Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020700District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Hunlingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Public Works Director: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney, CMC MINUTES Week of February 7, 2000 Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioners Dan Harpole and Glen Huntingford were both present. Sharing and Jointly Developing Facilities on the Jefferson General Hospital Campus for the Health and Human Services Department: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 07-00 agreeing that the County and Hospital District//2 plan and develop facilities to house the Health and Human Services Department on the Jefferson General Hospital campus where feasible. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the minutes of January 18 and 24, 2000 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator, reported that in 1998 the Board received a liquor license application from the Sorensons for a winery in the Glen Cove Industrial Park. There was a condition placed on the license that no retail sales would be allowed. The EICO now allows retail sales in this area and Mr. Sorenson asked that this condition be removed from the license. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and have the Chair sign a letter to the Liquor Control Board advising them of the change in the zoning regulations for this area and recommending that they remove this condition from the Liquor License. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Goldsmith then reported: · He has met with the Housing Authority and helped them with volunteer staffing in their office. The self help housing program in Jefferson County was also discussed. The Department of Agriculture will be doing an audit of this program in the near future. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 A contract will be coming forward from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) for a study on a tourism development strategy. Clallam County will be contacted to determine if they would like to participate in this study. The City of Port Townsend and the City of Forks are also planning to participate. A draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Fire Districts for E-911 dispatch services is being reviewed by them, the Sheriff, and the Prosecuting Attorney. Natural Resource Policy Analyst Caryn Woodhouse reported on a hearing in Port Angeles on the federal 4(d) rule. WSU Cooperative Extension is currently reviewing the requirements for the PIE grant to determine if they would be willing to take over this work. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: Concern for the viability of the Chevy Chase Golf Course and the ability to develop the residential area around it; the need for the Board to defend the Growth Management Act; a request for findings of fact to support the PUGA for the Tri Area (the Board advised that some information has been put together regarding the decision made at the October hearing and that is all that will be done until an interim or final UGA is considered); a comment that the legal notice for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments did not represent CPA99-22 in the same manner as the other amendments; what is the process after the public hearing on these amendments is completed?; 5 minutes will not be enough time to speak about the various site specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments and there is a concerted campaign against the Growth Management Act; the people of the County and the State are rallying for the long range benefits of the Growth Management Act and the County needs to give the Comprehensive Plan time to work; and a facility request to fix the water cooler outside the Superior Court Courtroom. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole moved to delete Items 5,6 and 8 and approve the balance of the items as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 08-00 re: Establishment of a Fund to be Known as the Youth Initiative Pilot Project (YIPPEE) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 09-00 re: Hearing Notice: Proposed Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Youth Initiative Pilot Project Fund; Set for Tuesday, February 22, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers at the Courthouse 3. RESOLUTION NO. 10-00 re: Finding and Determination: Sale of Surplus County Personal Property 4. RESOLUTION NO. 11-00 re: Membership in the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee 5. DELETE Resolution: Extending the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (ELCO) No. 06-0828-98 tbr Additional Six (6) Months (See item later in Minutes.) 6. DELETE Resolution re: Updating the Omcial County Road Log: Clear View PI., Outlook Ln. (See item later in Minutes.) Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 o o o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. RESOLUTION NO. 12-00 re: In Support of Establishing the Olympic Gateway Visitor Center for Jefferson County, Project #RO 1435 DELETE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING re: Functional Family Therapy tbr Juvenile Services Referrals; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Olympic Educational Service District (OESD) (See item later in Minutes.) AGREEMENT re: Legal Representation in Mental Health Cases; Jefferson County Superior Court; Greer-Gerard, PPLC AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Emergency Management; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Hamlin and Associates AGREEMENT Amendment #1 re: Extend Completion Date of Employment Agreement for Permit Plan Conversion; Jeff Miller AGREEMENT Intergovernmental re: Watershed Planning in WRIA 16; Mason County (Lead Agency), Grays Harbor County, Skokomish Tribe, Mason County PUD and State Department of Ecology AGREEMENT (6) re: Professional Services for YIPPEE After School Program; 1) WilEd Hackman, Teacher; 2) James A. Harris, IV, Teacher; 3) Thomas D. Humphrey, Program Assistant; 4) Charlene Finley, Program Assistant; 5) Natasha Moni, Program Assistant; and 6) Cynthia Elmore, Program Assistant AGREEMENT re: Program Evaluator for YIPPEE After School Program; Lillian Hilton AGREEMENT re: Provide Clerical Services; Department of Community Development; Melissa Milovich AGREEMENT re: Provide Clerical Services to Planning Commission; Department of Community Development; Cheryl Halvorson AGREEMENT re: Public Health Services for Consolidated Contract 2000; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; State Department of Health AGREEMENT Amendment #2 re: Early Childhood Intervention; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; State Department of Social and Health Services AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 Planning Unit; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Parametrix, Inc. AGREEMENT re: Consultant Services for Water Resource Inventory Area 17 Planning Unit; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Susan Gulick AGREEMENT re: Development of Regulations for Shoreline Master Program; Department of Community Development; Cascadia Community Planning Services Application for Group Retrospective Rating; Coverage Beginning April 1, 2000; Washington Counties Risk Pool Risk Management Self Assessment; Washington Counties Risk Pool Indexed Fee Schedule for 2000; Per Ordinance No. 12-1209-96; Health and Human Services; Department of Community Development; and Public Works Department Request for Transfer of Used Canon PC720 Copier from Information Services to Jefferson County Fair Board Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Accept Recommendation to Reject Two (2) Claims for Damages: 0 Claim #C-20-99 Property Damage - Anna Jane Hanson and Kris Hanson Claim #C-29-99 Violation of Civil Rights - Richard Brees Out of State Travel Request to Attend NACM Mid Year Conference in Kansas City, Missouri; Sue Carlson, District Court Appoint Person to Serve on the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) as Bridgehaven Water Commission Representative; Dave Mathis Accept Resignation of Skookum Representative Serving on the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee; Barbara Wallace Appoint Skookum Representative to Serve an unexpired Term on the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee; Term Expires 2/20/01; Elisa Floyd Letter of Support for Skills Gap Funding with Olympic Workforce Development Council; Senator Hargrove; Representative Kessler; Representative Buck Letter Responding to Old Gardiner Road Options & Funding Issues Comments; William Eppick Extending the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (ELCO) No. 06-0828-98 for Additional Six (6) Months: (See also Consent Agenda Item 5) Commissioner Huntingford noted that he is voting against extending this ordinance to express his concern about the final development regulations not being completed yet. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion and explained that the final development regulations were to be done within 60 days after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan according to the previous Prosecuting Attorney, but he never had a lot of faith in that time frame. He feels the loss of key Planning staff over the past months has made if difficult for the staff to keep on task. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels the current ordinance needs to be clarified to make sure that the redundancies are removed and the processes are shortened up. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Harpole voted for the motion approving RESOLUTION NO. 13-00 to extend the EICO for six months. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING re: Functional Family Therapy for Juvenile Services Referrals; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Olympic Educational Service District (OESD): (See also Consent Agenda Item 8.) Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve this memorandum as submitted. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: Director of Community Development A1 Scalf reviewed and reported on the proposed format for the hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows: · The hearing will open at 6 p.m. · The Chair will begin the hearing advising each Amendment to be discussed (one at a time). · Staff will report on each CPA. · There will be separate sign up sheets for each Amendment. · Testimony (5 minutes for each person) will be taken on each CPA. · The hearing can be continued to Thursday at 6 p.m. if necessary. · The written record will be closed at 5 p.m. on Friday, February 11, 2000. Mike Ajax re: a) 1999 Building Permit Update; and b) Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule: Building Official Mike Ajax handed out and reviewed the statistics for 1999 from the Building Division of the Permit Center. There were 819 building permits issued; 117 of the permits were residences. He reviewed the Washington Survey and Ratings Bureau report on the Jefferson County Building Department. This review is done across the country and encompasses everything in the Department (budget, staffing level, forms, letters, etc.) The County's Building Department was rated a "3," with "1" being the best rating and "10" being the worst rating. This is a good rating especially in comparison with other Building Departments in this area. PUBLIC WORKS Review Cost Estimate and Solution for Courthouse Basement Meeting Room: Nik Worden explained two new options for the use of the basement space. Both options include the creation of an additional meeting room in the northwest comer. The construction costs for each of these options are just over $100,000 with additional money for furnishings. Commissioner Harpole asked about the Courtroom security issues? Nik Worden reported that the biggest expense is the bullet proof glass for the windows. The Courts have indicated that they will only use this space for non-jury sessions. The Board directed that the Department proceed with developing a budget for the option with a larger second conference room and the possibility of the custodian space being moved to the building behind the courthouse. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Renewal of License to Use and Maintain County Road Right of Way: Hiller Drive & Oak Bay Road; June D. Rubado and Margaret Rubado, Applicants: Terry Duff, Public Works, reported that this is a request to renew a license for the use of right-of-way at Hiller Drive and Oak Bay Road. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the renewal as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Director's Update: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported: Grant funding has been received for segments 2 and 3 of the Larry Scott Memorial Trail project. $160,000 in grant funding has been received for the Olympic Gateway Center/Rest Area. Nik Worden reviewed the timeline and the work to be done on the Larry Scott Memorial Trail. Updating the Official County Road Log: Clear View Place, Outlook Lane: (See also Item 6 on the Consent Agenda.) Commissioner Harpole moved to approved RESOLUTION NO. 14-00 updating the official County Road Log to add the roads known as Clear View Place and Outlook Lane. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Letter of Support for the Washington State Ferry System: Commissioner Harpole reviewed a letter from the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce regarding the State Ferry System and asked that the Board support this letter. Commissioner Huntingford moved to have the Board sign a letter to WSAC advising them that the Board has reviewed and supports the letter submitted by the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce regarding concerns about the Washington State Ferry System. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. State Department of Natural Resources, Tom Robinson re: Update on Forest Board Revenue Projection: Tom Robinson, Regional Manager for the Olympic Region, reviewed the total projected revenues to counties from State Forest Board lands. He noted that in 1999 the County received $1.6 million in revenue. Projected revenues for the County for 2000 range from $456,800 to $583,000 for January to June and from $101,700 to $3.2 million from July through December. He noted that there was one timber sale from Jefferson County for wood to be used for spars on a replica of the sailing ship Amistad that is being constructed at Mystic Seaport, Connecticut. HEARING re: Lease of Bayshore Motel.· Warren Steurer, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director, reported that the Bayshore Motel was closed at the end of October 1999 with the purpose of re- opening it as a private enterprise. A Request for Proposals has been developed. The intent is to lease the Bayshore Motel for a five year term with additional five year terms to be negotiated. The minimum bid Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 price is $2,000 per month. The property is to be leased for the purpose of operating a motel. The bids will be opened on March 10, 2000. The County will continue to be responsible for the motel water, electric and septic system, as well as the exterior building maintenance. The Chair opened the hearing for public comment. Richard Coon, Brinnon, requested a written statement from the County advising how this change will impact the Senior Center and the Senior Association. He feels this is a good thing to try and hopes it will work. Commissioner Harpole asked if something needs to be written about the relationship of the motel to the Senior Association? Warren Steurer read from the RFP which states that the Senior Association operates a Senior Center and kitchen which is located in the bottom of the motel building and is operated independently from the motel. Mr. Coon noted that the Seniors are worded that if the operation of the Senior Center is separated from the operation of the motel, the funding for the Center will not continue. They would like to see the continued funding for the Senior Center written into any agreement for the motel. Chairman Wojt noted that the accounting for the costs of the motel have always been separate from the Senior Center operations. There is no indication from anyone in the County that the Senior Center funding will not be continued. Warren Steurer reported that the 2000 budget for the Bayshore Motel indicates that there is a transfer of revenue from the motel to the Senior Center operations. Hearing no further comments for or against this intent to lease, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Harpole suggested that Warren Steurer put together some explanatory note to post at the Senior Center to give the Seniors assurance that this will not affect their funding from the County. Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the intent to lease the Bayshore Motel and approve the request for proposals. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 3:00-3:30 p.m. with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. HEARING re: CDBG Grant Application for Brinnon Sub A rea Plan: Associate Planner Lauren Mark reported that funding from this CDBG Grant application would be used to develop a sub area plan for Planning Area 11 (Brinnon.) Based on the 1990 census, there is a high percentage of low to moderate income citizens in the Brinnon area, and therefore this project would qualify for the grant. The grant will be used to hire a contract planner to assist the DCD and the Community Planning Group with this sub-area plan. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 The Chair opened the public hearing. Kate Marsh, 80 Brinnon Lane, stated that she is part of the Brinnon Community Planning Group. She urged the Board to approve this grant application. This group needs help with the technical aspects of the planning effort. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed grant application, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and have the Chairman sign the necessary paperwork for this grant application. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 3:45-4:15 p.m. with the Deputy County Administrator regarding a personnel issue. Natural Resources Policy Analyst re: I) WRIA 16 Selection of Planning Unit Nominees; 2) Update of County Water Team Efforts to Address the 4(d) Rule: Caryn Woodhouse reported that the Planning Unit is being formed for WRIA 16. The Board needs to nominate a private citizen to serve on this committee. The Conservation District and the Brinnon Water District do not want to participate but would like to be updated. The position for WRIA 16 has been advertised and the following people are interested: Joe Baisch, Chuck Finnila, Johnathan Kasper, Shelly Testerman, and Linda Tudor. Dave Christensen, Environmental Health Department, reported that the County is assured that their nomination for a citizen representative will be appointed. The County can also nominate people for the industry representatives, but they will be competing with people nominated for these positions from Mason County. Commissioner Harpole moved that the County's private citizen representative be Chuck Finnila with the other 4 names put forward for consideration as appointees for the other interest groups. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. There was a discussion about Congressman Norm Dicks' offer to provide assistance to the County in the 4(d) rule planning efforts. A letter will be drafted to Congressman Dicks for the Board's signatures. The Water Team has been meeting on this planning, but the team has not been able to reach consensus on a single vision for the County. This will be discussed at a future date. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday. All three Board members were present. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Discussion re: Distressed Counties Facih'ties Fund: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that there is currently $163,000 in this fund, with expected revenues of approximately $120,000 per year. The funding source is .08% from the sales tax. The limitations for spending this funding are outlined in RCW 82.14.370(3.) The funding can be used for "financing public facilities" which must be listed in the overall economic development plan or the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. The County has to consult with cities, towns, and port districts on the uses for this funding. The intent of the legislation is for economic development, but the legislation does not indicate if it must support economic development. This funding source will expire in 2022 (25 years) from the initial adoption of the legislation. The County needs to develop a spending plan and project selection process. The following items need to be determined: · Method for selecting facilities/priorities · Methods of financing (limitations, loans, grant, bonds, etc.) · Process of consultation with City and Port - the County makes the final decision · Other advisory/citizen input - EDC, Planning Commission, etc. · Ties to economic development · Flexibility - 1) Do all projects have to go through an application process? or 2) Leave flexibility to respond to immediate requests? o Staff responsibilities - County department or different agency or advisory committee · Administrative costs Commissioner Harpole suggested that the administration and management be addressed annually during the budget process. Gary Rowe noted that staff or a citizen advisory group could develop policy and the process for recommendations on the use of this funding. Commissioner Harpole suggested that other counties be contacted about the composition of their citizen advisory group and any process or parameters they have set tbr these funds. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to use this funding to drive a process to create more jobs and encourage new business start ups in the County. Commissioner Harpole suggested that possibly a portion of the funding could be set aside for financing longer term projects. The Board will need to set some boundaries for the type of uses for these funds. Gary Rowe will bring back a proposal outlining various options for dealing with these funds based on information from other counties. Erik Andersson, EDC, suggested that a portion of these funds could be used to establish a revolving loan fund for economic development, or to use for leverage in applying for federal or state grant funding for projects such as the State's WA CERT process. He also advised that letters have been sent to the County, the City and the Port regarding the need to present projects to be assigned priority by the County to be submitted to the WA CERT process. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Food and Beverage Purchase Request; Commissioners Office: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve a food and beverage request for a working lunch with the County Administrator. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Employment Agreement re: County Administrator; Charles Saddler: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the employment agreement with Charles Saddler. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. The Board met with the Department of Community Development to continue discussion of the Community Development Work Plan. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Tuesday and reconvened on Wednesday. All of the Commissioners were present for the following hearing. HEARING re: 15 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: There were approximately 120 citizens present when Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing. The order that the amendments were to be addressed and the procedures to be followed were explained. CPA99-01 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-01 submitted by Patrick Smith. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-01. Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that this request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the zoning of 3.57 acres from Rural Residential, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, and to include the property within the boundaries of the Chimacum Neighborhood Visitor Crossroads. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-01. Steve Aurdal, 384 Larson Lake Road, Chimacum, explained that he is representing Patrick Smith, the applicant. He stated that the comer where this property is located is a commercial hub in Chimacum that has been used commercially since the early 1900s. The property has been taxed as commercial property for over 30 years. There is sufficient water, required fire flow, and sufficient access to the State Highway to make this a commercial site. Bill Marlow., representing the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce, stated that this is a very busy intersection and not a residential site. This comer has always been commercial. He urged the Board to support the amendment. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Robert Greenway, 1611 Corona Street, Port Townsend, explained that his comments are about the Comprehensive Plan in general rather than related to this particular amendment. There is intense feeling in the County about protecting the integrity of the current Comprehensive Plan. It began as the GMA and took 8 years to achieve. Any revisions should evolve very carefully. (See also Exhibit//3 microfilmed document.) Phil Dinsmore, 320 Meadow Road, Port Townsend, stated that he is directing his comments to spot rezoning in general. He read and submitted his statement. (Exhibit//5 - See microfilmed document.) Nancy Dorgan, read and submitted her statement. (Exhibit #0A - See microfilmed document.) Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-01, Chairman Wojt asked the Board for any comments. Commissioner Huntingford explained that the Board is not going to make any decisions on the amendments tonight. Written testimony will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Friday, February 11,2000. Deliberations are scheduled to begin on Monday, February 14 at 2 p.m. The Chair then closed the public testimony portion on the hearing on CPA99-01. CPA99-02 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-02 submitted by Walter Moa. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No, other than day to day business, and being aware of the proposal. Chairman Wojt: He has been contacted by telephone and met with people. The general nature of their comments was in favor of the project and they didn't offer anything that we haven't already heard in public or written testimony. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-02. Director of Community Development A1 Scalf explained that this request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the zoning of the subject parcel in Discovery Bay from Rural Residential, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, and to include the property within the boundaries of the Discovery Bay Neighborhood Visitor Crossroads. The proposed amendment would increase the Visitor Crossroads by an additional 7.62 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-02. Joy Baisch, stated that this amendment application and the SEPA review fbr this project would fall under Economic Goal 8.0 and the criteria outlined in 8.3 regarding expansion of existing commercial zones. She asked that the Board accept this amendment. