there is no action-forcing requirement that requires an update until those deadlines,therefore,if a local government wants to put off compliance as long as possible, it may wait until the applicable deadline in RCW 36.70A.130. Please note,though,that a critical areas ordinance that is badly out of date may become unenforceable. See Honesty in Environmental Analysis and Legislation v. City of Seattle, 96 Wn. App. 522, 533-34,979 P.2d 864 (1999). S:/GMU/2002 review tech assistance/FAQs re GMA Updates 9/5/02 Page 6 of 6 (12r61' Calf fel-6- t . teAti%&yv-/- 6,-lla — 6 0 6unrcn- - lyturi5r11- - Cul- 1- r#-8-k -t/ir- %/' cry'41 4f'4. — (es 0 rf. 0,{ kb DIA k41-5 reivteAAJeel - frovcd- yueed /0 ciwye OpemPli noracb erIc 61247) rife-P4 J A((pn ----7 &MH- doeg711/- rei 0-/- /I4 (ads .7 (041 cufovrk ) 5iptfASAge-45 fir Cert-cgy v 064 CapauY77 c). 4_121 i4km-elAutp d, s(Led-c t.vs4t Me- 9t/tiomaAa- b£-Z •moiaq uaniS st irsodoid gory sot uourpuaunuooar,ugis pug`MainaI guamuo`uouduosap lsrauaS v •gual I Suipaoard aqi qt m lualsisuoo pamainar aq lum uouru2isap Arµano lijol rot slssodord oMl aqi '((Z)g'6'9'£Dun)£661 `uouipg"Z`aolSuigseM tualsaM rot utals iS Suur2I PurnaM s<<(Soloog jo luauuredaU awls uolStr!gsrM aq3 Suisn pauiwralap are SauoSalgo purpaM u CZ AI OS III u 001 II OSI zppzAl.rafng pwpuv g e ,oBaw punpam •SPue13aM rot g phtt aattng PJrpug3S •b-£amyl, •spurpam rot tnplAt za nq prepurls agl satnpno spurpaM 6.9•£uouoaS DQIl mou b-£amyl u oc S acIAI 001 b adAi 11 001 £adAi uoSI Z Odkl, stpp:A1.raffng add,Z Iuna ug •stating aplsweaals prepuels `Z-£aiqu. •siattnq apistusaris prepusis saumno sluawannbajj pmpauls—siattng(S)21'8'9'£uouoasgns wort Z-£aigr,L •apo3 sup to pannbar asIMraglo se JO(uouogrixg Lamm) b uouoag ui sprepuuls aouruuotrad atggogddr aqq of lurnsmd mid uougurepar pus&tuna.'paliglap s Suipnpw `arid luauta8ruryS leRgH E JO IBAOlddg pug Mainal agl Sm tollot pamollr aq Arm It inq`slaedtui asranpg lugog1USis algr1ESUntu n sasngo 1i ti Pauiuuad aq lou tip li pug `srattnq Haiti JO SVI M3 uunpn pa2gmoosip si 2uiuitu Iangro .Sulu pA J (S)a'8'9'£ :Sunnw lang1S sassarppg,Cllgagiaads isgl uouoasgns sup seq 8.9•£uoiloag .cures to uouuogtssgp pure uoura2ISap all Suipnpui`ApAuoadsar `SPUEIIaM pu (sdjM3) ward ireigEH ati1P1!M pug gs13 ssarpPE 6'9'£ Pur 8'9'£ saouoas DQn «•sMgl lgrapat pug`alels`1s3ol glint i jduioo pus saouosid luawagrusuu isaq paldaoor Aluounuoo glint lualsisuoa are suoils -rado guns ti `suousrado Suissaoord pus uouosrixa wort Suisun suotwoosip JO saouai -uanuooul asotll aougsmu s aq Ol rapisaoo lou Ilim�(lun0D at1,I, •A3unoD atp w,tliligruenr aomOSar amsua of i(Tessaoau Si sauinuou Suissaoord pus uoiloguxa aomosar irraunu rot sauradord Isar tnguao to 0511 alp mitt pamuualap suit X3tmoJ uosraJJaf •suousln8ar pur smut Suusixa uguM aouguUOJUOO III are goi jM Saougrado Suissaoord pug uopouuxa to ilnsar r sr moon Anil paquosap saouaivanuoow agito crow JO auo•slonpord a3E2a.ISSs jo lesodsip pus amp agl pure `i(rauigosuI to uougrado alp `MMIows `3snp `swung `sropo Ignotuar aau`asiou Ol palms!!lou 3nq Stnpnput`SUOusrado guns wort Suisun suotwoosip JO saouaivanuootn of 330fgns aq i(sw nog( `("RINI) purl aomosag !mum sr paleuStsap Bare ug uiglIM 4iodord Isar to last (OOS) parpung ang utgliM si �(uadord Tsar mo,(tb, :smollot sr si luawalels amsopstp pannbar aUZ (Z) •pannbar aq lou Ilsgs samsopsip luanbasgns`inutad mud s rot papinord uaaq situ uouoas sup to saoisinord am 03 Suiwrotuoo amsolosip u ti`ranamof AL.,frotl-az . ax 0 JEFFERSON COUNTY 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 360/379-4450.360/379-4451 Fax iNe ° www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment To: Jefferson County 2004 Update Team -DCD, Public Works, Central Services, County Administrator From: Long-Range Planning CC: GMA file City of Port Townsend Building and Community Development Department Date: June 18, 2004 Re: Adoption of internal population estimates for the years 2006 —2009 for the purposes of capital facilities planning ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2005—2024 Annual population estimates are necessary tools for planning purposes, particularly with regard to capital facilities planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The State Official of Financial Management (OFM) offers periodically updated population projections by county for local jurisdiction GMA planning. Via Resolution 55-03 (attached), the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a set of population numbers for the years 2005 —2024 based on the OFM Intermediate Population Projection for Jefferson County. In formulating population estimates, OFM concentrates on five-year increments (e.g., 2005, 2010, 2015, etc.). Although OFM has reported estimated population figures for single years from 2010 through 2024, the Office has not developed and released numbers for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The County's 2004 Update Team discussed alternatives for establishing population estimates for 2006—2009 for planning purposes. After consulting with the Forecasting Division of OFM, the Update Team settled on a scenario under which the projected annual population increase increases annually by a constant number, based on the "bookend" OFM projections for the years 2005 and 2010. The "best fit" constant number is an additional five (5) persons per year added to the previous year's population increase, except for between the years 2009 and 2010, where an increase of four (4) persons to the projected population increase between 2008 and 2009 would result in reaching the OFM 2010 projected population of 30,892. 1 Based on the above, the County adopts the following annual population projections for the years 2006 —2009. YEAR I POPULATION 2006 28,815 2007 29,327 2008 29,844 2009 30,366 Refer to the attached spreadsheet dated June 1, 2004 for the full population projection for the years 2005 —2024, including the associated annual population increases. When OFM produces updated population forecasts and when GMA requires Jefferson County to revisit its adopted population numbers, a new Resolution on population will be put before the BOCC for adoption. Until that time, these figures are to be used for GMA planning purposes, including capital facilities planning. [End] •Page 2n Jefferson County Population Projections cc: Treu.s '1)CD y fb3 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE ) COUNTYWIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ) PLANNING POPULATION PROJECTION, 55-03 EXTENDING THE POPULATION PROJECTION ) RESOLUTION NO. TO ADDRESS THE PERIOD 2000-2024,AND ) ALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PROJECTED ) URBAN COMPONENT OF GROWTH TO PORT ) TOWNSEND,TRI-AREA AND PORT LUDLOW ) Section 1. Be It Resolved A. FINDINGS: 1. On December 21,1992 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners(BoCC)and the City of Port Townsend,Jefferson County's only incorporated city,adopted the Countywide Planning Policies(CPPs),as required by Section.210 of the Growth Management Act(GMA). 2. The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC)was established pursuant to the GMA,RCW 36.70A.210,as the collaborative process required by that statute to provide a framework for adoption of a county-wide planning policy. 3. The Jefferson County BoCCC adopted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan(the Plan)in 1998. The Plan reflected the JGMSC's recommended 1996-2016 forecast and the disaggregation of the forecast population between urban and rural areas,and it included specific allocations to the various urban areas within the county. The Plan adopted a population forecast of 39,936 for the year 2016. 4. CPP Policy 1.1 requires that the county work with Port Townsend to establish updated population forecasts and allocations. 5. Between February and April of 2003,consistent with direction contained in the CPP, county and city staff developed a proposed update to the countywide population forecast to address the period 2000 to 2024 and prepared suggested urban population allocations for Port Townsend,the Tri-Area,and Port Ludlow. 6. City of Port Townsend staff and the County worked cooperatively in recommending an update to the countywide population forecast and allocation for the period 2000 to 2024. This discussion culminated in an April 16,2003 consultant prepared recommendation entitled"Joint Population Forecast&Allocation—Update." RESOLUTION NO. 55-03 Page:2 7. The consultant prepared recommendation was adopted by the Port Townsend City Council as the city's position on updated population forecast and allocation through a unanimous 7-0 vote at their April 14,2003 meeting. 8. The BoCC voted to extend the adopted countywide population forecast to address the period 2000 through 2024. The recommended forecast,which falls within the acceptable Washington State Office of Finanacial Management range,concludes that the countywide population will grow an additional 13,840 during the period 2000 to 2024,to a county- wide population of 40,139. Table 1 summarizes the recommended update to the Countywide population forecast. 9. See Table below Summary Table 1: Updated Jefferson County Population Forecast-2000-2024 Year Populatbn Growth 2000 26,299 N/A 2024 40,139 13,840 Total Forecasted Growth 40,139 2000-2024 10. See Table below Summary Table 2: 2024 Population Projection&Allocation Summary* 2000 Population Asticipoted Pr.Jeded 2024 PereeNKe of C.ap,..d Gr.wt& Population Total Comely- Ammo!Growti, ) wile Growth Rate (2000.2024) Pot Townsend UGA 8,344 4,985 13,329 36% 1.97% ( /0 Tr4Ares VGA 2,553 2,353 4,906 17% 2.76% N fort Imam 1,430 2,353 3,783 17% 4.14% NPR UGAAQRToed 12,327 l,Nl 22,018 70% 2.45% u i esep.nwd Rural 0 13,972 4,149 18,121 30% 1.09% RwreesAras Tetaiie 26,299 13,840 40,139 100% 1.78% 'Sawoec 2000 U.S.Came and 2002 Wselpspo.SI M OFM Population Ferewl RESOLUTION NO. 55-03 Page:3 B. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The GMA requires cities and counties to determine by September 1,2004 whether sufficient suitable land(i.e.,urban and rural)is available to accommodate the projected population within OFM's new 20-year forecast range(RCW 37.A.215). 2. Jurisdictions are not precluded from updating population forecasts and plans,including UGA boundaries,in advance of the planning required by September 1,2004(RCW 3670A.130 and 36.70A.215). 3. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan directed the county to work cooperatively with the City of Port Townsend to establish updated population forecasts and urban/rural allocation. 4. The proposed allocations are reasonable and within the range of choices afforded to jurisdictions under the GMA. They will allow ongoing and extensive planning efforts to proceed pending adoption of a new 20-year population target consistent with OFM's new 2000-2024 range. NOW,THEREFORE,the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopts the following: 1: Adoption of Updated Countywide Population Forecast. Based on the concurrence of the City of Port Townsend,the recommended countywide population forecast of 40,139 for the period 2000-2024 and the urban/rural allocation detailed in Summary Table 2 above,are adopted as the GMA planning population target for Jefferson County. of "VNj 1 . ,...tred this day of September,2003. ., rJ s ' z '`` JEFFERSON COUNTY BO • 0 O'COMMISSIONERS •A'" , , •a o' /r_ — t- Dan Titterness, , ir, , " d 4( , .�-,..ter Lorna Delaney,Clerk of the Board tiMackey,Member JEFFERSON COUNTY ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2005-2024 Based on Washington State Office of Financial Management Projection for 2005 and 2010-2024 2005-2024 Population Population Increase YEAR Pro - ••n 2006-2024 2000 7.x- 2001 2002-�- 2003 2004- - 2005 ,; :,' 28,004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 - 31,5 6' 2012 32,142 6 2013 32,771 2014 . ,413- 2015 34 t7`,.. 2016 ... 34,748 61 2017 ,35,426 678 2018 36,108 6,;2 2019 36,794 686 2020 37,483 .689 2021 38,.145` 662 2022 38,809 664 2023 39,473 664 2024 40,139 666 Census OFM Intermediate Population Projection for 2005 and 2010-2024 adopted by Jefferson County. OFM has not developed a projection for 2006-2009. Projected 2006-2009 population based on OFM 2005 and 2010 population projections. Date: 06/01/04 1 + UV_ (, 7s- er4 0*k\ ■ ) , u6t4 pain `o Jib DJ/10j twat/via-Ns --(or 0 t?t) y fucec-663F /11 e I 0 1 1-A:1 14/I A vral/6 u,) rt-J VAPI-Jite KY.(' ao ■Pfl ',,,-,I ■40g - aovt) f � �4/— it � � � (c)„,) o 0 (I, Fo- v' m < o- Z m ° m� � Doter Co 00 3 (T CD o � 5• rn rn � n CD 0 N 'i Peters rrom: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 9:45 AM To: Jim Pearson; Frank Gifford; Bruce Laurie; Allen Sartin;Al Scalf; Kyle Alm; Dave Christensen Cc: David Goldsmith; Jeff Miller; Marc Horton; Mark Personius Subject: FW: population Importance: High Greetings colleagues: Jim P. called me last week about the 2004 GMA update, specifically population figures, the projected planning schedule for this year, and internal staffing. I figured I'd send this response to all of you who are or may be involved in the 2004 update effort(or, in the case of Marc& Mark, involved in the first step of the update, completing the UGA work). POPULATION Below is an email I sent to Donna E. back in March about the State OFM population projections for Jefferson County. They may have created a population estimate for 2004 since I last checked. The links are below. These may be some of the individual year numbers Jim and co. may be seeking. Attached here is a Word version of BOCC Resolution 55-03, adopted Sept. 22, 2003, which updates our GMA population numbers for the planning period 2004-2024, in concurrence with the City of Port Townsend. This may or may not be applicable to your piece of the puzzle. za AdoptedPopulation Resolution.do... SCHEDULE Attached here is the Planning Commission 2nd quarter schedule, which projects the work plan for the rest of the year. E!,1_ PC schedule 2nd quarter 2004.d... If we stay with this schedule(i.e., if we complete the UDC Housekeeping Omnibus package between the UGA work and the 2004 Comp Plan Amendment Docket), then we're not anticipating bringing amendments forward to the Planning Commission related to the 2004 GMA update until late summer or early fall, perhaps even later, depending on how the year goes. One reason for this is that the 2004 Docket contains other items, including MLA04-27 (Ag Lands parcels) and two cases related to the Airport. The Comp Plan and UDC amendments related to the 2004 update are to be packaged under case number MLA04-28. So, under this schedule, we're hoping to begin pulling the various pieces together partway through the summer into a package that will go to the Planning Commission and the public a bit later. At this time, there are no"drop dead" dates. (Who made up that encouraging term, anyway? So much for positive discipline...) Basically, August looks like the month to assemble the package, so how does August 1 sound? Check this webpage once in awhile for schedule updates and documents related to the 2004 Comp Plan amendment cycle: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2004%20Comprehensive%20PIan%20Amendment%20Cvcle.htm STAFFING In terms of DCD contacts, Kyle Alm is assigned with coordinating the update tasks with Public Works and Central Services as they relate to the Comp Plan. Public Works is working on transportation and some aspects of capital facilities, like parks and recreation. Central Services (Allen S.) is updating capital facilities. 1 Dave C. and I are tasked with evaluating critical areas protections in the context of"best available science." I will be in contact with the City to help coordinate our update effort with theirs. Kyle and I will be assembling the package and together with Al, presenting information to the Planning Commission and BOCC. We may need help with presenting the transportation and capital facilities components, depending on the results of the analysis. Speaking of the City, their consultant for the 2004 update, Eric Toews, put together a packet of materials for the City Council meeting on April 9. He does a good job of describing the update process and what the City needs to do to meet the statutory obligations. If anyone wants a copy, let me know. Warning: the full packet is about 3/8"thick... That's all for now. Hope all is well enough... Regards, Josh From: Josh Peters Sent: Wednesday,March 24,2004 12:10 PM To: Donna Eldridge Subject: population Hello Donna: You asked for a population projection for 2004. Here is what I found on the website of the State Office of Financial Management(OFM). OFM puts together projections for use with planning under the Growth Management Act(pursuant to RCW 43.62.035). They employ three levels of projections: low, intermediate, and high (referring to the relative population size under various assumptions). http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/index.htm The last time they put these together was January 2002. The projections go up through 2025. Jefferson County is projected to have 30,195 (high), 28,308 (intermediate), or 26,421 (low) people in 2005. OFM did not do projections for single years leading up to 2010. They appear in the table in 5-year increments beginning in 2000 (yet are provided for single years after 2010...go figure). Here is a report put out in 2004 that tracks each County's population in comparison to the 2002 estimates: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/g matracking040109.pdf It says in a summary table on page 2 that Jefferson County's 2003 estimated population was 26,700, which turns out to be 804 (or 2.92%) less than the medium projection of 27,504. OFM used linear interpolation of the 5-year interval 2002 GMA projections to get a 2003 figure for the medium projection. This is explained in the report, which also says that questions can be directed to Theresa Lowe at(360) 902-0588. Perhaps Ms. Lowe, who I believe is the State Demographer, can use the same method to get you a figure for 2004, but that figure may be based on 2002 projections rather than 2003 estimates, unless they use different methodology. OFM's estimated population figures for 2001, 2002, and 2003 are in the following table (together with the Census data from 2000): http://www.ofm.wa.00v/pop/arrill/finalpop2003.xls Jefferson County 2000 Census: 26,299 2001 estimate: 26,466 2002 estimate: 26,600 2003 estimate: 26,700 There is no 2004 estimate from OFM, at least on the web. You could email or call them for the latest info. The table also breaks down population between the incorporated and unincorporated areas, if you're interested. Despite not getting you a simple answer to a simple question, I hope this information is helpful for you. 2 v-412- Friends of Washington 1000 Friends of Washington April 27, 2004 1617 Boylston Avenue,Suite 200 Seattle,WA 98122 0.eG•vd V;& £ 1 1 (206)343-0681 phone (206)709-8218 fax www.1000friends.org Aaron Ostrom Executive Director Mr. Al Scalf,Director of Community Development Dave Russell Jefferson County President Department of Community Development Board of Trustees 621 Sheridan Street Fran Abel Langley Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dia Armenta Bainbridge Island Jay Arnold Kirkland Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Comments Mike Ashley Stanwood Nancy Ball Dear Mr. Scalf: Walla Walla Margot Blacker Bellevue 1000 Friends of Washington is a statewide public interest group working to keep David Bricklin overdevelopment from destroying farms,forests, and rural areas,while making cities and Bainbridge Island p y g g Vance Corum towns great places to live. We work with cities and counties to effectively implement the Vancouver Growth Management Act and stop sprawl. We have members in Jefferson County as we Jeff Eustis Seattle do throughout the state. As part of the periodic updates of comprehensive plans,we are Ray Gould focusing on working with local governments to help improve their comprehensive plans. Edmonds Bart Haggin Spokane We understand that Jefferson County is currently in the process of updating the county Bruce Lorig comprehensive plan, and we want to praise you on your current comprehensive plan. The Mercer Island current plan has many com p onents that far exceed many other county com p rehensive Don McDonough Seattle plans. We applaud you for your work on developing a plan that so closely complies with Henry McGee the Growth Management Act, and we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments. Seattle Barbara McIntosh Poulsbo A few of the elements that we especially commend are as follows: William Ross Seattle Dave Russell • The minimum lot sizes for the Agriculture and Forestry zones are very important Kirkland to protecting the rural character of Jefferson County and to preserving farmland will stene Seattle for the future. The current plan has excellent minimum lot sizes of 20 acres for Margaret Studer the AG-20 zone, five acres for the AG-5 zone and 40 and 80 acre minimums for Anacortes the Forestry zones. Nancy Tosta Burien • Level of service standards are included for all locally owned arterials and transit Chris Smith Towne routes to judge performance of the system. Seattle Daryl Williams • All of the major elements required to be a part of a comprehensive plan under the Tulalip Tribe Growth Management Act are included in Jefferson County's comprehensive plan. Advisory Board James Ellis There are a few suggestions that we recommend as part of your update process. We urge Dick Ford you to address the following issues during your update in order to comply with the Virginia Gunby Growth Management Act. They are as follows: Joe King Lucy Steers • Include the use of best available science in your critical areas ordinance. Everett Wilcock • Increase the wetland buffers and the wetland mitigation ratios to the Department of Ecology's recommended levels. • Strengthen language of the housing section of the comprehensive plan to"ensure the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods"(RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan as part of your update process. We will mail you a hard copy of this letter to your office and include a copy of our Checklist for Evaluating Comprehensive Plans for Jefferson County. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Sydney McComas or Tim Trohimovich at(206)343-0681. Sincerely, Sydney McComas Urban Policy Advocate 1000 Friends of Washington 1617 Boylston Avenue, Ste 200 Seattle,Washington 98122 Enclosure Cc: Iken Nwankwo,Technical and Financial Assistance Program Manager, CTED Josh Peters From: Josh Peters Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:10 PM To: Donna Eldridge Subject: population Hello Donna: You asked for a population projection for 2004. Here is what I found on the website of the State Office of Financial Management(OFM). OFM puts together projections for use with planning under the Growth Management Act(pursuant to RCW 43.62.035). They employ three levels of projections: low, intermediate, and high (referring to the relative population size under various assumptions). http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/index.htm The last time they put these together was January 2002. The projections go up through 2025. Jefferson County is projected to have 30,195 (high), 28,308 (intermediate), or 26,421 (low) people in 2005. OFM did not do projections for single years leading up to 2010. They appear in the table in 5-year increments beginning in 2000(yet are provided for single years after 2010...go figure). Here is a report put out in 2004 that tracks each County's population in comparison to the 2002 estimates: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/qma/qmatracking040109.pdf It says in a summary table on page 2 that Jefferson County's 2003 estimated population was 26,700, which turns out to be 804 (or 2.92%) less than the medium projection of 27,504. OFM used linear interpolation of the 5-year interval 2002 GMA projections to get a 2003 figure for the medium projection. This is explained in the report, which also says that questions can be directed to Theresa Lowe at(360) 902-0588. Perhaps Ms. Lowe, who I believe is the State Demographer, can use the same method to get you a figure for 2004, but that figure may be based on 2002 projections rather than 2003 estimates, unless they use different methodology. OFM's estimated population figures for 2001, 2002, and 2003 are in the following table (together with the Census data from 2000): http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/apri11/finalpop2003.xls Jefferson County 2000 Census: 26,299 2001 estimate: 26,466 2002 estimate: 26,600 2003 estimate: 26,700 There is no 2004 estimate from OFM, at least on the web. You could email or call them for the latest info. The table also breaks down population between the incorporated and unincorporated areas, if you're interested. Despite not getting you a simple answer to a simple question, I hope this information is helpful for you. Regards, Josh **************************************** Josh D. Peters Associate Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 Direct: (360) 379-4466, Main: (360) 379-4450, Fax: (360) 379-4451 Email:jpeters @co.jefferson.wa.us Web: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment 1 Josh Peters From: Josh Peters Sent: Friday, March 12,2004 9:25 AM To: 'Mike Sato' Cc: Dave Christensen Subject: RE: Can you answer a few questions re SMP Greetings Mike. My answers to your questions appear in blue below. (If you can't use Rich Text for your email,then the text may not look blue. Your email to me was in Plain Text.) Regards, Josh .*...***,.*.........***.************..*** Josh D. Peters Associate Planner, Long-Range Planning Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 Direct: (360)379-4466, Main: (360) 379-4450, Fax: (360)379-4473 Email:jpeters @co.jefferson.wa.us Web: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Original Message From: Mike Sato[mailto:msato @pugetsound.orgj Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 8:05 AM To:Josh Peters Subject: Can you answer a few questions re SMP Hi,Josh-- I'm not sure if you're the right person to answer these questions and, if not, please point me in the right direction. I'm trying to get some info compiled on SMP update schedules throughout the North Sound counties and wonder if you could answer a few questions. I'll share the compilation when I get it done (if you'll get back to me with your best shot at answers right away. Q's: 1.What your schedule for updating your SMP? IDeadline in RCW is end of 2011. We're projecting somewhere between 2006 and 2008, but the decision is ultimately in the hands of the elected County Commissioners. 2. Are there public hearings and comment periods scheduled? If not,approximately when would the public involvement period be? No public hearings or comment periods are scheduled. Formal public involvement will be in a few years (see projected schedule above). We are currently conducting a shoreline inventory and analysis two-year project as a first component of the SMP update process. We've informed agencies,tribes, organizations, etc., and asked for feedback during the project and will continue to do so next year,should our CZM grant proposal be selected for funding. We plan to create a webpage dedicated to the SMP update process as part of a public outreach effort. 3.Are you the lead staff person on the update project? Yes. 4. Regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance,what shoreline issues are you addressing in that update process? (Undetermined at this point. 5. Are there public hearings and comment periods scheduled for the 1 L CAO? If not, approximately when would the public involvement period be? Nothing is scheduled yet. At some point in the early or late summer of this year, we will make a staff report available to the public and initiate a public comment period in association with a public hearing before the Planning Commission. We will be creating a webpage dedicated to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle and information and documents will be posted there. 6.Are there documents you've already developed for either the CAO related to shorelines, best available science list and analysis for the COA, or documents already developed for the SMP update? Jefferson County adopted its development regulations to implement the 1998 Comprehensive Plan in December 2000. Consideration of best available science(BAS)was part of the process of developing and adopting the Unified Development Code (UDC). So, as opposed to many other jurisdictions who have yet to implement the recently established WAC on BAS,we have already done so and are looking at this year's process as more of a refinement than an initial effort to incorporate BAS into critical areas protections. The CAO component of our UDC is contained between sections 3.6.4 and 3.6.10. You can access our UDC on the web. (Use the URL in my signature above.) With regard to your question about documents related to BAS, I've cc'd this message to our Natural Resources Manager, Dave Christensen. He provided the lead staff support in the UDC adoption process concerning BAS and critical areas protections. Should you have any follow-up questions on BAS and our critical area protections, between Dave and myself, we should be able to provide you the answers. As stated above,we are in the first year of a two-year shoreline inventory and analysis project. By this fall,we will have the final deliverable (for the first phase)for Ecology. The deliverable will be available to the public, as well. By the fall of next year, should we receive CZM funding, we will have completed the shoreline inventory and analysis,which would be available to the public. If you visit the Long-Range Planning webpage on our website, you will find a PDF of a draft SMP from the year 2000 that was based on what we thought the new Ecology shoreline rule was going to look like. As you likely know,the shoreline rule was later adopted, appealed, adjusted, and re-adopted. We will need to modify the 2000 draft SMP to ensure that it fits with the new rule and with the shoreline inventory and analysis that we are currently undertaking. 7. Do you have a mailing list notifying citizens about meetings, comment periods, and available documents for the CAO process and/or the SMP process? No, we do not have a mailing list. We post announcements on specific webpages (some which have yet to be created, as noted above)and have an integrated SEPA/GMA email distribution list for non-project(i.e., legislative actions). We could put you on this list, but you'd be receiving notice each and every time Jefferson County is proposing to amend its Comprehensive Plan and UDC for any topic, not just those related to critical areas and the SMP. Again,the webpage for the 2004 amendment cycle will be established soon. It will be easy to find from our main DCD page cited above in my signature. If you are interested in following our process, I would advise that you check back on our website in the late spring and periodically thereafter. You can always email or call me for updates, as well. The SMP webpage is a bit farther down the line, as we're not going to be in the policy-making aspect of that process for a couple more years, at least. I hope I've been able to answer most of your questions. Please contact me with additional questions,should you have any. Give me a call if this is easier to answer on the phone than via email.Thanks! Mike Sato. Mike Sato, Director of Education and Involvement People for Puget Sound 407 Main St. #201 Mount Vernon WA 98273 PH: 360.336.1931 FAX: 360.336.5422 CELL:206.229.2844 2 • 36.70A.045 . required to be submitted and shall be used to facilitate building permits issued for development activities on, or expeditious review and interjurisdictional coordination of within five hundred feet of,lands designated as agricultural comprehensive plans and development regulations. [1991 lands, forest lands, or mineral resource lands, contain a sp.s. c 32 § 15.1 notice that the subject property is within or near designated agricultural lands,forest lands,or mineral resource lands on RCW 36.70A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, which a variety of commercial activities may occur that are forest,and mineral lands and critical areas. (1) Subject not compatible with residential development for certain to the definitions provided in RCW 36.70A.030,the depart- periods of limited duration. The notice for mineral resource ment shall adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW, no lands shall also inform that an application might be made for later than September 1, 1990, to guide the classification of: mining-related activities, including mining, extraction, (a)Agricultural lands; (b)forest lands; (c)mineral resource washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting, transporting, and lands; and (d) critical areas. The department shall Consult recycling of minerals. with the department of agriculture regarding guidelines for (2)Each county and city shall adopt development agricultural lands, the department of natural resources regulations that protect critical areas that are required to be regarding forest lands and mineral resource lands, and the designated under RCW 36.70A.170. For counties and cities department of ecology regarding critical areas. that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, (2)In carrying out its duties under this section, the such development regulations shall be adopted on or before department shall consult with interested parties,including but September 1, 1991. For the remainder of the counties and not limited to: (a)Representatives of cities; (b)representa- cities,such development regulations shall be adopted on or rives of counties; (c) representatives of developers; (d) before March 1, 1992. representatives of builders; (e) representatives of owners of (3)Such counties and cities shall review these designa- agricultural lands, forest lands, and mining lands;(f)repre- tions and development regulations when adopting their - sentatives of local economic development officials; (g) comprehensive plans under RCW 36.70A.040 and imple- representatives of environmental organizations;(h)represen- menting development regulations under RCW 36.70A.120 tatives of special districts; (i) representatives of the and may alter such designations and development regulations governor's office and federal and state agencies; and (j) to insure consistency. representatives of Indian tribes. In addition to the consults- (4)Forest land and agricultural land located within Lion required under this subsection, the department shall urban growth areas shall not be designated by a county or conduct public hearings in the various regions of the state. city as forest land or agricultural land of long-term commer- The department shall consider the public input obtained at cial significance under RCW 36.70A.170 unless the city or such public hearings when adopting the guidelines. county has enacted a program authorizing transfer or (3)The guidelines under subsection (1) of this section purchase of development rights. [1998 c 286§5; 1991 sp.s. shall be minimum guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions, c 32 § 21; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 6.] • but also shall allow for regional differences that exist in Washington state. The intent of these guidelines is to assist RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans— counties and cities in designating the classification of Mandatory elements. The comprehensive plan of a county agricultural lands, forest lands, mineral resource lands, and or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW critical areas under RCW 36.70A.170. 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive (4)The guidelines established by the department under text covering objectives,principles, and standards used to this section regarding classification of forest lands shall not develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an • be inconsistent with guidelines adopted by the department of internally consistent document and all elements shall be natural resources. [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 5.] consistent with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation RCW 36.71)&060 Natural resource lands and as provided in RCW 36.70A.140. _ critical areas—Development regulations. (1)Each county Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan,scheme, that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, or design for each of the following: and each city within such county, shall adopt development (1)A land use element designating the proposed general regulations on or before September 1, 1991, to assure the distribution and general location and extent of the uses of. conservation of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. Regulations housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, adopted under this subsection may not prohibit uses legally general aviation airports,public utilities;public facilities,and existing on any parcel prior to their adoption and shall other land uses. The land use element shall include popula- remain in effect until the county or city adopts development lion densities, building intensities, and estimates of future regulations pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040. Such regulations population growth. The land use element shall provide for shall assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used forest, or mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the for public water supplies. Where applicable, the land use continued use,in the accustomed manner and in accordance element shall review drainage, flooding, and storm water with best management practices, of these designated lands run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide for the production of food, agricultural products, or timber, guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those or for the extraction of minerals. Counties and cities shall discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget require that all plats, short plats, development permits, and Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. [Page 81 (1999) I 36.70A.070 (2)A housing element ensuring the vitality and charac- (iii)Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undevel- ter of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) oped land into sprawling, low-density development in the Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected rural area; housing needs; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, 36.70A.060, and surface water and ground water resources; improvement,and development of housing, including single- and family residences; (c)identifies sufficient land for housing, (v)Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricul- including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, tural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, RCW 36.70A.170. multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care (d)Limited areas of more intensive rural development. facilities; and (d)makes adequate provisions for existing and Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as projected needs of all economic segments of the community. otherwise specifically provided in this subsection(5Xd),the • (3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public rural development, including necessary public facilities and entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital public services to serve the limited area as follows: facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital (i)Rural development consisting of the infill, develop- facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of ment, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, expanded or new capital facilities; (d)at least a six-year plan residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as that will finance such capital facilities within projected shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public centers,or crossroads developments. A commercial, money for such purposes; and(e)a requirement to reassess industrial,residential,shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be the land use element if probable funding falls short of subject to the requirements of(dXiv)of this subsection,but meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use shall not be subject to the requirements of(c)(ii)and(iii)of element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan this subsection. An industrial area is not required to be within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural consistent. population; (4)A utilities element consisting of the general location, (ii)The intensification of development on lots contain- proposed location,and capacity of all existing and proposed ing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines. recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and (5) Rural element. Counties shall include a rural setting, but that do not include new residential development. element including lands that are not designated for urban A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural following provisions shall apply to the rural element population. Public services and public facilities shall be (a) Growth management act goals and local circum- limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist stances. Because circumstances vary from county to county, use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses,a county low-density sprawl; may consider local circumstances,but shall develop a written (iii)The intensification of development on lots contain- record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the ing isolated nonresidential uses or new development of planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and meets the require- isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses ments of this chapter. that are not principally designed to serve the existing and (b)Rural development. The rural element shall permit projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do rural development,forestry, and agriculture in rural areas. provide job opportunities for rural residents. Public services The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural govern- serve the isolated nonresidential use and shall be provided in mental services needed to serve the permitted densities and a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; uses. In order to achieve a variety of rural densities and (iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural design guidelines,conservation easements,and other innova- development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsec- tive techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural tion. Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area and that are consistent with rural character. or use,thereby allowing a new pattern of 1Sw-density sprawl. (c) Measures governing rural development. The rural Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and element shall include measures that apply to rural develop- contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated ment and protect the rural character of the area, as estab- predominately by the built environment, but that may also lished by the county, by: include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this (i) Containing or otherwise controlling rural develop- subsection. The county shall establish the logical outer ment; boundary of an area of more intensive rural development. (ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development In establishing the logical outer boundary the county shall with the surrounding rural area; address (A) the need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities, (B) physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, (1999) [Page 9) 4, 36.70A.070 and land forms and contours, (C) the prevention of abnor- (E) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on malty irregular boundaries, and (D) the ability to provide the adopted land use plan to provide information on the public facilities and public services in a manner that does not location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; permit low-density sprawl; (F) Identification of state and local system needs to (v) For purposes of(d) of this subsection, an existing meet current and future demands. Identified needs on state- area or existing use is one that was in existence: owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the (A) On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially state-wide multimodal transportation plan required under required to plan under all of the provisions of this chapter; chapter 47.06 RCW; (B) On the date the county adopted a resolution under (iv)Finance, including: RCW 36.70A.040(2), in a county that is planning under all (A) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs of the provisions of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.040(2); against probable funding resources; or (B)A multiyear financing plan based on the needs (C) On the date the office of financial management identified in the comprehensive plan,the appropriate parts of certifies the county's population as provided in RCW which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road,or 36.70A.040(5),in a county that is planning under all of the transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities,RCW provisions of this chapter pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040(5). 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public (e)Exception. This subsection shall not be interpreted transportation systems. The multiyear financing plan should to permit in the rural area a major industrial development or be coordinated with the six-year improvement program a master planned resort unless otherwise specifically permit- developed by the department of motion as required by ted under RCW 36.70A.360 and 36.70A.365. RCW 47.05.030; (6) A transportation element that implements, and is (C)If probable funding falls short of meeting identified consistent with,the land use element. needs,a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, (a)The transportation element shall include the follow- or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure . ing subelements: that level of service standards will be met; (i)Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; (v)Intergovernmental coordination efforts,including an (ii)Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transporta- assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land lion facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent the department of transportation in monitoring the perfor- jurisdictions; mance of state facilities, to plan improvements for the (vi)Demand-management strategies. facilities, and to assess the impact of land-use decisions on (b) After adoption of the comprehensive plan by state-owned transportation facilities; jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under (iii)Facilities and services needs, including: RCW 36.70A.040,local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce (A)An inventory of air, water, and ground transporta- ordinances which prohibit development approval if the tion facilities and services,including transit alignments and development causes the level of service on a locally owned general aviation airport facilities, to define existing capital transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning. in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, This inventory must include state-owned transportation unless transportation improvements or strategies to accom- facilities within the city or county's jurisdiction boundaries; modate the impacts of development are made concurrent (B) Level of service standards for all locally owned with the development. These strategies may include in- arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge creased public transportation service,ride sharing programs, performance of the system. These standards should be demand management, and other transportation systems regionally coordinated; management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection (C)For state-owned transportation facilities, level of (6) "concurrent with the development" shall mean that service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters improvements or strategies are in place at the time of 47.06 and 47.80-RCW, to gauge the performance of the development, or that a financial commitment is in place to system. The purposes of reflecting level of service standards complete the improvements or strategies within six years. for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to (c)The transportation element described in this subsec- monitor the performance of the system,to evaluate improve- tion(6),and the six-year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 ment strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the for cities,RCW 36.81.121 for counties,RCW 35.58.2795 for county's or city's six-year street, road, or transit program public transportation systems, and RCW 47.05.030 for the and the department of transportation's six-year investment state,must be consistent. [1998 c 171•§2; 1997 c 429§ 7; program. The concurrency requirements of(b)of this 1996 c 239 § 1. Prior. 1995 c 400 § 3;1995 c 377 § 1; subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 7.] services of state-wide significance except for counties Prospective application-1997 c 429 if 1-21: See note following consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland RCW 36.70A.3201. are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, Severability--1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. state highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in . Construction—Application-1995 c 400: "A comprehensive plan meeting the concurrency requirements in (b)of this subset- adopted or amended before May 16, 1995,shall be considered to be in lion' compliance with RCW 36.70A.070 or 36.70A.110,as in effect before their Specific actions and requirements for bringing into amendment by this act,if the comprehensive plan is in compliance with '(D) p� eq g g RCW 36.70A.070 and 36.70A.110 as amended by this act. This section compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services shall not be construed to alter the relationship between a county-wide that are below an established level of service standard; [page 10) (1999) 36.70A.070 . planning policy and comprehensive plans as specified under RCW 36.70A210. As to any development regulations that are adopted by a county or city y appeal relating compliance hearings 36.70A.070 on May shall be transmitted to the department in the same manner as 36.70A.110 to pending before a 16, 1 995.the board may take up to an additional ninety days to resolve such the initial plans and regulations under this section. [1991 appeal. By mutual agreement of all parties to the appeal,this additional sp.s. c 32 § 8.] ninety-day period may be extended." (1995 c 400§4.] Effective date-1995 c 400: See note following RCW 36.70A.040. RCW 36.70A.110 Comprehensive plans—Urban RCW 36.70A.080 Comprehensive plans—Optional groom areas. (1) Each county that is required or chooses P P p to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban elements. (I)A comprehensive plan may include additional growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be elements, items, or studies dealing with other subjects encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if relating to the physical development within its jurisdiction, it is not urban in nature. Each city that is located in such a including, but not limited to: county shall be included within an urban growth area. An (a) Conservation; urban growth area may include more than a single city. An (b)Solar energy; and urban growth area may g oc (c)Recreation g y include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is character- (2)A comprehensive plan may include, where appropri- ized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area ate, subarea plans, each of which is consistent with the includes a city,or is adjacent to territory already character- comprehensive plan. [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 8.] ized by urban growth,or is a designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. RCW 36.70A.090 Comprehensive plans—innovative (2) Based upon the growth management population techniques. A comprehensive plan should provide for projection made for the county by the office of financial innovative land use management techniques, including, but management, the county and each city within the county not limited to,density bonuses,cluster housing,planned unit shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the developments, and.the transfer of development rights. [1990 urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city 1st ex.s. c 17 § 9.] for the succeeding twenty-year period. Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt RCW 36.70A.100 Comprehensive plans--Must be and open space areas. An urban growth area determination coordinated. The comprehensive plan of each county or may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall be permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive this market factor, cities and counties may consider local plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other circumstances. Cities and counties have discretion in their counties or cities with which the county or city has,in part, comprehensive plans to make many choices about ac commo- common borders or related regional issues. [1990 1st ex.s. dating growth. c 17 § 10.] Within one year of July 1, 1990,each county that as of June 1, 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, shall begin consulting with each city located RCW 36.70A.103 State agencies required to comply with comprehensive plans. State agencies shall comply within its boundaries and each city shall propose the location of an urban growth area. Within sixty days of the date the with the local comprehensive plans and development county legislative authority of a county adopts its resolution regulations and amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this chapter. [1991 sp.s.c 32 § 4.] of intention or of certification by the office of financial management, all other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall begin this consultation RCW 36.70A.106 Comprehensive plans— with each city located within its boundaries. The county Development regulations--Transmittal to staff (1)Each shall attempt to reach agreement with each city on the county and city proposing adoption of a comprehensive plan location of an urban growth area within which the city is or development regulations under this chapter shall notify the located. If such an agreement of its intent to adopt such plan or regulations at gn growth is area,the c county with each city least sixty days prior to final adoption. State agencies in within the urban growth area'th county shall justify p g in writing why it so designated the area an urban growth including the-department may provide comments to the area. A city may object formally with the department over county or city on the proposed comprehensive plan, or the designation of the urban growth area within which it is proposed development regulations,during the public review located. Where appropriate,the department shall attempt to process prior to adoption. resolve the conflicts,including the use of mediation services. (2) Each county and city planning under this chapter (3)Urban growth should be located first in areas already shall transmit a complete and accurate copy of its compre- characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing hensive plan or development regulations to the department public facility and service capacities to serve such develop- within ten days after final adoption. ment,second in areas already characterized by urban growth (3) Any amendments for permanent changes to a that will be served adequately by a combination of both comprehensive plan or development regulation that are existing public facilities and services and any additional proposed by a county or city to its adopted plan or regula- needed public facilities and services that are provided by tions shall be submitted to the department in the same either public or private sources, and third in the remaining manner as initial plans and development regulations under portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also this section. Any amendments to a comprehensive plan or (1999) [page 11] Page l of 3 RCW 36.70A.130 Comprehensive plans --Review-- Amendments. (1)(a)Each comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the county or city that adopted them. A county or city shall take legislative action to review and,if needed,revise its comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter according to the time periods specified in subsection(4)of this section. A county or city not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall take action to review and,if needed,revise its policies and development regulations regarding critical areas and natural resource lands adopted according to this chapter to ensure these policies and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter according to the time periods specified in subsection(4)of this section.Legislative action means the adoption of a resolution or ordinance following notice and a public hearing indicating at a minimum, a finding that a review and evaluation has occurred and identifying the revisions made, or that a revision was not needed and the reasons therefore.The review and evaluation required by this subsection may be combined with the review required by subsection(3)of this section. The review and evaluation required by this subsection shall include,but is not limited to,consideration of critical area ordinances and,if planning under RCW 36.70A.040, an analysis of the population allocated to a city or county from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the office of financial management. (b)Any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to this chapter. Any amendment of or revision to development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. (2)(a)Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW 36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140 that identifies procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year. "Updates" means to review and revise,if needed, according to subsection (1) of this section, and the time periods specified in subsection(4)of this section. Amendments may be considered more frequently than once per year under the following circumstances: (i)The initial adoption of a subarea plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea; (ii)The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW; and (iii)The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. (b)Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, all proposals http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.130&printve... 3/9/2004 Page 2 of 3 shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. (3)Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review, at least every ten years, its designated urban growth area or areas, and the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each urban growth area. In conjunction with this review by the county,each city located within an urban growth area shall review the densities permitted within its boundaries, and the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has located within each city and the unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas. The county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the comprehensive plans of the county and each city located within the urban growth areas, shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. The review required by this subsection may be combined with the review and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215. (4)The department shall establish a schedule for counties and cities to take action to review and,if needed,revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter. The schedule established by the department shall provide for the reviews and evaluations to be completed as follows: (a) On or before December 1,2004, and every seven years thereafter, for Clallam,Clark,Jefferson,King,Kitsap,Pierce, Snohomish,Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties; (b)On or before December 1, 2005, and every seven years thereafter,for Cowlitz,Island,Lewis,Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties; (c)On or before December 1,2006, and every seven years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan,Douglas, Grant,Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and (d)On or before December 1, 2007, and every seven years thereafter,for Adams,Asotin, Columbia,Ferry,Franklin, Garfield,Grays Harbor, Klickitat,Lincoln, Okanogan,Pacific,Pend Oreille, Stevens,Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties. (5)(a)Nothing in this section precludes a county or city from conducting the review and evaluation required by this section before the time limits established in subsection (4)of this section. Counties and cities may begin this process early and may be eligible for grants from the department, subject to available funding,if they elect to do so. http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fubeaction=Section&Section=36.70A.130&printve... 3/9/2004 ji. Page 3 of 3 (b) State agencies are encouraged to provide technical assistance to the counties and cities in the review of critical area ordinances,comprehensive plans, and development regulations. (6)A county or city subject to the time periods in subsection(4)(a)•of this section that,pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the county or city establishing a schedule for periodic review of its comprehensive plan and development regulations,has conducted a review and evaluation of its comprehensive plan and development regulations and, on or after January 1, 2001,has taken action in response to that review and evaluation shall be deemed to have conducted the first review required by subsection(4)(a)of this section. Subsequent review and evaluation by the county or city of its comprehensive plan and development regulations shall be conducted in accordance with the time periods established under subsection (4)(a) of this section. (7)The requirements imposed on counties and cities under this section shall be considered"requirements of this chapter" under the terms of RCW 36.70A.040(1). Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this section shall have the requisite authority to receive grants, loans,pledges,or financial guarantees from those accounts established in RCW 43.155.050 and 70.146.030. Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this section shall receive preference for grants or loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.17.250. [2002 c 320§ 1; 1997 c 429§ 10; 1995 c 347§ 106; 1990 1st ex.s.c 17§ 13.] NOTES: Prospective application-- 1997 c 429§§ 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Severability-- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Finding-- Severability--Part headings and table of contents not law -- 1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. RCW 36.70A.130(2)does not apply to master planned locations in industrial land banks: RCW 36.70A.367(4). http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=Section&Section=36.70A.130&printve... 3/9/2004 { PREFACE HOW THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ORGANIZED GENERAL This Comprehensive Plan(Plan)is designed to introduce you,the reader to Skagit County's"Vision for the Future"and uses community vision statements,goals, objectives, and policies to describe how growth will be managed through the year 2015. Part I of this Plan includes three chapters that provide background information, including a brief history of planning in Skagit County, an overview of the comprehensive planning process,and a profile of Skagit County. Part II consists of thirteen chapters(chapters 4 through 16)referred to as "elements",which contain goals, objectives, and policies. Part III includes four appendices for reference. Part IV,a separate volume, consists of supporting documents that are incorporated as part of this Plan. Part V is the Supplemental Map Portfolio,which is also a separate volume. Part I: Skagit County and Comprehensive Planning Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides a brief history and general description of Skagit County today,and offers a brief discussion on the Skagit Valley in its earlier days. It includes information on past comprehensive planning efforts in Skagit County as well as how this comprehensive plan was developed. Chapter 2: Plan Implementation and Monitoring. How the Comprehensive Plan works,what its components are,how land use decisions are made,and how this Plan is to be amended are included in this Chapter. It also discusses how this Plan will be monitored and evaluated. Chapter 3: Skagit County Profile. This chapter includes information on Skagit County's past and present population and future forecasts,an overview of the County's economy,and data on housing costs and availability throughout the county. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Preface Part II. Comprehensive Plan Elements Chapter 4: Land Use Element. This chapter addresses the general distribution and location of land uses, and the appropriate intensity and density of land uses given development trends. The element also provides policy guidance for commercial and industrial land uses outside UGAs and establishes land division policies for creating new lots in unincorporated Skagit County. The major land use categories discussed include urban growth areas,natural resource lands,rural, and open space. Chapter 5: Natural Resource Conservation Element. The focus of this chapter is the consideration of the three primary types of land based natural resources: agriculture, forest and mineral. This element compliments Chapter 4(Land Use Element),by defusing the purpose and intent of land use policies for each resource land designation. Chapter 6: Rural Element. This chapter addresses maintaining and promoting land uses that are considered "rural in character". Objectives include: encouraging a variety of development while maintaining rural character and conserving rural character features and resources as well as assuring that public facilities, services,roads and utilities are consistent with rural character and lifestyles. Chapter 7: Urban Growth Area Element. Information regarding UGA designation criteria, identification of city/County joint planning issues,plan policies addressing the provision for and coordination of urban public facilities and services,and policies directed at minimizing sprawl are all included in this chapter. Chapter 8: Housing Element. This chapter contains plan policies that promote suitable living environments at all income levels,encourage housing maintenance,redevelopment and safety, as well as promote faster approval time when possible in the permitting process. Chapter 9: Transportation Element.This chapter details the transportation goals, objectives,and policies which set forth the adopted Level of Service(LOS)standards and other policy commitments for Skagit County as described in the Transportation System Plan adopted as part of this Plan. Chapter 10: Utilities Element. The policies in this chapter discuss the following: natural gas,telecommunications,electricity, solid waste, sewer,public water,water quality,drainage, flooding and storm runoff. Chapter 11: Capital Facilities Element. The focus of this chapter is the planning and provision of needed public facilities for the County's unincorporated and countywide ii July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Preface populations. This chapter includes the specific goals,objectives and policies which address capital costs, financing,levels of service methods and consequences, statutory requirements,and specific related goals,objectives and policies. Chapter 12: Economic Element. This chapter details policies relating to economic needs such as the: creation and maintenance of diverse employment opportunities,protection of natural resource utilization,increasing of non-resource industry diversity,promotion of a range of commercial retail and service businesses,increasing of tourism, conservation of natural resources and open spaces and fostering a healthy public-private cooperative partnership in support of diverse business operations and investment. Chapter 13: Environment Element. This chapter focuses on the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment. The topics discussed include: wetlands,aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas,geologic hazards, fish&wildlife conservation and the identification, classification and inventorying of such areas. The objectives attempt to map,protect and conserve critical areas,protect and educate the public,design economic incentives for landowners and improve intergovernmental cooperation. Chapter 14: Community Development Plans Element. This chapter addresses how this Comprehensive Plan and its development regulations will be applied at the community level. Community development plans (subarea and joint planning)will exemplify how community vision statements, as well as the goals, objectives and policies of this Comprehensive Plan are applied to specific regions(subareas). Objectives assure: establishing a process for community development proposals and evaluation criteria, allowing opportunities for local involvement,protecting and preserving community character, and ensuring consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and community development plans. Chapter 15: Essential Public Facilities Element. This chapter outlines a process for determining where essential public facilities could be located and what development standards are appropriate. Types of essential public facilities include: airports, state educational facilities, state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities,in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities,mental health facilities and group homes. Chapter 16: Shorelines Master Program Element. This chapter contains the goals, policies,and implementation procedures of the Skagit County Shorelines Master Program. Topics addressed include: shoreline use, conservation,public access, circulation,economic development,recreation,protection of historical,cultural, and educational values and,restoration and enhancement. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 iii SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Preface Part III: Appendices (included within this Plan) Appendix A contains definitions and a list of acronyms used within this document. Appendix B contains a chronological list of the Comprehensive Plan process from 1965 to the initial adoption of this Comprehensive Plan in 1997. Appendix C identifies and describes related plans, studies and regulations. Appendix D contains a list of ordinances adopting or amending this Plan. Part IV: Technical Appendices — Volume I (under separate cover) The following documents are included within the Technical Appendices-Volume I: A. Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP)for Skagit County(Updated in 1995 and 2000) B. Skagit County Housing Needs Assessment, March 1993 C. Skagit County Coordinated Water System Plan-Regional Supplement, 2000 D. Skagit County Urban Growth Areas Analysis Update:Population,Employment, & UGA Land Allocations by Jurisdiction, March 1997 E. The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)2000-2005- Goals and Policies, Capital Improvements, and Implementation Programs. F. Skagit County Transportation Systems Plan, June 1997 G. Revenue Sources For Capital Facilities 2000-2005 H. Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Utilization of Skagit River Basin Water Resources for Instream and Out of Stream Purposes, December 1996 I. Skagit County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update and Environmental Impact Statement, April 1994 J. Skagit County Draft GMA Puget Power Electrical Facility Plan and map updates,November 1992. K. Skagit County Countywide Policies, amended August 1996 and 2000 iv July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Preface Part V: Supplemental Map Portfolio (under separate cover) The Skagit County Comprehensive Plan Map identifies the geographic locations of land- use designations after the criteria established within the Comprehensive Plan that are applied county-wide. Other maps utilized and included within the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan Map Portfolio include: 1. Comprehensive Plan Map 2. Rural Villages(2a—2j) 3. Urban Growth Areas(3a—3g) 4. Natural Resource Lands 5. Generalized Land Use- 1990 6. Floodplain and Floodway 7. Land Cover 8. Volcano and Geologic Hazards 9. Potential Landslide and Erosion Areas 10. Generalized N.W.I. Wetlands,Hydric Soils and Stream Inventory 11. Priority Habitats and Species 12. Alluvial Fans 13. Wellhead Protection Areas 14. Telecommunications 15.Natural Gas Franchise Areas 16. Electrical Transmission System—Existing Facilities 17. Electrical Transmission System—Proposed Facilities 18. Water Service Areas with Primary Transmission Lines 19. Skagit County Drainage Utility Service Area 20. Road Inventory 21. School Districts 22. Fire Districts 23. S.K.A.T. Transit Service Areas 24. Public Sewer Service Areas with Primary Transmission Facilities 03&) July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments Citizen Advisory Committee Membership Preface LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Citizen Participation 1-8 3-1 Population Growth in Skagit County, 1910-1990 3-3 3-2 Population Growth in Skagit County, 1990-1996 3-4 3-3 Annual Population Trends, 1990-1996 3-4 3-4 Urban/Rural Population,Projections and Distribution 3-8 3-5 Commercial/Industrial Acreage Allocations Under CPP 1.1 3-11 3-6 Average Selling Price of Homes(January 1 -December 31, 1996) 3-11 4-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations and Acreage 4-6 11-1 Population Data Used for the Capital Facilities Plan 11-2 11-2 Cost of County-owned and Managed Capital Improvements for 2000-2005 11-3 11-3 Financing Plan for Capital Facilities 11-4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Planning Framework 1-5 2-1 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2-7 03 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS ) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Skagit County Perspective 1-1 Linking the Past to the Present 1-2 Comprehensive Land Use Planning in Skagit County 1-4 Why Plan? 1-15 Planning for Tomorrow:A View Toward Growth Management 1-15 Community Visions:A Comprehensive and Balanced Planning Approach 1-16 Strengthening Communities Through Community Planning 1-19 c. CHAPTER 2 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING The Planning Framework 2-1 How the Comprehensive Plan Works 2-1 Components of the Comprehensive Plan 2-2 The Decision-Making Process 2-3 Amending the Comprehensive Plan 2-5 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Appeals 2-11 Monitoring Plan Effectiveness 2-11 Assessing Effectiveness 2-13 CHAPTER 3 SKAGIT COUNTY PROFILE Population 3-2 Economics 3-7 Housing Costs and Availability 3-10 03 PLAN ELEMENTS 8c) CHAPTER 4 LAND USE ELEMENT Introduction 4-1 Plan Concept 4-3 Land Use Designations and Densities 4-3 Land Use Element Policies 4-7 Urban Growth Areas 4-8 Natural Resource Lands 4-12 Industrial Forest 4-17 Secondary Forest 4-18 Rural Resource 4-20 Mineral Resource Overlay 4-22 Rural Area 4-26 Rural Reserve 4-27 Rural Intermediate 4-28 Rural Village 4-29 Study Areas:Rural Areas of More Detailed Planning 4-32 Open Space Areas 4-35 Commercial and Industrial Uses Outside Urban Growth Areas 4-39 Rural Commercial and Industrial Uses 4-39 Rural Village Commercial 4-42 Rural Center 4-46 Rural Freeway Service 4-52 Small-Scale Recreation and Tourism 4-57 Natural Resource Industrial 4-61 Rural Marine Industrial 4-67 Major Industrial Developments 4-70 Master Planned Resorts 4-71 Cottage Industry/Small-Scale Business 4-76 Home-Based Business 4-80 Rural Business 4-82 Pre-existing,Non-conforming Uses 4-85 Public Uses 4-87 Land Division 4-88 CHAPTER 5 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT Introduction 5-1 Agricultural Resource 5-3 Forestry Resource 5-11 Rural Resource 5-19 Mineral Resource Overlay 5-20 Right to Manage Natural Resource Lands 5-29 CHAPTER 6 RURAL ELEMENT Introduction 6-1 Rural Areas Definition and Characteristics 6-3 CHAPTER 7 URBAN GROWTH AREA ELEMENT Introduction 7-1 Urban Growth Area Designation Criteria 7-3 Joint Planning 7-3 Urban Growth Area Policies 7-6 CHAPTER 8 HOUSING ELEMENT Introduction 8-1 Housing Policies 8-3 CHAPTER 9 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Introduction 9-1 Transportation Policies 9-3 Road System and Improvements 9-3 Level of Service 9-4 Public Transportation 9-6 Passenger Rail 9-8 Ferry Service 9-9 Non-Motorized Transportation 9-10 Freight Movement and Economic Development 9-13 Inter-modal Transportation 9-14 Natural Resource 9-15 Tourism,Recreation,Special Events,and Scenic Highways 9-15 Traffic Safety 9-17 Road Maintenance 9-18 Monitoring 9-19 Demand and System Management 9-19 Land Use and Development 9-20 Impact Fees 9-22 Implementation and Inter-Governmental Coordination 9-23 Capital Improvement Programs 9-25 CHAPTER 10 UTILITIES ELEMENT Introduction 10-1 Utilities 10-3 Solid Waste 10-9 Sewer 10-10 Public Water 10-11 Skagit County Coordinated Water System Plan Summary 10-11 Water Rights Agreement Summary 10-11 Countywide Planning Policies Regarding Water 10-12 County Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Water 10-12 Storm Water 10-15 CHAPTER 11 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Definitions and Purpose 11-1 Benefits of Capital Facilities Planning 11-1 Provision of Capital Facilities 11-2 Level of Service Method for Analyzing Capital Facilities 11-3 Statutory Requirements 11-10 CFP Source Documents 11-12 Goals,Objectives,and Policies 11-14 Capital Facility Needs 11-15 Financial Feasibility 11-22 Provide Needed Improvements and Concurrency Management 11-25 Coordinate Capital Improvements with Land Development 11-29 Citizen Involvement 11-30 Selecting Revenue Sources for the Financing Plan 11-30 Implementation of Programs 11-31 Concurrency Implementation and Monitoring System 11-32 CHAPTER 12 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Introduction 12-1 Economic Development Policies 12-2 Employment 12-2 Business Development 12-3 Commercial Activity 12-5 Visitor Services 12-6 Human Services 12-8 Conservation and Economic Development 12-9 Transportation and Economic Development 12-10 Business and Investment Climate 12-12 CHAPTER 13 ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT Introduction 13-1 Wetlands 13-3 Aquifer Recharge Areas 13-4 Frequently Flooded Areas 13-4 Geologically Hazardous Areas 13-5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 13-5 Environment Policies 13-5 Inventory,Identify,Classify and Designate 13-5 Education 13-10 Incentives 13-11 Intergovernmental Coordination/Cooperation 13-12 Protection and Conservation Measures 13-15 CHAPTER 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANS ELEMENT Introduction 14-1 Function of Community Development Plans 14-2 Relationship of Community Development Plans to Comprehensive Plan 14-2 Consistency Between this Plan and Community Development Plans 14-3 Community Development Planning(subarea and joint plans) 14-3 Community Development Policies 14-3 CHAPTER 15 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Introduction 15-1 Location Considerations 15-2 Essential Public Facilities Policies 15-2 CHAPTER 16 SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM ELEMENT Introduction 16-1 Purpose 16-2 Goals 16-3 Shorelines of Statewide Significance 16-5 Shoreline Area Designations 16-6 Designation Policies 16-6 Urban Shoreline Areas 16-6 Rural Residential Shoreline Areas 16-8 Rural Shoreline Areas 16-10 Conservancy Shoreline Areas 16-12 Natural Shoreline Areas 16-14 Aquatic Shoreline Areas 16-16 Use Policies Agricultural Practices 16-18 Aquaculture 16-19 Commercial Development 16-23 Dredging 16-25 Forest Management Practices 16-30 Landfills 16-32 Marinas and Launch Ramps 16-35 Mining 16-41 Outdoor Advertising and Signs 16-44 Piers and Docks 16-45 Ports and Industry 16-48 Recreation 16-51 Residential Development 16-56 Scientific and Educational Resources 16-61 Shore Defense Works 16-62 Shoreline Stabilization and Flood Protection 16-66 Transportation Facilities 16-69 Utilities 16-73 Hydropower Facilities 16-77 03 APPENDICES to APPENDIX A ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS Acronyms A-1 Definitions A-4 APPENDIX B OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS Comprehensive Planning Process-March, 1965 to June, 1997 B-1 APPENDIX C RELATED PLANS, STUDIES AND REGULATIONS Descriptions of Related Plans,Studies and Regulations C-1 APPENDIX D ADOPTING AND AMENDING ORDINANCES List of Ordinances D-1 03 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS to TECHNICAL APPENDICES -under separate cover • Overall Economic Development Plan(OEDP)for Skagit County(Updated 1995 and 2000) • Skagit County Housing Needs Assessment,March 1993 • Skagit County ty Coordinated Water System Plan- Regional Supplement,2000. • Skagit County Urban Growth Areas Analysis Update:Population,Employment&UGA Land Allocations by Jurisdiction,March 1997 • The Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)2000-2005-Goals and Policies,Capital Improvements,and Implementation Programs. • Skagit County Transportation Systems Plan,June 1997 • Transportation Improvement Program, 1999 • Revenue Sources For Capital Facilities 2000-2005 • Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Utilization of Skagit River Basin Water Resources for Instream and Out of Stream Purposes,December 1996 • Skagit County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update and Environmental Impact Statement,April 1994 • Skagit County Draft GMA Puget Power Electrical Facility Plan and map updates,November 1992 • Skagit County Countywide Policies,amended August 1996 and 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL MAP PORTFOLIO—under separate cover 1. Comprehensive Plan Map 2. Rural Villages(2a—2i) 3. Urban Growth Areas(3a—3k) 4. Resource Lands 5. Generalized Land Use 6. Floodplain and Floodway 7. Land Cover 8. Volcano and Geologic Hazards 9. Potential Landslide and Erosion Areas 10. Generalized N.W.I.Wetlands,Hydric Soils and Stream Inventory 11. Priority Habitats and Species 12. Alluvial Fans 13. Wellhead Protection Areas 14. Telecommunications 15. Natural Gas Franchise Areas 16. Electrical Transmission System—Existing Facilities 17. Electrical Transmission System—Proposed Facilities 18. Water Service Areas with Primary Transmission Lines 19. Skagit County Drainage Utility Service Area 20. Road Inventory 21. School Districts 22. Fire Districts 23. S.K.A.T.Transit Service Areas 24. Public Sewer Service Areas with Primary Transmission Facilities c53 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION SKAGIT COUNTY PERSPECTIVE Skagit County is located in the northwestern portion of Washington State. It encompasses 1,735 square miles,ranks 21st in geographic size among the state's counties and had approximately 93,100 residents as of April 1995. Skagit County was established in 1883 and named after the river,in honor of the Indians who lived along its banks.The river flows for 78 miles through a diverse and beautiful land and is the third largest river in the western portion of the United States. The county stretches from the crest of the rugged North Cascade Mountains on the east,down river through the fertile valleys,to saltwater beaches. The topography of Skagit County ranges from sea level in the western part of the County to 8,966 feet above mean sea level at Mount Logan in the extreme eastern portion of the county. The County can be characterized into several main areas based on its topography:the Skagit Flats,western islands,upper Skagit, Sauk,and Samish River Valleys,and the Cascades. Skagit County has a marine climate affected by its proximity to Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean and this results in mild winters and comfortably warm,drier summers. Agricultural resources are an important part of Skagit County's economy and community character,and over 71 different crops are grown. Farming and ranching have been an important part of the community's heritage since early settlement in the 1800's. The Skagit Valley is regarded by many as one of the most fertile valleys in the world. County firms produce both major commodities, specialty crops and vegetable seeds and flowers with unique market niches.Forest lands,which predominate much of the county landscape,compose another significant natural resource. The practice of forestry (logging,reforestation,and timber management)was established in the earliest stages of settlement in the county. Large-scale commercial forestry remains a vital industry and is practiced on well over 300,000 acres. Forest lands account for 29%of Skagit County's total land area of 1.1 million acres. Shellfish industries and commercial and recreational fishing represent a third integral natural resource that has influenced Skagit County economically and culturally. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-1 • SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction The valley is endowed with a bounty of natural resources,a sense that there is a good quality of life,and neighborly communities. Island and shoreline resources offer recreational and residential opportunities. These very attributes make residing in Skagit County a desirable place to live,work and raise families. This Comprehensive Plan is guided by a shared vision,which seeks to manage growth in ways that ensure a continued high quality of life for all residents in unincorporated Skagit County. LINKING THE PAST TO THE PRESENT The Skagit Valley was inhabited for hundreds and probably thousands of years before the advent of new settlers in the 19th Century. Native Americans lived in an area rich in natural resources,which supported their resource dependent lifestyle. The cession of tribal lands through the Point Elliot Treaty of January 22, 1855 greatly changed traditional ways and beliefs. Land titles and surveys were alien ideas to the customs of Native Americans,but were basic to the farmers settling in the valley. A fern covered prairie on March's Point seems to have been the first white settlement.By 1870,new settlements were spotted about the county but there was still very little development. Skagit County separated from Whatcom in 1883,and by 1889 Washington had become a state.Historical accounts report that shortly thereafter forty acres of land were diked to raise barley. Railroads were instrumental in supporting the farming,logging,and mining industries. The Town of Sedro saw its first train in 1889,in 1890 a line reached from Portland to Anacortes,and in 1891,Hamilton welcomed its first train. In the railway-building period of the 1890's,two north-south lines were completed through the county, connecting it with Seattle and Vancouver. By 1901,the east-west line was extended from Hamilton through Concrete and into Rockport. The Skagit River has played an important role in the development of Skagit County. It is the largest river between the Fraser River in Canada and the Columbia River to the south. Historically,tribal peoples lived by the water with only hunting forays into the edges of the woods. For new settlers in the logging business,the river provided the means to transport timber. The first recorded logging camp was established in 1867. Logging in the Upper Skagit was stymied because of the huge logjam near Mount Vernon and it was not until 1889 that the jams were completely cleared. By 1888 there were 17 logging camps between Mount Vernon and Lyman. By 1890,most of the land next to water had been logged off, and operations moved further inland using animals and machines to transport timber. The river also furnished an abundance of resources. Salmon provided an important food source for the early tribal peoples. Commercial fishing by new settlers began in the 1-2 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 • SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction 1890s with the building of fish-processing plants and by 1900,clams and oysters were also being canned.By the turn of the century,however,over-fishing had reduced available stocks and experiments with fish hatcheries sought to supplement dwindling fish runs. Over the next thirty years, canneries continued to be productive in Anacortes. Fishing remained,until recently,one of the predominate sources of economic benefit to the western part of the County. When fishing was depleted,the marine industries took up the slack. Now,Anacortes and La Conner have some of the largest marinas in the State of Washington. In 1884,La Conner was established as the temporary county seat with its established port and considerable population. However,the county's first newspaper,the Skagit News, garnered sufficient support for establishing Mount Vernon as the county seat and a vote later in 1884 confirmed the change. A second fight to change the county seat occurred in 1892,but the county government remained in Mount Vernon. The growth and prosperity of the towns depended upon the reclamation of the marshes whose rich soil produced crops of oats,barley,hay,and potatoes. Businesses developed to serve the newly established farming communities and the county's population grew. In 1900,the total county population was 14,272 and by 1910 it had grown to 29,241. Clearly the valley provided opportunities for growth and prosperity. Skagit County and the local tribes have worked diligently to create better communities for their residents. In 1988,the Swinomish Rural Village was established and agreements were reached to provide for joint County/Tribe comprehensive planning efforts.In the spirit of cooperation,the Board of County Commissioners,in 1994,passed a unique resolution recognizing the Swinomish Tribal Community,Upper Skagit and Sauk- Suiattle Tribes as sovereign governments. As in the past,agriculture continues to be an important part of Skagit County's economy and community character,as are forestry and shellfish industries. Changing economic circumstances are necessitating a broadening of local economies. New industries are being encouraged to relocate within our valley,and educational institutions are working to meet these emerging demands. Skagit County and the Tribes face new challenges as they meet the 21st century. Cooperative efforts in planning for the future hold the greatest promise for all residents. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-3 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING IN SKAGIT COUNTY PRE-GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT The primary purpose of comprehensive planning is to help the public and elected officials define objectives,set their priorities, and seek solutions to long-term issues. The Comprehensive Plan provides a sense of direction,a broad overview of where a community is(existing conditions)and where it is going(future desires). It may be thought of as a way of assuring that a community's health,safety and general welfare are protected by striving for and creating a better,more healthful,efficient and aesthetically pleasing environment in which to live. Skagit County has historically had a strong commitment to land use planning. The first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1965 and amended in 1968 by the Board of County Commissioners. This official document contained goals,objectives,recommendations,maps and graphs and was the guiding document for the physical development of the county(Please see Planning Framework, Figure 1 on page 1-5). Some of the objectives in the early document included: encouraging the most appropriate use of land that is available for development in the County; conserving for agricultural use land that is classified as prime agricultural soil;reserving areas in logical locations for future industrial and residential use; grouping together similar land uses;and the need for development controls that will protect the general public interest. In order to carry out these objectives and proposals,the Comprehensive Plan discussed the following in detail: coordinating elements of the plan with federal, state and local government plans;limiting residential development in pollution problem areas; discontinuing non-conforming land uses and structures;developing new zoning regulations;and revising subdivision regulations. These issues are still important to Skagitonians as expressed in the vision statements developed by planning participants in 1990-91 as part of the countywide comprehensive plan policy process. 1-4 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction Planning Framework Figure 1-1 Pre-Growth Management Act Planning . _.. Skagit County's First Comprehensive Plan—1965 I Comprehensive Plan Updated and Revised—1968 Sub-Area District Plans Adopted North Central Northwest Island Southwest South Central Eastern District District District District District District 1973 1974 1976 1979 1979 1982 Cities-Towns/County Develop Sphere of Influence Agreements 1981-82 Post-Growth Management Act Planning Joint Planning with Growth Management Act(GMA)—Title 36 RCW—1990 Cities/Towns to I Amend Sphere of Joint Planning with Cities , Influence Agreements 1 County-wide Planning Policies—1992 (Amended 1996&2000) Urban Growth '-- Boundaries I � Proposed „._ee_.... __... GMA Comprehensive Plan — 1997 (Amended 1998&2000) Implementing : ....._ am ,w ,,>,,4 . Am .. ;j,.,. -- - 4, Regulations Community Functional First Critical Areas Ordinance Development Plans Plans I •Parks/Recreation/Open € E 1996 Sub-Area Joint Space •Transportation First Natural Resource Plans Plans •Non-Motorized Lands Ordinance •Identified •Urban Growth Transportation 1996 Areas of Areas •Drainage More •Tribal •Solid Waste I Detailed •Administration,Law& r Interim Development . Planning Public Safety Regulations I •Rural •Watershed Action Plans k. Villages •Coordinated Water System Unified •Overall Economic Development Code Development 2000 •Capital Facilities July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-5 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction In the early 1970s, the plan was divided into six smaller geographic districts to address land use needs on a local basis. The North Central District plan was adopted in 1973,the Northwest in 1974,the Islands in 1976,the Southwest and South Central in 1979 and the Eastern in 1982. The zoning code was updated between 1979 and 1982 to reflect these changes. (Please refer to Appendix B for an overview of the Skagit County Comprehensive Planning process leading to initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1997). Understanding the need for closer coordination among local jurisdictions,in 1981 Skagit County passed a resolution enabling joint sphere of influence agreements between the cities and the County. This endeavor provided for intergovernmental planning of lands directly outside of city limits. In 1988, Skagit County and the Swinomish Tribal Community began the development of a joint comprehensive plan and in 1994 the County recognized the Swinomish Tribal Community,Upper Skagit and Sauk-Suiattle Tribes as sovereign governments which created a government to government relationship. In 1990, Skagit County and the cities established a formal agreement for environmental review State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)co-lead status in the interim urban growth areas. In the same year,before the Growth Management Act(GMA)was formally adopted,the Board directed the Skagit County Department of Planning and Community Development to review and recommend changes to district policies,including the recommendation of countywide comprehensive plan policies. POST-GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT Starting in October of 1990,the public and elected officials started a two-year process to review, study,make changes and update goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (For an overview of the Citizen Participation process leading to initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1997, see Table 1 on pages 1-8 through 1-11). Between September, 1990 and March, 1991,twenty-six community meetings were held in Skagit County which created a list of 1500 values the public thought were important. The Skagit County Planning Commission held six policy session meetings over six months with county and city staff to review public comments and recommendations for changes to new Comprehensive Plan policies as proposed on October 14, 1991. They also conducted two public hearings on October 28, 1991 and April 13, 1992 to receive public comment and written correspondence on proposed policies. The Board of County Commissioners held two study sessions with planning staff on June 1, 1992 and June 8, 1992 to review and analyze proposed countywide planning policies. 1-6 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction The Countywide Planning Policies(CWPPs)were adopted in July of 1992 and amended in 1996 and 2000 with joint city/county planning efforts(see Countywide Planning Policies,a Technical Appendix to this Plan,under separate cover). The Countywide Planning Policies support the thirteen state-mandated Growth Management Act(GMA) goals. These goals guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of counties and cities planning under the GMA. The CWPPs comply with the state goals that consider:urban growth,reducing sprawl,transportation, housing,economic development,property rights,permits,natural resource industries, open space and recreation,environment,citizen participation,public facilities and services and historic preservation. The CWPPs adopted under the thirteen goals are specific statements that guide decision- making. They support,promote,and enforce the GMA's mandated specific planning goals. The jointly adopted CWPPs became the policy basis for review of public and private development and actions and serve as the legal backbone of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy implementation occurs through the adoption of regulations relating to,but not limited to,zoning density,land division,and environmentally sensitive and natural resource areas. Land development regulations are to be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the GMA. If any policy requires modification,it occurs through a public review process. In March of 1992 Skagit County submitted to(what is now)the Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development(CTED)materials on resource lands and critical area designations,performance standards,comprehensive planning policies, administrative procedures and development regulations in order to satisfy the intent of those"interim regulations"that are required to protect and conserve resource lands and critical areas. The adoption of CWPPs in July of 1992 by Skagit County and all of the cities signaled the beginning of the element development process. While the 1992,and subsequently amended,policies are applicable to all jurisdictions,element policies show how the County will meet countywide requirements. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-7 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction Citizen Participation up to Initial Adoption of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan Table 1-1 DATE ACTIONS June 1990 Skagit County Growth Management Act Team established July 1990 Growth Management Act formally adopted by Legislature September 1990 Vision 1 published. Invites public in planning process and includes mail-in coupon to join information mailing list. October 1990—March 1991 Twenty-six community-wide meetings generate 1,500 community values. October 1991 Draft#1 of Countywide Regional Comprehensive Plan Policies sent to all interested parties,mailing list participants&outside agencies for review&comments. October 1991 Planning Commission public hearing on Draft#1 Countywide Regional Comprehensive Plan Policies. April—September 1991 Staff works to incorporate public comments into Growth Management Framework. October 1991—March 1992 Planning Commission holds six policy study sessions reviewing pubic comments and recommendations. March 1992 Draft#2 of Countywide Regional Comprehensive Plan policies sent to all interested parties,mailing list participants and outside agencies for review and comments. April 1992 Planning Commission public hearing to take pubic testimony on proposed second draft of Countywide Regional Comprehensive Plan Policies. April 1992 Agency Newsletter provides Growth Management update and details future citizen participation dates and activities. July 1992 Adoption of Countywide Regional Comprehensive Plan Policies by County and Cities. 1-8 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction September 1992 Three County informational meetings to encourage citizen participation in the element development process for housing,forestry,rural,utility and agricultural policies. Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC)interest forms handed out during meeting and advertised through media to stimulate interest. September 1992 Citizen Participation Newsletter informs public of upcoming citizen participation opportunities. October 1992—August 1993 CAC element policy development—open to public. October 1992 CAC orientation meeting. October 1992 Citizen Participation Newsletter informs community of Board of County Commissioners'appointments to various CACs. September 1993 Three Growth Management Act and State Environmental Policy Act Comprehensive Plan information meetings held November 1993 CAC open house for community review of draft Element Policies. January 1994 Vision Volume III provides overview of Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)and encourages public review and comments. January 1994 Planning Commission public hearing on DEIS and Draft Land Use Element. January 1994—January 1995 Planning Commission twice weekly study sessions to review all public comments received from January 1994 public hearing. February 1994 Planning Commission public hearing on proposed Natural Resource Conservation Element. March 1994 Planning Commission public hearing on proposed Natural Resource Conservation Element. April 1994 Planning Commission public hearing on Urban Growth Areas,Rural and Housing Elements. April 1994 Planning Commission public hearing on CAC draft Utility and Transportation Elements. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 1-9 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction May 1994 Planning Commission public hearing on Utility and Transportation Elements. June 1994 Planning Commission public hearing on Land Use Element. June 1994 Citizen Participation Newsletter on CAC draft Utility and Transportation Elements. July 1994 Vision IV informs community of FEIS and proposed Land Use Element. Invites public and agency review of documents. July 1994 Two public hearings on FEIS,Land Use Element and Planning Commission proposed Comprehensive Plan Element Policies. January 1995 Planning Commission public hearing on Environment, Economic and Capital Facilities Elements. February 1995 Three Planning Commission study sessions to review all public hearing comments. March 1995 Planning Commission study sessions on draft Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. April 1995 Planning Commission study sessions to review draft Comprehensive Plan&Final EIS on Skagit County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Element. May 1995 Released draft of Comprehensive Plan for public review and comment. August 1995—January 1996 Review public comments. February—April 1996 Planning Commission reviews Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) April 1996 Public review of draft Critical Areas Ordinance. May 1996 Board of County Commissioners public hearings on draft CAO May 1996 Critical Areas Ordinance adopted. May 1996 Addendum to EIS issued on Natural Resource Lands. 1-10 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction June 1996 Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission hold public hearings on Natural Resource Lands. June—July 1996 Planning Commission reviews pubic comments on Natural Resource Lands. July 1996 Planning Commission holds public hearing on Countywide Planning Policies. August 1996 Board of County Commissioners hold public hearing on Natural Resource Lands Ordinance and Map. August 1996 Board of County Commissioners approves amendments to Countywide Planning Policies. August—October 1996 Inter-local agreements executed between Skagit County and the Cities and Towns. September 1996 Natural Resource Lands Ordinance and Map adopted. November 1996 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS made available for public review. December 1996 Planning Commission holds public hearing on draft Plan draft supplemental EIS(DSEIS). January—March 1997 Planning Commission twice-weekly study sessions to review public comments on draft Plan&DSEIS. March 1997 Planning Commission forwards recommendation to Board of County Commissioners. April 1997 Board of County Commissioners identify issues and remands Plan back to Planning Commission. April 1997 Planning Commission holds public hearing on Plan, forwards recommendation to Board of County Commissioners. May 1997 Final Supplemental EIS(FSEIS)issued on draft Plan. May 1997 Board of County Commissioners reviews Planning Commission recommendation,deliberates and adopts Comprehensive Plan. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-11 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction In September of 1992,notices appeared in the local media inviting the public to three informational meetings in Concrete, Mount Vernon, and Anacortes. These evenings were set aside to discuss the development of the agriculture, forestry, mineral,rural, housing and utility elements (or chapters) for Skagit County's Comprehensive Plan and to encourage citizen participation in the planning process. Discussions also focused on comprehensive planning and how it encompasses complex issues. It was pointed out that the citizens chosen for the committees would have a broad spectrum of ideas and opinions, and often with conflicting goals and values. Individuals who were willing to make a commitment to the planning process were invited to submit short letters of interest indicating on what committee they wished to serve. In October of 1992,twelve to fifteen prospective participants for each individual element committee received invitation letters from the Board of County Commissioners. Simultaneously,the Department worked with a communication specialist/facilitator from Washington's Cooperative Extension Office to develop common ground rules to ensure committees worked within the same decision making process. A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Orientation meeting was held at the LaVenture Middle School at the end of October. The evening's presentation focused on a general overview of the element development process,purpose of committees, and common ground rules. A newsletter was published shortly thereafter to inform the public of the CAC composition. The CACs ensured that community vision statements and attitudes were represented in the planning process. These CACs met over a fourteen month period and completed their work in May of 1993 on the agriculture,forestry,mineral,rural,housing and utility elements. Meetings were advertised and public participation encouraged. Members worked long and hard reviewing policy documents from other communities,analyzing large volumes of available data pertaining to their element,and developing policies relevant for Skagit County.Reports from CACs regarding three other elements followed shortly thereafter. The Transportation CAC completed a draft policy document by May of 1994 and the Economic and Environment CACs completed their work in July and November 1994 respectively. In October 1993, Skagit County adopted Interim Urban Growth Areas(IUGAs)as required under the Growth Management Act through Resolution 15038. The County and cities worked together to reach agreements on the location of interim boundaries. In 1995,the Interim Urban Growth Areas were moved back to the existing city and town boundaries as required by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. This action was necessary since the IUGAs did not include an analysis of the fmal UGAs. The 1994 Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP)and the 1995 provided the information relating to commercial/industrial land needs for the fmal UGAs. The overall 1-12 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction analysis of the UGAs is included in the Skagit County Urban Growth Area Analysis prepared by E.D. Hovee and Company for the County. All of the documents are included,under separate cover,as appendices to the Comprehensive Plan. The initial draft Urban Growth Area Element for Skagit County's Comprehensive Plan was developed by staff. Draft documents were routed to the cities for their review and comment to provide additional opportunities for intergovernmental planning. The Community Development Plans Element was developed by staff in response to the numerous rural communities and residents who expressed an interest in developing their own community plans during the county-wide comprehensive planning process. This chapter discusses how to coordinate consistency between community development plans and the Comprehensive Plan. The Essential Public Facilities Element was developed by staff to outline a process whereby essential public facilities could be located and what development standards are appropriate. Growth Management Act and other jurisdiction's guidelines were utilized in the development of this chapter. The development of the Capital Facilities Element utilized information and involvement from other departments,agencies and organizations that provide programs,services,or utilities throughout Skagit County. The chapter includes Capital Facilities Plans, countywide and for each of the non-municipal Urban Growth Areas. Included in the Technical Appendices(under separated cover)are the 20-year Transportation Plan;the 6- year Transportation Improvement Plan;the School Districts'Capital Facilities Plans and an inventory of capital facilities projects for Fire Protection Districts. The supplemental Map Portfolio (under separate cover)includes location of public facilities including school, fire,water, sewer,electrical,natural gas and transit service areas. Overall, development of the comprehensive plan elements was a two-year endeavor. CAC members worked long and hard to produce draft documents that reflected community vision statements. From January 1994 through March 1995,Planning Commission members conducted extensive study sessions to review all CAC generated draft element policy documents for compliance with Growth Management Act criteria. Eleven public hearings were held to enable continued review of the elements by the community-at-large. These comments were photocopied and indexed for all Planning Commission members and staff to facilitate the review of citizen commentary during study sessions held once again on each element. Skagit County's extensive review process provided a wide range of opportunities for community and agency analysis of CAC draft documents and Planning Commission recommendations. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-13 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction In May of 1995, a draft Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan,Map Portfolio and Addendum to the Final EIS was released for a 30-day comment period. The Planning Commission began study sessions in August and after meeting on a weekly basis completed their review of public comments in December of 1996. In response to Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board orders, the County initiated development of a Critical Areas Ordinance and reviewed the draft ordinance with the Planning Commission from February through April of 1996. In May of that year,the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing regarding the Planning Commissions recommendation on the proposal, and after considering public comment, revised the draft proposal and adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance. In May of 1996, an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element EIS was issued on the classification and designation on Natural Resource Lands(NRL) and in June the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission held a joint public hearing. The Planning Commission then conducted work sessions during the months of June and July. Recommendations on a Natural Resource Lands classification and designation program were forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners in late July. The Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on a draft NRL ordinance in August 1996. After conducting a number of work sessions, the Board adopted a NRL ordinance in September 1996. In July of 1996,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by the Countywide Planning Policy Committee during a series of public meetings Shortly after receiving the Planning Commission's recommendations,the Board of County Commissioners adopted the amendments in August of 1996. In November of 1996,the County issued, for public review and comment, a revised Comprehensive Plan and a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). In December of 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on both documents. The revised Plan reflected the actions previously taken on critical areas and natural resource lands together with decisions made by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Appendices included with the Plan included in part, Capital Facilities Plans for the County and each of the three non-municipal urban growth areas, an analysis of the growth capacities of all urban growth areas,projected commercial/industrial land needs and other reports and plans. From January through March of 1997,the Planning Commission reviewed public testimony and written correspondence on the draft Plan and DSEIS. Based on this and other information presented,the Planning Commission revised the Plan and, in March of 1997, forwarded a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 1-14 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction In early April of 1997,the Board of County Commissioners after review of the Planning Commission's recommendation identified several issues that warranted further public debate and remanded the draft Plan back to the Planning Commission for additional public review and comment. Later in April of 1997,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft Plan,reviewed public comment and written correspondence, deliberated and forwarded a revised Plan to the Board of County Commissioners for review and action. In May of 1997,the County issued the Final Supplementary EIS on the draft Plan. On May 19, 1997 the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the Planning Commission's recommended draft Plan, deliberated, made revisions and passed Ordinance No. 16550 adopting the Comprehensive Plan. Since then,the County has amended the Plan to address new amendments to the GMA made after initial adoption of the Plan, and in response to orders and issues relating to appeals before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. WHY PLAN? Planning averts problems by making efficient use of scarce resources. Planning improves the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities—to make it more functional,beautiful,decent,healthful,interesting,and efficient. Planning makes sure tax dollars invested in public roads,water and sewer lines,fire stations,parks and other public services are spent wisely.Planning incorporates long-range considerations into decisions on short-range actions. And,planning promotes the public interest,the interest of the community at large,rather than the interests of individuals or special groups within the community. PLANNING FOR TOMORROW: A VIEW TOWARD GROWTH MANAGEMENT In order to preserve the quality of life that has made Washington State such a desirable place to live,the Legislature in 1990 passed the Growth Management Act(GMA)to be effective July 1990. Passage of the GMA was a critical step in the development of rational policies to sustain growth in Washington. As one of the state's fastest-growing counties, Skagit County,along with its cities,is required to adopt a new comprehensive plan under the GMA. The basic objective of the legislation is to guide and encourage local governments in assessing their goals,evaluating their community assets,writing comprehensive plans, and implementing those plans through regulations and innovative techniques to encompass their future vision. The GMA directs cities and counties to develop plans that July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-15 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction will reduce urban sprawl and protect natural resources. The plans must spell out the future of housing,utilities,land use,rural(counties only),transportation,and capital facilities. Skagit County's Comprehensive Plan also includes chapters(elements)on natural resources,the environment,economic development,urban growth areas,and community development plans. In the future,the Plan may include,among others, chapters on recreation and open space,and cultural resources. Ultimately,the idea is to reduce the taxpayer's costs by directing facilities and development in those areas where public services already are provided. The Growth Management Act invests local government with significant decision making power. This"bottoms up"approach is consistent with long held traditions of local governance in this state. The GMA directs Skagit County to identify issues and goals of the community,to prioritize these goals,and to plan how these goals will be achieved. COMMUNITY VISIONS: A COMPREHENSIVE AND BALANCED PLANNING APPROACH VISIONING From the fall of 1990 through the spring of 1991, Skagit County was involved in providing extensive public participation opportunities for the community to provide direction for County staff in developing proposed countywide planning policies. Throughout the planning process citizens worked at home and during public workshops to voice their visions for the future,to identify their community vision statements and to generate supportive policies. Participants across the county said they wanted to preserve the high quality of life, strive for government efficiency,support economic opportunities, increase housing choices,ensure that transportation facilities and services are available to serve development at time of occupancy and use(concurrency),provide for an efficient land-use pattern,preserve rural,resource and ecologically fragile areas for future generations,respect property rights and maintain opportunities for citizen participation and involvement throughout Skagit County's planning processes. After holding several meetings in Concrete, Sedro-Woolley,Mount Vernon,Big Lake,La Conner,Fidalgo Island,and Burlington,the Department received over 1,500 community vision statements from participants. Statements were assembled into community visioning documents. These clearly articulated vision statements became the framework which provided a mutually agreed upon blueprint for how the region should grow over the next 20 years. 1-16 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction COMMUNITY VISION STATEMENTS: DEFINING PLANNING OBJECTIVES All of the goals,objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are based on these community vision statements and are an expansion of the CWPPs and State GMA goals: Preserve the high quality of life: Residents of Skagit County choose to live here for many reasons: natural beauty,clean air,good jobs,a good place to create a home and family. This plan seeks to foster this high quality of life for our residents and their children by providing for social, cultural,educational,recreational, civic,transit, health,and safety needs. Strive for government efficiency: This plan calls for efficient delivery of services in a cost-effective way by: • Concentrating infrastructure investments and service delivery to support development patterns near cities and towns where a full range of local services are or can be made available. • Looking to Skagit County to provide certain countywide,regional facilities and services,and • Relying primarily upon cities,towns and special purpose districts as the providers of local facilities and services appropriate to serve those local needs,except where the County is a local service provider. Support economic opportunities: This plan strives to promote a strong and diverse economy for Skagit County residents through policies and programs that promote new business opportunities,increase family wage jobs and create a predictable regulatory environment for businesses and citizens. Sustainable economic development efforts will focus on providing all communities with a balance of jobs and housing and helping communities with redevelopment or new economic initiatives. Increase the housing choices for all residents: Skagit County unincorporated residents live in a wide variety of homes: single family houses with yards,large rural lots,duplexes,apartments,and mobile homes. This plan seeks to increase housing opportunities for all residents(families,individuals,seniors,and persons with special needs). The plan promotes more choices for both owners and renters alike, such as single family homes on smaller lots,creative opportunities for all types of home ownership and high quality housing design that fits with surrounding neighborhoods, and is located closer to jobs,in particular within UGAs. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-17 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction Ensure that necessary transportation facilities and services are available to serve development at the time of occupancy and use: This plan provides a basis for targeting road and transit investments where growth is desired,and for equitable contributions to the transportation system by new development. Balance urban uses and environmental protection: This plan promotes an efficient and effective land use pattern within urban growth areas that respects environmental values through balancing urban uses with nature and open space. This will be achieved through careful site planning that maximizes developable land while respecting natural systems. This plan also proposes that the County consider subarea and joint planning to ensure natural systems continue functioning at a smaller geographical level while allowing the economy to expand. Protect and retain rural lifestyles: This plan seeks to maintain the unique rural lifestyle for which Skagit County is widely known and cherished. Skagit County's rural communities and character are a resource that requires protection and conservation from urban sprawl and suburban development patterns. Rural community character and open spaces are a valued part of Skagit County's diversity. Protect and conserve agriculture,forest and mineral resource lands:Natural resource lands, such as farms and timber lands,provide economic,social,cultural and environmental benefits. This plan ensures that these areas,including mineral resource lands, continue to be viable today and into the future. Protect and conserve the environment,ecologically sensitive areas,and preclude development and land uses which are incompatible with critical areas: This plan recognizes that the environment is an important public resource. Protecting and conserving the environment and ecologically sensitive areas is in the community's best interest. Development of areas susceptible to natural hazards may lead to inefficient use of limited public resources,jeopardize environmental resource functions and values, subject persons and property to unsafe conditions,and affect the perceived quality of life. Respect Property Rights: This plan respects private property rights by assuring that regulatory and administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. Skagit County,in exercising its land use regulatory authority to protect the public health, safety and general welfare(Article XI Section 11 of the state constitution),must not exceed the constitutional limits on its authority,and thereby respect private property rights. Private property rights are defined as the right to control an economic good or service subject to the limitations established by laws and regulations. Planning,land-use regulations,and zoning are some procedures that protect the public's health and safety,the environment,and property values. Planning, 1-18 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction land use regulations and zoning protect individual and community rights in the following ways: • by avoiding nuisances by insuring against incompatible neighboring land uses; • by balancing public and private responsibilities that may have conflicting interests; • by providing predictability that enhances the value of private property; • by incorporating trends of population growth and resource availability to provide necessary public facilities; • by providing codes,ordinances and regulations that organize a community's physical layout; • by protecting and conserving the natural resources that provide us with clean air and water; • by protecting our heritage by preserving both natural and man-made resources, and scenic and cultural areas that generate civic pride; • by assuring that each generation has responsibilities as a trustee of the environment for future generations; • by attaining the widest range of land uses without degradation,risk to health or safety,or other undesirable and unintended consequences; and • by recognizing that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the protection and enhancement of the environment; • by recognizing existing non-conforming land uses and the development rights associated with them. Encourage Citizen Participation and Involvement: This plan derives its strength from the thousands of citizens who participated throughout the planning process to develop a vision for Skagit County's future. Skagit County has a diverse and vocal population whose opinions continually shape public policy. The development of Skagit County's Comprehensive Plan is the product of a planning process that included an extensive public participation process. Procedures provided for a broad dissemination of all plan proposals and alternatives,opportunities for written comments,public meetings after effective notice,provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services and consideration of and response to public comments. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-19 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES THROUGH COMMUNITY PLANNING To be successful,plans must address a broad spectrum of issues that impact a community. The plans must be holistic and discuss social as well as physical infrastructure needs. Skagit County's community planning efforts were designed to strengthen communities at three geographic levels: countywide,subarea,and joint. Functional plans overlay all three community-planning levels. At each level of these community plans issues and needs vary widely and each plan will be tailored to the unique characteristics and issues of each community plan. Countywide plans are regional in nature- subarea plans are defined by watershed boundaries,and joint plans address urban growth areas,rural villages and tribal reservations. Skagit County traditionally has planned within 6 planning districts (Eastern, South Central, Southwest,Northwest,North Central, and Island)in unincorporated Skagit County. Under the County's new planning process, district plans will be replaced with "subarea" and "joint" plans. Joint plans will address unincorporated urban growth areas,rural villages, and Indian Reservations and the focus will be on issues of concern to a city,town, rural or tribal community. Both subarea and joint plans will address the full range of issues for a healthy community, such as public safety,health and human services as well as land use and infrastructure. This menu approach allows the geographic scope of a plan to be determined based on local physical and natural features,political boundaries, issues and concerns. Countywide Plan: A Regional, Countywide Perspective The Skagit County Comprehensive Plan manages growth by protecting natural resource lands,open space and rural areas,and establishes urban growth areas where development is directed. This Plan ensures efficient use of land by minimizing the public costs and adverse impacts of growth;avoids incompatible rural and urban uses by reducing sprawl;provides efficient and safe transportation networks; supports coordinated networks for open spaces, greenbelts,and recreation;protects critical areas and environmentally sensitive lands;maintains and improves the quality of air and land resources;minimizes risk to public health and safety;and preserves urban and rural landscape lifestyles, character, and features. This Plan indicates how unincorporated land will be utilized through land use designations. The land use designations represent the most appropriate uses of land in Skagit County through the year 2015. Four broad land use designations have been developed to allow for the necessary flexibility and specificity in applying land use regulations or standards: Natural Resource Lands,Urban Growth Areas, Rural areas, and Open Space. Lands designated Natural Resource 1-20 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction Lands indicate areas where Skagit County will promote long-term, commercially significant agriculture, forest, and mineral resource use. Urban Growth Areas include incorporated areas and lands appropriate for urban growth through the year 2015. Rural areas provide for rural uses compatible with the primary use of the land for food, agriculture, fiber or minerals that are not of long term significance. Open Space areas are lands with regional importance that have been set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment for either active or passive recreation, scenic amenities,natural resources, or for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Subarea Plans: A Sub-Regional Approach Subarea plans are detailed land use plans for smaller geographic areas. They can be an integrated,collaborative management planning approach to sustaining economic development opportunities and protecting the natural environment by addressing issues within watershed basins. Site-specific land-use designations and zoning will take into account local issues and needs. Subarea plans provide an essential component for integrating land use,infrastructure and human service delivery. Joint Plans: Creating Partnerships with Cities, Towns, Tribal Communities and Rural Villages • Urban Growth Area plans seek to reduce taxpayer costs by focusing the expenditure of public funds,encouraging concentrated development,and increasing choices for housing and economic development. By directing urban growth to areas within and near cities,growth will be focused to those areas where services can best be provided by cities, towns, special purpose districts and the County. Urban Growth Area plans will strengthen local character and make urban areas desirable places to live while ensuring that future generations will continue to enjoy the best qualities of the Skagit Valley,have choices for affordable places to live,obtain good quality jobs and have a high quality of life. These plans focus on collaborative actions between the County and its cities and towns. • Rural Village plans provide an opportunity for rural residents to define and shape the future of existing,historic unincorporated rural communities. Rural Villages contribute to rural housing options and provide employment opportunities and limited commercial-retail services for rural residents. Rural Villages will assist in providing for a variety of rural densities by allowing higher density housing than is permitted in the surrounding rural and natural resource areas. Rural Villages provide an activity center where rural residents and others can gather,work,shop, entertain,and reside. Site-specific land-use designations and zoning will take into account local issues and needs. July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 1-21 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Introduction • Tribal Community plans are unique in that they result from coordinated planning processes involving a tribal community and Skagit County. It is advantageous to develop a formal government-to-government relationship as both entities regulate land use activities affecting Indian and non-Indian interests. Tribal Community plans provide policy guidance for future development(both public and private), land stewardship,and resource protection. The importance of Tribal Community plans is evident as both jurisdictions seek to: (i)assure a quality of life which is deemed desirable to both present and future generations;(ii)confront the issues of land and resource management;and(iii)balance the interests of Indians and non- Indians. Functional Plans: Providing Countywide Facilities or Services Functional plans are detailed plans for facilities and services and other governmental activities. Functional plans are developed at all community planning levels by addressing specific location, design,and operation of public facilities and services (such as solid waste,drainage and administrative offices),and outlining specific actions and strategies for other governmental activities(such as housing assistance and economic development). Some functional plans are operational or programmatic, which means they guide daily management decisions or include the specific details of facility design and location. Functional plans are prepared by Skagit County, independent special districts,and other public agencies. Capital improvement programs(CIP)are important components of functional plans as these plans identify needs, costs,and funding mechanisms for facilities and services. CIP plans distinguish between capacity improvements needed for new growth versus improvements to meet general public health, safety and welfare needs. crstc_I 1-22 July 24, 2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 CHAPTER 2 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK HOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKS The Skagit County Comprehensive Plan provides a legally recognized framework for making decisions about land use in the unincorporated areas of Skagit County. The Plan manages growth by directing urban development to designated areas(urban growth areas)while protecting and conserving natural resources,retaining rural landscape features and lifestyles and maintaining open space lands. It is also intended to aid a broad range of public and private users,including community groups, Skagit County officials and other government agencies. The Plan helps these various users in several ways: It guides the development of additional community plans and implementing regulations. This Plan is the framework for other plans and regulations that govern the location and intensity of land uses throughout unincorporated Skagit County. The Plan's policies provide the basis for more detailed community plans(subarea and joint)and functional plans,and for evaluating proposed changes in zoning and in reviewing proposals for development projects such as land divisions. It also indicates to the public how likely Skagit County would be to approve changes in plans,zoning,or other regulations that apply to an area or a specific parcel. It guides the provision ofpublic facilities and services by integrating land use, infrastructure and human service delivery. The Comprehensive Plan provides the framework for decisions about public facilities and services(such as where facilities should be located to support planned growth). The Plan directs public spending to areas where growth is targeted. July 24,2000—Revised August 15,2003 2-1 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring It provides regional coordination and consistency with other jurisdictional planning efforts. The intent is that other public agencies(local,regional,state,federal,and tribal), in cooperation with Skagit County,use the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the Countywide Planning Policies as a regional perspective or countywide viewpoint when other plans and growth policies are developed,and when making project decisions. It allows for citizen participation and involvement. Comprehensive planning is an evolving process which allows for periodic review and updates in response to changing community goals and vision as articulated by citizens,business,and interested organizations. COMPONENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This Comprehensive Plan is a legal document containing goals,objectives and policies, a map or series of maps,and accompanying functional plans and community development plans that are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners to guide public and private land use decisions. A comprehensive planning program(with its conforming implementing regulations)must constantly weigh the community's financial ability to support development against its minimum population obligations and need for environmental protection. Planning comprehensively provides the public with opportunities to give direction to Skagit County's anticipated growth. This Comprehensive Plan provides for an efficient and effective land use pattern that respects community values by balancing land uses with natural systems and open spaces,by directing growth to urban growth areas,and by protecting and conserving natural resource lands,critical areas,and rural areas. This Plan contains numerous goals,objectives,and policies to create a future in which most growth is directed to areas where services can be provided for in the most effective manner,and away from areas where growth would threaten valued natural qualities. GOALS, OBJECTIVES,AND POLICIES Elements,or chapters of the plan,may include goals,objectives,and policies for the long-term development of the county. A goal is a direction-setter. It is an ideal future end,condition,or state related to the public health,safety,or general welfare toward which planning and implementation measures are directed. A goal is a general expression of community values and, therefore,is abstract in nature. Consequently,a goal is generally not quantifiable,time- dependent,or suggestive of specific actions for its achievement. An objective is a specific end,condition,or state that is an intermediate step toward attaining a goal. It should be achievable and,when possible,measurable time-specific. 2-2 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring An objective may only pertain to one particular aspect of a goal or it may be one of several successive steps toward goal achievement. Consequently,there may be more than one objective for each goal. A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making. It indicates a clear commitment of the local legislative body. A policy is based on a comprehensive plan's goals and objectives as well as the analysis of data. A policy is effectuated by implementation measures(such as:zoning,land division,and environmental ordinances). DESIGNATING MAJOR LAND USES The plan defines major land use categories,each of which has distinct and unique characteristics. These categories are: Urban Growth Areas:This term refers to areas designated for growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings,structures,and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food,other agricultural products,or fiber,or the extraction of mineral resources. Rural Areas:This term refers to lands which are not within an urban growth area and are not designated as natural resource lands having long term commercial significance for production of agricultural products,timber,or the extraction of minerals. Natural Resource Lands:This term refers to agriculture,forest,and mineral resource lands which have long-term commercial significance. Open Space: This term refers to any land area,the protection of which in its present use would conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources;or protect streams or water supplies;or promote conservation of soils,wetlands,beaches or tidal marshes;or enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks,forests,wildlife preserves,nature reservations,or sanctuaries or other open space;or enhance recreation opportunities;or preserve historic sites. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Planning decisions must be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. This Plan is a legal,binding document and cannot be disregarded;it is also a document designed to adapt to changing trends and circumstances. This Plan serves as the basis for land use decisions. Over time this Plan's policies may change to ensure that the development pattern occurring in the county remains consistent with the intent of the community's vision for the future,and the Plan's goals and objectives. July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 2-3 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring Community Vision Statements provide internal consistency within this Plan and create a foundation for land use decisions. This is especially important in cases where there are competing comprehensive plan policies and clarification as to the overall intent of the Plan is needed to assist decision makers. This characteristic is especially noticeable when applying broad policy language to more detailed community plans,amendments to the plan(site-specific or general),land use regulatory changes,or project-specific development proposals. The comprehensive character of this Plan,by nature,addresses a wide variety of community issues. The public participated in creating this comprehensive character by developing and defming Skagit County's vision for the future. The results of the comprehensive plan visioning process are reflected in the following non-prioritized list: Community Vision Statements 1. Preserve the high quality of life. 2. Strive for government efficiency. 3. Support economic opportunities. 4. Increase the housing choice for all residents. 5. Ensure that necessary transportation facilities and services are available to serve development at the time of occupancy and use. 6. Balance urban uses and environmental protection. 7. Protect and retain rural lifestyles. 8. Protect and conserve agriculture,forest,and mineral resource lands. 9. Protect and conserve the environment,ecologically sensitive areas,and preclude development and land uses that are incompatible with critical areas. 10. Respect property rights. 11. Encourage citizen participation and involvement. Community Vision Statements reflect the intent of this Comprehensive Plan and should be considered collectively when making land use decisions. Community Vision Statements provide a decision-making framework that can be referenced when considering the merits of a land use issue—particularly where there are numerous competing goals,objectives or policies. 2-4 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring Generally,where policies are found to be in conflict,it will most likely be due to issues centered on suitability versus capability of a site-specific nature rather than a conflict in general policy intent. Community Vision Statements are used to sort out the broader policy questions initially. Should a land use issue have merit at the broader policy level, then deliberations can proceed to the merits at a site-specific level. Proposals that are not in conflict with Community Vision Statements can proceed with further review and consideration on the more specific merits of the proposal. If a proposal is found to be in direct conflict with one or more of the Community Vision Statements,then the proposal should be found to be inconsistent with the intent of this Comprehensive Plan. AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This Skagit County Comprehensive Plan addresses long-range and countywide issues that are beyond the scope of decisions on subarea,local or functional plans or individual development proposals. This Plan serves as a vital guide to the future and provides a framework for managing change. It is important that amendments to this Comprehensive Plan retain the broad perspectives articulated in the community vision statements,satisfy the goals,objectives and policies of this Plan,and remain consistent with the intent of the Growth Management Act. Amendments are to be justified through findings from monitoring of"growth management indicators"(i.e.,population growth(actual v.projected),land capacity (actual v.projected),economic indicators(property values/comparative sales compared to statewide averages and local trends),changes in technology,omissions or errors,or declared emergency). AMENDMENTS TO THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MUST CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING: • Any proposed amendments to this Plan must be submitted by the County to the Washington State Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development at least 60 days prior to final adoption by the Board of County Commissioners(RCW 36.70A.106). • Proposed amendments must be consistent with Federal and State laws,the Comprehensive Plan,Countywide Planning Policies,related plans,and the comprehensive plans of other counties or cities with which the County has,in part, common borders or regulated regional issues(WAC 365-195-630(1)). July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 2-5 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring • Proposed amendments to this Comprehensive Plan will be considered on an annual basis(no more frequently than once per year),except for the adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program pursuant to RCW 90.58. All proposals will be considered at the same time so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained(WAC 365-195-630(2)). The County may consider adopting amendments more frequently than once per year if a declared emergency exists. An emergency amendment may only be adopted if the Board of County Commissioners finds that the amendment is necessary to address an immediate situation of federal, state,subarea,or countywide concern as opposed to a personal emergency on the part of the applicant or property owner and the situation cannot adequately be addressed by waiting until the annual comprehensive plan amendment process. • At least every 5 years,the County must review all Urban Growth Area boundaries,as well as the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each urban growth area. If necessary,the Urban Growth Area boundaries will be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the County for the succeeding 20-year period. A 5-year cycle was selected because of past inaccuracies in state growth projections,and will allow the County,cities and towns the opportunity to maintain an adequate inventory of lands for residential and economic development with the accompanying fiscal review. • Amendments or changes to natural resource lands and critical area designations should be based on consistency with one or more of the following criteria: 1. Change in circumstances pertaining to the comprehensive plan or public policy. 2. A change in circumstances beyond the control of the landowner pertaining to the subject property. 3. An error in designation. 4. New information on natural resource land or critical area status(WAC 365-190- 040(2)(g). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENTS Policy amendments may be initiated by the County or by other entities,organizations,or individuals through petitions. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Amendments,Figure 4, page 2-9). 2-6 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring Comprehensive Plan Amendments FIGURE 2-1 Growth Management Act Revised Code of Washington (RCW)36.70A Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-195 Comprehensive Plan County-Wide,Regional County,Other Entities,Organizations Or Individuals Initiate Changes through Petitions Policy Map Amendments • Petition 4 Amendments Submittal General Requirements ► Site Amendment Specific Submit Petition to Board of County Commissioners (before last business day of July) Board of County Commissioners Action to Consider or Reject Petition Within 60 business days Environmental Review Initiated Petition Processed Planning Commission Public Hearing(s)& Recommendations Board of County Commissioners Review&Action July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 2-7 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring The merits of proposed policy amendments shall be measured against the petition submittal requirements listed below to ensure consistency in the review and decision making process. • A detailed statement of what is proposed to be changed and why. • A statement of anticipated impacts to be caused by the change,including geographic area affected and issues presented. • A demonstration of why existing Comprehensive Plan policies should not continue to be in effect or why existing policies no longer apply. • A statement of how the amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan's community vision statements,goals,objectives,and policy directives. • A statement of how functional plans and Capital Improvement Plans support the change. • A statement of how the change affects implementing land use regulations(i.e., zoning)and the necessary changes to bring the implementing land use regulations into compliance with the Plan. • A demonstration of public review of the recommended change. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Map amendments may be initiated by the County,or by other entities,organizations,or individuals through petitions. The boundaries separating the Urban Growth Area,Rural Areas and Natural Resource Lands designations are intended to be long-term and unchanging. Land use designations may be subject to minor refinements,but only after full public participation,notice,environmental review,and an official assessment of planning growth management indicators. Amendments must comply with the same petition submittal requirements as policy amendments(see 2 a-g above which are incorporated herein as a-g)and the additional following items: • A detailed statement describing how the map amendment complies with comprehensive plan land use designation criteria. • Urban Growth Area boundary changes shall be supported by and dependant on population forecasts and allocated urban population distributions,existing urban densities and infill opportunities,phasing and availability of adequate services, proximity to designated natural resource lands and the presence of critical areas. 2-8 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring • Rural Areas and Natural Resource Land map designation changes shall be supported by and dependent on population forecasts and allocated non-urban population distributions,existing rural area and natural resource land densities and infill opportunities. Natural Resource Land designations should also satisfy the criteria in Section 1 (f)above(WAC 365-190-040(2)(g)). GENERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS A general comprehensive plan amendment is a policy or land use designation which is applied to a broad class of situations and to a large number of parcels and persons that are not readily identifiable. Petitions for a general amendment proposal are to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners(Board)by the last business day of July of any year for consideration the following year. General amendment proposals received after the last business day of July will be processed with proposed amendments received through the last business day of July of the following year. The Board may or may not act on the proposal(petition)to amend the comprehensive plan. The Board is not required to take any action on such amendment proposals. A decision by the Board to initiate the plan amendment process should occur within 60 business days of the last business day of July,is procedural only,and does not constitute a decision by the Board on whether the amendment will ultimately be approved. SHE-SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS A site-specific comprehensive plan amendment is a policy or land use designation that is applied to a specific number of parcels which are in readily identifiable ownership. A proposal which formulates policy yet affects relatively few individuals will generally be characterized as a site-specific action. Comprehensive plan amendment proposals(petitions)which apply to a specific site, frequently in conjunction with an identifiable development proposal,may be initiated by a petitioner through the following amendment process: July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 2-9 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring General Requirements: • Fees. The petitioner shall pay to the Planning and Permit Center the application fee prescribed by the approved fee schedule as now or hereafter amended. • Petition. The petitioner must submit to the Planning and Permit Center a written application,on forms provided by the Department,containing appropriate amendatory language and,if applicable,a map showing the proposed change. The petition shall also address policy or map evaluation criteria as described in Sections 2 and 3 above. Incomplete petitions will not be accepted. To avoid incomplete petitions,it is recommended that the petitioner request a pre-submittal meeting with staff from the Department. • Timing. Petitions shall be submitted to the Planning and Permit Center by the last business day of July of each year for consideration the following year. Petitions received after the last business day of July will be processed with proposed amendments received through the last business day of July of the following year. • Approval for Consideration. When a petition application is considered complete the Planning and Permit Center shall submit it to the Board within 45 business days of the last business day of July,with the recommendation as to whether the Board should consider or reject the Department's proposed petition. Within 15 business days of receiving the Department's recommendation,the Board in a public meeting shall determine whether to consider or reject the proposed petition. A decision by the Board to initiate the plan amendment process is procedural only and does not constitute a decision by the Board as to whether the amendment will ultimately be approved. • Environmental Review.(State Environmental Policy Act Rules(Chapter 197-11 WAC)). If the Board approves consideration of the amendment,the petitioner shall submit to the Planning and Permit Center an environmental checklist within 20 business days of the Board's action. Upon receipt of the environmental checklist and supporting documentation,the Department should issue within 15 business days an environmental threshold determination on the proposed amendment. If necessary,a Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be published no later than the first business day of May of the year following the submitted petition. • Process. The Planning and Permit Center will process the amendment pursuant to the procedures contained within Chapter 36.70 RCW and Skagit County Code 14.01, including public hearings before the Planning Commission. 2-10 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPEALS Growth Management Hearing Board Review. Challenges to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or related plans that are within the jurisdiction of the Growth Management Hearing Board,shall be processed according to the law governing such challenges. Judicial Review. Any judicial action to review any decision concerning the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan,including related plans,shall be commenced within twenty- one(21)days from the date of the decision. The plaintiff bringing any such action shall pay the full cost of transcription of the record prepared for judicial review and other costs as may be imposed. MONITORING PLAN EFFECTIVENESS The effectiveness or success of the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan can be measured or monitored in several ways. Two important ways are:(1)analyzing land use development trends;and,(2)evaluating policy implementation. The implementation of the Comprehensive Plan can be readily monitored on an incremental(e.g.,monthly,quarterly,bi-annually,annually)basis. Monitoring the success of policy implementation can be measured by public acceptance and support,and enactment,amendment,or deletion of specific operational procedures and ordinances. ESTABLISHING GROWTH MANAGEMENT INDICATORS The success of implementing and monitoring any plan must have a background from which the plan can be measured. This background consists of a database tied to a time period. This database becomes the indicator for monitoring changes and the degree of success or failure in implementing a plan. Obviously if success is not occurring then the policies or implementing regulations need to be re-examined. This re-examination would assess whether the policies or implementing regulations should be modified. Growth management indicators can be used to measure the outcomes of public policy and the goals and objectives behind that policy. Use of growth management indicators is a way to assure accountability to the public. It demonstrates whether the County is moving toward the goals and how fast. It allows public resources to be prioritized in order to meet the goals or,if the desired outcome is not achieved,to consider modifying the goals or implementing regulations. Growth management indicators also work well with the public participation process of the planning cycle. Citizens and decision-makers July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 2-11 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring can review the growth management indicators and make changes in policy direction which reflect the present day realities. Monitoring the effectiveness of Skagit County's Comprehensive Plan will occur through the establishment of a"Growth Management Indicators Work Program"which consists of the following processes: • Establishment of a growth management indicators data bank program for measuring progress towards meeting the goals and objectives of the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan. • Review of the growth management indicators data will include public participation. • The growth management indicators will document data of countywide concern, including but not limited to:land capacity,density,permit processing,housing costs, economic strength and diversity,natural resource consumption,public health and safety,solid waste,transportation,open space,and water quality. • Review of growth management indicators data for consideration as part of the County's annual budget review process. • Identify alternatives to achieving those goals,objectives,or policies that are not demonstrating progress toward their implementation. • Preparation of an annual status report regarding the implementation of policies. This report should address progress to date. This status report will include statements on policies that have already been or are being implemented. LAND USE AND RELATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT INDICATORS DATA For monitoring land use and related issues the growth management indicators data consists of a base year(starting with 1995)population,age of the population,family size, number of housing units,school enrollments,registered automobiles,consumer goods and costs,utility hookups,building permits issued,etc. Using this and other data, population,and service user ratios,needs and changes can be identified. The changes can be monitored and measured. Where necessary,changes to services,policies and programs can be made. 2-12 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Plan Implementation&Monitoring ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS POLICY AND ORDINANCE EFFECTIVENESS Measuring general policy,ordinance,or program effectiveness involves the review of different growth management indicator data than that of land use. For example,the effectiveness of a policy to shorten and improve the building permit process can be monitored by reviewing on different dates the time it takes to get a permit. This and similar type of monitoring will necessitate the participation of the permit user groups. This would be part of the citizen participation process of the work program. ANALYSIS OF PLAN EFFECTIVENESS To complete the monitoring of the effectiveness of the plan,the collection and presentation of growth management indicators data must be accompanied by an analysis and recommendations. Generally,that analysis is best presented by those who work most closely with a specific process,project,or policy program. This analysis should, where appropriate,provide for review,comment,and participation by both public and private interests. For example,the growth management indicators data relating to land use will enable the county to prepare an analysis that determines the success of achieving the policy of directing 80%of the County's new population into the urban growth areas of Skagit County. A similar analysis can be prepared on the success of new ordinances or ordinance modifications,or local government inter-local agreements and areas where they are working,not working,or need modification. cis ) July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 2-13 CHAPTER 6 RURAL ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The Growth Management Act requires counties to include in its comprehensive plan "a rural element[which includes] lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture,forest, or mineral resources. The rural element shall permit appropriate land uses that are compatible with the rural character of such lands and provide for a variety of rural densities and uses. It may also provide for clustering,density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements,and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural uses not characterized by urban growth(RCW 36.70A.070(5)). Amendments to the Growth Management Act adopted in 1997 as part of ESB 6094 also established that"the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development..."(RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)). These limited areas include the infill,development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial,residential, or mixed-use areas,the intensification of development on lots containing or new development of small scale recreational or tourist uses,and the intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the rural population but that provide job opportunities for rural residents. Broad goals,objectives,and policies guiding commercial,industrial and residential uses in unincorporated Skagit County consistent with the Growth Management Act's allowance of"limited areas of more intensive rural development"are addressed in this chapter, and are further implemented through Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element. Development of this chapter was guided in particular by the following GMA Planning Goals: `Encourage urban development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner,"and"Reduce the July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 6-1 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development,""Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans,promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state,especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth,all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public services,and public facilities,"and "Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries,including productive timber, agricultural,and fisheries industries..." These Goals,taken in the context of the totality of the thirteen GMA Planning Goals, led to the following CWPPs that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this section: • All growth outside the urban growth boundary shall be rural in nature as defined in the Rural Element,not requiring urban governmental services, except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to the satisfaction of both the County and the affected city to protect basic public health, safety and the environment,and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development(CWPP 1.8). • Rural development shall be allowed in areas outside of the urban growth boundaries having limited resource production values(e.g.agriculture,timber, and mineral)and having access to public services. Rural development shall have access through suitable county roads,have limited impact on agricultural, timber,mineral lands,critical areas, shorelands,historic landscapes or cultural resources and must address their drainage and ground water impacts(CWPP 2.3). • Commercial areas should be aggregated in cluster form,be pedestrian oriented, provide adequate parking and be designed to accommodate public transit. Strip commercial development shall be prohibited. (CWPP 2.5) • Comprehensive Plan provisions for the location of residential development shall be made in a manner consistent with protecting natural resource lands, aquatic resources,and critical areas. (CWPP 4.6) • Home occupations that do not significantly change or impact neighborhood character shall be permitted.(CWPP 5.2) • Economic diversity should be encouraged in rural communities where special incentives and services can be provided. (CWPP 5.3) 6-2 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element • A diversified economic base shall be encouraged to minimize the vulnerability of the local economy to economic fluctuations. (CWPP 5.5) • Commercial, industrial and residential acreage shall be designated to meet future needs without adversely affecting natural resource lands,critical areas, and rural character and life styles(CWPP 5.6). • Tourism,recreation and land preservation shall be promoted provided they do not conflict with the long-term commercial significance of natural resources and critical areas or rural life styles(CWPP 5.7) • Agriculture,forestry,aquatic resources,and mineral extraction shall be encouraged both within and outside of designated resource lands. (CWPP 5.8) • Value added natural resource industries shall be encouraged. (CWPP 5.12) • The Comprehensive Plan shall support and encourage economic development and employment to provide opportunities for prosperity. (CWPP 5.15) • Incompatible adjacent uses including industrial and commercial areas shall be adequately buffered by means of landscaping,or by maintaining recreation and open space corridors. (CWPP 9.8) • Rural character shall be preserved by regulatory mechanisms through which development can occur with minimal environmental impact. (CWPP 10.6) RURAL AREAS DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS The Skagit County rural landscape is characterized as areas with open space;natural vegetation; is comprised of a variety of rural densities; farms, forests,mining,and aquatic resource areas; small unincorporated rural communities; small, isolated rural commercial and industrial development; and,regionally important recreation areas. Rural lifestyles are often viewed as retreats providing opportunities for seclusion and self-sufficient living. Designating rural areas provides people choices of living environments at lower than urban densities which are compatible with farming,fishing and timber management. Lower impact uses around critical areas,designated natural resource lands and urban growth areas justify rural designation. Rural areas preserve historic and cultural structures and landscapes,retain open spaces,protect designated natural resource lands and identified critical areas and minimize service demands and costs on county government. Maps in the supplemental Map Portfolio illustrate Rural land designations. July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 6-3 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element GOAL A The rural landscape, character and lifestyle are to be retained or achieved, and ultimately protected by: defining and identifying rural lands for long-term use and conservation;providing for a variety of rural densities and housing opportunities; maintaining existing rural community/ neighborhood identity and acknowledging their historical and cultural roles in the rural landscape; allowing land uses which are compatible and in harmony with the rural landscape and community values; assuring economic prosperity for rural areas;protecting significantly important rural features, resources, and values; and, by assuring that appropriate and adequate rural levels of service are provided. OBJECTIVE 1 Encourage development which protects rural character while also allowing for a variety of rural densities and housing opportunities. Policies 6A-1.1 Provide for a variety of rural densities to maintain rural character,farming and forestry,to buffer natural resource lands,to retain open space,to minimize the demand and cost of public infrastructure improvements,to provide for future urban growth area expansion if needed, and to allow rural property owners reasonable economic opportunities for the use of their land. 6-4 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element 6A-1.2 The amount of development in rural areas shall be limited through density requirements that protect and maintain existing rural character,natural resource lands,open space, critical areas,significant cultural resources, and water resources,and that manage traffic volumes. 6A-1.3 Encourage economical,attractive and affordable housing opportunities, which are compatible with rural character. 6A-1.4 Rural residential development near designated natural resource lands shall minimize potential conflicts and reduce conversion of farm and forestland to non-resource uses. Mechanisms such as land conservation/clustering and buffering should be encouraged. 6A-1.5 Upon submission of a land division application,the county shall make an assessment of the physical capacity of the affected area to support development without requiring urban level services. 6A-1.6 Rural conservation and reserve development(CaRD) land divisions should be encouraged when land divisions are proposed. 6A-1.7 Provide for rural residential densities that encourage cost-effective and orderly inclusion of some adjacent rural areas into urban growth areas when the need arises. Conservation and reserve development(CaRD)land divisions should be considered in meeting this need by setting aside land for future urban expansion. 6A-1.8 Environmental,health and safety regulations shall be part of the criteria used to determine how a specific parcel may be used. 6A-1.9 To the extent feasible,growth should be guided so that not more than 20% of the county's growth occurs in the rural and natural resource areas. 6A-1.10 Uses allowable in the rural areas will be compatible with the primary use of the land for food,agriculture,fiber or minerals that are not of long term significance. 6A-1.11 Rural lands should provide landowners a means of residing on their property while at the same time providing protection of the resource land from encroachment of more intensive residential activity. 6A-1.12 Rural lands located within 1/4 mile of a parcel designated Mineral resource land shall serve as a low residential density buffer with an overall gross density of no greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres provided rural lands are located outside of the urban growth area and if the underlying land use July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 6-5 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element designation density of land within 'A mile of MRA lands is greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres,the development rights associated with that density may be transferred to and clustered on that portion of the property located outside of'A mile from the MRA lands,consistent with the CaRD policies in this element. 6A-1.13 A Right-to-Practice Forestry Ordinance shall be developed and applied to Rural designated lands,as part of the County's regulatory update under this comprehensive plan,which acknowledges and protects the landowner and operator from nuisance claims where forest practice activities are in compliance with State forest practice rules and regulations and all other applicable laws and regulations. Protection and rights granted under this ordinance shall not extend to any activity not covered by any of the above laws,rules and regulations. 6A-1.14 A Right-to-Farm Ordinance shall be applied to Rural designated lands as part of the County's regulatory update under this comprehensive plan, which acknowledges and protects the landowner and operator from nuisance claims where agricultural activities utilize best management practices and are in compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations. Protection and rights granted under this ordinance shall not extend to any activity not covered by any of the above laws,rules and regulations. 6A-1.15 Land uses in rural areas that are related to farming,forestry,mining,rural residential uses,tourism,outdoor recreation,and other open space activities shall be preferred. OBJECTIVE 2 Conserve rural character features and resources. Policies 6A-2.1 Agriculture,forestry,mineral and aquatic resource activities,fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and corridors,rural lifestyles,outdoor recreation opportunities,historic buildings and sites,and other open space 6-6 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element amenities shall be retained and protected as important activities and features in rural areas. 6A-2.2 Structures,roads and utility systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize the alteration of the landscape,to preserve natural systems,to protect critical areas,to protect important land features such as ridgelines, to retain historic and cultural structures/landscapes,and scenic amenities. Rural road standards shall minimize paving and right-of way requirements. 6A-2.3 The amount of impervious surface should be minimized. 6A-2.4 Natural drainage systems shall be maintained and enhanced to protect water quality,reduce public costs,and prevent environmental degradation. 6A-2.5 Interstate 5 shall be the sole multi-lane highway for both commercial and private travel in the north/south direction and State Route 20 shall remain the primary east/west route across Skagit County. The Washington State Department of Transportation shall be required to provide shoulders for the length of SR 20 appropriate to the highest use levels based on accepted LOS standards. 6A-2.6 Other rural roadways should be no more than two-lane and follow existing land contours where possible. 6A-2.7 In addition to level of service and vehicular safety,design standards for rural county roads shall include impacts to local rural residents and community character. 6A-2.8 Isolated or unique rural areas(e.g., islands)should be allowed to develop without access to county roads provided rural character is maintained and ingress and egress issues are satisfactorily addressed. OBJECTIVE 3 Assure that the provision of public facilities, services, roads and utilities are consistent with rural character and lifestyles. Policies July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15, 2003 6-7 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element 6A-3.1 Public spending priorities for facilities, services,and utilities within rural areas shall be primarily to maintain or upgrade existing facilities,services, and utilities to serve existing development at rural service level standards. New facilities, services,roads, and utilities shall be allowed which support planned rural growth at rural service level standards. 6A-3.2 Standards and plans for roads and utilities shall be consistent with rural densities and uses. Rural road standards shall minimize paving and right- of-way requirements. Utilities that serve urban growth areas but must be located in rural areas shall be designed and scaled to serve designated urban growth areas. 6A-33 In rural areas,the County should determine the location and causes of failing on-site septic treatment systems, and provide technical assistance and require property owners to improve those systems in order to avoid unhealthy conditions and the need for sewer extensions. The County should adopt operation and maintenance requirements for all septic system permits. 6A-3.4 On-site wastewater systems are preferred to treat and dispose of effluent from uses in rural areas. Community on-site systems or decentralized treatment systems may be used in Rural Villages and land divisions or to serve limited areas of more intensive rural development(LAMIRDS). The technical design and procedural requirements for obtaining approval of community on-site sewage systems are found in Skagit County Code 12.05.090(when handling less than 3,500 gallons of domestic sewage per day)a large on-site sewage system Chapter 246-272 WAC(if more than 3,500 gallons of domestic sewage per day).. The community on-site sewage system or large on-site sewage system shall be designed,reviewed, operated,monitored and maintained based on statutory and/or code requirements and conditions of the reviewing and approving authority. (a) The size of a Rural Village community on-site sewage system or large on-site sewage system shall be limited to the build-out potential of all commercial and residential development within its designated boundaries unless it also addresses existing public health, safety or welfare issues of properties outside of the Rural Villages. (b) The size of a land division community on-site sewage system or large on-site sewage system shall be limited to the number of residential developments allowed under the land division. A land division community on-site sewage system or large on-site sewage 6-8 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 • • SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element system may not be utilized for development that is not part of the proposed land division unless it also addresses existing public health, safety and welfare issues of existing development. (c) The size of Similk Beach LAMIRD community on-site sewage system or large on-site sewage system shall be limited to only those uses located on properties within the logical outer boundary of the LAMIRD. 6A-3.5 Rural service level standards for water supplies shall assure water quality, domestic supply,and rural fire protection consistent with rural densities and uses. 6A-3.6 Urban governmental services should not be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development. 6A-3.7 Skagit County shall promote wise use of public funds in rural areas by allowing service providers to establish distinct rural facility and service standards that are consistent with rural densities and uses. OBJECTIVE 4 Help preserve rural economies and traditional rural lifestyles;foster opportunities for rural-based employment, self-employment, and economic diversification;and permit the operation of rural commercial businesses, natural resource related industries, cottage industries, rural marine industries, recreation and tourism activities, and home occupations, that are consistent with existing and planned land use patterns and are of an appropriate size and scale to maintain rural character. July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 6-9 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element Policies 6A-4.1 Establish policies and regulations for a Rural Village commercial district to provide for a range of commercial uses and services to meet the everyday needs of Rural Village residents and natural resource industries,to provide employment opportunities for residents of the rural area,and to provide goods, services,and lodging for travelers and tourists to the rural area. 6A-4.2 Establish a new Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district to recognize a limited number of existing centers or clusters of small retail and service businesses outside of Urban Growth Areas and Rural Villages which serve a limited area and rural population as well as the traveling public on busy thoroughfares such as Highway 20. 6A-4.3 Establish policies and regulations to allow for small-scale commercial uses at certain Interstate-5 freeway interchanges characterized by existing development to serve the local rural population and the traveling public with necessary freeway oriented goods and services. 6A-4.4 Provide for small-scale recreational and tourist uses that provide opportunities to diversify the economy of rural Skagit County by utilizing, in an environmentally sensitive manner,the County's abundant recreational opportunities and scenic and natural amenities. 6A-4.5 Develop a Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district to facilitate the production of agricultural,forest,and aquatic products by allowing related processing facilities, limited direct resource sales,and limited natural resource support services that support natural resource activities, and which are not harmful to the long term natural resource. 6A-4.6 Provide a land use designation that recognizes existing and new rural marine industrial activities,that are directly linked to an existing rural marine location and that serve the County's rural marine industrial needs. 6A-4.7 Provide a land use designation to recognize existing and new small scale businesses and cottage industries, in order to enhance rural economic opportunities and provide job opportunities for rural residents. 6A-4.8 Provide for the siting of major industrial developments that have land needs not found within the urban growth areas,and master planned resorts, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. 6-10 July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 SKAGIT COUNTY Comprehensive Plan Rural Element 6A-4.9 Provide opportunities for rural entrepreneurs to establish small scale service or fabrication businesses within their homes that provide economic and limited employment opportunities in the rural area and are compatible with surrounding uses. 6A-4.10 Recognize,and provide limited expansion opportunities for,existing isolated nonresidential uses in the rural area that provide job opportunities for rural residents. 6A-4.11 Prohibit expansions of pre-existing nonconforming uses that are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations. c� July 24,2000—Reprinted August 15,2003 6-11 1 6)\ co. . 411, 'nil s*(\ (?; � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ai 41, i"'•' 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 360/379-4450.360/379-4451 Fax httpJ/www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan / UDC Amendment MLA# 04-28(GMA UPDATE) PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: JEFFERSON COUNTY Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Land Use Application. Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by applicant. 2. Any additional information reasonably deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 3. Please prepare and label as"Exhibit A,"a description of the proposed Plan/UDC amendment and any associated development proposal(s)if applicable.Applications for projected-related amendments must include plans and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements.Applications for such amendments that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services. 4. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed.(Attach additional sheets,if necessary.) This amendment is proposed to meet the statutory requirements of RCW 36.70A.130. the Growth Management Act (GMA) provision related to ensuring that the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations comply with the requirements of the GMA. Jefferson County is required to complete its review by December 1, 2004. Per RCW 36.70A.130, this review will include consideration of critical area provisions and analysis of the population allocated to the county by the most recent ten- year population forecast by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Based on this review,amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations will be proposed as necessary. In the event that Jefferson County's December 1. 2004 amendment deadline is changed by the state legislature—these changes may be considered during a subsequent amendment process. 5. Please prepare and label as"Exhibit B,"proposed amendatory language(i.e.,to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC)shown in"bill"format,with text to be added indicated with underlining(e.g.,underlining),and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts(e.g.,stdkeeats). 6. Please prepare and label as"Exhibit C,"a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment,meets,conflicts with,or relates to the following inquiries(NOTE:Simple"yes"or"no"responses are unacceptable.) a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid,or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? 7. The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment;and the applicant(s)hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false. AL SCALF NR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY 1,2004 APPLI RE DATE At4 , ., , MLA04-28:2/1/04 Page 1 vws0.111 . rrIV JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . . 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 360/379-4450.360/379-4451 Fax http//www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Master Land Use Permit Application Form MLA04-28 PROPERTY INFORMATION Tax Parcel Number: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ - Subdivision Name: Lot Number: Property Size: (acres/square feet) Existing Use of Property: Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Not applicable APPLICANT INFORMATION Board of County Commissioners by and though the Name of Applicant: Department of Community Development Telephone: (360)379-4450 Address: 621 Sheridan St City: Port Townsend State: WA Zip Code: 98368 Name of Authorized Agent(if applicable): N/A Telephone: Address: City: State: Zip Code: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OR ACTIVITY(include separate sheets as necessary) State law requires counties to periodically review their Comprehensive Plans and development regulations for consistency with the GMA according to a schedule established in RCW 36.70A.130. Jefferson County must conduct this review by December 1,2004. This placeholder amendment application is intended to ensure that the public is aware that this review will occur as part of the 2004 amendment cycle. Based on staff, Planning Commission and public review; revisions to the CP and development regulations will be proposed,as necessary,to comply with GMA requirements. All components of the CP and development regulations are subject to review and possible revision. PERMITS REQUESTED FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY Please check with Permit Center personnel before completing this section and refer to the specific sections of the UDC referenced for more information and further requirements.An asterisk(*)indicates that a supplemental application or questionnaire is required. Type I Permits Refer to: ❑ Septic Permit/Evaluation of Existing System(EES) UDC Section 6.4.1 and Chapter 8.15 JCC ❑ Building/Demolition Permit UDC Section 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 ❑ Allowed"Yes"Use Consistency Analysis UDC Section 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 ❑ Home Business Table 3-1 and UDC Section 420 ❑ Stormwater Management* UDC Section 6.7 ❑ Road Access* UDC Section 6.8 ❑ Boundary Line Adjustment* UDC Section 7.2 ❑ Minor PRRD Amendments UDC Section 3.6.13.15 ❑ Sign Permit* UDC Section 6.15 ❑ Site Plan Approval Advance Determination(SPAAD) UDC Section 8.7 ❑ Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions UDC Section 5 ❑ Temporary Use(based on use may be Type II or Type III)* UDC Sections 4.38 and 4.39 Type II Permits Refer to: ❑ Discretionary"D"or Unnamed Use Classification UDC Sections 3.2.1,3.2.2 and Table 3-1 ❑ Cottage Industry UDC Section 7.3 and Table 3-1 ❑ Short Plat, Preliminary and Final* UDC Section 7.3 MLA04-28:2/1/04 ❑ Binding Site Plan* UDC Section 7.5 ❑ Conditional(Administrative)"C(a)"Use UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 ❑ Conditional(Discretionary)"C(d)"Use UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 ❑ Variance,Minor* UDC Section 8.9 ❑ Wireless Telecommunication Ordinance 06-0712-99(UDC Appendix C) ❑ Shoreline Substantial Development(Primary Use) UDC Section 5 ❑ Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium for SFR UDC Section 4.16.5(c) ❑ Temporary Use* UDC Sections 4.38 and 4.39 Type Ill Permits ❑ Conditional"C"Use UDC Section 8.8 ❑ Long Plat,Preliminary* UDC Section 7.4 ❑ Planned Rural Residential Development Preliminary Approval UDC Section 3.6.13(must be in conjunction with an _ (PRRD)and Major Amendments* underlying land division application) ❑ Plat Vacation/Alteration UDC Section 7.1.3(d) ❑ Variance,Major* UDC Section 8.9 ❑ Reasonable Economic Use Variance* UDC Section 3.6.4(h) ❑ Wireless Telecommunication Ordinance 06-0712-99 UDC Appendix C ❑ Shoreline Management Substantial Development,Secondary Use* UDC Section 5 ❑ Shoreline Management Conditional Use" UDC Section 5 ❑ Shoreline Management Variance" UDC Section 5 Type IV Permits ❑ Long Plat,Final UDC Section 7.4 ❑ PRRD,Final UDC Section 3.6.13 Type V Permits ❑ Special Use(Essential Public Facilities) UDC Section 3.3.5 ❑ Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map UDC Section 9 Amendment* ❑ Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment* UDC Section 5 Other Local.State or Federal Permits ❑ Please identify any other local,state or federal permits required for this proposal,if known: Review under the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS By signing the application form,the applicant/owner attests that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of their knowledge.I also certify that this application is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affected property.Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save,indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities,jud•ments,court costs,reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a s It of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County an, ,. , • ees,representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. This right • , expire when the County(through the Administrator or the Administrator's representatives)concludes the application • ed with al applicable laws and regulations.Access and right of entry to the appl' s property shall be requested wilio, ,y %"ly I n.g regular business hours. o (APPUCA •-AUTHORIZED R ja ATIVE SIGNATURE) - (DATE) I hereby designate to act as my agent in matters related to this application for permit(s). (APPLICANT SIGNATURE) (DATE) The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential"take"of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the"Endangered Species Act"or"ESA."Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be undertaken because this permit has been issued will not violate the ESA. Any individual,group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s)even if you are in compliance with the Jefferson County development code. The Applicant acknowledges that he,she or it holds individual and non-transferable responsibility for adhering to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this disclaimer and signs and dates it below. (APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE) (DATE) MLA04-28:2/1/04 i EXHIBIT A MLA04-28 Description of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan/UDC Amendments Issue Jefferson County is required to review and revise, as necessary, its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations for consistency with the GMA. During the 2004 amendment cycle, Jefferson County will undertake this review based on the statutory timelines contained in the GMA. Any changes to the CP or development regulations that are required in order to comply with the GMA at RCW 36.70A.130 will be proposed for public review and consideration through the Planning Commission process. Based on Jefferson County's 1998 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and 2000 adoption of the Unified Development Code (the County's adopted development regulations) it is anticipated that revisions to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130 as they relate to critical areas and population will be minimal. While the GMA has been amended numerous times since its initial 1990 adoption, substantive amendments related to issues such as `Best Available Science" (BAS) occurred prior to 1998 and, based on this circumstance, have already been addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and UDC. Board of County Commissioners Concern The BOCC has directed staff to continue with this effort in collaboration with the Jefferson County Planning Commission (PC)to achieve compliance with the GMA. Department of Community Development Recommendation DCD has no recommendation at this time. Upon completion of staff and Planning Commission review, revised CP and development regulation language will be brought forward as necessary. Affected CP and UDC Sections All components of the CP and Unified Development Code (UDC) are open for consideration in order to achieve compliance with RCW 36.70A.130. MLA04-28 Ext.k 2/1/04 Page 1 EXHIBIT B MLA04-28 Proposed Line-In/Line-Out Comprehensive Plan & UDC Amendment Language Line in/line out language will be proposed upon completion of staff, Planning Commission, and public review of the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Mu04-28 Era,.B:2/1/04 Page 1 EXHIBIT C MLA04-28 Submittal Requirement #6 Please prepare and label as "Exhibit C," a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the following inquiries. (NOTE: Simple "yes" or "no" responses are unacceptable.) a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? This amendment application is brought forward in order to comply with the 2004 GMA Update requirement contained at RCW 36.70A.130. The review and potential revisions are intended to ensure consideration of circumstances that have changed since the 1998 adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? New information, such as the most recent Washington State Office of Financial Management ten-year population forecast as informed by the 2000 US census, has become available. c. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? This review and potential amendment of the CP is required to comply with the GMA. As it is the intent of Jefferson County to comply with the GMA, any proposed amendments brought forward to meet the requirements for compliance are assumed to reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. [END] MLA04-28 E,di.C:2/1/04 Page 1 : " Growt& Manaaen'ient Upôates ,„ ,..,,,„ .,... „4, .,,t",- List of Contents " � • Memo from Brad Ack, Director, Puget Sound Action Team • GMA Update Recommendations • Fact sheets: '" • Stronger Safeguards for Shellfish Beds • A Comprehensive Stormwater Program for Local Governments • Stormwater: Frequently Asked Questions - =' • Comparison of Stormwater Program Requirements - • Funding Local Stormwater Programs • Low Impact Development in Puget Sound • Local Marine and Freshwater Habitat Program cim) - llama Puget Sound Action Team P.O. Box 40900 O Olympia, WA 98504-0900 .;, 1-800-54-SOUND or 360-725-5444 COwww.psat.wa.gov ri4 y 4 IYti:? STATE OF WASHINGTON PUGET SOUND ACTION TEAM OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR PO BOX 40900 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0900 March 16, 2004 (360) 725-5444 • FAX(360) 725-5456 TO: Puget Sound Local Government Planning Directors and Staff FROM: Brad Ack,Director Puget Sound Action T SUBJECT: Updates of Comprehensive Plans and Ordinances On behalf of the Puget Sound Action Team(Action Team)partnership,thank you for all the work you do every day as professional planners to protect Puget Sound. I want to let you know that the Action Team's staff is working with state agency members of the Action Team partnership to offer technical support and assistance to you as you update your Growth Management Act plans and ordinances. The Action Team staffs assistance and support is targeted primarily towards issues related to improving stormwater management, protecting shellfish growing areas and protecting nearshore habitat. The Action Team partnership is responsible for coordinating the state's environmental agenda for the Sound. The Action Team is made up of state agencies and federal,tribal and local government representatives. We are guided in our collective efforts by the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, which was adopted by the state legislature as the long-term protection and restoration plan for Puget Sound. The Plan is also recognized by the federal government as the National Estuary Program plan for Puget Sound under the Clean Water Act. The recommendations and other resource materials in the enclosed packet provide guidance to implement elements of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan in your land use plans and ordinances. The Action Team local liaisons listed below are available to answer questions or meet with you to discuss your update plans. These materials are also available on our website at www.psat.wa.gov Puget Sound Action Team Local Liaisons Whatcom, Skagit Hilary Culverwell 205-721-4377 hculverwell @psat.wa.gov_ and Snohomish San Juan and Island Robyn DuPre 360-756-5849 rdupre @psat.wa.gov King and Pierce Kathy Taylor 253-333-4920 ktaylor @psat.wa.gov Thurston and Mason Stuart Glasoe 360-725-5449 sglasoe @psat.wa.gov Kitsap,Jefferson John Cambalik 360-582-9132 jambalik@psat.wa.gov and Clallam is O t6 eta - CA E � ~ �b Cg 6+ b cd 'O rn ate' .'. > -0 ;' 1. O . N co vS ..0 i. > ° ). . .° O V s.. - n O 0 a b -- an O eeS s C/ ° a a s. ea O o cn s 14 a) r•, O ) p., a y O o .p JO 0 on G z O U .0 b O •'. .0 ct l on e.) .0 .-.�. O a) ! ° O E + O N 0 U ma a 4 y a . '''• y a) Q $. 3 6. 0 «i t). too O• 0 O on g w Q. a1) > ° ; 'an on , :� a a a '� cC era ai .11° rn a) Q a. ,O as . . 5 0 E ''" �' ;- Cl)• ccd 3 "O O . b — a0) a) C �O 0 c ' '. a) - 0 O cip Eo = 3 as '- N 0 o ; c 6 (A "Q.o 0 0 � a ° ss. en 0 a) o .0 - cO cn e b I. A y N > • = i).•E tu ° o 3 O 0 0-. rn G 00 Q a' -0 -O 5. c CA 0 E ° 0 o ( 0 — 0 et a) • g. al 0 0 Q ° • aS ai m ~ V a l O ) ' 4 C° j L ' 0 G .b t E .• u a) — . el 0 a. U 0 0 . .0 .b � 6 a) e) on n al . te w O : 3 .O o a) V .b O ~ S d O 3 y aD. . . a G a cO ' c bA O O y� v vi F . 4.+ Z .= •� Q a Q a a O �i w o „ w ._. cn ^ � o Q s. 0 �� O . O . • -0 o bbo C a) 0 - "L4"."3 0 ..' ok O j te � 3 to .. � 3 ° G w � N � a. r,r .:=!C a)0. O N .� o a) c O a) 0s m er es 0 a) a) ) a) 0 v3 3 ° `" -., y U < -0 on aS s.• 1.., -O en i+ tn aa E O b O p/ a.+ I. cn a "C3 L=, 0 , .4: > a) 4) ° a) o o E c. as - cn .� b r-" > o 71 H = edQ u N OQ .U..� • a) CA a o o as•) x o o -0 _ cs � �.'n Gaya o 6 = o " to o g •"a� = 0 ¢ 4 N" Cl) w ea "'' g d © a i e° pn E a >, 'v o E 0 to :4 'rd .tiU F 8 a, s -o o t ° 0 ° o' E to0 4 CO^° O 3 a) N © rn Cl) = �o d. ° x a w „T., i d - Cn % y 0 b 'd O lc d a, UOU U U e a) 0 w ^0 Fci 0 4" 0 te, O W "C +O+ �1 y r..' 3 sue, QO p p b�A co C h •1O+ OH OQV O v E 'O O - > • v ) ¢'O O col 5 O .d --.) = — .O 0 0 0 f1 l.+ O N U 0) 'r C N O .4 Q = a 0 = 0. N 0 'l cC o � �. .. 23 "S o et 0 o � .o et o 16 :. ...> -.' ) .' et rn •.. a) -o v ci, • �a a b +. . U y a) o '� ° :> Qp � 4 il b � � o 010 '0�a . a) 'O L]V] O 0 U v ,. N O O 2 .4 w c0 .� 0) CA .? Cn .., E Q. a; ... c°)) .2 .o 1 �4 v = en ... i ....• E � E ° , � aa3 ° o Q. , • En � � cn ° a ,4c 0. • )V c„v `" +; 3 2 to y `a a 0) =) ¢ ¢ '10 ... > t O z • • • • • • • • • • • • • czi '0 0 tla U 0 0 U w CA y � a co o .0 cn o cn E 44 a ea AO o A a1 o s°). 0) ©E a U 0 U to • eri 0 0 CI 49 b 0 U ell U Q en a) ! Hii en 3 C1 U v > O .0 E '-0 0 � ,���, 3 n .. 0 en ° ' � ooio. > ' o ,°; °■ 'c) 0 Q. ° '� ono 0 p en El. ., t v O V a) U m O ,, • U y. •N 30 'r •� . LZ' 4. cC U ��, .b U O �+ ,� L]..., 0 O O on �0 v E 0 6 U O en - .+ O .O et O U V }' i-• 0 5 Q M ,5 F ° 0 A a s., "O N v 0 .0 3 0 tii H N co ..---4, 6 p U b vUi 64 ed - 1 > p 2 2 •b o b U LA N U d o a) w 0 'b b 0 a) c� = .c en g d... N en .0 p. a2, 3 .b '* y p y c„ , U bn.V z o •� O C7 O N O V V sU, 0 0 o 0 al E 64,b ° 0 O O N d F's 2 ■O M O cd 0 0 O U Z -o 2 �. a L la e� g co U o O 4`n. vUi •°), g Q 'y a ct '� ccs O2 cn . 