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Bill Marlow, representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that almost 60% of the commercial property in the County was downzoned when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The commercial property that would be restored or expanded if the Board approved all the amendments before them is a very small portion of that 60%. SHB 6094 allows commercial property to exist in rural areas by giving local government the authority to make that choice. The Chamber supports approval of this amendment. Linda Tudor, Brinnon, feels that the Discovery Bay area is an ideal location for a commercial project. Jefferson County is working to promote tourism and will benefit from having a place on Highway I01 where tourists will stay for more than one day. She asked that the Board approve this amendment. Walter Moa, 154 Highway 20, Port Townsend, stated that he feels the majority report from the Planning Commission is inaccurate and biased. The subject properties are not split by the proposed amendment anymore than they currently are. The commercial boundary being requested was established in 1990. The extra property is necessary for upgrading the septic system. The current business has maintained the rural character of the area and any future project would continue to do so. Established infrastructure abuts the property on several sides. The project will not significantly increase traffic and create a more hazardous intersection. Bud Schindler, stated that everything that he had to say has already been said. Juli Jaman, representing the Olympic Environmental Council, stated that her comments are generalizations about the amendment process. She read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #1 - See microfilmed document.) Susan Ambrosius, 907 Rose, Port Townsend, quoted The Leader's critique of the "Madwoman of Chaillot," a play that is currently being performed in Port Townsend. She asked that the rural atmosphere, the environment, the economic sustainability and the resources of the common people of Port Townsend be sustained. She asked the Board to uphold the Comprehensive Plan as it is. Ron Gregory_, explained that he is the President of the Jefferson County Home Builders Association. He read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #2 --See microfilmed document.) Chairman Wojt reiterated the groundrules for the hearing. Hearing no further comments on CPA99-02, the Chair then closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 CPA99-03 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-03 submitted by Kenneth and Evelyn Livingston. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No, other than when the property was initially downzoned. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-03. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that this request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the zoning of Lot 2 of the Lopeman Short Plat from Rural Residential, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, and to include the lot within the boundary of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center. The size of the lot is 0.99 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public heating on CPA99-03. Evelyn Livingston, 71 Windship Drive, Port Townsend, acknowledged the difficult task that the Planning Commission had in their deliberations on her property. She stated that she does not agree with some of their findings. Their main objection seemed to be "leapfrogging" over the Rural Village Center to Lot 2. Lots 1, 2, and 3 were originally designated commercial. (Exhibit 4 - See microfilmed document.) · Finding 1 states that Lot 1 would have to be redesignated commercial. The owners of Lots 1,3 and 4 are in favor of this amendment. · Finding 2 paraphrases Finding 1. If the lots all reverted back to their original designation, there would be no "leapfrogging." · Finding 3 states that this lot is within the provisional UGA area. · Finding 4 states that there are several non-residential uses for this lot allowed under the EICO. These development options such as a bed and breakfast, an assisted care facility or a nursing home are not suitable for this noisy, busy location across from the Jefferson County Public Works shop and adjacent to a gravel pit and top soil business. Commissioner Huntingford asked Evelyn Livingston how many roads abut Lot 1 ? She said that four roads abut the property. He asked if they have applied for tax relief from the Board of Equalization since the property was downzoned? She stated that they have paid commercial property taxes on the property for the last 22 years. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, representing People for a Livable Community, explained that he is concerned about the commercial spot zoning represented in all of these proposed amendments. He doesn't want to live in a county where sprawling commercial development lines the major roads. It is necessary to accommodate growth and preserve the rural nature of the County which can be done by creating village centers. Many of the proposed amendments are related to property that was previously zoned commercial. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, a large part of the commercially zoned property in the County was downzoned. To be fair, the County would have to rezone all the properties that were downzoned. A main concern of these property owners is that no one would want to build a residence on a busy, noisy street. If these spot rezones are approved this year, then next year their neighbors properties will have to be rezoned. Several of the rezones to commercial that are being considered are in areas where sub area plans are currently being developed. It is important that commercial areas are kept within cities, towns and village centers. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Bill Marlow, representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, suggested that the Board look at the map of the businesses in the vicinity of this property. He noted that Cotton Concrete, a mini storage, the County Shop, a commercial building that housed the old Post Office, trailer parks, and multifamily housing already exist in this area. There is a SHB6094 ruling that the Planning Department adopted that deals with the number of businesses in an area. This property should be redesignated commercial according to that criteria. Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-03, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. CPA99-04 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-04 submitted by Stan Johnston. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Woit: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-04. Director of Community Development A1 Scalf explained that this request is to change the zoning on two parcels on the Dosewallips Road in Brinnon from Commercial Forest to Rural Residential, I residence on 20 acres. One parcel is 148 acres and the other parcel is 127 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-04. Joy Baisch, Brinnon, stated that she believes that there is an error in the designation of the lot sizing. Based on County Ordinances and the mitigation that is required in SEPA review, she asked that the Board approve this amendment. Gretchen Brewer, 1230 29th Street, Port Townsend, feels that this is a lot of acreage being converted from trees to residential. She feels that the County needs to keep the trees. She asked the Board not to approve this amendment. Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-04, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. CPA99-05 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-05 submitted by Don Spigarelli. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the~[bllowing questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Commissioner Harpole: Yes, but the information shared was not of a substantive nature and doesn't contain anything that is not already part of the public record. Commissioner Huntingford ' Not, by Mr. Spigarelli, but by the people who have the yurt company. What was discussed is in the record and public information. Chairman Wojt: Yes, by the people who have the yurt company. That information is already part of the record. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes; but he would like to make one comment about comparing these amendments against the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that because these are amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, there will probably be discussion about changing it. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-05. Director of Community Development A1 Scalf explained that Don Spigarelli is represented by Jim Lindsay from Bothell, Washington. This request is to change the zoning on this parcel from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 20 acres to a commercial designation and include it in the boundary of Nesses Comer General Commercial Crossroads. The subject parcel is 5 acres. Page 19 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-05. Jim Lindsay, Bothell, explained that the property is located on Rhody Drive and is adjacent to existing industrial or commercial development on three sides. On the west side it is adjacent to a wetland. It is a self contained parcel in a commercial district. Amending the Comprehensive Plan is part of the GMA process. This property is not compatible for residential use. The site has all the necessary utilities for urban type development available in the Port Hadlock area. The lot size meets the Health Department's requirements for commercial development. The owner was not notified before the Comprehensive Plan "downzoned" the property. At the time the Plan was adopted, the City of Port Townsend had an offer on the property and the assumption was that they didn't need the commercial designation. As soon as the property was downzoned, the City withdrew their offer and made another offer at a fraction of the original amount. In each one of the scenarios for a UGA, this property was recommended for inclusion in the commercial boundary. The Planning Commission's conclusions that the boundaries of this property do not meet the necessary criteria for commercial designation are in error. He asked the Board to approve this amendment. Commissioner Huntingford asked Jim Lindsay if he planned to submit written comment about the property meeting the criteria for a commercial designation? Jim Lindsay stated that this information is in the original application and in the record. Joe Pipia, 1540 22® Street, Port Townsend, said that before he moved here he owned several businesses. He had to apply for permits and variances and sometimes his requests were approved and sometimes they weren't approved. The County Commissioners will be making hard decisions as part of this process. The Commissioners are tTailblazers. Barbara Fisk, Quilcene, stated that in the last 20 years she has seen the same thing over and over again. Port Townsend doesn't want any development in the County or young people to have job opportunities or builders to build here. They want everything to stay just like it is. The County has so many restrictions that people don't want to build here. Orville Fisk, Center Road, stated that he thinks the GMA is ruining the County. Affordable housing is nice homes on 5 acre parcels, not trailers and shacks on 20 acres. Kees Kolff, 510 35th Street, Port Townsend, stated that he was not in the County when the Comprehensive Plan was developed; but he thinks it is a very good document and applauds those who put time and effort into developing it. He is very concerned that the Plan will lose the capacity to direct growth and development. He is not against growth and development if it is properly planned. In general, he supports the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Some of the Planning Commission members voted to deny this amendment because consideration of the expansion of commercial boundaries needs to take into account future expansion of those boundaries. Expansion of the boundaries should be supported by growth management indicators. Boundaries should only be expanded for a defensible public benefit, not Page 20 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 private benefit. He asked the Board to support the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He is against amending a plan for a particular business, no matter how desirable it is. Maury Anderson, 591 E Quilcene Road, Quilcene, stated that he has owned 2 parcels of property for over 40 years. Both parcels were downzoned from commercial designation to residential with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He doesn't think this is right. Mark Grant, 75 Haada Laas Road, Port Townsend, explained that his comments are about all the amendments in general. He read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #6 - See microfilmed document.) Karen Gates Hildt, Port Townsend, said that several years ago she had a client who was interested in property adjacent to this parcel. She talked to officials from the State and County about her client's property and at that time, it was assumed that this whole area was considered for commercial use. She is a strong supporter of the current Comprehensive Plan. However she thinks it is important that opportunities exist in the County for appropriate commercial development. Dan Titterness, 2299 Magnolia Court, Port Townsend, stated that is a Planning Commission member that signed off on some of the minority reports on these amendments. As a member of the Planning Commission, he voted for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in order for the County to move forward to the amendment process. The Plan is designed to be amended. He asked that the Board have the courage to amend the Plan. Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-05, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the heating. CPA99-09 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-09 submitted by Chuck Finnila. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: Other than just casual conversations with Chuck Finnila, nothing was discussed that hasn't been part of the public record on my part. Page 21 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 : Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? There was no comment from the audience. Director of Community Development A1 Scalfreported the Board's decisions on the following amendment requests: · Docket CPA99-06 submitted by John Nesset (Glen Cove.) · Reject CPA99-07 submitted by Bill Lindeman (Kala Point.) · Reject CPA99-08 submitted by Ray Vines (Port Hadlock.) A1 Scalfexplained that the next amendment before the Board is CPA99-09, submitted by Chuck Finnila. This request is to change the zoning on the parcel from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres to a Neighborhood Commercial Crossroads designation. The subject parcel is approximately 7 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-09. Page 22 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, stated that the following comments are for both CPA99-09 and CPA99-10 because of the similarities in the amendments. The Brinnon Community Planning Group has begun discussion regarding the Brinnon sub-area plan. She asked the Board to deny these proposals until that planning process is complete. The Community needs to be able to make their own land use choices. Kate Marsh, Brinnon, explained that CPA99-09 and CPA99-10 were submitted as one amendment; but the Department of Community Development separated the requests. She would like to address them as a singular item. Brinnon is a rural, economically depressed area that has limited areas for infill or commercial development. This change would allow some economic development. The proposed use would be consistent with a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The area at Black Point was commercial until the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the original Brinnon Community Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission maintained this commercial designation. She asked the Board to redesignate this area as commercial. Permitted plans for retail businesses at Black Point have been hindered by the restrictions imposed by the Comprehensive Plan. SHB 6094 allows for this type of development in rural areas. Tracy Heims, 9875 Bridgeport Way, Lakewood, Washington stated that he is an attorney representing Jean Johnson. She feels that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted to control growth and to help properly develop the County. It is important to follow that Plan. There is still property in the Brinnon city center that can be developed commercially with the infrastructure already in place. Allowing commercial property out of this core area will create urban sprawl and adversely affect downtown businesses. If the proposed project is allowed, the business owners in Brinnon want assurances that it will be completed in a timely, competent manner. (Exhibit #7 - See microfimed document.) Bill Marlow, representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, asked to address both CPA99-09 and CPA99-10. He stated that Brinnon is an economically depressed area with a downtown area located in a floodplain and it would make sense to encourage commercial development out of the floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan promotes marine trades and tourism. This is the perfect location to accommodate both these types of business. The problem with the sub area planning process is the extended timeline and the hardship it creates for property owners who have current projects. George Sickel, Brinnon, stated that he is a proponent of these amendments. The property was cleared and prepared for commercial development when it was still zoned commercial. Development of these properties would help increase tourism and boating, and create employment opportunities. Chuck Finnila, Brinnon, the proponent, stated that it is unfortunate that the property has to be designated as commercial. It is a tourist recreational facility, therefore, a commercial neighborhood crossroads designation is more appropriate. He submitted an aerial photo of the area. (Exhibit #8 - See microfilmed document.) He cited the following facts: · There have been 3 favorable environmental reviews. Page 23 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 · The property was designated commercial in all previous Brinnon Community Plans. · The property received unanimous approval from the BOCC for a commercial zone change for restaurant and hotel development. · This Board granted a conditional use permit for the restaurant facility. The building permit has been submitted. The commercial type designation for this 260 acres is essential to enhance the tourism/recreational potential of this property. Commissioner Huntingford asked how many people they employ? Chuck Finnila stated that there are 10 full time employees year round with 6 additional full time employees during the summer. At least three of the marine trades from Port Townsend visit the marina Monday through Friday each week. When they complete their project, they hope to employ 90 people. Joy Baisch, Brinnon, concurs with Chuck Finnila's comments. She added that Pleasant Harbor has been designated commercial since 1982. CPA99-09 and CPA99-10 promote Economic Goal 8.0 and they are sustained by 4.8 in the Land Use Policies. Brinnon has a unique topographical environment; the area is remote and has very little flat ground. The residents in Brinnon need services to sustain themselves and be self- sufficient if the need arises. Bud Smith, 850 Dosewallips Road, Brinnon, stated that this property was prepared to be commercial years ago and the community is waiting for something to happen. All the work that has been done at Pleasant Harbor is tasteful and does not intrude on the landscape. The owners have spared no expense to see that it has been developed properly. Heating no further comment from the audience on CPA99-09, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the heating. CPA99-10 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-10 submitted by Linda Tudor and Dennis Thompson. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this heating by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Page 24 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Chairman Wojt: He has been approached but none of the comments are different than comments already in the public record. Do any of, you have an interest or stand to gain or lose anyfinancial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford · No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole' Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole' Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceeding? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-10. Director of Community Development A1 Scalf explained that this amendment, submitted by Linda Tudor and Dennis Thompson, is a request to change the zoning on the parcel from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres to Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads designation. The subject parcel is at the intersection of Highway 101 and Black Point Road and is approximately 19 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-10. Linda Tudor, Brinnon, explained that Black Point has always been seen by the residents of Brinnon as a future location for commercial development. In 1979, the Brinnon Community Plan designated three small commercial areas: downtown Brinnon, Black Point, and Cove Park. These locations were strategically chosen Page 25 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 for road access if the bridges flooded out and for fire protection. That plan made sense and it still does. The current Community Planning Group will probably designate Black Point as a commercial zone. There is an exceptional water system in place that will provide the necessary fire flow. In addition, there is adequate land for septic requirements and the road approaches are already in place. The development that has taken place at Black Point has been mindful and well thought out. Any future development will continue to maintain the beauty and the environment of the area. Joy Baisch, stated that her comments for CPA99-09 also addressed CPA99-10. Kate Marsh, 80 Brinnon Lane, Brinnon, explained that the local residents want to plan an economic future for the Brinnon community and crafting a sub area plan will allow for this, however, there is not enough land for commercial opportunities if the Black Point area is not designated as commercial. They are aware that the sub area plan must comply with the existing Comprehensive Plan. This is a bit of a conundrum for the Community Planning Group because SHB6094 specifies that this type of commercial designation be allowed in rural areas. Bill Marlow, representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, added that this parcel was zoned commercial in the past and there is a building already permitted on the property. There was a petition circulated in Brinnon about 4 or 5 years ago that was signed by over 100 residents who were in favor of making the Black Point area commercial. He asked that the Board approve this amendment. Chuck Finnila, Brinnon, reiterated that this amendment and the amendment that he submitted (CPA99-09) were actually submitted as a joint application, although they are separate ownerships. He has no monetary interest in this parcel except for common goals of water and sewer infrastructure and fire flow. His goal is to have the finest resort facility in the area. He thinks this amendment would compliment his development. People driving fi.om the south stop at the Real Estate office to ask for directions and use the marina as a "rest stop." He feels that this property, which is on the highway, is a better location for a grocery store than the low key area of the marina. Joe Baisch., Brinnon, stated that he is the Facilities Chairman at the Brinnon school, which was built in 1952 and is in need of major repairs. He is interested in the tax revenue that would be generated fi.om this commercial property. He is in favor of the amendment and asked that the Board please consider the needs of the school. Lois Barnett, 835 Benton Street, Port Townsend, explained that she is a Port Townsend resident concerned about growth and development. The Brinnon Community wants growth and development and is willing to work for their dream. She encourages this type of development because it is fi.om the heart of the community. Bud Schindler, explained that he has a list of people supporting this amendment. He agrees with all of the comments above. He asked the Board to approve the amendments. Page 26 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Ryan Tillman, Nordland, stated that he is in favor of both CPA99-09 and CPA99-10. He has been working with Linda Tudor, the proponent, on her project since 1993. She has modified the project several times to meet the needs of the community. This particular area needs commercial services and has the infrastructure to support them. When the 1997 GMA legislation was passed regarding rural communities, this was the type of development that the Legislature intended: small community-based tourist related businesses and small scale recreational activities. He asked the Board to approve these amendments. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, said he will not discuss the commercial projects that are proposed. This is a large project and will have an impact on the community. He supports Brinnon's desire to have a functioning rural village center. The Brinnon sub area plan is the way to go forward on this. CTED has recommended denial of this amendment. It is important that the County's Comprehensive Plan remains in compliance with the GMA. This comment is about process. Joann Bussa, Brinnon, stated that she lives 1 ½ miles south of the Black Point area. Brinnon is lucky to have such a beautiful location to offer. There is an outstanding Rhododendron Garden and a beautiful marina. Both proponents continually strive to enhance the area and its beauty. Catharine Robinson, 1070 Tremont Street, Port Townsend, explained that she has comments about both CPA99-09 and CPA99-10. She is impressed by the energy and enthusiasm that the Brinnon community has for this project. Her concem is that the sub area planning process is underway and that commercial zoning could be the result of the plan and does not have to be in place before the plan is completed. She asked the Board to reject this amendment until after the sub area plan is complete. Linda Tudor, presented several letters to the Board from residents of Brinnon and Quilcene that are in favor of these amendments. (Exhibit #9 - 17 letters - See microfilmed document.) Commissioner Harpole asked A1 Scalfthe number of participants in the sub area planning process from Brinnon? Al Scalfexplained that there are 17 participants. Commissioner Harpole asked for a full list of the participants. The Chair closed the public testimony portion of the heating on CPA-9910. Chairman Wojt explained that the heating procedures allow for people, who cannot attend the continued heating tomorrow evening, to comment on the remaining amendments from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. They will continue to address the amendments, one item at a time for the next hour. A1 Scalf explained that people arrived late that want to speak on CPA99-03 and CPA99-04. He asked that the Board consider these this evening. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Board will make time at the end of the other comments before they adjourn. Page 27 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 CPA99-21 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-21 submitted by the Economic Development Council. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: Yes, but it was information that is already part of the public record. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: Yes, but it was information that is already part of the public record. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-21. Page 28 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment was submitted by Erik Anderrson, Executive Director of the Economic Development Council. The EDC has submitted changes to the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan formulated by their Business Recruitment and Retention Committee. It is a lengthy published proposal. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-21. Karen Gates Hildt, Port Townsend, explained that she is here as a member of the Board of Trustees for Peninsula College. She served for two years on several committees that developed the original Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This element was crafted with extensive community involvement from the education community, the business community, and from the community at large. She strongly objects to this amendment, both in terms of substance and process. This amendment attempts to take away the heart and soul and intent of the original Economic Element. Jim Westall, President of Skookum Services, Port Townsend, explained that they employ over 200 people in the community. One of the requirements for economic development is infrastructure, especially for people with disabilities. Everybody in the community needs to have access to jobs. He asked the Board to reject the EDC's proposed amendment. The EDC wants to take recylcing out of that section of the Comprehensive Plan. The recycling program has the support of community and to say that recycling and solid waste isn't integral to economic development is a mistake. As a member of the EDC, he feels that this amendment was done by only a few people and does not represent the majority of the membership. (Exhibit #10 - See microfilmed document.) Marilyn Muller, 624 P Street, Port Townsend read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #11 - See microfilmed document.) Heating no further comment on CPA99-21. (More public testimony will be taken at the continued heating tomorrow evening.) CPA99-13 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-13 submitted by Bruce Bailey. The concern is that this hearing be fair in~fbrm and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer thed~bllowing questions on the record. ttas any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: Yes, by both proponents and opponents, but the information has already been established in the public record. Page 29 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Commissioner Huntingford: Yes, plenty of contact regarding this amendment, but nothing that isn't part of the public record. Chairman Woit: Yes, numerous phone calls, letters and petitions regarding this, but none of the comments are different than comments that were addressed in open public meetings. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose anyfinancial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Heating no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-13. Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment, submitted by Bruce Bailey, represented by Michael Trivolio, is a request to change the zoning of the subject property from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 10 acres to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres. There are fifteen parcels that total approximately 200 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-13. Joe Wheeler, Port Townsend, submitted and read a statement. (Exhibit #12 - See microfilmed document.) Page 30 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Dick Kint, 420 Dennis Blvd., Port Townsend, stated that he is not commenting about the Bailey amendment, but about the Bailey property. The CheW Chase Golf Course does not exist in the Quimper Community Plan, nor do any other businesses near 4 Comers. The businesses at 4 Comers were included in the final Comprehensive Plan, but the Chew Chase Golf Course was not. This is a commercial property and a business that needs to make money to survive. He visited a number of golf courses in 1998 and every successful golf course had houses surrounding it. Housing is endemic to golf courses. The Baileys have made a good honest effort to create a first rate golf course; but without the option of developing the lots adjacent to the golf course, it will be difficult for them to succeed. Golf is his preferred form of recreation. If the Board doesn't approve this amendment, it will be difficult for the golf course to come to fruition. Bruce Bailey, stated that he and his sister own the Chew Chase Golf Course. He thanked the golf course employees, members, and friends for attending this hearing. He explained that his family has owned this golf course for the 54 years. Their goal is to create an economic entity that is viable as a public, affordable, recreational facility in Jefferson County. There is a large and growing "golf traveling" market. Currently, the three golf courses in Jefferson County, the Bed and Breakfast Inns and local restaurants are working together to create a "Golf Port Townsend" package to attract these tourists. Golf courses need to have some aspect of residential around them. They have worked with a sense of compromise throughout this process. However, there are some serious flaws in the majority report from the Planning Commission. The "domino theory" that has been discussed, does not relate to this property because it is surrounded by 5 acre parcels. There are 15 parcels in this amendment request and 60% of them are 5 acres or less. They care a lot about this golf course and spend a great deal of time and effort to make it successful. They are at a crossroads. 25,000 people a year, play golf at this course. What they would like to see is 30 or 40 smaller houses tucked away on this property over the next 75 years. (Exhibit 12A - See microfilmed document.) Janice Fisler, 245 Cliffside, Port Townsend, stated that she is the President of the Bayview at Chevy Chase Property Owners Association and speaks for the majority of the property owners. She read and submitted her statement. (Exhibit 14 - See microfilmed document.) Commissioner Harpole reminded the public that this heating will be continued tomorrow night, February 10 at 6 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom. CPA99-11 will be the first amendment on the agenda. He reiterated that people can submit written comments until 5 p.m. on Friday, February 11. The heating was recessed and reconvened on Thursday, February 10 at 6 p.m. All three Commissioners were present. CPA99-11 Commissioner Wojt opened the public heating. He read the following regarding CPA99-11 submitted by Michael Whittaker. Page 31 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose anyfinancial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Hunfingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Heating no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-11. Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment, submitted by Michael Whittaker, is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the zoning of the subject property in Quilcene from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 20 acres to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres. The parcel is 20.86 acres. Page 32 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-11. Hearing no comment for or against this amendment, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the heating on CPA99-11. CPA99-12 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-12 submitted by Lela Hilton. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Page 33 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-12. Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment, submitted by Lela Hilton is a request to change the zoning of the subject property in Chimacum from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 20 acres to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 10 acres. The parcel is 20.03 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-12. Lela Hilton, Chimacum, asked that the Board accept the recommendation of staff to amend the zoning of her property on West Valley Road to conform with the existing uses of most of the adjacent land that is rural residential. Heating no further comment from the audience on CPA99-12, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the heating. CPA99-13 Chairman Wojt explained that the Board answered the questions concerning "the appearance of faimess" on the next amendment, CPA99-13, last night at the hearing. However, he did repeat the last question for the benefit of the new people in the audience. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-13. Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment, submitted by Bruce Bailey, represented by Michael Trivolio, is a request to change the zoning of the subject property from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 10 acres to Rural Residential, I residence to 5 acres. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-13. Bill Marlow, representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that several comments were made last night on this amendment. He reiterated that the majority of parcels around this property are 5 acre parcels. On a personal note, he added that he is an avid golfer and he would hate to see the golf course become a private club and he would not have the opportunity to play there. He asked that the Board approve this amendment. Page 34 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Renata Wheeler, 81 Kala Lagoon Court, Kala Point, read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #1 -- See microfilmed document.) Scott Westwood, 3710 S. Discovery Road, Port Townsend, stated that he is the golf course superintendent at Chevy Chase. On behalf of the 20 employees that work at the golf course, and their families, he encouraged the Commissioners to approve this amendment. Bill Leavitt, Port Hadlock, explained that as a business owner in Jefferson County, it is difficult to make a living. The GMA was not to stop everything, although that's what is happening in this County. The tax revenue that these new homes would provide is essential. Since the 1970s, the population in the County has increased from 11,000 to 27,000, but the County budget has gone from $450,000 to $10,000,000. The numbers don't add up. He asked the Board to approve this amendment. L, inda Tudor, Brinnon, explained that the Bailey property, the ACI Campground at Black Point, and the Camp Parsons Boy Scout Camp at the head of Quilcene Bay have always been designated as Recreation and Parks. She thinks that the reason for this was to maintain their current uses. If the Board doesn't approve this amendment, the Bailey's property will be like an island in the middle of 5 acre parcels. Speaking from a business person's point of view, and being near a proposed golf course development at Black Point, it is crucial to have high density residential around a golf course in order to make it affordable. Golf courses are a clean, healthy business and should be promoted. She fully supports this amendment. Gabe Omelas, Cape George Road, stated that he is representing the People for Rural Quimper. He read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #3 - See microfilmed document.) He explained that the Chairman of the Ocean Grove Lot Owners Association, Eric Lucas, asked him to read and submit their statement. ( Exhibit #2 - See microfilmed document.) Bruce Forman, 140 Combs Street, Port Townsend, read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #4 - See microfilmed document.) Jerry_ Chawes, 635 Old Cape George Road, Port Townsend, read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #6 - See microfilmed document.) He also submitted a petition with 20 signatures supporting the rejection of CPA99-13. (Exhibit #5 - See microfilmed document.) Richard Stelow, 5754 Cape George Road, Port Townsend, read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #7 - See microfilmed document.) There were no further comments from the audience on CPA99-13. The Chair closed the public testimony portion of the heating. Page 35 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 CPA99-14 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-14 submitted by Olympic Property Group. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this heating by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose anyfinancial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-14. Page 36 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment, submitted by John Rose of the Olympic Property Group, is a request to change the zoning of Ludlow Point Village Division II from Master Planned Resort Multiple Family to Master Planned Resort Single Family. There are 14 lots on the parcel, 12 of which are already developed as single family homes. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing on CPA99-14. Phillip Stevens, Brinnon, discussed his property at Black Point in Brinnon. Any development that he has considered on his property over the past 12 years has been curtailed by changes in County regulations. It was his understanding that he was grandfathered in from any changes. He wants to create a cottage industry dealing with tourism in connection with the development at Pleasant Harbor. He asked the Board to designate his property commercial. Chairman Wojt asked Mr. Stevens if he was speaking on CPA99-147 Mr. Stevens replied that he was not present when the procedures were read and added that he was commenting on his own property because his name was called. Commissioner Harpole suggested that Mr. Stevens contact the Brinnon Community Planning Group with his request. Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-14, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. CPA99-18 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99' 18 submitted by Jefferson County Telecommunications Technical Advisory Committee. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford · No. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose anyfinancial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Page 37 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Heating no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-18. Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment, submitted by the Department of Public Works on behalf of the Jefferson County Telecommunications Technical Advisory Committee is a request for the Board to adopt action plan principles, goals and strategies as an addition to the existing Utilities Policy of the Comprehensive Plan. The objective is to promote the widespread availability of telecommunications technologies in cooperation with other public and private entities and facilitate communication among members of the public, public institutions, and businesses. Chairman Wojt opened the public heating on CPA99-18. Bill Leavitt, stated that if this amendment has to do with allowing cell tower sites, he carries two cell phones because half the time one works and one doesn't. The County needs cell tower sites. His employees use cell phones for safety reasons when they are working in remote areas. Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-18, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Page 38 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 CPA99-20 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-20 submitted by The Tri Area and Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Page 39 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Heating no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-20. Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment, submitted by The Tri Area and Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce is a request to change Rural Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wojt opened the public heating on CPA99-20. Joe Baisch, Bdnnon, stated that he is a past President and a Charter member of the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce and former Chairman of the Gateway Committee. He urged the Board to approve this amendment which will aid the efforts of Community residents in Brinnon and Quilcene to further commercial enterprise. He believes that increased commercial enterprise will solve many of the problems in these small, rural communities. The residents believe in the process and have put a lot of work into it. Nancy Dorgan, 2137 Washington street, Port Townsend, praised the Comprehensive Plan t-hr addressing what residents want in the County's economic life which is to remain rural and not allow sprawl. She feels residents don't want RV parks, motels, resorts and gift shops at every commercial intersection in the County. They will not allow businesses to operate whatever and wherever throughout the County. If the Chambers of Commerce have concerns about LNP 5.1 being inconsistent with GMA goals and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, they should take it before the Growth Management Hearings Board. She urged the Board to adopt the findings of the Planning Commission and DCD staff and deny this amendment. Kate Marsh, 80 Brinnon Lane, Btinnon, stated that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted after the passage of SHB6094 which amended the GMA. LNP 5.1 was drafted before this bill passed and it does not reflect the original intent or the change in the State law. The Comprehensive Plan refers to preserving or enhancing rural character. "Rural character" is defined as the patterns and land use and development established in the rural element of its Comprehensive Plan that foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural based economies and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas. The Comprehensive Plan states that it has, in language, adopted SHB6094, but she f~els that the County has not followed through in practice, particularly under Land Use Goal 5.0. SHB6094 added significant language to the law relative to the rural element of a County's Comprehensive Plan. An example of this language states in order to achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for chtstering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character. There are five measures governing rural development including the statement that the rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area. There is an extensive subsection relating to limited areas of more intensive rural development which states the rural element may allow for more intensive areas of rural development as follows: 5.D. 1 rural development consisting of the infill development or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential or mixed use areas; 5.D. 2 the intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of small scale recreational or tourist uses including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses that rely on Page 40 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 a rural location andsetting; but that do not include new residential development; 5.D. 3 the intensification of development on lots containing nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and protect rural population and nonresidential uses but do provide job opportunities for rural residents; 5. D. 4 states existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominantly by the built environment -- notice it is not "exclusively" - but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection. She asked the Board to review these paragraphs from SHB6094 and approve this amendment. Joy Baisch explained that her comments are for both CPA 99-20 and CPA 99-22. She asked to wait to comment when CPA 99-22 was before the Board. Freida Fenn, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, stated that she is opposed to this amendment. The staff report states that this amendment is requesting that the following information be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan: All rural lands shall be designated based on the following minimum criteria: a) commercial area existed as a built environment on duly 1, 1990, b) the existing zoning is commercial, and c) the existing uses provide basic necessities and/or multiple commercial goods and services. She feels that this deletion would put the County out of compliance with State law. Linda Tudor, Brinnon, is representing the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce and is also a member of the 5Cs which is a six member advisory committee for the Port Ludlow Chamber, the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber and the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber. These three Chambers are unified in their efforts to help businesses and communities survive. LNP 5.1 and the use tables are a "brick wall" when it comes to these efforts. In the hurry to get the Comprehensive Plan adopted, SHB6094 wasn't taken into consideration. This bill was especially designed to protect rural character and rural economies. The Legislators defined what they wanted done. All that the County needs to do is to refine the Comprehensive Plan to make it work. The amendment process is the time to do that. They aren't asking for sprawl or a commercial crossroads at every intersection. They do want the ability to provide a rural crossroads in an area where one may not have been anticipated. The Coyle intersection is an excellent example. Coyle is an isolated area and a lot of people are moving into the area. This may not happen for 20 years. The County needs to take full advantage of what the Legislators were trying to do for rural communities. She asked that the Board adopt this amendment, if not the exact language, but the intent of SHB 6094. Mark Grant, Haada Laas Road, Port Townsend, stated that he supports this amendment and he asked the Board to approve it. He is a member of the Tri Area Chamber of Commerce. He feels there must be a balanced approach to land use, the need to promote a sustainable economy and environment. It is important to focus on the preservation of our natural resources and endangered species. One of the most endangered species and natural resources is young families living in the County and trying to make ends meet. Good use of land promotes good strong economies with good paying jobs. Use this amendment to provide those land uses for the County. Page 41 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Bill Marlow, representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce and the 5Cs which is made up of two people from each rural Chamber who are responsible for this amendment. The real issue on LNP 5.1 is changing the language, not necessarily throwing the whole thing out. The proponents knew that the section needed revision, but because of the short timeframe they were working with, they chose to recommend deleting it. He asked the Board to review SHB6094 and the language. He added that when he talked with the State Legislators who introduced SHB6094, they said that it was meant to promote rural economic development. Ed Voris, Port Townsend, stated that he would like to present testimony regarding CPA99-20, CPA99-21, and CPA99-22. He read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #8 - See microfilmed document.) Ame Hanson, 1331 Olympic, Port Townsend, stated that he would like to speak against CPA99-20. It would do away with minimum criteria for rural commercial areas. Should it pass, it would be a direct violation of the GMA. It would delete a policy that requires a commercial district to have been in existence and to have had a built environment. It would increase commercial sprawl. It would make a significant and harmful change to the rural commercial land use goals already in place. Nora Regan, 1331 Olympic Avenue, Port Townsend, stated that her comments are on CPA99-20, CPA99-21, and CPA99-22. She urged the Board to vote against these amendments. All three of these amendments detract from the Comprehensive Plan. The EDC's proposal deletes most of the wording describing the vision for the County. CPA99-20 and CPA99-22 erode land use regulations by deleting minimum criteria for development or minimizing regulations that would make it easier for small home based businesses to grow into large businesses that would affect livability for residents. If the other amendments that are site specific are approved, nonsensical development will take over. It is not an unpopular position to take a stand against sprawl. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #9 - See microfilmed document.) Bill Leavit[., President of Leavitt Trucking, Inc., Board member of the Tri Area Chamber of Commerce, member of the Washington Contract Logger's Association, member of the National Federation for Independent Business, stated that he supports this amendment. He said that he has lived here his whole life, and thought he would die here. Unfortunately, the dialog now is the same as it was 20 years ago. This is a County where people have to straggle to make a living. Most people that go to school here wind up leaving. The County needs to keep and attract businesses that provide a living wage for the people who live here. Caitlin O'Reily, 4464 Lopez Avenue, Port Townsend, speaking as President of the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce and as a private citizen and business owner said that her biggest concern is jobs for people. Why does rural have to mean poverty level? She supports this amendment and the intent of this amendment. She supports having adequate land available for businesses and doesn't want sprawl either. The Comprehensive Plan is a living document. The GMA was passed 10 years ago. How many businesses are the same today as they were 10 years ago? Times and philosophies change, hopefully the Comprehensive Plan can change with them. People Page 42 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 need to have more than just a living wage, they need to be able to take vacations rather than just scrimping and saving to get by. The intention of this amendment is to create a viable economic community. Sprawl can be controlled through zoning, through set back restrictions, and through creating separate parcels that are off road industrial areas for light industrial and light manufacturing. A business here in the County that she is fairly familiar with employs 35 people with families, if this business wanted to expand, it would have to move to another County. How can existing businesses grow and stay in this County? Joe Pipia, 1540 22nd Street, Port Townsend, confirmed that this is a countywide amendment. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a long term document and commitment. The GMA was passed because there was careless development happening everywhere. There are areas in the County that may not be served well by the Plan, but he questions the potential success of making countywide decisions for smaller areas that could be served by some other approach. He is against this amendment. Kees Kolff, 510 35th Street, Port Townsend, submitted and read a statement signed by 25 residents. (Exhibit #10 - See microfilmed document.) He added that their request to follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission also apply to the EDC amendment. The purpose of the Economic Development section of the Plan, specifies that the goals and policies in the chapter encourage sustainable economic development activities. It also states that the intent is to encourage growth within the capacity of the County's natural resources and public services to sustain it. The amendment by the EDC cuts out many of sections that refer to sustainability, social services and facilities, and the preservation of natural resources. The proposed amendment contradicts the purpose of the chapter. The Planning Commission came up with 20 reasons to deny the amendment, with no comments in favor of it, or a minority report. He has direct experience with what happens when the growth of the County goes beyond the ability of health care resources to manage the needs of the people. The current wording in the Plan is very clear about the need of health services to come in to provide health care, as well as, the natural resources and other requirements for keeping healthy, sustainable economic growth in the County. Lois Barnett, 835 Benton, Port Townsend, said that she is speaking against CPA99-20, CPA99-21 and CPA99- 22. She is speaking as a health care provider. The proposed EDC amendment on page 7-12 to 7-13, slashed out 3, underlined 4.0 reads establish a targeted industry, recruitment and retention program that promotes Jefferson County's strengths and advantages in the following industries: high technology, telecommunications, marine trades, value added wood products, tourism, construction and homebuilding. They slashed out health care and retirement. She personally objects to this. There are 8 pages in the yellow pages covering physicians, there are 4 for dentists and 3 for contractors. The large number of people who work in different areas of health care in the County do contribute to the tax base. The County can define quality of life. She feels that cutting down trees and putting in strip malls decreases this quality of life and it is measurable. There is concern about repetition of words in the Comprehensive Plan, but this repetition is necessary. Listen to the Planning Commission's recommendations. Sara Johani, Chimacum, stated that it is important to put principles above personality and community above commerce. She supports the Comprehensive Plan. Page 43 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Gene Todd, 1515 Fir Street, Port Townsend, asked the Board to reject CPA99-20, CPA99-21 and CPA99-22. He said that the Comprehensive Plan was developed over many years with many opportunities for public input. The EDC amendment was not derived from public comment or the EDC Board. The EDC, that receives most of its funding from public funds, has submitted an amendment that destroys the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan. CPA99-20 attempts to alter criteria for commercial land designation. Some of the proponents of the amendment admit that it was hastily put together. The GMA and the Comprehensive Plan represent a lot of effort and input from many people over a number of years. Jim Posey, Oak Bay Road, stated that he is on the Board of the Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce and the Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce and is a member of the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce and the Tri Area Club. There are many areas in the County th~at are on a poverty level and there are a lot of people that need jobs. Economic reality is necessary. Any gifted young people bom or raised here will have to leave. After people are educated, where will they work in the County? Most jobs in Port Townsend and Port Hadlock are only minimum wage and pay employees for part of the year with no benefits. Most business owners can't afford to give benefits because they are just barely getting by. The Commissioners have to do something to carry this economy forward. There can be a balance and its up to the Board to find the common ground. Catharine Robinson, 1070 Tremont Street, Port Townsend, stated that she would like to speak against CPA99-20 and CPA99-22 because they are quite similar. When Ms. O'Reily spoke, she mentioned zoning as an option. The County has zoning and these two amendments "fly in the face" of zoning. One of the purposes of zoning is to consolidate public services and infrastructure. To have commercial next to residential, next to light industrial, next to heavy industrial doesn't make sense. She urged the Board to stick with the Plan and the processes in place and follow the Growth Management Act. Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-20, the Chair closed the testimony portion of the hearing. CPA99-21 Chairman Wojt explained that the Board answered the questions concerning "the appearance of fairness" on CPA99-21 last night at the hearing. However, he did repeat the last question for the benefit of the new people in the audience. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Hearing no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-21. Page 44 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Planning Manager Warren Hart explained that this amendment was submitted by Erik Anderrson, Executive Director of the Economic Development Council. The EDC submitted these changes to the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan that were formulated by the Business Recruitment and Retention Committee. Chairman Wojt opened the public heating on CPA99-21. Nancy Dorgan, 2137 Washington Street, Port Townsend, agrees that the Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan needs more detail on business development. That will happen when the economic agencies listed in the Chapter finish writing the targeted industry plan and begin to implement it. She is opposed to deleting the criteria in the chapter that reflect community values. She feels that if this criteria was deleted, the scope of the Comprehensive Plan would be narrowed. She asked the Board to review Policy #7 of the Countywide Planning Policies regarding countywide economic development and employment. It states that the responsibility of local govemment is to assure that economic development activities are carried out in a manner that is consistent with defined community and environmental values. In order to ensure consistency with those defined community and environmental values, the Comprehensive Plan is required to clearly identify those economic values so that economic opportunities will not be lost to the confusion of unreliable process. The reason so many persons oppose this amendment is that it deletes so much language about the defined community and environmental values stated within the context of economic development. She reiterated that Countywide Planning Policy #7 states that those values are very appropriate in the chapter on economic development. She feels that the new ordinance regarding increased sales tax for "distressed counties" is driving this change. The funds are for public infrastructure but may be used toward required infrastructure for a particular business venture. The fhcility must be listed as an item in the officially adopted County overall economic development plan. Ifa business isn't in the plan, it can't apply for funds. Planning Manager Warren Hart interjected that a written comment was submitted during the break by the Moa Estate regarding CPA99-02. (Exhibit #11 - See microfilmed document.) Linda Tudor, Brinnon, stated that she is not speaking for or against this amendment. She explained that she was on a committee trying to accommodate economic development in the County. The same roadblock of not knowing how or where to locate businesses if you did recruit them kept coming up. It is an indicator that this chapter needs some work and needs to be focused on economic development. There were a lot of environmental issues in this chapter that were covered in other areas of the Comprehensive Plan. A suggestion would be to leave a reference to those items in the economic chapter, but streamline the chapter. If nothing else, go back and review and refine it. Phil Dinsmore, 320 Meadow Road, commended the EDC for increasing their membemhip by creating this amendment proposal. He also thanked the authors of the amendment for spurring so much public participation in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. As a valid amendment, he does not feel that the authors of this proposal considered the public interest. He asked the Board to not consider this proposal. Page 45 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 David Walker, 350 Umatilla, Port Townsend, stated that he has lived in areas that were spoiled because there was no growth management and it is much better to envision the growth before it occurs. A special concern involves WSU Learning Center. He is a former professor at WSU and one of the originators of the learning exchange. There are two segments in this community that are under used: the teenagers and post teenagers that do not find jobs in the community and a lot of retired professionals and persons who have something to contribute. What he would like to see is WSU and Peninsula College to meld these two needs together. The County does not need to be solely a tourist community of retired persons. We need to keep the teenagers in the community. Planning Manager Warren Hart stated that written testimony regarding CPA99-22 from Marilyn Muller was submitted. (Exhibit # 12 - See microfilmed document.) Patrice Daylo, 7381 Oak Bay Road, read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #13 -- See microfilmed document.) Linda Haskell, 50 W Hayden, Port Hadlock, read and submitted a statement. (Exhibit #14 - See microfilmed document.) Alan Brisley, 3029 35th Street, Port Townsend, explained that he is a farmer and sells organic vegetables and is President of the Farmer's Market Association. He submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and would like to elaborate on a few points. In his personal opinion, the Comprehensive Plan is a community based planning document and not a corporate recruitment tool. It shouldn't be modified to be used in that way. Each of the proposed deletions could be seen as a turnoff to "big box" corporate interests which look at a community such as Jefferson County as virgin territory. These types of businesses create sprawl, employ people at minimum wage, and inflate taxes. Our economy is based mostly on manufacturing, marine trades, local entrepreneurial enterprises, tourism and resource industries. It is very unique because there is no big box industries. The County has the potential to stay beautiful without sprawl. The current economic chapter may not be perfect, but it should be strengthened in the areas of open space protection, farmland and farm preservation, family wage job creation, support for women and minorities, and health and education. The current vision of the Plan offers a true economic community and environmental health. Comments about specific deletions include: · EDG 9 Encourage economic development that conserves natural resources and open spaces, protects environmental quality and enhances Jefferson County's overall quality of life. Farming fits into this category and was completely stricken from the document. He asked the Board not remove this goal. · EDP 9.2 Support andprotect the economic value and long term sustainability of Jefferson County's environmental resources. In other words - farmlands, that was also stricken. · EDP 9.3 Develop and update land usepolicies that conserve resource lands andprovide sustainable employment opportunities. In other words - farmlands and farming. Page 46 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Strategy A, Action Item 1 When reviewing development applications for commercial and industrial projects, ensure that the proposed project includes measures to minimize environmental impacts, harmonize and/or compliment the immediate natural or built environment while not impacting in a significant way the viability of the project. That was also stricken. The mason that is important from a farming point of view is that the largest force that is responsible for the loss of farmland in the United States is urban sprawl. The token item that deals with farmland that was left in the proposal was Strategy B, Action Item 5 Maintain, enhance and conserve agricultural lands through the following means except for discourage incompatible uses on adjacent lands, etc. He asked the Board not to remove this from the document. Ann Avary, 1523 32"d Street, Port Townsend, stated that she is representing the Jefferson County Homebuilders Association and is their Executive Officer. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce and as the Homebuilders representative on the EDC. She supports this amendment. It has become a very contentious issue and many people pin the future of Jefferson County on it. She understands the level of concern surrounding this amendment. After carefully reviewing the proposal, she feels it broadens the scope ofoppommity. It is possible to be stewards of the land and still allow economic endeavors. Home based, cottage industries and resource based industries are not enough to provide for a sustainable local economy. The County must actively seek businesses that represent low impact, environmentally aware industry who are technologically advanced and actively promote and utilize alternative resources. The communities in the County need to be encouraged to grow by promoting and allowing smart, managed growth. No community or village should be excluded from the cycle of oppommity. There are communities in the County that are desperate for economic development and are being denied so that the few may enjoy the aesthetic and economic fruits of the County. It is time to become proactive. The Homebuilders Association is made up of people who live and work in the County. They share the same concerns about overdevelopment, about the stewardship of the County's natural resources, about the ability to earn a living, about education for children, about adults seeking a better way of life and about the economic furore of the County. She asked the Board to adopt this amendment. Freida Fenn, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, asked the Board not to approve CPA99-21. She agrees with comments made by Patfice Daylo, Linda Haskell, and Alan Brisley. She asked that the Board review the EDC's amendment, page 7-12, regarding the establishment of targeted industry recruitment and retention program. Under EDP 3.2, very crucial criteria are struck: Encourage businesses that a) provide family wage jobs, b) are low impact, c) are resource based, d) add value to natural resources, e) are environmentally sound, andj) enrich the County's cultural and health care resources. Most of the EDC's deletions are in the goals, policies and strategies sections. The current Economic Element is important guidance for creating a recruitment and retention program. The framework is holistic. She suggested that the statistical updates provided by the EDC could be incorporated, but she feels the rest of the deletions are inappropriate. Page 47 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Bill Woolf, 275 Pond Road, stated that he is the Chair of the Jefferson County Education Committee, and acknowledged that the EDC withdrew the amendment regarding education and thanked them for that withdrawal. As a private citizen, he encouraged the Board to not approve the amendment. Joe Finnie, stated that he is a member of the Jefferson County Education Committee and asked that the Board keep the education and jobs training portion of the economic chapter intact. The JEC went to Olympia and asked for funds to expand higher education and jobs training programs in the County. They got the money and one of the guidelines made specific reference to the City of Port Townsend and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plans and the education components. The guiding principle and the idea of expanding post K-12 education job skills training was specifically in support of the County's economic development plan as it presently exists. It will not look good if the plan changes. Planning Manager Warren Hart accepted a written comment submitted by the Cathafine Robinson regarding CPA99-21. (Exhibit #15 - See microfilmed document.) Joe Pipia, 1540 22nd Street, Port Townsend, stated that the development of ecosystem rehabilitation industries, which seems to him to be a community serving industry, has been deleted and replaced with targeted industries. The targeted industries have been identified and tax breaks and direct subsidies are being investigated. There have been articles in national magazines over the years pointing out that these types of breaks to businesses don't always work. Kelly Janes, 3029 35th Street, Port Townsend stated that she doesn't like the EDC document. She encouraged the Board to retain everything that has to do with health care, social services, disabled and elderly daycare, special needs, nutrition programs, food banks, transportation, education, arts and culture, teens, young adults, family wage jobs, local sustainable businesses, women owned businesses, small scale sustainable businesses, agriculture and environment and overall quality of life. All of these things have been stricken from the EDC document on some level or another. The GMA is a good thing and a good law. The current Comprehensive Plan was designed to uphold that law. She urged the Board to support the GMA. She has strong concerns about CPA99-20 and CPA99-22. She is a farmer and these are rural areas. She said she is not completely educated on those issues. Development needs to be closely looked at and well thought out for the rural areas. People are waking up in these communities. She talks to a lot of farmers who are part of the barter network. This is another way for farmers to make their living. There are small scale people who have gardens and cows and they keep their spaces in open space to keep their taxes down and these things can be undermined. She encouraged the Board to let the current planning processes that are in place continue and be completed before these other issues are adopted. John Lockwood, said that the rewriting of the language from encouraging tax breaks and incentives to bring in environmental reclamation was a very narrow and specific industry that was targeted and the EDC amendment says all targeted industries. Time Magazine did a series on how cities and counties and states all over the country had engaged in bidding wars to bring large corporations into their areas. This strategy has failed over and over Page 48 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 again all over the United States and has pitted cities against cities. It has failed so miserably that it has become a topic of the national news media. It is an extremely ill advised change in language to our Comprehensive Plan. Hearing no further comment from the audience on CPA99-21, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. CPA99-22 Chairman Wojt read the following regarding CPA99-22 submitted by The Tri Area and Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce. The concern is that this hearing be fair inform and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: Yes, but all of the issues addressed have also been addressed in public forum. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose anyfinancial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Commissioner Harpole: No. Commissioner Huntingford: No. Chairman Wojt: No. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan ? Commissioner Harpole: Yes. Page 49 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 Commissioner Huntingford: Yes. Chairman Wojt: Yes. Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in this proceed- ing? Heating no comment from the audience, the Chair asked for the staff report on CPA99-22. Planning Manager Warren Hart reported that this amendment proposes a definition of rural Jefferson County greater than 10 miles from an Urban Growth Area and that the western Jefferson County exemptions contained in the home based business and cottage industry policies apply to this area. The Chair then called names from the list of attendees who had indicated they wanted to speak. Kate Marsh, 80 Brinnon Lane, Brinnon, advised that she knows the Commissioners have been to Brinnon and tour the County on a regular basis. She knows they are aware of the depressed economies in the rural areas and they are probably aware of how that can create some distressed people in the rural area. The Sheriff's log contains an ever increasing list of crime, violence, and drug use in the outlying areas. Many of these are symptoms of a depressed economy and distressed persons. The amendment before the Board will assist the rural area economies by giving some greater latitude in home businesses and cottage industries. Policy LNP 7.1 says small scale recreational or tourist uses that do not include new residential development shall be providedJbr the conditional use permitting process subject to all thejrbllowing criteria. She feels this should apply to all rural areas and not just the West End exclusively. This is the intent of this amendment. There has been an inequity created in the Comprehensive Plan by creating special considerations for the West End and excluding other rural areas of the County. There are many rural areas that could benefit by having these dispensations provided for them too. Under the Comprehensive Plan as it is written, equal designation and equal opportunity does not exist. Home businesses and cottage industries in all east side rural areas are under greater restrictions that those in Queets and Clearwater even though the rural conditions are the same. Home businesses and cottage industries in all rural parts of the County provide viable economic support for many residents, provide small scale services for other community members, and create the remote community atmosphere that is an essential part of rural living. She asked the Board to support this amendment and correct those inequities that exist in the Comprehensive Plan. Joy Baisch, 3485 Dosewallips Road, Brinnon: Joy Baisch stated that she is a member of the Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce, a board member of the Friends of Brinnon Committee, sits on the Brinnon School Board, is an organic fhrrner, and has a home business. She is involved in a lot of things that relate to this amendment. She explained that CPA99-20 specifically addresses the commercial areas as outlined in Land Use Goal ga, and Policies 4.1 through 4.9, Goal 5 and Policies 5.1 through 5.8. This Comprehensive Plan language does not address the legislative changes in the GMA with the passage of SHB6094. The specific changes in these goals and policies should be undertaken by the County to insure that the current GMA statutes Page 50 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 are followed. SHB 6094 and the resultant RCWs describe the Legislature's intent regarding the rural character and the designation of commercial areas in rural communities. She then quoted from RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a), RCW 36.70A.020(5), RCW 70A (5)(d) and RCW70A.30.14(b). The Brinnon Community plans, which included the Wa Wa Point area, Brinnon Flats and the Black Point area as commercial areas have been in existence as a special element to the first Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (1982) and the updated version of that plan in 1995. These areas clearly met the1990 benchmark identified in SHB 6094. Quilcene's historical commercial area also existed prior to 1980. The proposal in CPA99-22 is based on the need to correct inconsistencies within the plan and provide for a document that allows for predictability and flexibility for future community needs throughout rural Jefferson County. Our rationale for the designation of rural is that the Comprehensive Plan recognized the economic hardship and lack of opportunity experienced by the West End. The same rationale can be applied to other parts of the County, particularly the south County communities of Quilcene and Brinnon in contrast to the Quimper Peninsula which wishes to maintain a rural character, which in reality is a rural suburb. The South County and the West End are true rural communities that must look to themselves to supply an economic base and support their residents. These communities were, in the past, economically self sufficient. Today, because of political actions taken by others, and beyond their control, these communities experience high levels of unemployment and poverty. She asked that the County Commissioners allow for these changes as defined in the RCWs. She also pointed out that, in RCW 100 and 210, the GMA talks to the issue of inconsistencies in the plans and the County plans must be consistent when there are similar areas. (Exhibit #16 -- See microfilmed document.) Frieda Fenn., 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, representing People for a Livable Community stated that they oppose CPA99-22. (Exhibit # 17 -- See microfilmed document.) Linda Tudor, Box 184, Brinnon, stated that she is representing the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce and herself. Home businesses and cottage industries are an extremely valuable resource for jobs, families, services, creativity and a healthy community. Most of the home businesses in Brinnon are art related. She thinks the fear of industrial or heavy industrial activities locating in rural residential neighborhoods is unfounded. The South County should be given the same latitude as the West End to locate cottage industry and home businesses anywhere in the rural areas, including Coyle, Gardiner, Discovery Bay, Quilcene and Brinnon. The rules for a home business if the number of non family employees exceed two and for a cottage industry if the number of non family employees exceeds four would require a conditional use permit. If the conditional use permit shows that the business is okay and all the residents of that community have had opportunity to comment on it through the public hearing process, then the business should be allowed to operate. If not, the business would have to locate in a commercial or industrial zone. The regulations are in place to protect neighborhoods and the rights of the property owners adjacent to these operations. This process could operate very nicely and supplement commercial zones without adding to them. Brinnon's population is 2,000 and there isn't a town center or a town presence at all. When you drive through Brinnon you would never know that there are more than 100 houses. They are all nicely tucked into the trees. This area has been maintained that way on purpose by the residents. Most of the people who live in Jefferson County agree that they want to maintain that rural look throughout the Page 51 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 County. With cottage industries and home businesses tucked in the trees, you don't even know they're there. We have the perfect environment for it and we should encourage it. She asked the Board to adopt this amendment, give the same privileges to all rural areas, and encourage this same type ofnon-invasive economic development for our County. Bill Marlow., stated that he is representing the Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce. He explained that the residents in the West End only have to go 12 to 15 miles to services in Forks (which is actually in Clallam County.) Brinnon residents have to go 30 to 40 miles to Shelton or Port Hadlock. There isn't anywhere to go in that area to get gas, groceries or clothing. He concluded by noting that he fully supports this amendment. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend stated that this amendment allows commercial development in large areas of the County that were not characterized by commercial development in 1990 and which are not currently characterized by commercial development. This amendment covers large areas of the County, and not just Brinnon. CTED has stated that this amendment is not GMA compatible. The GMA was passed to limit sprawl and to encourage growth in village centers, rural crossroads, and areas already characterized by commercial development. The County needs to have functional, active, and economically successful commercial centers. The debate here is not about growth, but about where it will occur. Residents in rural counties want jobs with good wages and they want to preserve the rural character. In the Jefferson 2000 survey that was sent out to every resident of Jefferson County, 74% of the respondents said that their primary reason for living in this County was the small town, rural atmosphere. In the section of the survey on Growth Management goals, 66% said that the County should "work aggressively" to manage growth. 64% said that it was important to "reduce sprawling developments." CTED and the Planning Commission have recommended against this amendment. The people who moved to rural Jefferson County chose to live in a rural environment and want the rural character of their area preserved. The people who grew up in rural Jefferson County have lived here all their lives, love this place and do not want to see sprawl down all the main highways in the County. Commissioner Wojt asked if Mr. Lockwood feels that cottage industries, which can only employ four people (two of which must live on the property), will spread commercial development all over the County? Mr. Lockwood advised that he feels this amendment will also allow people to expand businesses past the sizes allowed in the zones they are in without having to relocate. The rules currently in place about cottage industry and home business should apply to the entire County and need to be consistent with the Growth Management Act. Dan Tittemess, stated that as the former Planning Commissioner who led the campaign for the exemptions for home businesses and cottage industries in the West End, he agrees that there is an inequity in the way the Comprehensive Plan applies to the different rural areas of the County and therefore he supports the adoption of CPA99-22. Mark Grant stated that he supports this and all of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments before the Board with the exception of the EDC Amendment which he is neither for or against. He asked the Board to be careful not to Page 52 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of February 7, 2000 abuse the development of cottage industries and home based industries as the only means of providing economic growth. He urged the Board not to look for every loophole to put inappropriate and non-compliant types of home businesses (those that produce excessive noise and traffic) into rural residential areas. Jim Posey said that this issue is close to his heart. Cottage industries with cyberspace coming, will be more prevalent as time goes on. He wants cottage industry and his wife has a home business. The problems in the past that the Health Department, Permit Center, and ShefiWs Department have had to deal with are caused by non conforming cottage businesses that just "pop up" overnight. The other problem is the underground selling of parts from old cars. He is very much for cottage industries because the County needs them for people with artistic abilities and small farms, for example, but the County has to make sure when they do this, there is wording included about what type of industries can go where. Environmentally sensitive businesses should be put in commercial or industrial zones. He is for growth, not sprawl. Many people violate the cottage industry concept. The County spends too many dollars on regulations that can't be enforced. There isn't even a noise ordinance in this County. He is in favor of legitimate cottage businesses and this change for them. Heating no further public testimony, the Chair closed the public heating and explained that written comments will be accepted on these amendments until 5 p.m. on Friday. The Board will be deliberating on these amendments, in numerical order, at times set up next week. A1 Scalfreported that the Board had previously made a decision to reject CPA99-23 submitted by Michael Felber. CPA99-15, C?A99-16 and CPA99-17 have either been docketed or rejected, Warren Hart reported. Commissioner Huntingford thanked everyone for coming and Commissioner Wojt thanked everyone for the quality of the presentations. Seal: _ ~ ' ., ATTEST: ', '* / a / Glen ~~ Page 53 We will now take public testimony on CPA99-22 submitted by the Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce The concern is that this hearing be fair in form and substance, as well as appearance. Each Commissioner is required to answer the following questions on the record. Has any member of the Board been contacted outside this hearing by opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? If so, that member must place on the record the substance of any such communication so that other interested parties may have the right at this hearing to rebut the substance of the communication. Do any of you have an interest or stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner and state that you have a reasonable, impartial attitude toward the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment? Do you agree that the decision on each of these Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be based solely on the established record and that you will then compare that established record to the applicable criteria listed in the Compre- hensive Plan? Now, to the audience, does anyone object to the participation of any of the County Commis- sioners in this proceeding? If there are objections, please state the reasons. (The Commissioners presumably should remain silent and not rebut the inherently critical statements that might be made about one or more of them during this portion of the proceedings.) Before taking public testimony, the Community Development Department staff, will present the staff report. The floor is now open for public comments. I will call the names, at random, of the people who have indicated on the sign in sheet that they wish to speak. (Public gives testimony). · Do the Commissioners have any further questions of the speaker or staff? 16 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC TESTIMONY Comments Received 2/9/00 and 2/10/00 CPA # Applicant/Description For Against CPA99-01 Patrick Smith, Located at Chimacum Intersection 2 1 CPA99-02 Walter Moa, Located on Hwy 20, Discovery Bay 6 2 CPA99-03 Kenneth Livingston, Located off of Chimacum 2 0 Road CPA99-04 Stan Johnston, Located on Dosewallips Road 1 1 CPA99-05 Don Spigarelli, Located near Kennedy Street, Tri 4 1 Area CPA99-09 Charles Finnila, Located off of Black Pt. Rd, 7 3 Brinnon CPA99-10 Linda Tudor, Located on Hwy 101, Brinnon 12 2 CPA99-11 Michael Whittaker, Moon Valley Drive, Quilcene 0 0 CPA99-12 Lela Hilton, Located off West Valley Road 1 0 CPA99-13 Bruce Bailey, Chevy Chase Golf Course 7 3 CPA99-14 Olympic Property Group, Ludlow Point Village 0 0 Div. 2 CPA99-18 Telecommunication Utilities Goal 1 0 CPA99-20 Port Hadlock/Tri Area, Port Ludlow, and 8 12 Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce CPA99-21 Economic Development Council (Withdrawn) 1 18 CPA99-22 Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce 7 8 General Comments on Comp Plan (11) 02/09/00 -- CPA Hearing: -- about 115 residents Julie - the first part of the hearing procedure is not on the tape so you might want to put the written statement in the Minutes. (They started the hearing while I was picking up the sign in sheets and no one turned on the tape -- we learn something each time -- I knew I didn't want the sign in sheets out in the hall, but there was no other way to do it.) I'd type comments -- but the keyboard is so high and the chair so low I feel like I'm typing above my head, plus I think I've .just run out of steam. CPA 99-01 TAPE 1 - ,.k120 - Steve Aurdeal representing Patrick Smith .4- tX206 - Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce X. 244 Robert Greenway 161 Corona St. PT - general comment, s~.aSto~ X'393 Phil Dinsmore,~.) ~ o'at~<c.t~'{~ o.'~ .,z['x~ O~;~-.,t..f 5~,468 Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend -/O~ct'"'4-a"it' ','t CPA 99-02 -'604 - H~tt, ing procedure '~'734 - Joy Baisch -t' ~ 818 - Bill Marlow -t" ~0(~_68 - Linda Tudor 4- ~'899 - ~l~rM0a, ~1,~,4~,. ~I-Iiflghway 20 4- ~ -t~e h~na~¢'~rl~ic Environmental Council~_.~ -::~(General Statements on Comp Plan Amendments) ~'1354 - Susan Ambrosius, PT --' )(1447- Ron Gregory, Home Builders Association 4- CPA 99-03 2133 John Lockwood, Representing People for a Livable CommunityS 0(,2386 - Bill Marlowe' CPA 99-04 -2490-He,ring Prec-ed-u. res tX2605 - Joy Baisch"4' ~2696 - Gretchen Brewer, 1230 29th St., PT - CPA 99-05 ---2799 .P~arin-g-Pro,:~n're~ ~X'3050 - Jim Lindsey, 14002 35th Avenue SE Bothell, ~440 Joe Pipia, 1540 22 ~3770 - Barbara Fisk, PO Box 381 Quilcen~ ~~illefisk - Center Road ~55- M. L. ~erson, 1591 E. Quilcene Road ~'sz0 - Joe Wheeler 4- ~t016 - Dick Kint'+ i,M 178 - Bruce Bailey ~ i392 - Janice Fisler. 245 Cliffside, PT 2/10/00 5:54 PM -- about 20 residents Tape 1 101- CPA99-11 .145 - Hearing'~re [~O ONE PRESENT to speak 265- CPA99-12 ~7O-~dur~ ~334 - Lela Hilton PO Box 193, Chimacum 371- CPA99-13 '-Aleead3~-Oaa~judicial questions - )(400 - Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce 4-- V~469 - Renata Wheeler, 81 Kala Lagoon Court, PT -/' ,)(.596 - Scott Westwood, 3710 So. Discovery Road, PT ~611 - Bill Leavitt, Port Hadlock ~745 Linda Tudor -}- 04 - Gabe Ornelas, CapeGeorge, representing People for a Rural Quimper ---' 20 - Gabe Ornelas representing the Ocean Grove Lot Owners Association -'"' 009 - Bruce Foreman, 140 ? Street, PT q-" Xll19 -Jerry Chawes, 635 Old Cape George Road, ~'1245 - Richard Stelow, 5754 Cape George Road, PT 1465- CPA99-14 ff-4e73- Hearing procedures 152'/- ~taff report 548 Phillip Stevens .(talked about his property in Brinnon - not this amendment} 1818- CPA99-18 ~1831 - Hearing Procedures 1886 ': Sl~a-ff report ~41- Mark Grant, 75 Haida Laas Road, PT(.~) ~.~'[~ "cc3.' 0x~766 - Karen Gates Hildt 4' ~884 - Dan Titterness, PT 4-- CPA 99-09 -933 - Hearixr~ t 005- :'-S~06-Doc~e'-t;-99:0TR~3"Cc'c'c'c-~)9-:O8-Re-jected,. ~){/061 - Nancy Dorgan, 2137 Washington Street, PT--' ~098 - Kate Marsh, 80 Brinnon Lane.4. ~ 218 - Tracy Heims, 9875 Bridgeport Way, Lakewood WA, Attorney representing Jean Johnson - 0(i401 - Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce v~526 George Sickel, Brinnon .~ .~'588- Chuck Finnila, Brinnon 'f 832 - Joy Baisch, Brinnon ~009 - ~3ud Smith,.,850 Dosewallips Road, Brinnon -2-t89 £taff Rc. Fort- 22216 - Linda Tudor 4-- 45 Joy Baisch 4- ,)(2482 - Kate Marsh, 80 Brinnon Lane, Brinnon '0(2559 - Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock/Tri Area Chamber of Commerce 4- 624 - Chuck Finnila4.- 794 Joe Baisch .& 0~866 - Lois Barnett, Benton St. PT ~ '~X"3000 - Bud Schindler q ~3064-Ryan Tillman Jr ~3275 - John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, P~___~ ~(3431 - Joanne ? (lady), Brinnon 'k v~3508 - Katherine Robinson, 1070 Tremont St. PT '" ~nda Tudor 90 '-'~ ' -Ai'~ 9:17 p.m. -- RW explained process for 9-10. Will continue tomorrow at 6 p.m. 26- - Speaking on Karen Gates Hildt CPA-21- - Hearing - Karen Gates Hildt ~56 - Jim Westall, President of Skookum Semices 38 - Marilyn Muller, Street, P PT~ 670- CPA99-13 ~1930 - Bill Leavitt -3- 2013- CPA99-20 2032-~' Hea'ring--Ptocedm~s ~rt ,~}119- Joe Baisch, Brinnon 4- 196 - Nancy Dorgan, PT ..-. 281 - Kate Marsh, 80 Brinnon Lane, Brinnon-p 528- -Joy Baischq- ~2560 - Frieda Fenn, PT-"'- · ~633 - Linda Tudor 4- P~2921- Mark Grant, Haada Laas Road, PT + ,5(3029 - Bill Marlow, 4- ~5256 - Ed Voris, PT .-.. v~551 - Arne Hason ~ ,0~58 - Nora Regan ~ .~145 - John Lockwood, Jefferson St. PT -" ~021- Bill Leavitt 4- ,_~.5602 - Kitelene O'Reilly 4- 40 Joe Pipia, 1540 22nd Street PT "~ ~'748 Case Kolff PT ~ ~1499 - Ka~erine Robinson, 1070 Tremont St. PT-- 1598 - 99-21 1'60-7-~ P. eport ~. 651- Nancy Dorganl'~7 WashinU~ton Street, PT ~ 822 - Linda Tudor 0043 - Lois Barnett, PT 21138- Sarah Johani ~)6 i~vvv~x~4~' ~'192 - Gene Todd, PT '-' ~307 Jim Posey, Oak Bay Road~ · # of people who gave oral ' testimony on each CPA , and the # of written items submitted on each for the ', findings of fact on each when a decision is made. ' Remind me and we'll 0~896 - Phil Dinsmore "'- work on the list. Thanks 933 David Walker, 350 Umatilla, PT~ ' ............................... ~.041 - (a man submitted a letter from Marilyn Mueller) Exhibit 11 on CPA 99-22 ,)~083 Patrice Daylo, Oak Bay Road m v~351 Linda Haskell, Port Hadlock ---- 0¢454 - Allen Brisley -- 0(2782 - Ann Avery, PT 4-' ~(3070 - Freida Fenn ~ .~3289 - Bill Woolf, 275 Pond Road, Chair of JC Education Committee. x.~.3356 - Joe Finnie, Member of JC Education Committee ---- X-; 454 - Exhibit 15 Katherine Robinson - .0{3468 - Joe Pipia--.-. 598 - Kelly Janes -~. Tape 3 81 - John Lockwood 'rZd . 258- CPA99-22 "-2-6t-----H~d~ixlg P~uccdme/~ itl/) , ~31 - Kate Mar~h~ 80 BrinnonLane~ ~rinnon -~ 8- Joy Baisch~ 387 LindaFriedaTudor~Fenn~ 1510Box 184JeffersonBrinnonSt' ~PT representing People for A Livable Community ~M024 - Bill Marlow ~ ~ 128 - John Lockwood ~ ~1277 - Dan Titt~mass ~ ~1309 - Mark Grant + ~340- J~m Posey~ .~ Heanng ~at ~41 p.m~ ~ritten testimony accepted until 5 p.m. Friday 2/11/00. JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-01 Submitted by Patrick Smith DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2[3[:][3 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-01 Submitted by Patrick Smith DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE I--1 r-1 B I--1 I--1 lq JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-02 Submitted by Walter Moa DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ , JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-02 Submitted by Walter Moa DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ ~x.~. z_.. n n n FlnB BBB BBB BBB BBB BnB BnB BnF1 F1F1B BBF1 BBB F1BB F1 F1EI nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-03 Submitted by Kenneth & Evelyn Livincjston DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. )LACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room i NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-03 Submitted by Kenneth & Evelyn Livincjston DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ! RE]F1 E] F1 F1 E] E] F1 E] E] [~ F1 F1 F1 FIE]El ~E]F1 F1E]~ BE]E] E] r'l E] F1 E~ F1 F1 E] F1 E] F1 E] F1E]U F1NF1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-03 Submitted by Kenneth & Evelyn Livingston DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE BBF1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-04 Submitted by Stan Johnston DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 20[:10 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE F1 F1 F-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST -tEARING: CPA 99-04 Submitted by Start Johnston DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE EIU~ EInEI EIUF1 F1 F1 El UE~F1 El F1 E] DE]F1 E1 F1 E] F1 F~ E~ nE]El F~Fln F~F1D E~nE~ JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-04 Submitted by Stan Johnston DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE E] F1 F1 E] F1 [-1 717171 FIE]El [-1 F1 F1 F1 F1E] FIE]El 71[-171 FI~F1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-05 Submitted by Don Spic~arelli 'DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~- ~~ ?.~. B D B toDD BBB BDD BDD BBB BDD DDD BDD DBD DUD nBn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-05 Submitted by Don Spi~arelli DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE F1 F1 F1 E]EE] JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-05 Submitted by Don Spi~arelli DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Courf Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-09 Submitted by Charles Finnila DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room !NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE BBB BBB BBB BBB nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-09 Submilted by Charles Finnila DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE F1 F~ F1 E]E~D E] F~ F1 F-1 E~ F1 E] E~ F1 E] F~ F1 E] E~ E~ E~E~D FI~F1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-10 Submitted by Linda Tudor and Dennis Thompson DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE L~,~,,~ ~~ ., ,, ,, ,, ' , , B B~ 122~ ~. ~~ ~.,~ o oo JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-10 Submitted by Linda Tudor and Dennis Thompson DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, )LACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ ~l q ~oo0 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 Qt 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE l~ ~-s-~t~r c~- 024 ?,v. [5 [5 [5 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-11 Submitted by Michael Whittaker DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE' Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE r-1 i--1 i--1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-11 Submitted by Michael Whittaker DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CiTY Testimony? YE8 NO MAYBE ! I JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-12 Submitted by Lela Hilton DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE "- ' ~/~eo~_ ~x~ ,,, - 13BB BBB BBB ri B r'l BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-13 Submitted by Bruce Bailey 'DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Printb STREET A,,DDRESS '~.~.:~¥- CITY Testimony? ~__ BBB nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-13 Submitted by Bruce Bailey DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, ~LACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-13 Submitted by Bruce Bailey DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE , - . . t ] BBB BBB BBB BBB nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-13 Submitted by Bruce Bailey DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?  MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-14 Submitted by Olympic Property Group DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE E] F-1 E] E] F1 rn EF1E] mE]F1 E] F1 E] BEE] E] F1 F1 FINE] BF1B GE]F1 FlEE FLEE] JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99~ 18 Prepared by the Jefferson County Telecommunications Technical Advisory Committee DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-20 Submitted by the Tri Area and Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE -- ~.~ .. BBB nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-20 Submitted by the Tri Area and Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. ~LACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ,4/~,.,¢., Do.-.-,,~., ~z?? w',~.~,-,,',,5 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST qEARING: CPA 99-20 Submitted by the Tri Area and Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce 'DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE UDU nun [Inn DC]U USU DUn nun DUn 888 USU USU DUn DUEl nsn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-21 Submitted by the Economic Development Council DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-21 Submitted by the Economic Development Council DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-21 Submitted by the Economic Development Council DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE /v~,-, Do~,,,.. ~.~ ~,~,~,.~., '~ ~Z ~'~ D ~ " ~1~ ~.l~co~. K ~'7- If~ ~ ~-j JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-21 Submitted by the Economic Development Council DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE / BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-21 Submitted by the Economic Development Council DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (P~ease Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? /~ YES NO MAYBE rq Flrq rqnF1 rq r-lrq r-1 F1F1 F1 r-1 r-1 F1 FIlZI F1 F1F1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-21 Submitted by the Economic Development Council DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE [~'~ ~ c,~),~ --.. / ~' '-~'-.~ , ~,~ ,~ ~.~ ~ I-1 F1 BBB BnB BBB nnrl Bnn r-lnB BBB BBB nBn BF1E] mr-lB nnB BBB nBB nnB nBB EInn nnn JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-22 Submitted by the Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) ISTREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE , JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-22 Submitted by the Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: CPA 99-22 Submitted by the Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce :)ATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2000 at 6 p,m, PLACE: Jefferson County Courthouse Superior Court Room NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE E]E]D E]RE] FINDINGS of FACT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD 1999COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA 99-01 submitted bv Patrick Smith Vote: The Commission was unable to tbrm a majority opinion on this amendment. Concerns: In favor of approval: 1. Crossroad boundaries were drawn as narrowly as possible on an interim basis. 2. Chimacum should be able to stand on its own as a commercial area. 3. Development should be concentrated at the intersection rather than strung out along Rhody Drive. 4. The parcel is likely to be zoned commercial in the near future. In favor 1. 2. 3. 4. of docketing until a decision has been made about the area as a whole: The Special Study conclusions identified a need for additional commercial acreage but no decision was made as to where those additional acres should be located. The area should reflect what Port Hadlock is going to be. If a UGA is established, then the Chimacum Crossroads should not expand. It is difficult to make decisions when there are so many unknowns. The timing is not right to make a decision. The cumulative effect of the three amendments (Smith, Livingston, and Spigarelli) needs to be taken into account. It would be better to docket all the applications that are affected by the Tri- Area decision. In favor of denial: 1. Consideration should be given to the precedent that expansion of commercial boundaries sets for future amendments. 2. Looking at the crossroad as a whole, there should be a compelling reason to add property in this location as opposed to another location along the border. 3. Boundaries should only be expanded for good reason and justifiable purpose and a defensible public benefit. The Commission has no evidence of any widespread community support for this proposal. 4. Expansion of the boundary is not supported by growth management indicators. 5. CTED has recommended against expanding crossroad boundaries to include vacant lands or lands that do not have more intense development as referenced in RCW 36.70A.070(5). 6. According to the Comprehensive Plan there are 8.4 acres currently available for infill within the Chimacum Crossroad, therefore no need for expansion at this time. 7. If circumstances changed and the applicant wished to resubmit his amendment at the next Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle he could do so, but with docketing he is precluded from doing that by virtue of the fact that he can not resubmit until such time as the sub-area plan is accepted. 8. The BOCC directed the Planning Commission to analyze the Plan amendments and recommend to the BOCC approval or denial of the amendments. Docketing was not a choice to be considered. A denial xvith the appropriate findings xvould be in keeping with our mandate and serve the same purpose. 9. If docketed based on a sub-area plan, the applicant would be precluded from submitting an amendment during the next amendment cycle. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 1 CPA 99-02 submitted by Walter Moa Vote: The Commission voted six (6) in favor two (2) opposed to recommend denial of the proposed amendment. Findings: 1. The proposed expansion of the boundary splits the subject parcels. 2. The existing motel business can be upgraded within the existing boundaries to the scale allowed within the Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad (a total building size of 7500 square feet). 3. A motel larger than what's presently allowed would be incompatible with rural character and the definition of a Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad, 4. The Board of Health is considering whether a commercial drainfield needs to be on commercial land. 5. Expansion of the boundary is not supported by growth management indicators. 6. Infrastructure does not currently exist. The water system must be approved by the Department of Health. 7. CTED has recommended against expanding crossroad boundaries to include vacant lands or lands that do not have more intense development as referenced in RCW 36.70A.070(5). 8. This is one of the most dangerous intersections in the County. Expanded commercial development at this intersection could be problematic where traffic impacts are concerned. 9. Boundaries should only be expanded for good reason and justifiable purpose and a defensible public benefit. The Commission has no evidence of any widespread community support for this proposal. 10. The expansion does not comply with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan or with the narrative text concerning Rural Commercial Lands found on pages 3-8 through 3-10 or with the section on Logical Boundaries of Rural Commercial Areas found on pages 3-15 through 3-30. A minority report is attached. CPA 99-03 submitted bv Kenneth & Evelyn Livingston Vote: The Commission voted seven (7) in favor one (1) opposed to recommend denial of the proposed amendment. Findings: 1. The lot in question is not adjacent to the RVC boundary. In order to approve the amendment, lot 1 of the Lopeman Short Plat and several lots in Morrisey's addition would need to be rezoned in order to connect the requested lot to the Rural Village Center. These lots are not included in the amendment proposal. 2. RCW 36.70.070 (5) requires logical boundaries that are not abnormally irregular. A logical boundary would be contiguous and not jump to create a commercial island. 3. This lot is ~vithin the boundary of the PUGA and would be directly affected by the UGA planning process. 4. In addition to the allowed residential use, there are non-residential uses permitted in Rural Residential 1:5 areas under the EICO such as commercial nursery, assisted living, bed and breakfast inn, church, group home, nursing home, RV park, and veterinary hospital that could also be appropriate use of the parcel. 