'Z et o. > d m VI 0 .�^, 0A 0 0 ..., .0 0 w en 9, Z ! -o,_, b 0 cd ay 3 V _ ? 6 — > O 0 . p w «s"O ' U e ... a) bn O j c.. U .O ) 0 Ze+ O ' 4)• -U U , a ^ cd 0 °h 0 o� N 0 44' Q\0 U et O 0 0) 0 cd d to -F.3 0 et r 'b - 0 . 0 0 c A y ° U b •^ •..Q,"1 4' b a 6'. "0 4: U 0r, � v' +, M en w tu .: CA F ++ 0 $, 0 . O M p 0 M _ oo � � on �oai0 CS - � � d d° : o• > 0 0 •� •Z > 0 � i � •''5 o e� ,o ° � 0 0 0 .� n°. -oH C_ �b ( .5 � � a .., .., U ct 0 caw • • • al CA-o on 0 -0 o en V) ° •� 0 "0 1 en .., 0 C.) -0 -0 0. 0 o -o C an N e) Ui ez w «3 c°i 9 v ta _ U o A ea 2 U c = Id - Ea ) t a > > . . •y H =° •� y a0) 4 d a? C7 E E E U U o U l i (O a) 4_,z '4-. � tii 3 0 > w; U C 0n '• •0 •0 -- .O vn +0+ e� M C z 'U czt iD C4Z 0 • y O O -+ '72 tol C - m £ a —.4 0 E• = a) (l U = O 3 .I; a) -o bv L a) w � A = o 000i 0) 0 W v1 °? w Q.C y O-- - , H ) "0 -4 - at a) O oo a) O rn A. ) o■ • O ..+ c V cs 0 D 8 L � O C .� -" a)c I � , _ • -- �O r.i Q y co a) .L.''' II -5, '- L,,,,,0 L,,,,,0 ) —z - tA Ei,"° 2 - � 0 d � en ) as cc 75• ' . o a > > .O ' V r1, as - +-' -0 c) v) � Q cA z co > E �, ,-+ U , ea b , Z v O 3 Q q) a) o — ^ = • ~ 03.. tl LY O h. a) b (j •C"i ' v' O y -0 Q 4 00 -∎ .3 iO • r"' 'ea E § a of " ,.N� 0 . � � •c o ° o �cti 2 ; °? ->• ;•O b (� o O o 2 > .f, F) o. 3 .�e o .� 3 o (v t) -4« a D bA .0 +r _, 0 cn 0 al a) W H i o ao 3 3 0 3 °�' o ('" 3 .c on(« > W >.0 1 .ED 0.1.. .4- i o � aoi � U � A3 yaio3 a, � 3 ,� . � � °�' b ';� � A � � a, -03 U � cu 0 >, 0 (..-CZ •I p '-p• Cs O H L « ) v) 0 ) O E.., '0 s- L ~ > Z7 b> ^pc • • • • • • 3 o ° 0 U co C i. as V C 0 U w 0 CU a cn VI t cu E co 0 A d X 0 y, .b v p 0 -3 0 Q 0 ° O tl)10 c� `n � U U U O ¢ M �+ , ° x CU y bq cd .4" -0 ° .r •O v. N .Z 4-' N aS N v� ^O el ^c c4 U O p } U ."" 3 N IDU U -° T N ez 3 -- 0 ° o � � % al p° a°)i 3 0 th 0w ,ti Y -, 0 °' $- T*, ° ° ce o bOA U o t� 8 et .0 y U -0 ° a W ;a co Q, ° •5U - °' Ki iw o .° 7:H.' 3 % 0 ° ct x ° N ° Q O ter) et U •0 Q"(s" 3 O O N 'illi 42 E c ° cd - }" rn O0 N 1�' F, N O ., U ,. ..+ MI Ri V N .l• °� tea" .9.' m °� Q"vp Ct 0 N d o V) CI CI 0 . }; a.0 .} o ' ° . > „ c cs. a i f:1 bo t w5 $i ° Z Er- ° x ai O 0 o b 3 2 �: ai � b 41 as 3 .� .d a - � - Aar h F a �' 010 -0 cs OD ° 3 c N � 4. t, '4 oo o n• � � -o ° 0 0 3 N E 2-e E c 0 U .0 °.r' 0 bA }? U •.. bq.b ed o a •8. N �° i, L. 0 0 '� bo ?”' cl a°n°` .5' 0 Er.' c 2, r to • p o. a 8 yA ,n 3A m .9- AgR! .5x .° v) rC .. cfo �, 0 0 C7 If - Q V) i, a" • • • • • MP a X VS a ox U 0 0 w 0 ai a CA 0 V) 7) i3, Q ° as E H C 0 0 s, v A Q u d — c � "0 UO • • O O +' 4E4 0 O ^j •O O +� O et Z E O v) .D bb. -� c5j E"" *4 1-4 O �O -'�C �'�-' 6 ►„yam+ a� r.. a) W< . o, � � at e ;: a9 6i) 3 _ � � , � '> za cn . ate' •o 3 °�' -d E o 4 :s z a� = et ai -d o al ct n ¢'w c� a o s o o i a�i _ o A w Q ' C.) o o ^d c._ 3 3 4 a, a' b d cr 4, a> flI1 O « O E"o O i . b 0 0 M v ,L. _o o ;E • 0 v .4 15 CI N 0. o p) co CA ° w o �w .� 0 EA � 'E � > 3a � � c > . o °3 >,3 - zt o t b o a w c.) no , o ° c •!--4 of o t � -°v �c a) t3 i _o o i M o� w Et = •� 0 3 -d g l:00 al V) � ' -o ff e ¢ C) E Cl) 3 o. o a ._ a , - „o• o � a, c. b > c o 3 VI o? 2 = •� t'� .0 a . E :^ 0 % .o .E ° 2 = 8 8 ° a • C) C C `° v° � o 3 U �-, C) s3.Ts W as C� W CL C� . C7 Q Q Cl..) a ° o° coi ' 3b a� csJN 6 U ed • • • • • • 0Gi "0 b d e9 U) et 0 0 a d U G "Cy O „0 U 0 0 0 a0 W O y Vl N. s ct - c 2 a) w E 0 o el el el I. C14 Lo cp 0 0 es CU y '� G Cs) UO t 3 4) a) 4) 4) a) 5 2 a) t 8 O +4 v� v 3 N O w p y G E et O vi.- O ) C/1 a) p. 0 ' cc'd o Q, .o ,4 a ^v 0 a)� ^° C � ° En - O P4ai o sx O a) 0 0 ... � I.4 a)4"1 ai m o O ° E O .5. .9. u, b O .0 3 3 0. 'b c� 6, �4, �, P O bo.� �+ s, RS En 0 o O 0 .0 o v, Ca 0 ++� $-1 0.� . . 3 a) a) a) ° a) ._ a) c) O e� c.) a� 47. � o o °) W ° vc O 0 et O ° v eel ¢. et 0 a �. a) g bo A ° F s .�t N o r cN� aV „] ] U 0 ) u,+ 1° .6 3 0. 3 � •0 a. 01 5 • • • • • • hdi r 'o 0 4) o CL, N N y rn "". cci 4F4 E 3 ^O E. ca,, d C CO 'b O O V Ct pyj W o cn ° CC/ O C O O 6� a) ►+ QO rM 0 " . moo° 3 c H CO .-r z c� ry s a) 4) C.) u eis ao CA p 0 C.) a" a) d d 0 d 0 E U O CUO `" e b y a) VO U ° O "0 '0 7 O O 3 -0 0 ..tt jon CI. bA �E 4+ O 4. sl U rn LS c i N 1, L °N O N p b Uffvi N a) �R3 V) c cn O A O + O U Cl.) ° al . cz -o ° a � °13h -a Or s.. 4.4 U >, O = = aj-.5 cl O O ' -t' ' LH al E a) n to• gO is a. O LE:: U QQ g y u, a ° 0 a. bO 0 'b , O N c . C Q. N c = 0_, O ct O _ O, 'U O cs n 'cz M U ) a - ct '2 N ‘.' ;4 .2 8 ° tti E E b cn • cn y >' _ g U ° E G 3• " � O .� > n a) • y] $:).. U U cg O .-, =1 . ' "cas w r)V 0 t0i ' O . E • O ti O 0 .2 c.a boM O .� N O V O N tO )o U a 4. r., C 0 U cu z 3 C a) ) '"" cn E U camQ.) 3 Z2U .Ecn ...= = , "oo o � � obn4.'n = a ; � cl a a `o' •- c8 c $ .. o 5 ca .� .fl 5:•� = ° 0, I. CU w° aU) ' 3 , '� bO a,•= r. a gri = a, cis • . o › b o o ca . a 0a P �. 0 C) .� et v 0 Q :' ° ° .3 = a) `0 a a) . to.o .b ct A • c 0 "d 01 :° a v2 o o vo c� '^°)� .° U Ts a°i 3 '-„ 3 ° 4. • ° +. ° s°).to o ., a) a) U = C ) a" RI 75 en 0 a) a) a) o O c m a)O 0, E as bq G7 'b as ,g ci to— _• o ,.., cm. .. O 4. «s C E W + 0 a) O Q O .U ^O 'n O O 1+ ,.+ Q s. O to O ,o . O U v '- c's O N p u ., m y O. 0 p ,.0 w N O O y o s , a a 3 ,m, 1 '..• s. ct 1 ct .. o O o ° 0 •.' n •- n „ 'b ' �, .4 -o ,, U ° U U 3 ...• vi U ca .; ) m c.) ° ° a) U ' o o ^ ° ' '� > tip° 3 0 z 0. Q o ' CU 00.. 3 O-'° ° A — O U U ^C cn U, •Ea o Q coo. oOy 4.,, ..4 c ba 'C4� R}., ° = a) ° = .73 cC i., it• Q) U CU mu„ o bop U f3, O «i g 4. 0 >w T n I a) }7 in Clw o .O _b0 m E r0 4. 4,, �1 3 N a E 0 3 ° 0� - . 0 cd .� _ T3 E 'v� a c 0 7 Q O C C., C., 0 •6 TI •O ett d0 Nlx CA 0 o o a) U 0 . Q O E as y 0 c . bO A v s• °a, . > b a, • a: O 1. 4" 'D " «S v1 ›"9" O °' 0 O O a) O o o t Q E E 1 b bA E• c — - `�▪ cd " .fl o � $O i a) +0 y y , - O + .d t .N. U y a � , GN = ° O . O Q i ti y y .. C N :17; O td O U a "0 et c , C1 n cd E a) .bA O +- � • m .b � N O .0 15 vi to ^ «"O 4. +' 1 y a) cC C ° d s cC 3 a � I OA ° 0 ) A aQ" o c o• , o n _ p M"O G 3 5 4.+ g f U N W o 0 . w • c 0 w e CA ' m 0 • V o • a E v Q A ° o ct 6 E cP E ; ° 8 , ,. bA� O 2 al + V O a 20 cd cr 43.. a� ca O a� ; ... a" U O ° vs E--1 a) — 8 ° v; c g a, o .Es "O bA o .° > vi 0 E d c > ct Q,-0 0 m 3 .0 ° g a' E-+ o °4 c.) ° 0 O Ia.4.) 0 o 4 -o E ,° c0 .- ct o ts. ao c° i r+.. > N ci 5 'z. v tip O N d r,n> B. o 4 o > ri 0 .0 > ° ai 3 ,4 °o 3 0 .NI o s '0 VI '° 0 ti T. • E Cn C) > a .. 1 to 4 U o W -o a v�.E s `" = 3 ° o 3 O O a ., '2 3 .-- Q,.b +A -d o -o a m b -d 3 a O -o *4 0 ■4.4 w - •- •- 4.. .E .., b w°" co I. o U � 0 '� c o y 0 `2 � ? .-- aA U 44 . E y ?U 3 b - •I. CI.-'' o o 0 4U En ,. U $.. 0 o c� m tos - - ° 0 et -, Co d bA� � o• 00 c Eo a x cs; U a cn bA 42 0? E d v O a, a) 0? ' y c 0 h A c o c ° o 2 U ° . 0 o .60 OD at Na N � NgNa Ng Ng " "'"1 k � o 2 •9q / \ .§ § § L°1 R 2 2 d 2 § 7 0 7 k � q c%) / . . % — 2 � o « m 0 .§ k q § k k q § 2 E v § ® A § t t 0 evi § 2 k § .§ • / 0 7 k k >� 2 0 o Cn \ G d 1-4 Om CU CU 0 -∎ a 0 2 2 o k§ f 2 t) 0 3 2 § § aa) o o ) R d O A , / q ■ ° .§ • c• � « Co) § coo o tzl CV ■ 0 � / ' 0 2 § a.) E§ U ■ ■ 7 O• CIO t =7,+, ■ . � 2 � k2 • Stronger Safeguards for Shellfish Beds Shellfish beds are sensitive environments,easily t cr.) contaminated by untreated sewage,animal -, wastes and other contaminants.They require `""� ' .tom � r reater attention and stricter land use and pollution t g control measures than many other environments. . � - � , A number of state laws and programs recognize this ,+ .- .s az 4 z need and call for heightened protection of shellfish • Six ,:: ,2 .;,.,.„ tidelands.If properly implemented and fitted . �<<t,. . �t together,these authorities provide essential and '. effective safeguards for shellfish harvesting. ��� Photo courtesy of Geoff Menzies Key laws and programs: Growth Management The Growth Management Act,Chapter 36.70A RCW,calls for coordinated and W comprehensive land use planning. Shellfish protection can be addressed through a number In- of goals and elements of the act and accompanying regulations.Most significant are -• provisions in Chapter 365-190 WAC for protecting shellfish tidelands as critical areas and natural resource lands. tiz • Critical Areas:WAC 365-190-080 provides guidelines for classifying shellfish beds as critical cuD ' -- ''''IP."111D areas. Local governments can either include protection measures directly in the critical areas ordinance or reference measures that are detailed in other development regulations (e.g.,zoning, stormwater and sewage regulations) and the comprehensive plan (e.g., allowable land uses and densities).The actual critical area boundaries can include either . . "' the shellfish beds or the beds and adjacent uplands.Regardless of the approach,measures (0:1"") called out in the comprehensive plan and development regulations should apply to all areas,activities and pollution sources potentially affecting the shellfish beds. • Natural Resource Lands:RCW 36.70A.030 and WAC 365-190-050 provide the latitude to designate aquaculture resource lands—including commercial shellfish tidelands and their upland facilities—as lands of"long-term commercial significance for agricultural production."As with critical areas,the comprehensive plan and development regulations ""` should be structured to protect the values,functions and continued use of the shellfish beds while prohibiting incompatible,adjacent land uses and developments. Shoreline Management The Shoreline Management Act,Chapter 90.58 RCW,calls for coordinated planning to protect natural shoreline conditions and functions.Shellfish harvesting is a preferred,water- dependent use spotlighted for protection.In implementing and updating Shoreline Master Programs,local governments should establish the highest possible environmental designations for upland areas(natural,conservancy or rural) and regulate land uses in accordance with these designations to preserve water quality and habitats for shellfish `` harvesting. (The state shoreline guidelines are currently under review.) #0000,0000.00,00,000000mmmi......... • P.O. Box 40900 • Olympia •WA• 98504-0900 • 1-800-54-SOUND • (360) 725-5444 On-Site Sewage Management Discharges of untreated sewage are prohibited under a number of health and water quality laws, including Chapter 90.48 RCW,Chapter 173-201A WAC,Chapter r� 43.20 RCW and Chapter 246-271 WAC.The state on-site � - sewage regulations,Chapter 246-272 WAC,establish . -^� s- a. minimum standards for the design and use of on-site fir"�. systems.The regulations call on residents to properly � operate and maintain their systems,and direct local health officers to institute oversight programs to ensure compliance with these rules.The regulations also give ► local health officers responsibility to designate"areas of special concern"to ensure protection of shellfish areas and other sensitive environments(WAC 246-272-21501).This authority allows local governments Photo courtesy of Geoff Menzies to institute higher standards in areas draining to shellfish tidelands for the siting,use,maintenance and monitoring of on-site systems;new development;water Puget Sound Management Plan quality monitoring;and other activities. Recognizing the significance and interdependence of these laws and programs,the 2000 Puget Sound Water Stormwater Management Quality Management Plan calls on cities and counties to take full advantage of these authorities to protect and The Department of Ecology's Storm water Management restore shellfish beds.Element SF-2 of the Shellfish Manual for Western Washington lays out minimum Protection Program provides the following guidance: requirements for stormwater management in the Puget Sound basin.Sections 1.6.11 and 1.6.13 in Volume I give "Cities and counties shall fully implement local governments discretion to institute more stringent provisions of the Growth Management Act standards as appropriate,or as required to fulfill (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and accompanying recommendations of watershed plans,basin plans or regulations(including Chapter 365-190 Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)water cleanup WAC) to protect and,where feasible,restore plans.Among other considerations,local governments water quality in shellfish areas.Local should pay particular attention to low impact governments shall also use other regulatory development techniques while implementing the on- tools such as the Shoreline Management Act site stormwater management practices described in (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and accompanying Chapter 5,Volume V. guidelines(Chapter 173-26 WAC),the State Environmental Policy Act(Chapter 43.21C, Chapter 197-11 WAC),and state and local Shellfish Protection Districts on-site sewage regulations (Chapter 246- 272 WAC)to protect shoreline habitats and Chapter 90.72 RCW calls on local governments to set up to ensure compliance with water quality shellfish protection districts and programs to protect standards in shellfish areas.In places where and restore water quality in shellfish growing areas.The existing or projected land uses or sources of law focuses largely on actions to prevent and control contamination threaten the condition or pollution in shellfish areas,but it also includes classification of shellfish areas,local important land use provisions.RCW 90.72.030 directs governments shall institute strategies to counties to set up shellfish protection programs that mitigate the effects." include"any elements deemed appropriate"to address the water quality problems,which can potentially involve changes to local land use plans and For more information, check out the complete text of the development regulations.In addition,RCW 90.72.060 Puget Sound plan, additional fact sheets about the update states that local governments must follow the State process, and information about the Action Team at Environmental Policy Act(Chapter 43.21C RCW)in www.psast.wa.govor call the Action Team at evaluating proposed developments,changes in land (360)725-5444 or 1 (800)54-SOUND. If you need these use,or changes in utility services that conflict with materials in an alternative format, call our TDD number continued long-term use of shellfish tidelands within 1-800-833-6388. these districts. Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post-consumer fiber and processed chlorine free. ' Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows g tormwater(or urban runoff)is precipitation that falls "-- -.., ,..i.,' `r x° on rooftops,roads and other developed land and drains ;ter to storm drains,streams and eventually Puget Sound. > ,, Cr) - .•,'~l' 4...,,. ' 4 A combined sewer overflow(CSO)occurs when a combined sanitary and storm sewer system is overloaded by rainfall. 1 - � When this happens the system is designed to discharge enough �: � � � � '� Y....nny water so that it can function properly again.Discharged water -C.0•00). is a combination of untreated sewage and Stormwater. - Problems Caused by Stormwater and CSOs Overview of the Puget Sound Stormwater and Combined Sewer °. Stormwater,if not properly managed,can pose OVerfIOWS Program .. �, .�. both water quality and water quantity pro ems. . Stormwater typically contains heavy metals,oil • Local governments '' and grease,organic toxins,bacteria,nutrients and _ Develop and carry out comprehensive sediments.These pollutants degrade water quality, Stormwater management programs harm or kill fish and other aquatic life,close - Manage growth and protect resources productive shellfish growing areas to harvest, and open spaces through Growth M- — contaminate sediments,and threaten drinking Management Act - water supplies.Large volumes of stormwater can (GMA)planning ,� degrade stream channels,alter or destroy fish and _ Carry out plans to reduce sewage ., wildlife habitat,and cause flooding in discharges from their combined sewer communities.Combined sewer overflows contain systems untreated sewage that can degrade water quality, • The Department of Ecology provides regional -; harm fish and wildlife,and threaten public health. technical standards,assistance and funding to — local governments and issues federal Stormwater is listed as one of the factors limiting stormwater permits. our ability to recover salmonid populations.The . The Puget Sound Action Team and state Department of Health cited stormwater as one of agencies provide technical assistance and co:;,:s the sources of shellfish growing area The to local governments to help them contamination and the Department of Ecology develop comprehensive stormwater listed stormwater as one of the causes of water management programs. ' quality impairment in state waters in the Clean • The Department of Transportation manages Water Act section 305(b)report to Congress.The and treats runoff from state highways. -ow Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program,the • The U.S.EPA ensures that runoff from federal regions long-term environmental monitoring facilities is properly managed. "' initiative,found that 38%of urban sediments • Tribes ensure that runoff from tribal lands is ... . surveyed were contaminated. properly managed. • A broad-based committee of regional experts Solutions–Updates to the Puget Sound periodically assesses research needs and shares research findings. Management Plan • The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team In December 2000,the Puget Sound Action evaluates the program by tracking Team amended the Puget Sound Water Quality programmatic and environmental measures. Management Plan,the state strategy for protecting and restoring Puget Sound.As part of the revision,the Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows Program was updated to reflect current science and include innovative management techniques. olg1:000.01lPvp000000puNOMI.mmamiiooi4 TIN TE P.O. Box 40900 • Olympia • WA • 98504-0900 • 1-800-54-SOUND • (360) 725-5444 Comprehensive Stormwater Programs Low Impact Development Practices for,Cities and Counties , A key element of a comprehensive stormwater Each city and county in Puget Sound is directed to management program is the use of low impact manage stormwater through local land use planning development(LID)practices.LID is an environmentally under GMA and by developing and carrying out a friendly approach to land development and stormwater comprehensive stormwater management program. management designed to reduce impacts on watershed hydrology and aquatic resources.LID is based on the Local land use planning under GMA should include: premise that nature knows best.Forests and other natural • Designating urban growth areas with appropriate areas are extremely effective groundwater recharge areas. densities and capital facilities to reduce sprawl. In a natural,undisturbed forest,there is very little surface • Providing adequate vegetative buffers and runoff-most water is taken up by plants,soaks into the development setbacks in critical areas ordinances to ground or evaporates.So rather than collecting and protect sensitive areas. conveying stormwater through pipes to an off-site • Assessing how full build-out according to the discharge point,LID uses natural vegetation and comprehensive plan will alter aquatic resources. landscaped"rain gardens"on site to capture,treat and • Using measures to protect natural hydrology and infiltrate stormwater.This helps maintain watershed processes,such as setting goals for limiting impervious hydrology as development occurs. surfaces and preserving open spaces. For more information,visit the Puget Sound Water Quality Comprehensive stormwater management programs Action Team's web page at:www.psat.wa.gov.Or call us at should include: (360)725-5444 or(800)54-SOUND • Stormwater controls for new development/ redevelopment,including review of site plans. • Periodic inspections of construction sites. t' • Ongoing maintenance of permanent facilities. �` . • Source control(e.g.,spill prevention/cleanup, z employee training,covered storage areas). • allell Identification and elimination of illicit discharges and water quality response program. -. • Identification and ranking of existing drainage _' $ ; problems. — " i • Public education and involvement activities. ,�'�°' ' • Use of low impact development practices(e.g. ' retaining native vegetation,reducing impervious < " surfaces,infiltrating using bioretention"rain gardens"). _ x • Participation in watershed or basin planning. . ,:. A • Local funding capacity.. • Programmatic and environmental monitoring to evaluate program success. • Schedule for implementing activities. Bforetention garden in parking lot Courtesy of Low Impact Development Center For more information, check out the complete text of the Puget Sound plan, additional fact sheets about the update process, and information about the Action Team at www.psat.wa.gov or call the Action Team at(360) 725-5444 or (800)54-SOUND. If you need these materials in an alternative format, call our TDD number(800) 833-6388. Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post-consumer fiber and processed chlorine free. - Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows Program Frequently Asked Questions 0 Stormwater Management _ What are the benefits of a storm water program? An effective stormwater management .� program will reduce flooding,erosion, . i�qt y 1 A t` washouts and other and road damage, . vim, w and will protect and restore water quality r . :9 �, ;,t.,. and fish and shellfish habitat in local '.'g� ' .>, ` l , . -, � w .:� streams,rivers,lakes,and marine waters. . d An effective program will achieve these ,nwa — ; results by preventing further problems ,. it � � 4 3. :-- and by fixing past problems. This ,.. reduces the public and private costs of � ," ',a = ' ° , damage to property,roads,and habitat, `: „ Y as well as threats to public safety. Photo courtesy of Seattle Public Utilities Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Why should we adopt the Puget Sound Management Plan storm water program? The Puget Sound Management Plan is a long-term plan to protect Puget Sound. Cities and counties of all sizes need to manage stormwater runoff if the Sound's water quality and - biological resources are to be protected and restored. By adopting the Management Plan's components,a jurisdiction can feel confident that the important aspects of stormwater management are being addressed.Implementation of a comprehensive program would help -fm, local governments prevent future storm water problems and fix existing problems. Undertaking the elements of a comprehensive program would also help a jurisdiction avoid the public and private costs of flooding and other problems. The elements of a comprehensive program are based on the best and latest thinking in the field of stormwater management rG around the basin, and on the experience of hard and costly lessons learned—sometimes too late-in urbanized counties. What is in the Puget Sound Management Plan stormwater program? The Puget Sound Management Plan's stormwater program combines preventive controls for new development and redevelopment;restorative measures to address and fix existing problems;measures to implement innovative practices,such as low impact development;and measures to help jurisdictions monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of programs and best management practices. 1 0 00 0 I I I II.I.I I I IP,a 0 I 0 1 1 0 I I 1111 I 11 I I I 11°I I I I I I I all I I illiall TEAM P.O. Box 40900 • Olympia •WA • 98504-0900 • 1-800-54-SOUND • (360) 725-5444 • What are the elements of the program? ;, ... .m Jurisdictions,including tribal,federal and local governments ' `" ',, :=:,:, are called on to develop and implement comprehensive programs that include the following elements: =M° • Stormwater controls for new development and redevelopment. • Stormwater site plan review. Puget Sound Management Plan and • Inspection of construction sites. NPDES and Endangered Species Act • Maintenance of permanent stormwater facilities. • A source control program. How does the Puget Sound Management Plan local • Detection and elimination of illicit discharges;water comprehensive stormwater program differ from the U.S. quality response to spills and violations. • Identification and ranking of existing problems. EPA's NPDES Phase H requirements? • Programs for public education and involvement. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA) • Integration of the program into watershed or basin planning. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • Development of stable funding such as a utility. (NPDES) Phase II Rule requires states with designated • Monitoring of program implementation and authority to issue a general stormwater permit for smaller environmental conditions. municipalities in urbanized areas that includes the • A schedule for implementation. following eight minimum elements.All of these elements • Provisions for innovative low impact development are included in the Puget Sound Plan's local stormwater technologies,as demonstration projects or directly in Program: development regulations. • Public education and outreach • Public involvement and participation • Illicit discharge detection and elimination Who defines an acceptable program? • Construction site storm water control Each jurisdiction makes its own choices about priorities • Post-construction storm water management for stormwater management. The comprehensive • Pollution prevention "good housekeeping" program was revised in 2000 to reflect lessons learned in • Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load or stormwater management around Puget Sound and recent Water Clean-up Plan (TMDL)requirements scientific findings. The Puget Sound Management Plan's • Evaluation and reporting stormwater program covers the various aspects of stormwater management,but because each jurisdiction The NPDES Phase II requirements are the minimum has different conditions and problems,the program can controls for all smaller municipalities in urbanized areas be tailored to fit individual jurisdictions'needs. nationwide.Local issues,including the regional commitment to preserving salmon,shellfish growing,and Why is our current program not adequate? the other rich biological resources of Puget Sound, You may have some elements of the comprehensive require greater protection from the problems associated program already in place. However,if your jurisdiction is with stormwater runoff. still experiencing flooding and erosion because of development,and if your streams,lakes and marine waters How does the Puget Sound Management Plan fail to meet water quality standards or to support fish and stormwater program differ from the Tri-county shellfish because of stormwater problems,probably your proposal that was negotiated with NOAH Fisheries program is incomplete and in need of improvement. What Service in 2001? is important now is to move forward and build a truly The two programs are very similar.Two additional comprehensive program on the foundation of your existing elements in the Tri-County draft program related to program. habitat protection appear in the Puget Sound Management Plan's Marine and Freshwater Habitat Are local governments the only ones required to take action? Program,rather than the Stormwater Program. At the request of local governments who participated in a recent No. Washington Department of Transportation,the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and federal revision process,the Puget Sound Plan's stormwater facility managers, tribes, and businesses must control requirements program is as for consistent protection. possible with expected federal runoff from state highways,federal facilities,tribal lands, require f salmon protection. and commercial properties,respectively. The intent is to create a seamless coverage zone where all runoff that drains to Puget Sound is first treated and managed. Would following the Puget Sound Management Plan Are all jurisdictions expected to have similar programs, guarantee a jurisdiction protection from take regardless of their size? prohibitions under ESA? No. Programs will vary according to a jurisdiction's No.Although the Puget Sound Plan's stormwater population,population density,location,relative threat program is similar to the program negotiated by Tri- of stormwater to resources,and other local factors. For County with the federal agencies overseeing ESA some jurisdictions,flooding might be the primary implementation,it has not been approved by the federal concern,while for others road and slope failures are a services under ESA. greater problem. In urbanized or shellfish growing areas,water quality protection may require more Implementation attention,while in rural forested areas,road maintenance and habitat restoration might be the focus. Can we do it in steps,or do we have to adopt the comprehensive program all at once? Compliance Naturally,implementing a comprehensive stormwater program will need to be done in steps. What is What happens if we don't adopt a program or expand important is to have an implementation plan for the our program? program. What will your jurisdiction do first? What are Jurisdictions that fail to properly manage stormwater the local priorities?What will require legislative action? will continue to experience problems related to What can be done immediately or at little expense? property damage and public safety,as well as long- Each year should include additions to your program term repair costs for roads,bridges,and water quality. that bring it closer to the goal of preventing problems These problems will be exacerbated by the region's and fixing past mistakes. continued growth, and problems not corrected now will cost more to fix later. How can we involve the public in stormwater Jurisdictions that don't adequately manage stormwater management? runoff will continue to experience adverse effects of A good public involvement program is important to build stormwater runoff.These might include:flooding, local understanding of stormwater issues and support for property damage,threats to public safety,polluted the program Our publication Stormwater Education waterways,and damaged natural resources.Prevention Programs: Selected Examples from Puget Sound gives of these problems before they arise is far more cost- examples of how jurisdictions have involved the public in effective than trying to restore and retrofit after-the- managing storm and surface water. Your jurisdiction's fact. Stormwater runoff problems are exacerbated by program should be built around local needs and issues in the region's rapid population growth and land order to build ownership,understanding,and support development. within your citizenry. The Puget Sound local comprehensive stormwater program is not mandatory.It helps fulfills the state's mandate to protect Puget Sound under Section 320 of the federal Clean Water Act,and is part of the approved comprehensive conservation plan to protect Puget Sound under the National Estuary Program.In addition,federal agencies have identified stormwater :. " ' ,� kti runoff and loss of habitat as one of the factors limiting• �s '''' , N - our region's ability to recover salmon listed as �-� � . ;a _,� threatened under the U.S.Endangered Species Act. Funding r y� How do jurisdictions pay for stormwater programs? Jurisdictions have a variety of funding options available to them. A consistent, local funding source is an important component of any effective storm water management program. Here are some Courtesy of Curtis Hinman,WSU Pierce County Cooperative Extension options: A storm or surface water utility. Local jurisdictions Permit fees and drainage impact fees. These are fees are authorized to charge residents and businesses a charged to cover the costs of reviewing permits and fee for surface water services provided. Fees are paying for capital improvements related to drainage for usually collected with other local services billing, new development. They are one-time fees and help such as water, sewer, or garbage. The amount ensure that"growth pays for growth." charged varies by jurisdictions, but $5.00/month for single-family homes is an average. Some Road fund. A jurisdiction's road fund,accruing from jurisdictions charge by amount of impervious gasoline tax, can be used for some components of a surface. Some give credits for innovative stormwater stormwater program. In particular,it can be used to Best Management Practices. Local road design and build capital projects related to road departments and WSDOT are also charged for the drainage or habitat restoration projects related to roads. amount of impervious surface of the roads and Grant and loan funding. There are a variety of grants highways in the jurisdiction. Fees pay for a variety of and loans available for stormwater projects,including services, including on-going operation and from Washington State's Revolving Fund,the Public maintenance of publicly-owned stormwater Works Trust Fund, and the Centennial Clean Water facilities, drainage basin planning, education and Fund. Other grant and loan opportunities come up outreach, water quality programs, monitoring, and periodically. These are generally good for one-time capital projects. Generally, such a fee is predictable projects,but cannot be relied on for on-going and consistent and is considered a valuable tool for stormwater program activities. on-going management of storm and surface water. Revenue bonds.Jurisdictions can also issue revenue Real estate excise tax or REET. REET funds are used by bonds,backed by rate revenues,to pay for large capital many jurisdictions to help pay for stormwater projects. management,including planning and capital facilities. Jurisdictions have flexibility in how these funds are Efficiencies with neighboring jurisdictions. Just as distributed throughout departments,so long as it is counties and cities combine their resources to serve spent on growth-related issues. There is a lot of multiple jurisdictions with solid waste facilities or other competition between local programs for these dollars, public services,cities and counties can develop so REET is often not a predictable source of funding for intergovernmental agreements to share the cost for stormwater management. some elements of the stormwater program. For example,in a rural county the county and several cities General fund. A jurisdiction's general fund,accruing could join together to hire staff in common for the from property taxes and B&O taxes,may also be used source control,monitoring,and public education and for stormwater management. Again,because these involvement elements of the stormwater program. funds are distributed throughout the jurisdictions' departments,this is not always a predictable source of funding. For more information, check out the complete text of the Puget Sound plan, additional fact sheets about the update process, and information about the Action Team at www.psatwa.gov or call the Action Team at(360)725-5444 or 1 (800)54-SOUND. If you need these materials in an alternative format, call our TDD number 1(800) 833-6388. Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post-consumer fiber and processed chlorine free. Comparing the Puget Sound Water Quality r -4 - _ Management Plan's Stormwater Program, the Draft Tri-County 4(d) Stormwater Proposal, cf,.....1 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's - � NPDES' Phase II Program .coiii) . PS Plan Puget Sound Management Plan Draft Tri-County EPA's NPDES .0"-...- . Element Stormwater Program Elements 4(d)Stormwater Phase II Reference Proposal Program X Required under SW-1.1 Land use Planning GMA 1° Standards for New Development and X X SW-1.2(a) Redevelopment (b) Stormwater Site Plan Review X X (c) Inspections of Construction Sites X X (d) Maintenance of Permanent Facilities X X gyp. (e) Source Control X X (0 Illicit Discharge Elimination and Water X X Quality Response . (g) Identification&Ranking of Problems X ---:--__ (h) Public Education&Involvement X X vo.„,„„ID (i) Low Impact Development Practices X Recommended Funded by Ecology under (j) Watershed or Basin Planning X Watershed - Planning Act - (k) Local Funding Capacity X ... _ -,-ts..oD ""' Pr rammatic&Environmental X (I) 09 X (Evaluation& Monitoring Reporting) (m) Schedule for Implementation X X Note:Information regarding the Draft Tri-County 4(d) Stormwater Proposal is from the Tri-County biological Review Draft dated May 18,2001,Volume 2,Chapter 3,Stormwater Management Model Program.As this is a draft proposal,it is subject to change.Consult the program web page for the most current information: http://www.salmoninfo.comitricounty/tcplan.htm National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 4000000010010004.0.0100011011.111101.111.111111 PUGET SOUND ACTION TEAM P.O. Box 40900 • Olympia • WA • 98504-0900 • 1-800-54-SOUND • (360) 725-5444 • Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post-consumer fiber and processed chlorine free. jki 0. 3 Funding Local Stormwater Program How Do We Pay for It? I ocal stormwater management is becoming < !t.• i increasingly important in protecting our water x quality.The big question facing local • governments is,"How do we fund it?" :. '"a ' , 1"CimaN•010)4 7...,;:.k.; t This Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team fact sheet , provides information on funding options for local , " P governments.More details can be found at the Action ! "; Teamwebsite:http://wwwwa.gov/puget_sound/ ., Programs/Funding.htm. Photo courtesy of City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services - Getting Programs Started Using Federal and State Grants and Loans Federal and state grants and loans are available for strategic stormwater management planning, - ' tEd) '"- establishing stormwater utilities,and initial capital investments.The following list contact information for funding programs that may be useful for comprehensive planning purposes and for site-specific projects involving stormwater source reduction or control: 1. Centennial Clean Water Fund,State Revolving Fund and Federal Nonpoint Source Management ' - ; Grants;Dan Filip,Department of Ecology,(360)407 6509,a mail:dfil461 @ecywa.gov 2. Coastal Zone Management Grants;Bev Huether,Department of Ecology,(360)407-7254,e-mail: bhue461@ecy.wa.gov - ' _° 3. Flood Control Assistance Account Program(FCAAP);Bev Huether,Department of Ecology, (360) 407-7254,e-mail: bhue461 @ecy.wa.gov 4. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration Program(Challenge 21); Harry Kitch,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Planning Division, (202)761-0115,e-mail: ,, harry..e.kitch @hg02.usace.army.mil 5. Flood Mitigation Assistance Program;Federal Emergency Management Agency,phone: (425)487-4678. The following funds can be used for site-specific projects involving stormwater source reduction or control: 6. City Fish Passage Barrier,Stormwater and Habitat Restoration Program;Jon Peterson, Washington State Department of Transportation,Phone: (360)705-7499,peterjn@wsdot.wa.gov 7. Public Works and Development Facilities Program;A.Leonard Smith,U.S.Department of Commerce,206-220-7660,email:lsmith7 @eda.doc.gov 8. Public Works Trust Fund,Construction Loan Program;Public Works Board,Cecilia Gardner,(360) 725-5006,e-mail: cecilia.gardener @pwb.wa.gov 9. Public Works Trust Fund,Pre-Construction Loan Program;Public Works Board,Cecilia Gardner, (360)725-5006,e-mail: cecilia.gardener @pwb.wa.gov 10. The Highways&Local Program or Washington Surface Transportation Program;Kathleen Davis, Wash.State Dept of Transportation(360)705-7871,e-mail:davisk@wsdot.wa.gov r101 '"""1 " ■ PUGET SOUND ACTION TEAM P.O. Box 40900 • Olympia • WA • 98504-0900 • 1-800-54-SOUND • (360) 725-5444 , Long-term Funding Options at the Local Level Federal and state funds are best suited for initial seed money for a Special Purpose Districts stormwater management program.A local means of generating stormwater funding is necessary for effective,long-term 1. Water-Sewer Districts: These local improvement districts stormwater management.The following list cites some of the can be established to plan and implement projects to current statutes that enable local governments to fund and manage sewerage and stormwater.They can include all or manage stormwater.The statutes in this document are linked portions of multiple jurisdictions(RCW 57.04.020). electronically to the statutory language,for those reading this on General provisions can be found under Title 57-Water- the Puget Sound Action Team website address listed above. Sewer Districts Funding can include rates and charges for services provided as specified in RCW 57.08.081 Establishing County Programs 2. Aquifer Protection Districts:A jurisdiction may prepare a 1. Counties are authorized to construct,operate and maintain a comprehensive plan to protect,preserve,and rehabilitate system of sewerage under RCW 36.94.020.A system of sewerage subterranean water,including ground water management may include storm or surface water sewers(RCW 36.94.010). programs adopted under chapter 90.44 RCW.This plan 2. Counties can monitor point and nonpoint water pollution may be prepared as a portion of a county sewerage and/or - that is related to sewerage facilities and programs water general plan pursuant to RCW 36.94.030(RCW operated by the county.RCW 36.94.010. 