5. Expansion of the boundary is not supported by growth management indicators. 6. CTED has recommended against expanding crossroad boundaries to include vacant lands or lands that do not have more intense development as referenced in RCW 36.70A.070(5). PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 2 o Consideration should be given to the precedent that expansion of commercial boundaries sets for future amendments. Boundaries should only be expanded for good reason and justifiable purpose and a defensible public benefit. The Commission has no evidence of any widespread community support for this proposal. The cumulative effect of the three amendments (Smith, Livingston, and Spigarelli) needs to be taken into account. It would be better to docket all the applications that are affected by the Tri- Area decision. CPA 99-04 submitted bv Stan Johnston Vote: The Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment. Findings: 1. The subject parcels were improperly classified as commercial forest of long term significance according to the Forest Land Ordinance because their total acreage was not sufficient to meet the minimum block acreage required in the ordinance. 2. Publicly voiced stormwater concerns will be addressed by the subdivision process and SEPA review. Concern: The exclusion of large parcels located next to the National Forest boundary by Forest Lands Ordinance Section 4.10(4) should be revisited when the Forest Land Ordinance is revised. Interpreting this section to exclude such parcels conflicts with the Growth Management Act and the preservation of resource lands. CPA 99-05 submitted bv Don Spiearelli Vote: The Commission was unable to form a majority opinion on this amendment. Concerns: In favor of approval: 1. The Nesting Bird Yurt Company ~vishes to develop this property. 2. The proposed boundary is not consistent with the criteria for designating rural crossroads. The criteria require physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways not lot lines. In favor 1. 2. of docketing until a decision has been made about the area as a whole: This area is directly affected by the planning process for the UGA. A portion of the lot is xvithin the boundary of the PUGA and would be directly affected by the UGA planning process. The cumulative effect of the three amendments (Smith, Livingston, and Spigarelli) needs to be taken into account. It would be better to docket all the applications that are affected by the Tri- Area decision. In favor of denial: 1. CTED has recommended against expanding crossroad boundaries to include vacant lands or lands that do not have more intense development as referenced in RCW 36.70A.070(5). 2. Consideration should be given to the precedent that expansion of commercial boundaries sets for future amendments. 3. Expansion of the boundary should be supported by growth management indicators. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 3 Boundaries should only be expanded for good reason and justifiable purpose and a defensible public benefit. The Commission has no evidence of any widespread community support for this proposal. The BOCC directed the Planning Commission to analyze the Plan amendments and recommend to the BOCC approval or denial of the amendments. Docketing was not a choice to be considered. A denial with the appropriate findings would be in keeping with our mandate and serve the same purpose. If docketed based on a sub-area plan, the applicant would be precluded from submitting an amendment during the next amendment cycle CPA 99-09 submitted bv Charles Finnila Vote: The Commission voted five (5) in favor two (2) opposed and one (1) abstaining to recommend that the amendment be docketed until the sub-area planning process is complete and until the necessary studies required by the SEPA review are completed. Findings: 1. A decision needs to be made about the area as a whole. 2. The community planning effort needs to be completed. The community should determine the need for and location of additional commercial land, not an individual property owner. 3. The threshold determination indicated that there are possible significant cumulative impacts as a result of the amendments and requires a number of studies including stormwater, transportation, and a full assessment of growth management indicators that must be completed prior to approval of a rezone. 4. The required environmental and growth management studies are appropriately part of the community planning process. 5. Creation of a new commercial area must be supported by growth management indicators. 6. Although CTED recommended denial based on RCW 36.70A.070(5), a sub-area plan may develop strategies to justify additional commercial land in this area. 7. Although the creation of a new commercial area does not comply with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the designation of commercial areas or with the narrative text concerning Rural Commercial Lands found on pages 3-8 through 3-10 or with the section on Logical Boundaries of Rural Commercial Areas found on pages 3-15 through 3-30, policy LNP LNP 4.8 calls for a study to be done to "investigate the feasibility of an additional location for future commercial development." A sub-area plan may develop strategies to justify additional commercial land in this area. 8. Consideration should be given to the precedent that creation of a new commercial area sets fo~ future amendments. 9. The Commission does not have the information it needs, i.e. the results of the required SEPA studies, to make a recommendation at this time. A minority report is attached. CPA 99-10 submitted bv Linda Tudor and Dennis Thompson Vote: Vote: The Commission voted five (5) in favor and three (3) opposed to recommend that the amendment be docketed until the sub-area planning process is complete and until the necessary studies required by the SEPA review are completed. Findings: 1. A decision needs to be made about the area as a whole. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 4 5. 6. 7. The community planning effort needs to be completed. The community should determine the need for and location of additional commercial land, not an individual property owner. The threshold determination indicated that there are possible significant cumulative impacts as a result of the amendments and requires a number of studies including stormwater, transportation, and a full assessment of growth management indicators that must be completed prior to approval of a rezone. The required environmental and growth management studies are appropriately part of the community planning process. Creation of a new commercial area must be supported by growth management indicators. Although CTED recommended denial based on RCW 36.70A.070(5), a sub-area plan may develop strategies to justify additional commercial land in this area. Although the creation of a new commercial area does not comply with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the designation of commercial areas or with the narrative text concerning Rural Commercial Lands found on pages 3-8 through 3-10 or with the section on Logical Boundaries of Rural Commercial Areas found on pages 3-15 through 3-30, policy LNP LNP 4.8 calls for a study to be done to "investigate the feasibility of an additional location for future commercial development." A sub-area plan may develop strategies to justify additional commercial land in this area. Consideration should be given to the precedent that creation of a new commercial area sets for future amendments. The Commission does not have the information it needs, i.e. the results of the required SEPA studies, to make a recommendation at this time. A minority report is attached. CPA 99-11 submitted bv Michael Whittaker Vote: The Commission voted five (5) in favor two (2) opposed to recommend rejection of the proposed amendment Findings: 1. The floodplain of the Big Quilcene River is a critical area. The site also contains a fish and wildlife critical area. Critical area land parcels are to be designated either RR 1:10 or RR 1:20 according to the designation criteria in the Comprehensive Plan (page 3-33 and LNP 3.3.2(d) and LNP 3.3.3(d)). 2. Denial does not preclude the applicant from being able to subdivide through the Density Exemption Resolution No. 10-98. 3. The property is a portion of a block of large parcels sized 20 acres or larger appropriately zoned RR 1:20. 4. A block of large parcels is zoned based on the size of the parcels making up the block as distinguished from the size of parcels outside the block. To re-zone property based on the perimeter would result in a "domino" effect eventually resulting in a proliferation of 5 acre or smaller parcels and eroding the variety of rural densities in the county. CPA 99-12 submitted by Lela Hilton Vote: The Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment. Findings: 1. The parcel is part of a block of parcels most of which are five acres or smaller. The next largest parcel in the block is 9.16 ac. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 5 The rezone would not jeopardize the adjacent agricultural land or the forest resource lands. As part of a block of parcels ten acres or smaller in size, the proposed rezone would not jeopardize the surrounding residential properties. CPA 99-13 submitted bv Bruce Bailey Vote: The Commission voted five (5) in favor two (2) opposed to recommend rejection of the proposed amendment. Findings: 1. A block of parcels of sufficient size establishes a pattern in and of itself. The density or size of parcels in the adjacent zone outside the block must by definition be different than that within the block. The integrity of the block is what should be preserved. 2. Zoning blocks are delineated on their perimeter by parcels of a different zoning characteristic. To re-zone property based on the perimeter would result in a "domino" effect eventually resulting in a proliferation of 5 acre or smaller parcels and eroding the variety of rural densities in the county. 3. Parcel ownership patterns are not a criterion under LNP 3.3 for the designation of rural residential land. More than one parcel under a single ownership cannot be considered a single parcel. 4. This interpretation of the designation criteria found in LNP 3.3 with regard to blocks of large parcels is important to maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The subject property is part of an established pattern of lots 10 acres or greater in size. It is this pattern that needs to be maintained in order to maintain the integrity of land use zoning in the county. 6. RCW 36.70A.070 (5)(b) requires that the County provide for a variety of rural densities. 7. The rezone is not supported by growth management indicators. 8. There are conflicting legal opinions concerning the legality of increasing the oversupply of buildable lots on the Quimper Peninsula. The GMA does not require counties to consider lot supply and OFM population projections. Counties can as a matter of policy choose to do so. That is the basis on which the Comprehensive Plan was designed which lead to the varying densities. 9. Had the mapping error concerning property described as Private Preserves and Recreation been corrected using Comprehensive Plan criteria instead of the IGSO as the standard for assigning density, a RR 1:20 classification for this property would have been more consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. 10. CTED expressed the following concerns which are hereby adopted as findings by the Commission: a. The amendment is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Policies LNP 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3). The County should consider the cumulative effects of allowing higher densities over the long term. b. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Case #98-02-011c Smith, Panesko et al v. Lewis County noted that densities of"less than 1 unit per 10 or 20 acres should predominate in rural areas"~ c. The Board went on to state "the extensive use of 1:5 and allowance of higher densities in areas of more intensive rural development creates higher average densities that do not comply with RCW 36.70A.070(5) and .030(14)." d. WWGMHB #98-02-0017 Jefferson County v. Cotton Corporation noted that "the requirement for a variety of rural densities was met by densities of 1:5, 1:10 and 1:20." A minority report is attached. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 6 CPA 99~14 submitted bv Olympic Property Group Vote: The Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment. Finding: 1. The proposed rezone more accurately reflects the improvements existing in the plat. CPA 99-18 prepared bv the Jefferson County Telecommunications Technical Advisory Committee. Vote: The Commission recommended the amendment for adoption with seven in favor, one opposed and one abstention. Finding: The proposed amendment implements policy UTP 8.1 and action item E(1): Concerns: 1 The format that the Planning Commission reviewed was not consistent with that in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission could not know what the document would actually look like once it was re-formatted, i.e. what would be a goal, what a policy and what a strategy. 2 A concern was noted in Section II 1. D in regard to the desirability of creating incentives for private investment in information and telecommunications systems. 3 A concern was expressed that the public notice and public involvement aspects of telecommunications siting should be expanded. CPA 99-20 submitted by the Tri-Area and Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of CommerCe The amendment proposes deletion of LNP 5.1 and other wording changes to Land Use and Rural Goals 4.0 and 5.0 and their policies which establish the County's commercial areas. Vote: The Commission voted to recommend against adoption of the amendment with seven in favor and two opposed. Findings: 1. Deleting LNP 5.1 3. 4. 5. would leave the Comprehensive Plan without minimum criteria for the designation of commercial areas and would mean that the designation criteria would not meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. There has not been a change of circumstances since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan that would warrant changing the commercial designation criteria. Adding motels, RV parks, resorts, marinas and gift shops to all of the smaller commercial areas would be inconsistent with rural character. Replacing use tables with performance standards does not provide consistency and guidance to staff or project proponents. The Threshold Determination dated December 15, 1999, Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance, delineates on page 5, studies that must be completed prior to approval of this amendment in order to mitigate possible adverse impacts such as commercial sprawl with its attendant environmental impacts of increased stormwater run-off, traffic, exhaust emissions, noise, increased infrastructure and public service needs in terms of fire and police protection and the need to meet fire flow requirements. The proposed amendment fundamentally changes the designation criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. All commercial crossroads must comply with policy LNP 5.1 in addition to the policies for the specific crossroads and the text of the Plan in the narrative on Rural Commercial Lands found on pages 3-8 to 3-10 and 3-15 through 3-30. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 7 7. An amendment which proposes significant changes from the adopted Plan needs to have significant public input and support. The Commission has no evidence of significant public input to or support of this amendment. Concerns: · The Commission suggested that the designation criteria could be expanded to include latitude in the designation of commercial areas subject to a sub-area planning process. This could be a future Comprehensive Plan amendment. · Commissioners noted that some of the word changes 'had been identified as acceptable by staff. A minority report is attached CPA 99-21 submitted bv the Economic Development Council Vote: The Commission voted to recommend against adoption of this amendment with eight in favor and one opposed. Findings: 1. Quality of life issues including social services, living wages and the environment, an educated work force, and disadvantaged workers should not be eliminated from the Economic Development Chapter. 2. Allowing industrial activities to locate in commercial areas would locate incompatible uses in the same zone. 3. The amendment proposes subsidies to an overly broad array of businesses. 4. The original chapter was created through an extensive public process. An amendment should have broad-based support. 5. The EDC did not submit responses to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment questionnaire. 6. The DOT has commented that strategy #A 15 should be retained which looks for cooperation ~vith state and federal agencies to site facilities that serve the special needs population in areas where transportation may be available. 7. Action items are intended to implement goals and policies and moving a policy to an action item after deleting the goal, as proposed in this amendment, doesn't work as there is then no goal to implement. 8. The chapter as it exists in the adopted Plan is more representative of the County than the revised chapter submitted by the EDC. 9. Deletion of Action Item B (6) concerning public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline, as proposed by the amendment, is incompatible with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan about retaining access to water bodies for public use. 10. Recycling programs should be retained and encouraged in the County consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. (EDP 6.71) 11. Goal 2.0 and its policies supporting education, job training and retraining and skill enhancement should be retained as written. The policies were designed to promote people who are economically disadvantaged because of a lack of education, skills, or abili.ty. These are vulnerable, at risk populations that the County should assist. 12. Policy EDP 3.2 concerning encouraging businesses that provide family wage jobs, are low impact to the environment, and enrich the cultural resources in the county should be retained. 13. Goal EDG 7.0 and its policies in support of the whole range of social services necessary to support a strong economy should be retained. 14. Goal EDG 9.0 and its policies should be retained because quality of life was listed in the Jefferson 2000 Survey and else~vhere as one of the most important issues to the public. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 8 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The Commission received extensive public comment in support of the existing chapter and strong opposition to the Economic Development Council proposal. Groups testifying in support of the chapter as it exists included farmers, members of the EDC, the Jefferson County Education Committee, organic farmers and the Farmers' Market, veterans, the retired sector, and Skookum. A substantial amendment to the Economic Development chapter would ideally be a collaborative process that would involve, at the very least, the EDC, the Planning Commission and other affected stakeholders. The Planning Commission's year 2000 Work Plan should include a public meeting hosted by the Planning Commission on community based .Economic Development and other related topics. The Planning Commission has a concern that there is currently no open forum to get public involvement on this crucial component of our community. A citizen's group should be formed comprised of representatives of the factions who spoke at the public Comment session (and others) to participate in an amendment development process. This is of particular importance with respect to the Recruitment and Retention effort as well as the Targeted Industries Plan. The notion that economic development should be handled by a small publicly funded group removed from public input is being questioned by the community. The Comprehensive Plan should define the role, responsibility and authority of the EDC (and other agencies such as the Port of Port To~vnsend, Chambers of Commerce, etc.) with respect to economic development as public representatives. The large (86%) portion of the EDC's budget which is supported by public funds has raised questions as to the obligation of the organization relative to inclusion of the public in defining its direction and operation. These roles and authorities should be included in any final amendment language. A formal reporting and review process should be developed whereby the EDC communicates to the community through such venues as public workshops, Joint Growth Management Steering Committee and Board of County Commissioner meetings to describe specific recruitment and retention activities and generally keep the community informed and involved. This process and format should be described in the final amendment language. CPA 99-22 submitted bv the Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce The amendment proposes a definition of "Rural Jefferson County" (greater than ten (10) miles from a UGA), and that the Western Jefferson County exemptions contained in the home-based business and cottage industry policies apply to this area. Additionally, that a policy designed to apply only to the West End, LNP 7.1.8 under Small-scale Recreational and Tourist Related Uses apply to "Rural Jefferson County", and suggests a new policy which would allow light industrial uses conditionally in rural commercial districts located in "Rural Jefferson County". Vote: The Commission voted to recommend against adoption of the amendment with seven in favor and two opposed. Findings: 1. An amendment which proposes significant changes from the adopted Plan needs to have had significant public input and support. The Commission has no evidence of significant public input to or support of this amendment. 2. The reason for the original West End exemptions in addition to those noted by staff in the staff report included that there is no good place in the West End to locate a commercial center. The solution was to relax standards on home-based businesses and cottage industries. The situation is different in eastern Jefferson County where the purpose in identifying commercial centers was to bring businesses into those centers. Implementing ordinances have not yet been done and it is best to have those in place before considering changes to the Comprehensive Plan. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 9 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The intent of this amendment could best be served if it came forward out of a community planning process. Extending the West End exemptions could serve as a disincentive for businesses to locate in the designated Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers. Allowing industrial activities to locate in commercial areas would locate incompatible uses in the same zone. There has not been a change in circumstances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan or public policy that could justify a change in the Plan, and thus the existing document should stand. Extending the West End exemptions to the rest of the County could risk adverse impacts to residential land uses and the surrounding rural character. Home-based businesses and cottage industries policies are intended to make those activities compatible with rural residential character and to protect the rights of adjacent residential property owners. The amendment does not comply with the goal, policies and strategy objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Threshold Determination dated December 15, 1999, Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance, delineates on page 5, studies that must be completed prior to approval of this amendment in order to mitigate possible adverse impacts such as commercial sprawl with its attendant environmental impacts of increased stormwater run-off, traffic, exhaust emissions, noise, increased infrastructure and public service needs in terms of fire and police protection and the need to meet fire flow requirements. The definition of"Rural Jefferson County" as ten (10) miles from a UGA would be too inclusive. Any exempted area would need to be limited to only those neighborhoods that strongly favored the change in Brinnon and Quilcene. A minority report is attached. PC Findings 1999 Comp Plan Amendments 10 MITIGATIVE MEASURES: The following projects have probable impacts that can be mitigated under current regulations: CPA99-01 Smith property: at time of project specific application a stormwater management plan as required by the Stormwater Management Ordinance. CPA99-02 Moa property: at time of project specific application stormwater and habitat management plans as required by the Stormwater Management and Critical Areas Ordinances. CPA99-04 Johnston property: at time of project specific application stormwater and habitat management plans and geotechnical report as required by the Stormwater Management and Critical Areas Ordinances. CPA99-05 Spigarelli property: at time of project specific application a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. CPA99-11 Whittaker property: at time of project specific application, a habitat management plan addressing the effected portion of the Quilcene River as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. CPA99-13 Bailey property: at time of project specific application a transportation study as required by the County Subdivision Ordinance, a stormwater management plan as required by the Stormwater Management Ordinance and Aquifer Recharge Report as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Note: Existing documents and reports may be submitted or referenced by applicants at the time of specific project application per Jefferson County Development Ordinances for consideration of impact mitigation. Other reports or studies may be required as necessary during review of project specific applications. The following projects require additional mitigation under SEPA in order to avoid probable adverse impacts: Finnila & Tudor/Thompson amendments CPA 99-09 & CPA 99-10: The amendment represents an upzone of 26 acres from Rural Residential to Neighborhood/Visitor Commercial Crossroads in a location not identified for such development in the Comprehensive Plan. The probable impacts need to be considered of the future development that would be allowed under the Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad designation. Commercial development would be likely to result in an increased need for transportation/infrastructure/public services such as fire and police protection as well as emergency health services. Such impacts might best be addressed through a sub-area planning process. Current regulations set a limit of 45% impervious surface on development. This could result in 11.7 acres of impervious surface at total build-out of a 26 acre commercial zone. Future commercial development is likely to result in increased stormwater mn-off as a result of this increase in impervious surface. Drainage from the sites could drain off-site into Pleasant Harbor in Hood Canal. Hood Canal containing Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook, two ESA listed species. In order to address possible significant cumulative impacts that would be encouraged by this amendment, prior to approval of the amendment the following studies will be completed: 1. An engineered stormwater plan addressing the cumulative impacts of complete build-out of the approximately 26 acres. 