36.36.040).May construct sewerage collection,disposal, 3. Counties may provide assistance to aid low-income and treatment systems,which include stormwater.RCW persons. RCW 36.94.140 36.36.040 Aquifer protection areas are authorized to 4.- Counties may also provide for,finance,and operate any of impose fees to pay for all stormwater collection,disposal the facilities and services of the following types under RCW and treatment activities performed. RCW 36.36.040 36.94.020).Storm water management activities: RCW 36.89 3. Shellfish Protection Districts:Shellfish protection districts 5. Flood control planning and regulations to avoid property for counties having shellfish tidelands.RCW 90.72. damage: RCW 86.12 Jurisdictions may establish a shellfish protection district to 6. Flood control zone districts for stormwater control respond to nonpoint pollution threats to water quality and improvements: RCW 86.15 shellfish farming or harvesting.This could include water 7. Lake management districts can conduct stormwater quality monitoring,acquisition of undeveloped lands, control and treatment: RCW 36.61 stormwater management plan development,stormwater 8. Diking,drainage,and sewerage improvement districts: management project implementation.Authorized in RCW 85.08,85.15 Chapter 90.72.070 RCW.Funding for these districts could include county tax revenues,reasonable charges or rates Financing County Programs for services provided by the district(cannot apply to forest To finance stormwater efforts under any of the above programs,a land)and federal,state or private grants. county can implement uniform rates and charges as specified in 4. Public Utility Districts:A PUD may operate,as authorized RCW 36.94.140.A county can also sell revenue bonds that will be by a county board of health,systems for the collection, serviced by the stormwater utility fees and general obligation interception and treatment of sewage,which includes bonds that will be guaranteed by the county's taxing authority, stormwater(RCW 54.16.310).The district may charge fees and can take out loans that are payable using the utility fees. for stormwater services(RCW 54.24.080)and levy taxes on property within the district(RCW 54.16.080). Establishing City Programs 5. Port Districts:Port districts may exercise all the powers Cities and towns may set up and operate sewerage systems and relating to systems of sewerage authorized by RCW municipal utilities under RCW 35.21.215(authorization),RCW 35.67.010 and 35.67.020 for cities and towns(RCW 35.67.010(powers),and RCW 35.92.020(municipal utilities). A 53.08.043).Service fees may be charged(RCW 35.67.020). system of sewerage may include storm or surface water sewers as Revenue bonds,general obligation bonds and loans by stated in RCW 35.67.010.The jurisdiction may provide for also be used and serviced by fees. monitoring of point and nonpoint water pollution sources 6. Irrigation Districts:These districts can construct,repair, directly related to the sewerage facilities and programs operated purchase,lease,acquire,operate and maintain a system of by a city or town,RCW 35.67.010. drains,sanitary sewers,and sewage disposal or treatment plants,which may include stormwater(RCW 87.03.015). Financing City Programs Rates or tolls can be charged and revenue bonds issued Service fees billed to utility users as service beneficiaries.RCW (RCW 87.28.010). 35.67.020;RCW 35.92.020.Revenue bonds serviced by utility fees can also be used.General obligation bonds guaranteed by the For more information,visit: municipal taxing authority are an option.Loans can also be taken http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/Funding.htm. out and serviced through fee collection.The program may provide If you need these materials in an alternative format,call the assistance to aid low-income persons under RCW 35.67.020. Action Team's TDD number 1-800-833-6388. Printed on recycled paper containing 100%post-consumer fiber and processed chlorine free. 1 PUGET SOUND 1 0LI n ACTION TEAM °� .�. VOLUME 16, No. 4 FALL 2001 • Low Imp act ..., N DevelDpmeffhi ill Puget Sound Special reprint from a Fall 2001 issue HELPING TO PROTECT OUR WATERS AS WE GROW "'` basin planning,LID can help protect By Bruce Wulkan, s - Stormwater Program lead ,.' "1° "' t , - watershed hydrology and aquatic «]hat is Low Impact ,' ,� . �/�/ � " � ',.� resources as we grow (Note:Because Development? f ',-" ,* infiltration rates vary among develop- Low impact development,or LID,is a " ment sites,depending on soils,topogra natural approach to land development an d -,, ,. a 7;7,...,171 s stormwater management designed to � ,� ��' 8 "` °� Phy and other factors,each site should .. be assessed to determine which LID reduce impacts on watershed hydrology :" `� practices are most appropriate.Given the and aquatic resources. (Watershed , wide range of practices available,every hydrology is the relationship between "` �� 7 site should include at least a few of the rainfall,evaporation,groundwater infiltra- ` " , ':'4116,2,:'' - "' . ., � practices.) lion and flow of surface water.) .. ' s „ .x = LID is based on the premise that ' '_ � Y is LID important? '' "` Studies show that our efforts to mitigate nature knows best.Forests and other nat t the effects of development through tra- ural areas are extremely effective "N' ditional stormwater management prac- stormwater management systems.For -- tices have not proven entirely success- example,there is very little runoff in a �. forested area—most rainfall infiltrates to ful. Collection and conveyance systems, the ground,is taken up by vegetation,or t !, �,. , „ stormwater ponds and other traditional evaporates to the atmosphere.So rather stormwater facilities do not replicate nat- evaporates than collecting and conveying stormwater Ural systems,which greatly slow water off site through pipes and other con- Photo courtesy of Seattle Public Utilities before it reaches streams,wetlands and veyance systems,LID designed sites use Growing other waters.The loss of trees and other g greener and protecting area vegetation,the compaction of soils by vegetation and small-scale hydrologic con- streams. The Street Edge Alternatives Project heavy equipment,the creation of vast trols to capture,treat and infiltrate on 2nd Avenue NW in Seattle. stormwater on site.This helps maintain stretches of connected impervious the natural hydrology n ite.This as helps it 1pdmain roads and use permeable pavement for areas—all these factors combined are development parking lots,driveways and other imper- extremely difficult to compensate for vious surfaces.Runoff is directed from using traditional practices. To design using LID,a developer maps remaining impervious surfaces—such as The result?Stormwater runoff has sig- the site's natural runoff patterns and sets rooftops—onto vegetated areas with g aside all sensitive areas and natural porous soils.Rooftop design can also Puget tly degraded many streams docu in drainages,such as streams and wetlands. Puget Sound.Habitat loss is documented drainages, portion of such asstreams trees and other include roof gardens,which further retain as one of the factors limiting our ability to and slowly release stormwater.Soils corn- recover salmon under the Endangered native vegetation is also set aside.The pacted during construction are amended remainder of the site is the development with compost or other organic material to County Act. a multi-year amphibians in King envelope.Specially designed landscaped po g County showed that amphibians and anal envelope. Sd Specially deli n designed or landscaped restore their capacity to infiltrate runoff birds in wetlands are threatened more by garde() capture,filter and infiltrate and grow healthy plants. excessive fluctuations in water levels (due When combined with effective local stormwater.Developers design narrower Continued on back page land use planning and watershed or To learn more about smart growth and other issues pertaining to sound development, visit the Action Team's website at http://www.psatwa.gov.You may also contact Bruce Wulkan, the Action Team's technical and policy specialist on stormwater, at (360)725-5455 or bwulkan @psat.wa.gov. Revised April 2004 Protecting our waters Limitations of LID and Continued from front page the importance of effective to stormwater)than by water natural resources.As neigh- local land-use planning pollution.Stormwater alters borhoods,homes and busi- Low impact development practices alone cannot fully protect the hydrology of Puget nesses grow greener,they our water quality and biological resources.Local land use Sound's watersheds,which become more attractive and planning and comprehensive stormwater management are affects our region's streams property values can increase. just as important.First we must choose where to grow and and wetlands(and potentially Stormwater facilities can be where to protect.Then we can use LID practices,and other our drinking water supplies). easier to oversee and less cost key elements of a comprehensive program,to manage ►Other benefits of LID ly to maintain.Drinking water runoff and lessen our impact on Puget Sound.To be most In addition to better protect- supplies can be better main effective,local land use planning should include: tained.And low impact devel- ing the environment,low • Designating urban growth areas with appropriate densi- impact development also pro- opment provides new tools for ties and capital facilities to reduce sprawl. vides economic and commu cost-effective retrofit as well— • something that concerns Providing adequate vegetative buffers and development nity benefits.Developers setbacks in critical areas ordinances to protect sensitive using LID practices potential- many communities. areas. ly increase developable land •LID projects in Puget •Assessing how full build-out according to the comprehen- by reducing size require- Sound sive plan will alter aquatic resources. ments for stormwater ponds. There are now numerous LID • Using measures to protect natural hydrology and process- Reduced stormwater ordinances and projects in the es,such as setting goals for limiting impervious surfaces drainage facilities can result Puget Sound region.The and preserving forests and other open spaces. in lower infrastructure costs. Puget Sound Action Team And stormwater utility fees compiled 33 local projects and Comprehensive stormwater management should include may be lower due to the ordinances in Natural appropriate LID practices in all new development and retrofit reduced amount of impervi Approaches to Stormwater projects,inspections of construction sites,maintenance of Management:Low Impact temporary and permanent facilities,source control,elimina- ous areas. Development in Puget Sound. tion of illicit discharges,attention to existing problems,pub- Local governments and To view the publication on-line, lic education and involvement,watershed or basin planning, communities benefit by better visit:http://www.psatwa.gov. stable funding,and periodic monitoring to evaluate program protecting streams and habitat For the print version,call Gigi effectiveness. for endangered salmon,shell- Williams at(360) 725-5443. –Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows Program, fish growing areas,and other ------ Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan ECOLOGY STORMWATER MANUAL PROMOTES LID By Ed O'Brien conditions and whether the ple,lower cost on-site best •Undisturbed and protected Department of Ecology site historically was forested or management practices to man- natural vegetation and soil The Washington State prairie,a detention pond to age stormwater from small topography and profile. Department of Ecology's serve a standard residential areas of the project that have •Reduced road widths and Stormwater Management development of four homes per their own natural drainage lengths,smaller driveways, Manual for Western Washington acre can be from 1.4 to 4 times away from the project site. and homes with smaller offers a guide for communities larger than required by the old ■Hydrologic modeling pro- footprints. and businesses in western standard.That translates into gram has incentives to •Roof runoff infiltration or Washington to meet federal loss of building lots if the encourage LID. To comply dispersion through>50 feet and state requirements.The developer uses standard devel- with the new flow control stan- of vegetation. new manual uses technically opment practices. dard requires the use of contin- •Use of porous pavers and current information to provide I•Size thresholds and uous simulation runoff model- permeable interlocking con- better protection of water drainage analysis proce- ing.Knowing that we need the crete. resources. dures encourage reduction aggressive application of LID For residential develop- For more information on the in impervious surfaces and techniques to protect western ments preserving 65 percent of manual,visit Ecology's landscaped areas. The man- Washington streams,the a site in forest and having less Stormwater Web site: ual will include a new set of model gives credit for using than 10 percent impervious http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pro- size thresholds and use of a certain types of LID tech- area,whose runoff is routed grams/wq/stormwater new drainage analysis proce- niques.Ecology hopes that into that forest,no flow control The new manual promotes dure for determining whether more developers will use LID is necessary. low impact development(LID) construction of engineered techniques when they see how techniques in several ways: structures for flow control and much smaller their detention •For more information contact ■New flow control stan- treatment are necessary.The ponds can be. Ed O'Brien at dard is a disincentive to approach should encourage LID techniques that reduce eobr461@ecy.wa.gov or standard development prac- retention of natural drainage the size of flow control facili (360)407-6438. lice. Depending upon the soil features.It will allow even the ties include: largest projects to apply sim- A Local Marine and Freshwater Habitat Protection Program for Puget Sound he Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan identifies local actions that are part of a long-term comprehensive plan to protect and restore Puget Sound's marine and ,,, p7 freshwater habitats. Jurisdictions are encouraged to examine the management plan's Marine and Freshwater Habitat program to determine where the gaps exist in their own F programs,and to set priorities for taking action to fill those gaps. The program is on the 7 ' Action Team website at:wwwpsat.wa.gov/Publications/manplan00/mp_index.htm. Comprehensive Planning Local land use planning integrates needs for ..Ys watersheds, salmon recovery,transportation, ` stormwater management,economic viability,desired .A , open space,and public access to shorelines. Local a A = government planning involves citizens in creating a ' :,* . _ vision of their future community and then - CI , incorporates that vision into: P • Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plans �° • Shoreline Master Program Updates . X41► • NPDES Stormwater Permit Programs '''''; : ' • WSDOT 20-year state highway system plans • Mixed-Use Master planned developments _- Acquisition and Restoration Within any local jurisdiction lie marine or freshwater habitats that provide important ecological functions like fish and wildlife habitat,stormwater retention and treatment,flood attenuation,aesthetic open space that preserves and increases property value,and recreational benefits to the community. Acquiring those properties may save the jurisdiction considerable financial resources for replacing or restoring ecological functions. Because habitats and the functions they provide are a result of natural processes like flooding,erosion and plant succession that take place over many years,it may be less costly in the long-term to protect them by acquisition. A local government acquisition and restoration program should: • Acquire lands that sustain existing habitats and functions important to the community. • Provide for responsible management of acquired lands. • Provide incentives for private preservation and restoration. • Engage in restoration of natural processes in partnership with other organizations. Ecology's publication"Exploring Wetlands Stewardship"Pub.#96-120 is a helpful guide for various acquisition strategies and funding sources.http://wwwecy.wa.gov/pubs/ Ecology's publication"Restoring wetlands at a river basin scale"Pub.# 97-99 explains how natural processes should be considered for effective restoration. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/ 00000001001111,00000001.11101111.11111.1040004% PUGET SOUND ACTION TEAM P.O. Box 40900 • Olympia •WA • 98504-0900 • 1-800-54-SOUND • (360) 725-5444 Education The public access sites in a community such as parks, shorelines, and open space,not only improve the quality of life for citizens, they provide great locations to inform citizens about natural processes,ecological functions,biological diversity and the intrinsic value of nature. Clearly mark and maintain existing public access sites and make maps of these sites available to .residents and visitors. Design and construct passive educational signs and exhibits or active education programs about the habitat, the natural processes that created and sustain it,economic value of the functions it provides the community,and the diversity of k . k Z- creatures that share the habitat with humans. b . Regulation i � ' Without strong implementation and enforcement of local land "`�'" ', use regulations developed under the planning programs above, ` degradation and loss of important marine and freshwater habitats will continue. Regulatory actions should be tracked to allow for � �� = fi . adaptive management of standards to new approaches or �, � ' '" " changing conditions.Restricting new shoreline armoring and � �-fir ° T limiting the construction of new levees in floodplains and :; :�` , Ce t " estuarine wetlands will protect shoreline processes. . Puget Sound Nearshore Estuarine Restoration Project In recent years,citizens,governments,tribes,and scientists,have realized the importance of eelgrass beds, kelp forests,salt marshes,beaches,backshore areas and bluffs to sustaining the health of Puget Sound. In addition,these Nearshore Habitats have received attention as important migratory corridors for juvenile salmon and spawning grounds for forage fish such as surf smelt and herring. Building on local efforts,the US Army Corps of Engineers has initiated a unique agreement establishing a project to understand and protect the nearshore habitats of Puget Sound. The Corps project, in partnership with the state and other local partners,is conducting assessments leading to a clearer picture of how nearshore habitats work. This information will be used to identify regions and sites for habitat restoration and enhanced levels of protection. Once priority restoration projects are identified, the Corps will pay 65%of construction costs Local and tribal governments can contribute to the project by providing relevant data to the Corps-state partnership and can benefit from the project by signing on to a cost-share agreement for work they are doing with non-federal funds. For information on this exciting new project,contact Bernie Hargrave at the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(206) 764-6839 or Tim Smith at Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(360)902-2223. For more information, check out the complete text of the Puget Sound plan, additional fact sheets about the update process, and information about the Action Team at www.psat.wa.gov or call the Action Team at(360)725-5444 or(800)54-SOUND. If you need these materials in an alternative format, call our TDD number (800)833-6388. Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post-consumer fiber and processed chlorine free. 001,4 Jefferson t �� � , ► �, 1820 Street t. ox , 3 P.O. Box 1220 '9 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ga ~ Dan Titterness,District 1 Glen Hnntingford,District 2 Patrick M.Rodgers,District 3 �9,d+�INGS,O� January 6,2004 Tom McNerney,Chair Jefferson County Planning Commission PO Box 1220 Port Townsend,WA 98368 Dear Chairman McNerney and Planning Commission Members: Thank you for all of your hard work over the past year. This coming year promises to be a busy- but productive time for Jefferson County land use. This letter is intended to provide you with some direction regarding those items that we consider to be a priority in 2004. As you are aware,in December we passed a resolution stating our intent to limit the ye the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle to County proposed amendments. During County will not be accepting either site-specific or suggested amendments from the public. This decision was made in order to give you time to concentrate on the already considerable workload that you have before you. These items include: Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area Related Amendments This item includes both Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code amendments - related to the December 2002 designation of the UGA and will include the following` components for your review: A proposed General Sewer Plan for non-residential potions of the UGA(CP change) A proposed Storm-water Management Plan for the UGA(CP change) A proposed Transportation Plan for the UGA(CP change) Proposed Development Regulations for the UGA(UDC change) In addition,we will be using the Planning Commission to continue the public outreach efforts that began in the fall of 2003. We acknowledge and support the work done through your UGA Committee and encourage this approach as you begin review of the UGA related amendments. Unified Development Code Housekeeping Omnibus for Permit Efficiency This item will include proposed changes aimed at improving the efficiency of the 2001 Unified Development Code. We are currently reviewing the staff proposed changes and will be forwarding this item to you when our work is completed. Phone (360)385-9100 Fax(360)385-9382 jeffboce@cojefferson.wa.us � � k C-o rn e% ,(N4 2004 Work Priorities Page:2 Agricultural Lands Unified Development Code Amendments This item will complete the policy work that was done through the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments related to agricultural lands. We acknowledge and support the work done through your Agricultural Lands Committee and encourage this approach as you continue review of these UDC amendments. December 2004 Growth Management Act Update Requirement This statutory GMA provision requires Jefferson County to update the Comprehensive Plan to address amendments that have occurred since the GMA's adoption in 1990. Airport Related Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code Amendments This item focuses on completing amendments that were proposed during 2003 but staff was unable to complete. This item will address proposals brought forward initially by the Port of Port Townsend and People for a Rural Quimper. During this process we ask that you recommend those areas of indulgence in verbosity utilized by the drafters of those documents which can be removed from either the Comprehensive Plan or UDC to make for a more readable,usable document._ - We realize that these five items will require a substantial amount work on your part and thank you in advance for your on-going commitment as citizen volunteers. Sincerely, Glen Huntingford // Chairman cc: David Goldsmith,County Administrator Al Scab Director of Community Development ON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street•Port Townsend•Washington 98368 360/379-4450.360/379-4451 Fax , ,ctV www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment `'41.11■Tul To: House Local Government and Senate Land Use & Planning Committees From: Jefferson County Department of Community Development -Al Scalf, Director -Josh D. Peters, Senior Long-Range Planner CC: David Goldsmith, County Administrator The Honorable Governor Gary Locke Date: June 16, 2004 Re: June 17 joint meeting concerning the mandated GMA updates SUMMARY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES What follows is a summary of issues facing Jefferson County in the context of the 2004 update process and a description of lingering questions about why Jefferson County is included among the pioneering group required to conduct updates of comprehensive plans and development regulations in 2004. Jefferson County is a small fish assigned to school with big fish. Jefferson County is a member of the first group of local jurisdictions required to go through the update process mandated at RCW 36.70A.130. Our deadline for compliance is December 1, 2004, along with Clallam, Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties. We are the most rural of the counties listed,judging by total population (est. 2003 pop. 26,700), population density (14.72 persons per sq. mi. in 2003), percent change between 2000 and 2003 (ranked 24th out of 39 counties), and the fact that we have only one incorporated area within our borders, the City of Port Townsend (est. 2003 pop. 8,430). The reason why we (or Clallam County for that matter) are part of the 2004 update remains a mystery. From our standpoint, it makes no sense for us to be in the 2004 group among the more urban, "buildable lands" counties, who have greater need for a more timely update, greater resources with which to conduct that update, and greater legal support with which to defend future decisions. We adopted our Comprehensive Plan in 1998, have already incorporated Best Available Science into our 1 J f • development regulations, have a staff of one long-range planner and a temporary assistant to work on the update, and have one Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to defend County decisions. We need a chance to put the Comprehensive Plan to work rather than keep working on it. The alleged reason why we're in the 2004 group is logic- challenged. We've heard it explained to us by more than one person in Olympia that it's because Jefferson County has some of the most intact fish and wildlife habitat in the state. This habitat merits immediate protection, particularly in the context of the Federal Endangered Species Act, which was a hot topic a few years back when the GMA updates were originally scheduled to occur. According to this theory, there should be no delay for us to implement the "best available science" (BAS) rule developed by CTED. The only trouble with this theory is that we are one of the few jurisdictions that have already implemented the BAS rule. We did that when we adopted our Unified Development Code (UDC) back in December 2000. We were able to reach a settlement agreement with one petition associated with our critical areas protections and have relatively recently achieved full compliance with another. So what is the value of Jefferson County being among the lucky first ones to get appealed as part of the 2004 update? When one considers that the legislature put us in the 2011 group for updating the Shoreline Master Program, the original logic of assigning Jefferson County to the 2004 GMA update group is especially wanting. We're doing the best we can to comply with GMA. As we try to wrap up various Hearings Board cases, we are in jeopardy of being passed up for grant dollars for worthy projects unrelated to GMA compliance. We've had granting agencies downgrade our grant applications for wildlife protection and parks and recreation projects because of our GMA compliance status. We have four Hearings Board cases that are still ongoing. We're working towards full compliance in the eyes of the State and, despite rumors to the contrary, do not consider ourselves to be GMA renegades. For example, we are the only county to adopt the 2001 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. It would be highly unfortunate to penalize us—and by extension our resident humans and wildlife—for doing the best we can with what we have to make balanced decisions that meet the various needs of our diverse population and "fully comply"with GMA. In fact, numerous •Page 2 6/16/04 Comments for Joint Legislative Committee Meeting A ` issues have been resolved in ways that could be characterized as progressive planning programs outside of the Hearings Board process. Being in the 2004 update group has implications for us in terms of anticipated legal struggles, no matter what action we take at the end of the year. It is a good thing that many people living in Port Townsend and Jefferson County are interested in growth management, land use planning, environmental protection, and economic development. Often, however, this translates into automatic GMA appeals, whatever the local legislative action may be. No matter what the Board of County Commissioners decides to do at the end of the year, there will almost undoubtedly be a protracted appeal process before the Hearings Board. With one Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to defend our actions with the help of limited planning resources, each appeal--even if filed by a single disgruntled individual--is a big deal, whether the substance of the case is a big deal or not in the minds of many or most county residents. Having the whole of the Comp Plan open for appeal is like ripping the scab off a wound that's nearly healed. What's the point? We adopted our Comp Plan in 1998 after years of discussion and debate. Some are still nursing wounds from the process and results associated with those years. Opening up the whole package is a risky maneuver that is arguably not worth the potential benefit. If the County decides that we are up-to-date and no amendments are needed, what exactly in our Comp Plan and development regulations is open to appeal? No one at the State level, including CTED, has been able to provide a clear answer to that question. GMA seems to be unfairly implemented in the state. Example: through a Hearings Board process we now have the strongest protections in the state against a phenomenon which is not even mentioned in the Act itself. We have the strongest regulatory protections in the state against seawater intrusion. How do we know this? Because no other jurisdiction has been required to have any regulatory protections, at least not under the GMA. The GMA does not mention seawater intrusion at all, but through a long compliance process begun after the adoption of our UDC, we now have designated areas vulnerable to seawater intrusion as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and have assumed some responsibilities that arguably are those of the State Departments •Page 3 6/16/04 Comments for Joint Legislative Committee Meeting • i of Ecology and Health, based on literal readings of the RCW and WAC concerning water use and public health. We were told that those agencies do not have the personnel and financial resources to get involved at the level of an individual domestic water well. According to Hearings Board statements, local governments are not able to use that excuse when it comes to GMA compliance. CTED Growth Management Services and other State agencies have been helpful, but is being helpful enough?, and sometimes the timing of the release of guidance materials and related information is frustrating in relation to the required update schedules. We have a $75,000 grant from CTED for the 2004 update. This has allowed us to make a clerk hire of a young person who grew up in the community and recently graduated from Central Washington. His help has been very welcome in going through this process. We've also been able to allocate limited funds for consultant work. Is this help enough to perform all of the required duties? Time-- and the appeal process--will tell. Plus, it can be discouraging to find out that resources that may be useful—or even necessary--to perform the required update duties have either only recently become available from the State agencies, are incomplete (see "seawater intrusion"), or are remarkably not yet available. Compared to other members of the 2004 update group, we are a fish out of water with regard to how far behind we are in the process. King County already has its proposal on the web for public scrutiny. Kitsap County just sent us a postcard that announces its public participation process and schedule. We are not projected to have a proposal for public review until September 22. Our Planning Commission public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 6. Even in ideal end-game circumstances, we may have trouble meeting the December 1 deadline for legislative action to amend our Comp Plan and development regulations, as necessary. Although we would very much prefer to be further along in the process, this current situation is to be expected for a low-population jurisdiction with one full-time long-range planner and limited dollars to expend on studies and consultants. •Page 4 6/16/04 Comments for Joint Legislative Committee Meeting sue, AMENDING THE GMA We remain interested in what legislative solutions may be generated from these discussions centered on the GMA update schedule and requirements. We are also wondering how any bill passed in next year's legislative session would affect us, if at all, since we will theoretically already be finished with our update in 2004 and well into the appeals process by that time that the 2005 legislative session concludes. Jefferson County was "the dolphin caught in the tuna net." In 2003, Governor Locke vetoed portions of SB 5659, a bill that passed the legislature authorizing additional funding for local governments. One result of the partial veto was that Jefferson County remained with the 2004 group for the GMA updates rather than move to 2005. In his veto message, the governor stated that in addition to constitutionality issues related to the title of bill as compared to the contents, While I realize that various jurisdictions have problems with GMA implementation, any changes to GMA should only be undertaken after careful consideration of relevant issues. It is also questionable whether two counties should receive an extension of the timetable for updating their comprehensive plans without clearer comparison to other counties'problems in meeting their deadlines for such updates. The GMA Working Group was formed as result and after many meetings the Group produced the "2004 GMA Working Group Policy Statement." The Policy Statement addresses a variety of issues related to GMA implementation. With regard to the issue of required updates, the Working Group identified a number of concerns with the current situation. The policy states that, "The current update requirements can be a burden on small, slow-growing communities. The scope and timing for local government comprehensive plan and development regulations updates should be linked to the size and growth rate of individual counties and cities." The proposed solution is to, "Pursue legislation that would narrow the scope of the GMA update requirement for smaller, slower growing counties and cities." Well, SB 6592 died in the House Local Government Committee during the 2004 legislative session. Apparently, objections to some sections of the bill presented by two of the participant members of GMA Working Group, WEC and 1000 Friends, contributed to its downfall. However, to my knowledge neither group expressed objections to the idea of Jefferson and Clallam counties moving the statutory update requirement to December 2005 from December 2004. We expressed this point to Representative Romero and others with an email sent February 26, 2003. Nothing was done to save the part of the bill that would have •Page 5 Comments for Joint Legislative Committee Meeting 6/16/04 moved us to 2005, where we would have been able to not only gain some needed time, but have been able to observe the legal proceedings involving the first group of updaters. Now we are going to be in the middle—or even on the bleeding edge—of those proceedings. Hence, once again, Jefferson County was "the dolphin caught in the tuna net." The comparison that Governor Locke called for in 2003 may have occurred, but it was not implemented, so now we're stuck in the first group of jurisdictions required to go through this process. Again, we ask the simple question, 'Why?" Solutions Our assumption is that the legislative committees are interested in learning about the impact of the GMA update requirements on local jurisdictions. Potentially, legislation will be developed and introduced in the 2005 legislative session to remedy any identified ills. How would such legislation affect us, however, when we will have already completed—or tried to complete—the required update? Could legislation provide some sort of appeal amnesty for those of us who already completed the required updates prior to a change in the scope and requirements of the updates? We remain interested in this discussion and thank you for your consideration of our comments. [End] •Page 6 6/16/04 Comments for Joint Legislative Committee Meeting .-pECEIIVE STATE OF WASHINGTON _ DEC 1 5 County of Jefferson JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT_ IN THE MATTER OF FORMALIZING ) THE DECISION OF THE COUNTY ) COMNIISSIONERS TO NOT ACCEPT ) ANY SITE-SPECIFIC OR EXTERNAL ) RESOLUTION NO. 91-03 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ) AMENDMENTS DURING THE ) 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ) AMENDMENT CYCLE ) WHEREAS, a section of the Growth Management Act or"GMA", codified at RCW 36.70A.130, states that a local government such as this that plans for growth pursuant to the GMA,must provide an opportunity for its Comprehensive Plan ("CP")to be amended not more often than once per year; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County devotes staff resources to an annual CP amendment cycle in order to obtain consistency with the County's CP; and WHEREAS,therefore this County's annual CP amendment cycle is as generous in terms of providing frequency of opportunities as is permitted by law; and WHEREAS, County staff has often been overwhelmed by the number and complexity of the proposed CP amendments, such as the 19 that went through the `cycle' during 2002; and; WHEREAS, County staff has found itself dealing with the consequences of appeals to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board years after the original CP amendment went through the public process and was adopted said lingering proposals, e.g., the Port of Port Townsend appeal and the seawater intrusion appeal, consuming much staff time and energy; and WHEREAS, for example, as part of the DCD work plan for 2004 and as an outgrowth of a 2001 appeal to the Western Washington Growth Management Board, County staff will be reviewing and analyzing a list of not less than 100 parcels for potential designation as Prime Agricultural Land or Agricultural Land of Local Importance on behalf of property owners during the 2004 amendment cycle, incorporating public outreach and education into the effort; and r Formalizing the Decision of the County Not to Accept Any Site Specific or External Comprehensive-Plan Amendments during the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle WHEREAS, County staff must assume that the GMA will not be amended or altered by the Legislature in the near future, thus leading to the inevitable result that this County will be required to undertake and complete its "Comp Plan update" on or before December 31, 2004; and WHEREAS, that CP update will require that considerable resources be devoted to completing it; and WHEREAS, the County cannot predict what changes, if any, the State Legislature will make to the GMA during the 2004 Legislative session and those changes may result in an additional work load for staff, either as part of or outside the 2004 CP amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, County staff has been requested to diligently work on the general sewer planning and other capital facilities planning for the Urban Growth Area("UGA")in Port Hadlock and Irondale so that the necessary CP and UDC changes for the Bi-Area UGA can be part of the 2004 CP amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, County staff has been directed that the CP and UDC amendments for the Bi-Area UGA are to be prepared in a manner that would allow them to be legislatively adopted well before the "rd week in December"deadline that will mark the end of the 2004 CP amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, this County Commission may choose to initiate one or more proposed CP amendments for the 2004 CP cycle as a result of events or occurrences that cannot be foreseen at the time of this Resolution; and WHEREAS,pursuant to an agreement with the Port of Port Townsend,the 2004 CP amendment cycle will include analysis, consideration and debate relating to the CP and UDC changes proposed by the Port relating to the Jefferson County International Airport; and WHEREAS,the 2004 CP amendment cycle will also include the County fully analyzing, considering and debating a proposed CP amendment brought forth by the citizens' group known as People for a Rural Quimper; and WHEREAS, the County staff cannot predict what legislatively-enacted CP. amendments, if any, adopted in 2003 will come back for further staff work-as a 2 • Formalizing the Decision of the County Not to Accept Any Site Specific or External Comprehensive-Plan Amendments during the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle result of a decision from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; and WHEREAS, the above information convincingly indicates that County staff has a `full plate' already for the 2004 CP amendment cycle NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the County Commission as follows: 1. The County will not process, accept or adopt during the 2004 CP amendment cycle any site specific amendments, as that term is defined on page 2-6 of the CP and UDC §9.4.1(a), from any member of the public, defining the public to include,but not be limited to,business entities,persons or not-for-profit entities. 2. The County Commission will not process, accept or adopt during the 2004 CP amendment cycle any"general" CP amendment, as that term is defined on page 2-6 of the CP, or any"suggested" CP amendment, as that term is defined in the UDC at §9.4.1(b), from any member of the public, defining the public to include, but not be limited to,business entities,persons or not-for-profit entities. Approved and adopted this 15th day of December' ,2003. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL r ) • 1 i . .,Y Dan Titterness Chair ATTEST: Gen Huntingfo • � ber 21q 7' , C,oc, (Excused Absence) Julie Matthes, CMC Patrick M.Rodgers,Member Deputy Clerk of the Board 3 vrAre o 4 washington state department of ° - ,s community, trade and economic development Technical Bulletin 1.4 GMA Updates: Optional Processes for Review and Revision of Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations under the Growth Management Act Key Issue According to a schedule established by RCW 36.70A.130(4), each city and county in Washington must take legislative action to review and,if needed,revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure they comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA). For cities and counties planning under the GMA for critical areas and natural resource lands only,this update process must be completed for their policies and development regulations regarding critical areas and natural resource lands. (See attached GMA map.) Cities and counties may use a variety of public processes to fulfill this requirement. The needed level of review and revision also will vary, depending on local factors, such as when the jurisdiction adopted its most recent plan and regulations. This bulletin from the Growth Management Services (GMS)program provides guidance,based on current statutes,for local governments to determine the appropriate public process and level of review and revision. Please also refer to the GMS publication Frequently Asked Questions Regarding GMA Updates for more specific information on some aspects of this process. Discussion Generally, local plans and regulations should be updated, as necessary, to reflect local needs,new data, and current laws. Many cities and counties consider amendments to comprehensive plans annually or biannually, and amend their development regulations on a continuing basis. However, local plans and regulations must be reviewed and,if needed,revised in a deliberate and comprehensive manner every seven years according to a schedule established by RCW 36.70A.130(4). Deadlines RCW 36.70A.130(4)sets the deadlines for each county and its cities to complete the first seven-year update: • December 1, 2004—Clallam, Clark,Jefferson, King, Kitsap,Pierce, Snohomish, January 15,2004 Thurston,and Whatcom counties • December 1,2005—Cowlitz,Island,Lewis,Mason,San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties • December 1, 2006—Benton, Chelan,Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties • December 1, 2007—Adams,Asotin, Columbia,Ferry,Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Klickitat,Lincoln, Okanogan,Pacific,Pend Oreille,Stevens, Wahkiakum,Walla Walla, and Whitman counties A jurisdiction can complete the update process prior to their deadline. The deadline for their next update would then become seven years from the deadline for the jurisdiction set in RCW 36.70A.130(4). For counties and cities with a December 1,2004, deadline, the first seven-year update can occur no earlier than January 1, 2001 [RCW 36.70A.130(6)]. Three basic actions required This deliberate, seven-year GMA Update process requires three basic actions by the local government: (1) establish a public participation program that identifies procedures and schedules for the review, evaluation, and possible revision process; (2) review relevant plans and regulations and analyze whether there is a need for revisions; and (3) take legislative action. It is important that each of these actions be explicitly affirmed by the local government's legislative body as having been accomplished in accordance with RCW 36.70A.130,both to comply with the statute and to set time and subject matter limits for possible challenges. Suggestions for determining the appropriate local process for carrying out each of these three actions are discussed below. Some example processes are included at the end of this bulletin. 1. Establishing a public participation program Each city or county is required by RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)to establish a public participation program that identifies procedures and schedules for comprehensive plan updates. (This requirement applies to all plan amendments, including the seven-year update process.) In establishing a public participation program for its seven-year update process, a city or county must ensure the following: • Notice of the update process is broadly and effectively disseminated (RCW 36.70A.035); • The notice identifies the procedures and schedules by which updates will be considered,including both of the remaining actions needed to complete the seven- year update; and 2 January 15,2004 • The program provides for early and continuous public participation (RCW 36.70A.140). One way for a county or city to complete this requirement would be to publish a complete public participation program or schedule at the beginning of the update process. However, it is not required that a city or county establish the entire schedule at the beginning of the process, as long as a public participation program is established, with effective notice provided, for the remaining actions needed to complete the seven-year update. It is also important to note that jurisdictions can adjust the public participation program as needed to best meet the intent of the requirement for public participation. RCW 36.70A.140 notes that"errors in exact compliance with the established program and procedures shall not render the comprehensive land use plan or development regulations invalid if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed." For example, if an established public participation program included one public hearing on all actions having to do with the seven-year update process, the program could be adjusted later to provide additional public hearings to accommodate strong public interest. 2. Reviewing relevant plans and regulations and analyzing the need for revisions Counties and cities not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 must review and evaluate their policies and development regulations governing critical areas and natural resource lands. Counties and cities planning under RCW 36.70A.040 must review and evaluate all comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations adopted under the GMA. The statute does not exempt any portion of a comprehensive plan or any development regulation from being subject to review and evaluation. However, local governments may use common-sense factors in determining the level of review,taking into account when the plan and regulations were adopted and whether and how the GMA has been amended in the intervening time (see GMS' Technical Bulletins 1.2 and 1.3 for more guidance on this topic). The purpose of each jurisdiction reviewing its comprehensive plan and development regulations is to determine whether they are in compliance with the GMA. To help with the analysis,the GMS program has developed a list of questions (GMA Update: Issues to Consider When Reviewing Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations)that identifies key points of analysis for communities to consider. GMS also has produced two checklists(Comprehensive Plan Checklist and Development Regulations Checklist) to assist cities and counties in completing their reviews. The review and analysis should include at least the following: • Each jurisdiction should determine whether its plan and regulations are affected by any amendments made to the GMA after the jurisdiction adopted its comprehensive plan or development regulations (see the GMS publication, GMA Amendments 1995-2003). • Local governments are encouraged to consider emerging local and regional needs, changes to state and federal laws, and their own progress toward meeting GMA goals. (See RCW 36.70A.020 for GMA goals.) • Each local government should review the most recent population projections from 3 January 15,2004 the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) to ensure that its comprehensive plan provides for the jurisdiction's ability to accommodate its projected growth in population and employment consistent with county-wide planning policies. If a,jurisdiction has a ruling in effect from either a growth management hearings board or a court of law finding non-compliance with the GMA, the jurisdiction should be sure to incorporate the ruling into its analysis. • Any previous comment letters from the Washington State Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development(CTED)and other state agencies regarding consistency of a jurisdiction's plan and development regulations with the GMA also should be considered. (Copies of official agency comment letters may be obtained upon request from GMS.) • Jurisdictions should consider whether the comprehensive plan is internally consistent(e.g.,that the Land Use and Transportation elements support each other)and that the development regulations are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. The GMA requires such consistency. [See RCW 36.70A.040(4)and 36.70A.070.] The process used to complete the analysis must provide for the following: • An appropriate public process that provides notice to the public and to affected and interested state agencies far enough in advance to allow them to comment on the results of the review and analysis (see Example processes for seven-year GMA update at the end of this bulletin). • Legislative action by the legislative body of the city or county(adoption of a resolution or ordinance following notice and a public hearing, at a minimum) finding that the review and analysis were completed in accordance with RCW 36.70A.130 and documenting the assumptions, facts, analysis, and conclusions. The findings for the legislative action should clearly state the conclusions reached regarding which,if any, plan provisions and/or regulations will be revised, and that the remaining comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations are currently in compliance with the GMA and do not need revision. The legislative action could be taken immediately upon completion of the review and analysis,or in conjunction with the legislative action for action#3 below (see Example processes for seven-year GMA update at the end of this bulletin). Taking legislative action immediately upon the conclusion of the review and analysis starts the clock running on any appeal of the scope of review. Within 60 days after the legislative action, someone who has participated in the jurisdiction's review and evaluation process could bring a challenge before the growth management hearings board alleging that the jurisdiction is out of compliance with the GMA if it does not amend a specified section of its comprehensive plan or development regulations. However, such a challenge could not be brought after the 60-day appeal period has passed,such as during the amendment phase of the update program(basic action#3 below). Of course, the statute does not require the legislative action to be taken immediately after completion of the review and analysis, and any jurisdiction may choose instead to include a finding that the review and analysis was completed as part of its legislative action for#3 below. 4 January 15,2004 3. Take legislative action If the analysis has identified provisions of the existing plan to be revised, the jurisdiction must take the next step by developing substitute or revised language to meet GMA goals and requirements. Various technical assistance materials are available from CTED and other state agencies (see www.cted.wa.gov). Because this is the final action cities and counties must take in fulfilling the seven-year update requirement of RCW 36.70A.130,there are a number of scenarios to consider(see Example processes for seven-year GMA update at the end of this bulletin): a) Some jurisdictions have already established a regular program for periodic amendments to their plan (e.g., on an annual or biannual basis). For these jurisdictions, the process of adopting revisions identified for the seven-year update should be combined with the annual or biannual amendment process. RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)prohibits consideration of comprehensive plan amendments more frequently than once per year; therefore a city or county may not amend its plan under a seven-year update process and a separate annual or biannual process within the same year b) For jurisdictions with limited resources and significant amendments to their plans and regulations, it may be necessary to complete the amendments in several phases,perhaps over more than one year. In some cases, each of these amendments will be adopted through a separate ordinance or resolution by the jurisdiction's legislative body. If this process is used, a public hearing should be conducted on each ordinance or resolution. It should be clearly identified in the public hearing notice and in the findings of each ordinance or resolution that the amendments are part of the seven-year update process. GMS recommends that the final legislative action taken upon completion of the entire seven-year update process clearly references all previously adopted amendments and includes a finding that, taken all together, these actions fulfill the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130. This final legislative action must occur prior to the deadline established for the jurisdiction in RCW 36.70A130(4). c) If all amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to fulfill the seven-year update requirement are to be adopted simultaneously, they must be adopted by legislative action of the legislative body of the city or county (a resolution or ordinance following notice and a public hearing, at a minimum). The resolution or ordinance should include findings that refer to previous legislative actions that were part of the seven-year update process (e.g., resolutions to complete actions#1 and#2 above), and a finding that the jurisdiction has completed its seven-year update requirement under RCW 36.70A.130. d) If the final legislative action is being combined with the review and analysis action (#2 above), the ordinance or resolution should include specific findings that the review and analysis have been completed. The findings should include a description of the review and analysis that was conducted and which 5 January 15,2004 comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations are currently in compliance with the GMA and do not need revision,and which plan provisions and/or regulations are being revised(see Example processes for seven-year GMA update at the end of this bulletin). e) If the review and analysis conclude that the city or county completely meets all GMA requirements and no amendments to the comprehensive plan or development regulations are necessary,it must still take legislative action. Its legislative body must adopt an ordinance or resolution including specific findings that the review and analysis have been completed and the plan and regulations do not need revision. It should also include a finding that the jurisdiction has completed its seven-year update requirement under RCW 36.70A.130. Submittal of documents to CTED Each jurisdiction must notify CTED of its intent to adopt amendments to its plan or regulations at least sixty days prior to final adoption,according to RCW 36.70A.106. All adopted plans and regulations,including amendments,must be transmitted to CTED. All adopted resolutions regarding the GMA Update also should be transmitted to CTED, so that CTED data can accurately reflect the jurisdiction's fulfillment of the update requirement. Transmittal will allow the state to know that the GMA update was completed by the jurisdiction in compliance with the RCW 36.70A.030. This will avoid possible delays in grants or other consequences because of a lack of accurate information. Cities or counties that do not complete seven-year updates before the deadline A jurisdiction that has not completed the three basic actions described above by the deadline set in RCW 3630A.130(4)would be vulnerable to a"failure to act"petition to a growth management hearings board. CTED cannot waive or extend a jurisdiction's update deadline. Cities and counties must complete the seven-year update requirement according to the established schedule to be considered in compliance with the GMA. Only those counties and cities in compliance with these schedules will be eligible to receive funds from the Public Works Trust Fund or the Centennial Clean Water account(RCW 36.70A.130(7)) or to receive preference for grants and loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.155.050. If a local government has made significant progress on its update,but is not able to adopt all needed revisions by their update deadline,it would be prudent to take steps to demonstrate good faith and progress. In such cases, CTED recommends the local jurisdiction(a) adopt,by the update deadline,a resolution that documents the local progress already made and containing a schedule for completing the update; and(b) continue moving ahead as quickly as possible to be in full compliance with the GMA. Following these interim steps does not relieve a local government of its update requirements or immunize it from a failure-to-act challenge,nor does it necessarily mean a local government will be eligible for state grants and loans. 6 January 15,2004 Potential appeals of seven-year update actions to a growth management hearings board A person or organization with legal standing could appeal a jurisdiction's resolution(s)or ordinance(s) adopted during the seven-year update process to a growth management hearings board. A petition for review by a hearings board potentially could be filed on each of the three basic actions needed to complete the seven-year update. However, a jurisdiction can considerably reduce its risk of appeal by completing each of the three basic actions described above and taking legislative action that clearly documents the process followed for each action, as well as the findings and conclusions of each action. As mentioned above, the jurisdiction has the option to take legislative action immediately upon completion of each individual step in the update process, or in a single,combined legislative action affirming all steps in the update process are complete. One advantage of taking separate legislative action immediately upon completion of each step in the update process is any appeal of each action must occur within sixty days of its adoption and publication. Therefore,it is possible for the jurisdiction to learn of any appeals—and perhaps resolve them—before proceeding with the next update action. GMS is preparing example ordinances that may be useful to local governments in developing local ordinances for their legislative action(s). When completed, they will be posted on our website at www.cted.wa.gov/growth). Contact For more information,contact the GMS regional planner for your area at(360) 725-3000, or by mail at P.O. Box 42525, Olympia,Washington 98504-2525. GMA Update information is also posted on the following Web site: www.cted.wa.gov/growth. 7 January 15,2004 l ■ • Washington State Counties Planning under the GMA ' '..-:''' ;'#`4,,i ,'';,,i:#1.,,,,'•Ii.'-...0.,. ()note San Jur,ar)4> Wtiatcom • /31 w., . , jeftoson 4_,,l' ,it:i ti,r.,t,-,,,,,,r,b,,,4„,,,,,,;•,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,y4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . , iF '1V? tAviitt. WWws -v - W ,,...,, . , ., wahld')1(u''' lf,;.v -.,,,,,_;10<(<,:,,, '•/ ; .,,,p,Aq.,,,...,,,,. fo' Ctel( GMA ' under GMA — Natural Resource Lan ' Fully Planning Natura Counties e;r.1.4 Counties Planning for dCsridticadlyl Areas Gand 8 January 15,2004 Example processes for seven-year GMA update The examples below are summaries of some of the processes that could be used by jurisdictions to complete their seven-year update requirements under RCW 36.70A.130. Other processes could also be used. These are included here to provide assistance to local governments establishing their own local process. A. Example with a single legislative action: 1. Establish and advertise public participation program. 2. Staff or consultant conducts review of entire comprehensive plan and development regulations and analysis of needed revisions based on GMA compliance. 3. Local government legislative body approves work program for revisions, if necessary, to comprehensive plan and development regulations. 4. Needed revisions are completed and adopted by ordinance or resolution of legislative body following public notice and hearing, at a minimum. Adopting ordinance or resolution includes findings detailing that the local government: • established its public participation program, • reviewed its entire comprehensive plan and development regulations, • determined which revisions to its plan and regulations were needed (and why other provisions of the plan and regulations did not need revision), • is adopting the needed revisions, and • has completed its seven-year update requirement under RCW 36.70A.130. B. Example with legislative action immediately following each step: 1. Establish public participation program by adoption of resolution by legislative body. 2. Conduct review of entire comprehensive plan and development regulations and invite public input. 3. Analyze plan and regulations for needed revisions based on GMA compliance. 4. Advertise and conduct at least one public hearing asking for public comments on the results of the review and analysis of the plan and regulations. Public notice of the hearing states explicitly that the hearing will be the final opportunity for comment on what plan provisions and regulations should be revised. 5. Upon completion of the public hearing, legislative body adopts resolution finding that the local government has: • reviewed its entire comprehensive plan and development regulations, • provided public opportunity to comment on the review and suggest needed revisions of the plan and regulations, • determined which revisions to its plan and regulations were needed(and why other provisions of the plan and regulations did not need revision), and • established a work program for the needed revisions. 6. Needed revisions are completed and adopted by ordinance or resolution of legislative body. Ordinance or resolution includes findings detailing that the local government: • followed its established its public participation program, • is adopting the needed revisions, and • has completed its seven-year update requirement under RCW 36.70A.130. 9 January 15,2004 r C. Example with phased completion of revisions to comprehensive plan and development regulations: 1. Complete steps 1 —3 of Example A or 1 —5 of Example B above. 2. Work program details the schedule for completing needed revisions in phases, clearly stating each phase is part of the revisions needed for the required seven-year update and will be adopted separately. 3. As each revision or package of revisions is completed,it is adopted by ordinance or resolution of the legislative body. Ordinance or resolution includes findings that the local government has: • followed its established its public participation program and • is adopting the revisions as part of the seven-year update requirement under RCW 36.70A.130. 4. When adopting the final revisions,the legislative body adopts an ordinance or resolutions that includes the finding in the previous step, and also includes findings that reference all previous ordinances/resolutions adopting revisions, and that the local government has completed its seven-year update requirement under RCW 36.70A.130. 10 January 15,2004 state department of went fxA Washington and economic develop , tz°; community, trade 0iiir 1,•16s Jys ix '4 ,yG7 Technical Bulletin 1.2 GMA Updates: for Counties and Cities"Fully Planning Level of Review and Revision Act under the Growth Management Key Issue 4 each city and county in RCW 36.70A.130O' comprehensive plan According to a schedule established action to review by if needed,revise its comp vplan Washington must take action to review and,comply with the Growth Management laces, regulations to ensure they different d and development). The needed re du l of review and revision will be different p ff re p (G�), The nocal factors,/eve jurisdiction p statutes,for depending on local factors, such as when guidance,based on current p statutes, that are regulations. This bulletin will provide gu a ro riate level of review and revision s�o P�r local governments determining the pp p "fully planning'under the act. (See attached G Discussion to reflect local updated, as necessary, basis, plans and regulations should be p be done e a continuing Genes,n w data,p While updates can to a mind basis,needs,new data, and current laws. seven years according they must occur in a deliberate manner every established by RCW 36.70A.130(4). lanning" date must be completed for these"fully p The schedule for when es within them is the following Snohomish, counties and the cities tsa ,Pierce, Snohomi December 1,2004-Clallam,Clark,Jefferson,King,Ki p • Decem and Skagit counties Thurston, and Whatcom countiMason,San Juan, Spokane, and 2005-Island,Lewis, Douglas,Grant,Kittitas, p • December 1, Benton,Chelan, • December 1,2006— yakima counties �a Ferry,Franklin,Garfield,Pacific,Pend Oreille, • December 1,2007 —Columb , Stevens, and Walla Walla counties (1) establish a public Update process includes four basic steps: ( ) evaluation, participation deliberate GMA P procedures and schedules for the review, (3) analysis that identifies p plans and regulations; ants. participation prvgram process; (2)review of relevant p and possible revision p and(4) adoption of an appropriate resolution and/or amen of need for revisions; an ( ) Questions about these steps are discussed below. September 6,2002 Tmoer62002 what aro fL_. Washington State Counties Planning under the GMA pond Oreille Whatcom San Ju az' Stevens �S cags ', Isla ':. '� „,fi4 .; :; NI Snotr +*, t tr ellerw a'�" a �-Alk Chelan Jetter3O1 R 0, n -ow ?� Idtrites Grant �..� 'Thu StOnt r, E- __ ,,,,,,, , , -.%� Frail aytield - e ` eai a WahkiakUM CIA.. Counties Fully Planning under GMA Counties Planning for Critical Areas and Natural Resource Lands only under GMA 1 Co September 6,2002 6 taff e wa hington s p rtment of a commutlity, tra ' +a d econoE11Gdevelopment -,: CFP Template Training Program Growth Management Services— Local Government Division Providing jurisdictions with a tool to develop exceptional CFP documents - Program Overview - ,,,,;,, „3 ,..0. The Capital Facilities Planning(CFP)Template is a series of tools for lk lr ° fit local jurisdictions to use in developing capital facilities plans. ;, t 0. ', Developed in Microsoft Excel,the Template is a series of worksheets. . a It is designed to guide CFP development from conceptual projects . through the rating and ranking of the projects across programs to le tt&te. evaluating these capital projects in the context of the comprehensive + ` plan. Built in the program is a formatted CFP document ready to be _... filled in with jurisdiction-specific information. In addition,there are tools to assist in presenting CFP information to planning commissions and elected officials,as well as a number of project management tools that can be used during project scoping and construction. The key purpose of the CFP Template is to provide a tool for cities and counties to improve and streamline capital facilities planning. Some or all of the worksheets can be used to develop a capital facilities plan. Outreach Plan The outreach plan will include providing presentations and information to various participants in CFP development. This includes: planners, clerks, public works staff,finance officers,and elected officials. Special efforts will be made to encourage the target audience to attend outreach efforts. Training Plan The training plan for the CFP Template will initially focus on small jurisdictions;those cities with a population of less than 5,000 and counties less than 50,000 that have not updated their capital facilities plan in the last five years and are willing to use the Template for the next update cycle. Training will be provided in three locations across the state with a goal of training the target audience within the next four years. The training will focus on capital facilities planning and hands-on experience with the computer application. Other support for the Template will include a Web page with guidance, fact sheets,important Web links,technical support,contact information, and follow-up trainings. In addition,one-on-one training may be provided if needed. For More Information Evaluation Wendy Compton-Ring,Senior Planner CTED will engage in on-going evaluation of the Template to ensure its Growth Management Services usability and the effectiveness of the training, outreach,and support. A 360.725.3000 number of tools and methods will be used to evaluate the Template and support. CTED's goal for the Template is to enable local jurisdictions to www.cted.wa.gov/growth develop exceptional capital facilities plans. ,�y�#+ ro( ,� .y�.4 sill in o N e�� it k p lrt mien t o I ft co mun1ty j ;t , :� ' eco c to ?men3t3.. _,, ,�sk. a,4 p � a5s.4�. " `sue dakti Capital Facilities Planning Template Growth Management Services Providing jurisdictions with a tool to develop exceptional CFP documents. Description The Capital Facilities Planning(CFP)Template is a series of tools for local jurisdictions to use in developing capital facilities plans. Developed in Microsoft Excel,the Template is a series of worksheets. It is designed to guide CFP development from conceptual projects through the rating and ranking of the projects across programs to evaluating these capital projects in the context of the comprehensive plan. Built in the program is a formatted CFP _ document ready to be filled in with jurisdiction-specific information. f� MI t IT* ' In addition,there are tools to assist in presenting CFP information to . �� ter t,,�. l ;w r r u tr , planning commissions and elected officials, as well as a number of T -� 1 project management tools that can be used during project scoping and construction. The key purpose of the CFP Template is to provide a tool for cities and counties to improve and streamline capital facilities planning. Some or all of the worksheets can be used to develop a CFP. Background The Local Government Infrastructure Study, authorized by the Washington State Legislature,suggested capital facilities programs use a standardized template to include projects,costs,funding information,and project phasing. The Washington State Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development(CTED) responded to this recommendation by identifying a tool used by the city of Olympia as the best available CFP tool to meet this legislative objective. The City of Olympia found they could use the template's CFP project decision matrix to better prioritize, rate,and rank their public work projects, reflecting their own local circumstances and needs. . .• Frz„ r„ A pilot project was offered by CTED to demonstrate the new capital ,. , 4 ; facility planning software tool. It was carried out at the following ,r e r e. sites: Port of Vancouver, USA and the cities of Walla Walla, . �`3 Cashmere,and McCleary. `' , "� The pilot project participants found benefits to template use. The ¢ Port of Vancouver, USA,found they could develop longer-range . sates. dF y L'� "-' - �,�: �.� ,� ��i � capital project finance plans for multiyear capital improvements. The r www.cted.wa.gov/growth For More Information City of Cashmere praised the capital facility planning template Wendy Compton-Ring,Senior Planner because"it can provide more accurate project cost estimates for the Growth Management Services city's proposed capital investments". The City of Walla Walla 360.725.3000 predicts"greater interdepartmental coordination between city departments now that the CFP template process has been put into www.cted.wa.gov/growth effect in the city." The City of McCleary anticipates many useful purposes, including better graphics to present to elected officials and an overall more understandable process. What's Next Growth Management Services is providing outreach to a variety of audiences through a number of forums. Starting in 2005, GMS will begin its training and support program for the Template. www.cted.wa.gov/growth N cD 1< '2 I iiiimillitrwedp if ref H f �, t a Vss O 1 o. � ��^'f-tc ,co 1 c 4.0 ‘,... r, ,P, Oc — i wil, i i �t- � t 5k Q Q C Cr c 0; V =v 0 ,,.......p` a. z I 'c p.,T.... YwI, G W �� 4.."..-• nj �� •C.) V D Z w ,:.— O 1:1. • /L / .- Cu 0 C.) Q-'-',� I ,52 4. " 4 Y M- C - 1 0. S' >''.. 3 it •-. Cl) o a C a3 0 Z N CD s O O n T2 C CD i� N 5' C 0 CD. O co = O z ! cam. m a. ��-� cc) a) CD v = 0) ' 4 .... • • • • X cr. 5 TI O O O 5 n 3 co O � O E 0..0.... Q -. - p .r ° ) < CD D -, O _. rt C _ 0 y n. nri CD n• Cl) N n @ r.. o C0) O � w c, 0 3 a o a� o ! w C N . � O .( . > 2 . o / Z ;I \ �! _ ƒ/ < ■\ <I= . |? % a- LL. CO "D CO f> !�\ ■| \ a < . / So � | % y O . \ \ M • ■ \ | } � � . c7. z27 . . ■ £ } ■ \ �� '� |" h\ }eE . . . - Ti Ff3 l'?- 1 I a Z7 Al z77i tram cDC41%). 1 ' • Ellii 41) i - - 0 ... 0 r i 11 e>. i -.,..... tr.:73 /--- /--- „H' it -e .... - 0) 27 7 % ..:,. ..3 . II 411. il - • • , .71 [4114 / / i7 r•11 C 3 1 lig CD = 111 0 0 . . I 3- 4=, C) o z . Z )� � � � CU LL O � � \ 0 X ! \ 1.6 t\ } 1 t § !| P!!I y hati | i fl CL , \ > |: „ .. MIN \ O § Z L\ 8 , :: | ' \ CD� •\ o 1) < \ : { : . 13 K i ^ a i I It'll ill Ali _. ' . t n°`, itli 7 �" r 11 imi' M , (,) ,1 0 al 3 CA 111 Z It� i vcp v o g o° _ - 11) -c; < O c) D O Si 5 0. K = -0 C 3 , 92. _*. = 0- CD n_ =" a CO La — 5 CD cn �. � 5 . . -5 C: = CD a) n p CD Q � Cl) C CD n' -0 CI CD fu 3 CO N CD . 0 . - Cl) _ � \\ 0 \ • . \} y. < :c«/ d. :.d« • y y d \ . y . . .y: • : • : y 4 mg ( y d < . . s CO in CEI N CO CO O -CO-CI O = 0 CO CU . c 0- -I-. . .. m m. CO . . . _ p U m z E Igi- r -\ �� | /2 0 _# � [I I7 Hit tilli _» ioc \ �_ ] } a . may. . . . • . k. . �.� - : y. < ; . . » :». . . • it..„,,,„:: „:::: „,,:: ,„::, ._,.,,,.,,,,,, ., h u7 U ID FiLl my $°—v w : '-y 05 n g w'_ / m v c 3;mac r Q. _v / / CO 0 . O w I � N al 1 - = ' • • • • • Z r V 5'� _n co ^ -r 0 `rI O _ O O : -n p a 3 p MOM W m = 3 a) co CD =: 'r�CD 0. = -° 0 0 �- 0 U = = N O � co � h • C b O. n co = r4. O O. C• co 3 at !y� 00 a, U) C , � 0 CL , CU a# imat c k\ ���wz e > S . .� f$ ., � in al . - a) _ I . d jqI I! k // i IN' ?-» : to m E � • • LLI ■2- k-2 * 22'w . . 0 f/ 2 . . . Z) \ G . . . I $I 1 A! iJi . 2 . . , . . / . \.», 3 y �±�� \ ! y \ 4:« �vƒ I 1 'hi 1| o2 a 4 7# #! 6 •■-! %g$ ;gall a O k � a gig ;B; \ kk t' li $ y ^ to a m U) . .: . . . ���: . . ��� _ . �. -I $ lilt a 1 ,_ . / i '1 } . . C} H } hL . ' 7 = - § ■Elig 2 ail ID . . z I =co . p O . 3 E • O O H U) v �..� G a fl. d) u) V O•a) 61''' V O = Z GQ J. crs = Trs Q a..r .2 Q• O .N 'Lf = -c o �CL a3 cv F3 a2 E ° AS Q . J 8 M N ''_§ • • • .(043 0. L v O c W a CD d .� C to V L . O '- O C Q 0 -C1-) O }, 0 M O �O L co o rte; 3 , 2 .. . O a' g. O a C = CD 0 3 Z. CD CD =. T 3 0 V 0) pl. CD •Ls K -n `h F, ;gin' $ .Z z i =I b J, 1 2 Q. H I c • n a 9$ iA n . r p ;: sl 1. ;F = n 8 IL i ; — sim C_ I $_� ^ 1 L F 0 0 0 . it °1 0 •G p r., I s�r 1 Ii N M e o CL , al a i .10 g .ffi wW\, V •� t°__ a a 1 is! 1 ' 1 _ Ei T r . Z Z j E C 0 L S81i, 2 IV 5 8 ,., E ! 1.111 il A i 2.., V M 1 qt, e Z 1 q o 8 8 ; n I 1 - 0 a17: O L. I CL ❑ _ 9g w or" ow Ix 2 ji❑ a" it 1 ' i A ® ni I I p ' i fiji Ij gCI- 1261 fig ❑ 11 . &. „ a 1 I $. j „ 01 1 1 I i i i 1 1 1 i I I 11 .11 111 1 v f'24,E IL, vim, ti 1 i i 1 1 i „ A b , . 1 _ri v of ::...\. ry, - :91.,.z.,,,,,,,,,,,,,z,.. -(7,- ,2- ..., „4„,,,., . , x`\\ 44 fu . . Axe r 1I'(tiI I 2 v k%:,v4, v . N'+ . 0 4. • \� N� a 4 2 > Iii 81 0 \::41kl*:\c:,oi. 'X. r tr CD 11 Ili ii! !ti $ R ; q 8S as as ! R93 ^m - --.-88 W 1/ 114 4., 1 aggi 292955.599 % Wark m O I iljiJa H E: �g Ift IIhHll a+ w o o oso illiiIdp4.4�yaQj NN 10 m d M '2 1a 1 88888888888 xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx sE N � a jj[ s 11111 , 11! `� . • , f�f1G? mss, k�C.k gib o"!. O A io g, 8 1 61 i c c ■ O � o � o NNV S § $ S °. 3 CD 2 n g. m N 3 w ham, 91 4111 1131R It CD 6 g I 3 � ��L m 3 as N I ill C Ili E di ll to 0 CL i li1r! g I s v.; . teav I ill . ; y' 9 lip.[il F 2E 1 C. w�. y �_ 'cc: j a r iiks "4 4 010 I C 13 Z.r tQ E CO til w t. • CL : p pp -0 g I 'tl°E 0 0,°b Z s 1jktIJe e F _- 1 W iH;PI .,. . •IP a.Al !4 {IIiPIQ n i ti e sq �• | s ■ & | | z !§ a •DiIIdItIi | ) " I) O ■ d ■ | ■ ■ § c) � . cr) s 3 n . ��«. . . ° f /ip f © i | ||fi|�| R F ! | 11 2|,' 2 | I CD | B| ! | |||$§,■ \ ( !|■ | !| ■ , � a ■ Ni 3 } ■ | } ■ ■ 0) ■ ■ I | -! CD o■.|!#■ E -u . . . oo N a) O U) c $gil!g° 1111°°°°°°° 111111 11111111°°° C N ,g V /r'lti 8 Ii]i d# lc `y LL -' O 1— Y h Vw, O a C O C = L a • = lilt i$ ; Nilia`a g;!iAiilaish ) CL gry� �R 7/y+ j 11111' EH - I lill : ' Irk .,; n , 3d , J111:1--iimil 1 a Emil a : I Nu aI s t. r$<-`'.'•. • • �az . I m I -'i 1 0 ¢� = >_ -' CCD Co � co a) 5 O O = CD a3 'O 5' CD 5 � CO a) p = CJ7 O cn j C -D o s Nil B S y O A N N m _C) a) U D) U E CD Cti E o �--• a) G' O' C � E 0 O -M O O M U c V aTM p o hin tton 's o' Re: appointment Page 2 of 2 Web: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment 12/7/2005