2. A transportation, infrastructure, public service analysis tied to the level of service assumptions made in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. A full assessment of planning growth management indicators such as population forecasts and allocated non-urban population distributions, existing commercial areas and infill opportunities. Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce CPA99-20: The amendment proposes to delete a policy in the Land Use Element that requires a site to have been in existence and having some built environment in July 1990 and to have current uses serving the Jefferson County population. The amendment proposes that commercial designations be allowable for properties that "could serve" the population of Jefferson County. The cumulative result of this amendment might be commercial sprawl with its attendant environmental impacts of increased stormwater run-off, traffic, exhaust emissions, noise, increased infrastructure and public service needs in terms of fire and police protection, and the need to meet fire flow requirements. In order to address possible significant cumulative impacts that would be encouraged by this amendment, prior to approval of the amendment, the following studies should be completed: 1. A full assessment of planning growth management indicators such as population forecasts and allocated non-urban population distributions, existing commercial areas and infill opportunities. 2. A transportation, infrastructure, public service analysis tied to the level of service assumptions made in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce CPA 99-22: This amendment would extend West End exemptions in regard to home-based businesses and cottage industries to eastern Jefferson County and would allow light industrial uses conditionally in rural commercial districts in the portion of Jefferson County lying further than 10 miles from an Urban Growth Area. The amendment would mean that home- based businesses and cottage industries sited further than ten (10) miles from an Urban Growth Area would not be required to relocate in the event they grew beyond the scale permitted for such activities but could obtain a conditional use permit to stay in the rural residential location; would not be subject to a limitation on the number of off-site employees; would not be subject to a restriction on retail sales and would not be subject to a restriction on hours of operation. Auto, truck, or heavy equipment repair, autobody work or paint shop and large-scale furniture repair would be allowed as cottage industries. Parking and storage of heavy equipment and storage of materials for use on other properties would not be limited or need to be incidental to the primary nature of the cottage industry. The cumulative result of this amendment might be commercial sprawl with its attendant environmental impacts of increased stormwater run-off, traffic, exhaust emissions, noise, increased infrastructure and public service needs in terms of fire and police protection, and the need to meet fire flow requirements. In order to address possible significant cumulative impacts that would be encouraged by this amendment, prior to approval of the amendment the following studies should be completed: 1. A full assessment of planning growth management indicators such as population forecasts and allocated non-urban population distributions, existing commercial areas and infill opportunities. 2. A transportation, infrastructure, public service analysis tied to the level of service assumptions made in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Minority. Report To Board of County Commissioners January 12, 1999 Re: File Number: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 99-02 Submitted November 27. 1999 Applicant: Walter A. Moa Jr. Planning Commissioners: Patrick M. Rodgers and David Whipple Rationale: This amendment is a request to reinstate a portion of Tax Lot 31 which had been historically zoned commercial and which is required by the petitioner to modernize an existing business which has been owned and operated by the petitioner's family for many years. There are at least two grounds for granting the petitioner's request for adopting their amendment: l) The propert?' is employed for a legal existing use and its owner is entitled to replace and/or expand the business. ' - d 2) RCW .~6.70A.0)( ) states that commercial land boundaries "may include undeveloped lands, if limited..." 1. The subject business (The Valley View Motel) is a legal existing use and as such LNG 8.0 of the Jefferson County. Comprehensive Plan applies. Specifically LNP 8.3 Existing commercial and industrial uses should be allowed to expand or be replaced in residential areas provided that: a. they do not require additional urban uses of government service; b. the~ do not impose uncompensated additional costs to the taxpayers or improvement; c. they do not conflict with natural resource-based uses; d. the~ are compatible with surrounding rural uses, and e. the expansion results in no further adverse environmental or neighborhood impacts, unless mitigated. 2. The reluctance for approving this amendment application is in part due to a strict interpretation of LNP 5.1 and LNP 5.2 in the Comprehensive Plan. The 1997 amendment to the GMA (SB 6094) occurred after most of the drafting of the Jefferson CountT Comprehensive Plan had been completed. The effort to complete and implement the initial Comprehensive Plan was unable to include the most recent changes in the GMA. The current amendment cycle is the first opportunity' to include the recent changes in state law as articulated by SB 6094. SB 6094 and the resultant RCW's describe the legislature's intent as regards rural character and the designation of commercial areas in rural communities. RCW 36.70 A.(5)(d) "may include undeveloped lands, if limited..." RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b) states "Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (b) that foster traditional lifestyles, rural based economics, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas." This amendment meets both of these criteria. On pg. 3-15, the Comprehensive Plan is updated to reflect the 1997 amendments (criteria used for designating commercial lands), while it was not updated in EDP 5.1 or 5.2. The Plan needs to be consistent in its 1997 GMA update inclusions. The updated language and intent of the state law can and should be applied consistently. The current restrictive use of the local definition of built environment "A combination of buildings and related activities along with associated impervious surfaces, infrastructure, parking and landscaping" is both unclear and overly restrictive. As currently applied, any area that did not have an urban level of infrastructure (including roads, sewer and water, and power) and the commercial buildings constructed as of July l. 1990, cannot be designated commercial property regardless of current or past circumstances. None of the current rural crossroads areas meet the criteria as currently applied. Findings of fact: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. The petitioner's business is an existing legal use:. The petitioner has a right to expand or replace his business. The subject property, is adjacent to a piece of property presently zoned commercial and on which a business is located which was in existence on July I, 1990. The subject property, was identified for commercial development in the 1979 Comprehensive plan. The subject propert?' was zoned as commercial in 1992 when the first zoning ordinance was enacted. It was the intention that the subject property be used for the expansion or modernization of petitioner's business on July I, 1990. That such intention can be inferred from the fact that a portion of Tax Lot 3 l(the subject property,) is presently zoned commercial and is used for petitioner's business. This amendment will advance the attainment of the goal EDG 8.0 "Promote the development of tourist and tourist-related activities as a provider of employment and business opportunities in Jefferson Count." This amendment is in harmony with LNG 8.0 "Support the continued existence and economic viability of legally established land uses..." This amendment is consistent with and meets the provisions of LNP 8.3. This amendment fits the criteria of RCW 36.70A.(5)(d). The actual and applied use of the current definition of"built environment" is inconsistent with the intent of current state law. Minority. Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners adopt proposed amendment CPA 99-02. Respectfully, Patrick M. Rodgers .~ ~ David Whipple Minority Report To Board of County. Commissioners January 12, 1999 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment File Number: CPA 99-09 Submitted July 16, 1999 Applicant: Pleasant Harbor Corp./Chuck Finnila Planning Commissioners: David Whipple and Patrick M. Rodgers These applicants requested an amendment that would change the subject parcel from RR 1:5 to Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The primary basis for recommendation to deny or docket this amendment application is a strict interpretation of LNP 5.1 and LNT' 5.2 in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the 1997 amendment to the GMA (SB 6094) occurred after most of the drafting of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan had been completed. The effort to complete and implement the initial Comprehensive Plan did not consistently include these later changes to the GMA. The current amendment cycle is the first opportunity to include these changes in state law. SB 6094 and the resultant RCW describe the legislature's intent as regards rural character and the designation of commercial areas in rural communities. RCW 36.70A.(5)(d) states that commercial land boundaries "may include undeveloped lands, if limited" and "be delineated predominantly by the built environment" RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b) states "Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (b) that foster traditional lifestyles, rural based economics, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas." The applicant's proposed amendment would meet both of these criteria. On page 3-15, the Comprehensive Plan is updated to reflect the 1997 amendments (criteria used for designating commercial lands), while it was not updated in LNP 5.1 or 5.2. The Plan needs to be consistent in its update inclusion. Furthermore, the staff uses the updated language in its report regarding the proposed amendment. Therefore, the updated language and intent of the current state la~v can and should be applied consistently. As the area proposed for a redesignation is surrounded by a RV Park, a golf course (in development), and a marina, the proposed restaurant is a logical continuation of this pattern of land use. Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads (NVCC), by definition are to include restaurants (Comprehensive Plan 3-33) to serve the local population and the travelling public. The Comprehensive Plan states that the Brinnon area will need to capture seasonal tourist trade and that there are limited areas for infill and commercial development currently in Brinnon (Comprehensive Plan 3-19). Comprehensive Plan LNT 4.8, states the desire to assist the community of Brinnon to identify' and investigate the feasibility of an additional location for future economic development. Comprehensive Plan EDG 8.0 states "Promote the development of tourist and tourist related activities as a provider of employment and business opportunities in Jefferson County". Policy EDP 8.6 states "develop, enhance, and promote Jefferson County's visitor, cultural, historical, entertainment, and recreational facilities and attractions to foster tourism. Approving this amendment will promote meeting these statements in the Comprehensive Plan while staying within the letter and intent of current state law. Given that future SEPA regulations for development are followed, all of the criteria for RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c) will be met if this area is redesignated NWCC. As this area is surrounded by current pre-existing uses or physical boundaries, all the relevant criteria of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) will be met if the area is redesignated. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a) states that local conditions for criteria for evaluating rural commercial areas or application of special conditions include providing employment opportunities for local residents, in particular areas of in sufficient economic growth or economic decline and to support local community planning goals. Desi=o-nating this area an NVCC would promote meeting these conditions while remaining in compliance with current state law. Additionally, RCW36.70.A.070(Sd)ii allows for small scale tourist commercial development that does not need to be directly tied to local population use. Such areas can be designated a tourist commercial zone. The current restrictive use of the local definition of built environment --"A combination of buildings and related activities along with associated impervious surfaces, infrastructure, parking and landscaping"-- is both unclear and overly restrictive. As currently applied, any area that did not have an urban level of infrastructure (including roads, sewer and water, and power) and the commercial buildings constructed as of July 1, 1990, cannot be designated commercial property regardless of current or past circumstances. None of the current rural crossroads areas meet the criteria as currently applied. Amending the definition of built environment to be consistent with the wording in SB 6094 would make this definition consistent with current state law and allow for logical commercial area expansion as designed through SB 6094. Findings of fact: 2. 3. 4. 5. The Jefferson Co. Comprehensive Plan was updated to include the changes resulting from SB 6094 in some sections while not in others. This amendment will promote the attainment of goals LNP 4.8 and EDG 8.0 (specifically EDP 8.6). This amendment will foster economic development in a distressed area of the county. The proposed use of this area will remain consistent with the intent of Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The actual and applied use of the current definition of "built environment" severely limits any commercial expansion in rural areas and is not met by any of the current Crossroads areas already established. Furthermore, it is more restrictive than required under current state law. SB 6094 (as acknowledged in the staff report) is to provide some logical ability to expand commercial areas. It also changes the criteria to be used when designating commercial crossroad areas. This by definition will necessitate a review of such areas and should be undertaken. The surrounding area does contain multiple commercial properties and would be consistent with the land use in the immediate vicinity. The area does include limited professional services and serves both the travelling public and local population. The zone would also serve both of these populations. RCW36.70.A.070(5d)ii allows for small scale tourist commercial development that does not need to be directly tied to local population use. Such areas can be designated a tourist commercial zone. Minority Recommendation That the BOCC adopt amendment proposal CPA 99-09. Furthermore, the BOCC should instruct the staff to facilitate making the Comprehensive Plan consistent in its inclusion of the changes in state law through SB 6094. The vision statement in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states -- "The Comprehensive Plan is a living document and will change as circumstances, challenges, and outside influences change".... "For the Plan to accomplish its stated goals it must ultimately support a community and a future that is livable, affordable, and sustainable. This is no small task, but neither is it an impossible task. The ingredients necessary for the promise of this plan to be realized are an active and informed citizenry, and an understanding and responsive government" (xi. Vision Statement). The changes in state law, the economic situation in the south county, and the stated goals of the plan make this proposal reasonable and in accordance with the overall Comprehensive Plan goals and current state law intent. Respectfully, ~avid ~%ipple Patrick NrTRodgers ~ ~ Minority Report To Board of County Commissioners January 12, 1999 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment File Number: CPA 99-10 Submitted July 16, 1999 Applicant: Planning Commissioners: Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson David Whipple and Patrick M. Rodgers These applicants requested an amendment that would change the subject parcel from RR f :5 to Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads (NVCC). The parcel now has a conditional use permit, expiring in September 2000, for 3 structures with a total of 5,000 square feet. This permit makes the proposed use of this parcel legal pre-existing nonconforming. This property was considered commercial in a 1979 Brinnon area plan. In 1992, it was designated General Commercial (approved by the BOCC and the Hearings Examiner). The present owners purchased the property in 1994 as commercial property and have been paying commercial property taxes from that time until the present. The staff recommends that the application be docketed until the completion of a Brinnon feasibility study. However, the study will not be completed until after the permit expires. The action recommended by the staffwould place an unfair burden on the applicant, in that they would need to reapply for a permit that has already been granted. In other words, the staff is suggesting that the applicant wait for a future study to redesignate the property commercial so that they may begin developing the property at its current permitted use. The applicant has patiently waited for the county to amend the Comprehensive Plan maps in the good faith belief that this would happen in a timely fashion to reflect the reality of permitted projects. This has not happened. The primary basis for recommendation to docket or deny this amendment application is a strict interpretation of LNP 5.1 and LNP 5.2 in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The 1997 amendment to the GMA (SB 6094) occurred after most of the drafting of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan had been completed. The effort to complete and implement the initial Comprehensive Plan did not consistently include these later changes to the GMA. The current amendment cycle is the first opportunity to include the recent changes in state law as articulated by SB 6094. The staff reports states that this application does not meet the criteria of LNP 5.5.1 (see staff report). We note, however, that this already permitted project does propose multiple commercial properties, includes limited specialty goods (gift/craft store) and professional Minority Report CPA l 0-99 pg 1 of 3 services (real estate office), and serves the local rural population and the community travelling public (grocery store). The permitted project clearly meets each of the criteria. SB 6094 and the resultant RCW describe the legislature's intent as regards rural character and the designation of commercial areas in rural communities. RCW 36.70A.(5)(d) states that commercial land boundaries "may include undeveloped lands, if limited" and "be delineated predominantly by the built environment" RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b) states "Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (b) that foster traditional lifestyles, rural based economics, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas." The applicant's proposed amendment would meet both of these criteria. On page 3-15, the Comprehensive Plan is updated to reflect the 1997 amendments (criteria used for designating commercial lands), while it was not updated in EDP 5.1 or 5.2. The Plan needs to be consistent in its 1997 GMA update inclusions. Furthermore, the staff uses the updated language in its report regarding this amendment. Therefore, the updated language and intent of the state law can and should be applied consistently. Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads, by definition are to include professional services (i.e real estate offices) and a grocery/general goods stores (Comprehensive Plan 3-33) to serve the local population and the travelling public. The Comprehensive Plan states that there are limited areas for infill and commercial development currently in Brinnon (Comprehensive Plan 3-19). Comprehensive Plan goal LNP 4.8, states the desire to assist the community of Brinnon to identify and investigate the feasibility of an additional location for future economic development. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a) states that local conditions for criteria for evaluating rural commercial areas or application of special conditions include providing employment opportunities for local residents, in particular areas of in sufficient economic growth or economic decline and to support local community planning goals. Designating this area an NVCC would promote meeting these conditions while remaining in compliance with current state law. The current restrictive use of the local definition of built environment "A combination of buildings and related activities along with associated impervious surfaces, infrastructure, parking and landscaping" is both unclear and overly restrictive. As currently applied, any area that did not have an urban level of infrastructure (including roads, sewer and water, and power) and the commercial buildings constructed as of July 1, 1990, cannot be designated commercial property regardless of current or past circumstances. None of the current rural crossroads areas meet the criteria as currently applied. Amending the definition of built environment to be consistent with the wording in SB 6094 would make this definition consistent ~vith current state la~v and. allow for logical commercial area expansion as designed through and intended by SB 6094. Findings of fact: The Jefferson Co. Comprehensive Plan was updated to include the changes resulting from SB 6094 in some sections while not in others. Minority Report CPA 10-99 pg 2 of 3 o 3. 4. 5. o This amendment will promote the attainment of goals LNP 4.8 and EDG 8.0 (specifically EDP 8.6). This amendment will foster economic development in a distressed area of the county. The proposed use of this area will remain consistent with intent of Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The actual and applied use of the current definition of "built environment" severely limits any commercial expansion in rural areas and is not met by any of the current Crossroads areas already established. Furthermore, it is more restrictive than required under current state law. SB 6094 (as acknowledged in the staff report) is to provide some logical ability to expand commercial areas. It also changes the criteria to be used when designating commercial crossroad areas. This by definition will necessitate a review of such areas and should be undertaken. The surrounding area does contain multiple commercial properties and would be consistent with the land use in the immediate vicinity. The area does include limited professional services and serves both the travelling and local population. The proposed use would also serve both of these populations. The existing conditional permit makes the proposed project a legal non- conforming use and that not redesignating the area as requested would put an undue and unfair burden upon the applicants. RCW36.70.A.070(5d)ii allows for small scale tourist commercial development that does not need to be directly tied to local population use. Such areas can be designated a tourist commercial zone. Minority Recommendation That the BOCC adopt amendment proposal CPA 9 Furthermore, the BOCC should instruct the staff to facilitate making the Comprehensive Plan consistent in its inclusion of the changes in state law through SB 6094. The vision statement in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states -- "The Comprehensive Plan is a living document and will change as circumstances, challenges, and outside influences change".... "For the Plan to accomplish its stated goals it must ultimately support a community and a future that is livable, affordable, and sustainable. This is no small task, but neither is it an impossible task. The ingredients necessary for the promise of this plan to be realized are an active and informed citizenry and an understanding and responsive government" (xi. Vision Statement). The changes in state law, the economic situation in the south county, and the stated goals of the plan make this proposal reasonable and in accordance with the overall Comprehensive Plan goals and current state law intent. Respectfully, , David Whipple Patrick M. Rodgers Minority Report CPA 10-99 pg 3 of 3 Minority Report To Board of County Commissioners January l9,2000 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment File Number: CPA 99-13 Submitted July 16, 1999 Applicant: Bruce V. Bailey Planning Commissioners: Patrick M. Rodgers and David Whipple Rationale: This amendment is a request by a single holder of five parcels to change the unilateral designation of RR 1' 10 made by the Jefferson County Planning Staff(to correct their mapping error) to a density, consistent with the zoning of surrounding parcels; RR 1:5. The petitioner's request for adopting their amendment should be granted because it clearly meets the criteria set out in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan LNP 3.3.1 "A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the coun~ with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record;" Staff and the majority make the argument that this holding is in multiple parcels and that it is the relationship between them that should determine the zoning. However, petitioner presents this amendment as a single holding and as such it should be so vie~ved. Consider the absurdity of the petitioner being required to consolidate the multiple parcels into one so that he could then turn around and have it zoned RR 1:5. At some point common sense must prevail. The amendment asks for the zoning to consider the entire holding (not the component parcels) and therefore the surrounding properties to be considered are those that surround the entire holding, not each of the parcels contained within the holding. Staff contends that 80% of the parcels surrounding the subject holding are 5 acres or less. True, but on closer inspection we see that only three (3) parcels are greater then l 0 acres or three (3) of forty-four (44) or 7%. That is: 93% are under I0 acres in size. This staff generated data supports the petitioners contention that the predominant pattern is RR 1:5. The Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and the Jefferson County Planning Staff(staff) have both made the case that there is an "over supply" of buildable lots arid as such petitioner's request should be denied. Of course there are more lots then the projected population growth. It is absurd to think that family units should exactly equal buildable lots. There is no such thing as the "correct" ratio between supply and demand. Such an assertion is purely the "feeling" of bureaucrats and has no basis in science or economics. CTED and staff are not correct in this assertion and both are disingenuous in consistently asserting such an over supply when both have kno~vn since July 11, 1997, confirmed on March 12, 1999 and again on November 2, 1999 that the courts have held in Clark CounW vs. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board that: "...nothing in the GMA provides that a county must use OFM's population projections when planning for non- urban growth. 23 Construed according to plain meaning, then, the GMA does not require counties to use OFM's population projections as a cap or ceiling on non-urban growth. Further. the trial court found: "It is evident the rural land use density regulations were driven in part by earlier Growth Management Hearing Board decisions requiring urban population plus rural population to equal Office of Financial Management population forecasts. This formulaic view of the GMA requirement is fatally flawed. There is no requirement in the GMA that the OFM projections be used in any manner than as a measure to ensure urban growth areas are adequately sized and infrastructure in those growth areas is provided for. The Board's requirement to, in essence, require a vacant buildable lands analysis for the rural area was erroneous." The Courts upheld Clark County's RR 1:5 as the sole rural residential zone. A grave injustice has been done to the citizens of Jefferson County by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. Largely because of its erroneous interpretation of the Growth Management Act, community plans were discarded and a top down Comprehensive Plan was imposed. Staff and CTED continue to site a rule and its justification when they are clearly aware that the rule and its justification have been held to be erroneous by this state's courts. Findings of fact: t. Petitioner's contiguous parcels are presented as a single holding. 2. Requiring petitioner to consolidate his contiguous parcels so that he may have them zoned RR 1:5 is unreasonable and absurd. 3. 80% of the parcels surrounding petitioner's holdings are of 5 acres or less. 93% are less then 10 acres. 4. Petitioner's holding clearly meets LNP 3.3.1 criteria for RR 1:5. 5. The Office of Financial Management population forecast is "descriptive" no._3 "prescriptive". 6. There is no "Correct" ratio between supply and demand for buildable lots. 7. There is no such thing as a "cap" on buildable lots. 8. The GMA does not require rural residential lots to be larger than 5 acres. 9. The Jefferson County' Planning staff erroneously assigned a RR 1:10 use density to petitioner's holding. 10. There is a strong preponderance of local resident and community support for this amendment. Minority Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County' Commissioners adopt proposed amendment CPA 99-13. Respectfully, Patrick M. Rodgers ~ David Whipple 2 Minority Report To Board of County Commissioners December 15, 1999 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment File Number: CPA 99-20 Submitted September 27, 1999 Applicants: Port Hadlock/Tri-Area Chamber of Commerce Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce Planning Commissioners: Patrick M. Rodgers and David Whipple Minority Rationale: While Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan was adopted after the passage of SB 6094, which amends the Growth Management Act, most of the drafting and debate of LNP 5.1 occurred before its passage. Consequently, LNP 5.1 does not properly reflect change in State Law. LNP 5.1 leads to some absurd and unintended results if literally applied. Example: If an area had been commercially developed with numerous buildings with operating businesses. All properly zoned under County Ordinance and those buildings were to all bum to the ground on June 30, 1990 so that they were not in existence on July 1, 1990 they could not be rebuilt applying LNP 5.1. The minority does not believe that this was or is the intention of the State Legislature. The definition of "Rural character" RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b) helps us understand what the legislature's intention is: "Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (b) that foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas;". The consequence of the strict application of LNP 5.1 is to deprive the citizens of the county from working in their communities. It changes the nature of the community from "Rural", where people live and work, to "Suburban" where people live one place and commute to another. This was never the intention of the legislature. Deleting LNP 5.1 does not repeal State Law. The criteria used for designating commercial areas would be RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Use tables are always obsolete and do not reflect the dynamic nature of "real life". People experience their environment through their senses. Limitation on use can be directly expressed through performance standards. Insistence upon the exclusive use of "Use Tables" requires constant, costly and always tardy amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: 1. LNP 5.1 is inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). 2. Strict application of LNP 5.1 may result in unintended consequences. 3. LNP 5.1 is in conflict with the goals of the Growth Management Act. 4. Use Tables are inflexible and require an inordinate amount of maintenance. Minority Recommendation: That the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments submitted by the applicants. However, in order to directly address a concern of the majority we urge the Board to amend LNP 5.1 by explicitly adopting the text of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) either verbatim or by reference. Respectfully, Patrick M. Rodgers 2 Minority Report To Board of County Commissioners December 15, 1999 Re~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment File Number: CPA 99-22 Submitted September 27, 1999 Applicant: Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce Planning Commissioners: Frank Ohly, Jr. and Patrick M. Rodgers Minority Rationale: The "South End" communities of Brirmon and Quilcene are as remote and isolated from a UGA, as is the "West End". These areas suffer from the devastating affects of losing their natural resource economic base. Land use laws have significantly contributed to the difficulty in developing other economic activity to fill the void. The consequences: poverty, despair and crime. Over 75% of the children in the Brinnon School are on free or reduced lunch. The communities of Brirmon and Quilcene contain 11% of the population of Jefferson County but account for 30% of the calls made to the Sheriff's Department. Much 0fthe criminal activity is related to alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence: companions of despair. These communities have historically been relatively self-sufficient supplying both the employment and most of the basic commodities and services required by their residents. Today much of this has been lost and without some relief these communities will continue to deteriorate. Once vital communities may be lost forever in large part due to artificial and inflexible land use constraints imposed upon them. These amendments are some of the tools that the small entrepreneurs of these communities require to adapt to the changed circumstances they face. These citizens are the engine that may provide a beginning for the renewal that these communities long for. Their petition is both practical and reasonable. Finding: The Comprehensive Plan is in error by not recognizing the conditions that exist in the South County communities of Brirmon and Quilcene. These conditions are most like those existing in the "West End". Consequently, the applicants should be granted the exceptions requested. Minority Recommendation: That the Jefferson County Board of Coun~ Commissioners adopt the amendments submitted by the applicants. However, the majority does correctly point out an unintended consequence of these amendments. That is: by defining "RURAL" as any place 10 road miles from a UGA, cormnunities such as Port Ludlow would be accorded these "exceptions". We would urge the Board to either redefine "RURAL" or specifically limit these amendments to Brinnon, Quilcene and the "West End". Respectfully, Frank Ohly, Jr. Patrick M. Rodgers STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ~76 Columbia $¢. SW · D~cmber 15, 1 ~99 DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PO Box 48300 * Olympia, Washington ~8504-8300 * (360) 753.2200 The IIonorablc Dan Harpole, Chair Jcfferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 1ef£erson Street Post Office Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 DEC 15 lggg JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT Dear Commissioner Harpolc: Tbm~k you for submitting the 1999 draft comprehensive plan amendments for Jefferson County. We mcognize thc significant investment of time, energy and resources this document represents. We received your transmittal on November 8, 1999 and appreciate thc opportunity to comment. We have also reviewed the comments on your comprehensive plan amendments fi'om the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team and have enclosed a copy for you. Tiffs letter summarizes our comments on your drat~ amendments. We support thc following amendment: CPA 99-17 Thc County has indicated this is to correct a mapping error and therefore is reverting to the land use densities as stated in thc Interim Growlh Strategies Ordinance (No. 05-2114.96). We appreciate the County addressing erroneously marked docmnents. However, it is important to note that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires a variety of rural densities as tile County h~ indicated in the comprehensive plan (i.e., 1:5, I:10, and 1:20) and we encourage the County to keep this in mind if future density amendments are to be considered. We have no concerns with thc following proposed mnendments: CPA 99-11 CPA 99-12 CPA 99-14 CPA 99-18 DEC-15-1999 WEB 06:32 PM FR× NO. P, 03 The ltonorable Dan Harpole December 15, 1999 Page 2 We have concerns regarding the tbllowing amendments: CPA 99.-0 This proposed amendment is to change the zoning of 3.57 acres from rural residemial 1 ::5 and include thc property within the boundary of the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. The subject property is vacant. The GMA was amended by ESB 6094 in 1997 by the Washington State Legislature, wldch allows for lhnited areas of'more intensive rural development (RCW 36.70A.070(5)). The GMA states: A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing re'cas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate... (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(iv)) The County has met this requirement in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. We believe the criteria stated in the plma and the stated goals and policies provided for a good approach in delineating these areas throughout the County, Further, the County provided thorough analysis for determining the criteria to be used for designation, justillcation of boundaries and economic scope of rural commercial lands. The GMA timber states the following: ... Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low-density sprawl. Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated prcdominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(iv)). Thc intent of the amendmcnt is to recognize existing development in a rural area and allow for some infill within delineated logical boundaries, not for increasing the size of the tm'al commerci,-'d area with vacant lands or lm~ds that do not have more intense development. Currently, the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads has 8.4 acres available for infill. The proposed amendment does not meet the provisions for rural areas of more intense developm~mt as stated in the GMA (RCW 36.70A.070(5)). Accordingly, we have the satne concerns and comments for the following proposed amendments: · CPA 99-02, from Rur,-'d Residential 1:5 to Discovery' Bay Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. The proposed amendment would increase the size of the crossroad by 7.62 acres.. · CPA 99-03, from Rural Residential 1:5 to Port Hadlock Rural Village Cumter. The proposed amendment would increase the size of the center by .99 acres. · CPA 99-05, from Rural Residential 1:20 to Ness' Comer General Commercial Crossroads. The proposed amendment would increase the size of the crossroads by approximately five acres. DEG-15-1~BB WkD U5:33 YM P~ MU. ~, U4 The Honorable Dan Harpole December 15, 1999 Page 3 CPA 99-09, from Rural Residential 1:5 to establish a new Neighborhood/Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The proposed amendment is approximately seven acres in size and is situated where a rural commercial area does not exist. A single real estate office does not constitute criteria as stated in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Rural Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies p. 3-68 to p. 3-72), nor the iment of RCW 36.70A.070(5) in delineating existing rural areas of more intense development [emphasis added]. CPA 99-10, from Rural Residential 1:5 to establish a new Neighborhood/Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The proposed amendment is approximately 19 acres in size ~d is situated where a rural commercial area does not exist. The property is currently vacant, although a permit has been approved for a legal pre-existing nonconforming use to allow 2,500 square feet for a real estate office and 2,500 square feet for a crafts/gift store. Again this docs not constitute criteria as stated in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Rural Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies p. 3-68 to p. 3-72), nor thc intent of R. CW 36.70A.070(5) in delineating existing rural ,'u'eas of more intense development [emphasis added]. CPA 99.13 The proposed amendment is to change the density designation from Rural Residential 1:10 to Rural Residential 1:5. We concur with staffthat the County reject thc proposed amendment as it appears to be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the lefferson County Comprehensive Plan. As noted by staff and by the comprehensive plan, the County currently has an excess of buildable lots. CPA 99-20 Thc proposed amendment would make significant changes to the rural commercial land usc goals and policies. We concur with staff recommendations against adopting proposed amendments, most notably eliminating LNP 5.1. We strongly advise the County to not adopt the proposed amendments and consider staffrccommcndafions. CPA 99-21 The proposed changcs by the Economic Development Council (EDC) would amend goals and policies of thc Economic Development Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. We concur with st'iff recommeqdations tlmt while some changes nmy be acceptable for clarity and improvement, other changes would be detrimental for disadvantaged citizens of thc County. For example, thc EDC proposes to eliminate the following underlined text from Goal EDG 1.0: Promote economic opportunity for ali citizens of the County,. espeqia]l¥ for teens and young adults, thc unemployed, and for disadvantaged persons within file_, c_a~acitie, s of thc County's natur01 resources, public services and public facilities. We encourage the County to follow with staff advice and not adopt changes as noted in the staff report. DE0-15-1999 NED 06:33 PM ~ FAX NO. P. 05 The Honorable Dan Harpole December 15, ! 999 Page 4 CPA 99-.022 , The proposed amenchnent seeks to define "Rural Jefferson County" as greater than 10 miles from an urban growth area, and that Western Jefferson County exemptions contained in home-based business and cottage industry policies apply to ;his area(Quilcene/Brinnon). Again, we concur with staffrecommendations that the County not adopt these amendments. As noted by staff, the ,amendments are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The County has determined and cited that special circumstances apply to the West End in developing flexible policies that allow for specific local circumstances that are not applicable in the ra-oposed CPA 99.-04 The proposed amendment is to change two parcels which consist of 276 acres of commercial forest to Rural Residential 1:20. We do not support this change and encourage the County not to adopt the proposed amendment. Congratulations to you, your planning staff and involved citizens for the good work your draft comprehensive plan mnendments embody. If you have any questions or concerns about our cotmnents or ,'my other growth management issues, please call me at (360) 753-2951. We extend our continued support to Jefferson County in achieving the goals of growth management. ~i~aelcerely'] J. Nowak Growth Management Planner Local Government Division MN:ju CC: Al Scalf, Director, Community Development Warren Hart, Planning Manager Harriet Beale, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Enclosure STAT£ OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. SW * PO 8ox 48300 · Olympia, Washington 98504.8300 * (3601 755.2200 December 23, 1999 Phil Andrus, Chair Jefferson County Planning Commissioner 1820 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear Mr. Andrus: Thank you for submitting the 1999 draft comprehensive plan amendments for Jefferson County. We recognize the significant investment of time, energy and resources this document represents. We received your transmittal on November 8, 1999 and appreciate the opportunity to comment. We have also reviewed the comments on your : comprehensive plan amendments from the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team and have attached a copy for you. This letter summarizes our comments on your draft amendments. We request that this be made part of the official record on these amendments. We support the following amendment: CPA 99-17 The County has indicated this amendment is nee~.d to correct a mapping error. ,.This proposed action will cause the zoning to revert to the land uso densities as stated in the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (No. 05-2114-961. We appreciate the County addressing erroneously marked documents. However, it is important to note that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires a variety of rural densities as the Count. y has indicated in the comprehensive plan (i.e., 1:5, 1:10, and t:20). We encourage the County to keep this in mind if future changes to the County's land use densities ,re to be considered. We have no concerns with the following proposed amendments: ~- CPA 99-11 ~- CPA 99-12 ~ CPA 99-14 ~- CPA 99-18 DE0-23-]999 THU ]]:29 NO, P, 03 Phil Andrus, Chair December 23, 1999 Page 2 We concur with the following staff recommendations and encourage Jefferson County to follow with staff advice and not adopt the following amendments as noted in the staff report. CPA 99-13 The proposed amendment is to change the density designation from Rural Residential 1:10 to Rural Residential 1:5. We concur with staff because the proposed amendment appears to be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Policies LNP 3.1, 3.2, and 3.31. As noted by the staff report and by the comprehensive plan, the County currently has an excess of buildable lots. The County should consider the cumulative effects of allowing higher densities over the long term. in addition, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board {WWGMHB) Case #98-02-O1 lc Smith, Panesko e! al v. Lewis County (Final Decision and Order) notes recommendations from our publication on rural lands (Defining Rural Character and Planning for Rural Lands - #Rural Element Guide"). The guide states that densities of "less than I unit per 10 or 20 acres should predominate in rural areas." Further, the WWGMHB referred to a case involving Jefferson County, Cotton Corporation v, Jefferson County, #98-02-0017, "the requirement for a variety of rural densities was met by densities of 1:5, 1:10 and 1:20." The Board further states in the Lewis County case "[13e extensive use of 1:5 and a~lowance of higher densities in areas of more intensive rural development creates higher average densities that do not comply with RCW 36.70A.O70(5) and .O30{14)." CPA 99-20 The proposed amendment would make significant changes to the rural commercial land use goals and policies. We support the criteria, goals and policies in your current comprehensive plan and support them as important measures in designating rural commercial areas and as a good strategy for preventing sprawl. CPA 99-21 The proposed changes by the Economic Development Council (EDC) would amend goals and policies of the Economic Development Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. We concur with staff recommendations that while some changes may be acceptable for clarity and improvement, other ,changes could have negative consequences for disadvantaged citizens of the County. For example, the EDC proposes to eliminate the following underlined text from Goal EDG 1.0; Promote economic opportunity for all citizens of the County, .e unemployed, add for disadvanta_~ed ~hin the caoacities of the County's natural reso&~c.~e,s.~ services and nublic facilitieS, DE0-23-1999 THU 11:30 R~ ru^ ,~u, Phil Andrus, Chair December 23, 1999 Page 3 CPA 99-022 The proposed amendment seeks to define "Rural Jefferson County" as greater than 10 miles from an Urban Growth Area, and that Western Jefferson County exemptions contained in home-based business and cottage industry policies apply to this area (QuilcenelBrinnon). As noted by staff, the amendments are inconsistent with the goals and 'policies of the comprehensive plan. The County has determined and cited special circumstances apply to the West End in developing flexible policies which allow for specific local circumstances that are not applicable in the proposed area. We have concerns regarding the following amendments: CPA 99-01 This proposed amendment is to change the zoning of 3,57 acres from rural residential 1:5 and include the property within the boundary of the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. The subject property is vacant. The GMA was amended by ESB 6094 in 1997 by the Washington State Legislature to allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development [RCW 36.70A.070(5)], The GMA states: A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate [RCW 36.70A.070[5}(iv)]. The County has met this requirement in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. We believe the criteria stated in the plan and the stated goals and policies provided for a good approach in delineating these areas throughout the County, Further, the County provided thorough analysis for determining the criteria to be used for designation, justification of boundaries and the economic scope of rural commercial lands. The GMA further states the following: ...Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of Iow-density sprawl. Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection [RCW 36, 70A.070(5)(iv)]. The intent of the amendment is to recognize existing development in a rural area and allow for some infill within delineated logical boundaries, not for increasing 'the size of the rural commercial area with vacant lands or lands that do not have more intense development. The proposed amendment would add 3,57 acres of vacant, undeveloped land to the Crossroads. UEU-~-I~ rHU 11:33 RM F~× NO, P. OS Phil Andrus, Chair December 23, 1999 Page 4 Accordingly, we have the same concerns and camments for the following proposed amendments: CPA 99-02, from Rural Residential 1:5 to Discovery Bay Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. The proposed amendment would add 7.62 acres of predominantly vacant, undeveloped land to the Crossroad, CPA 99-05, from Rural Residential 1:20 to Ness~ Corner General Commercial Crossroads. The pr. oposed amendment would add approximately five acres of vacant land to the Crossroad. CPA 99-09, from Rural Residential 1:5 to estabtish a new Neighborhood/Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The proposed amendment is approximately seven acres in. size and is situated where a rural commercial area does not exist. A single real estate office does not constitute criteria as stated in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan {Rural Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies p. 3-68 to p. 3-72), nor the intent of RCW 36.7OA.070(5) in delineating existing rural areas of more intense development [cmphasis added]. CPA 99-10, from Rural Residential 1;5 to establish a new Neighborhood/Visitor Commercial Crossroads. The proposed amendment is approximately 19 acres in size and is situated where a rural commercial area does not exist. The property is currently vacant, although a permit has been approved for a legal pre-existing nonconforming use to allow 2500 square feet for a real estate office and 2500 square feet for a crafts/gift store. Again this does not constitute criteria as stated in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Rural Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies p. 3-68 to p. 3-72}, nor the intent of RCW 36.70A.070(5) in delineating existing rurat a~eas of more intense development [emphasis added]. CPA 99-04 The proposed amendment is to change two parceJs which consist of 276 acres of commercial forest to Rural Residential 1:20. As noted by the staff report and by the comprehensive plan, the County currently has an excess of buildable lots. We encourage the County to refrain from adopting the proposed amendment. Congratulations to you, your planning staff and involved citizens for the good work your draft comprehensive plan amendments embody. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues, please carl me at (360) 753-2951. D£0-23-~999 THU 11:34 ~ FRX NO, Phil Andrus, Chair December 23, 1999 Page 5 We extend our continued support to Jefferson County in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincer.ely, Michael J. Nowak Growth Management Planner Growth Management Program MN:lw Cc: Al Scalf, Director, Community Development Warren Hart, Planning Manager Harriet Beale, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Enclosure PUGI:T 5C)UNI.) WA'IlaR QUA! ITY AC'FION TEAM ~eff~r~oll County Bo~rd of ~oJmn[s~ioncrs P,O. Box ~220 Po~ ~"~wn~)d, WA 98368 ~ Commla~iooom Ha~lo, Hmltingford, slid Weir; tho manaae~nt of rogio~al ~ro~l. 'J'hc G>llowin8 commcllts are inlend~ to address iasucs in pto~ amendments to tho J~ffcrson ~ounty Comprchcn~ivu PI~ that ~uld have a~l impel on · 0 water q~lily ~d resources of Pu~cl I. ~co~tomJc Development proposed amendments The tnla~tio~ Of graph, includiag ~onomic gro~h, with cnvimmncntat protoclion is one of thc ~erslonos of file Gm~h Managcmem Act. Tho cni~fi~g g~ls F~nomIc ~clopmcn[ elements aC th~ )cff~r~[~ County Comprohc,stve with o~or tlmnen~, in lhat it supports ~co~tomi~ growth ll~at is compatible with re,urea' pmtectio~ goals. It i~ recommended that thc'existing g~I~ m)d I)olicics ~ retainS. 2. CPAgY-t0 and CPA99-09 Chaugc in lnnd t)se from R~ 1:5 (o Neigh[~rhoo~Js;tor C~mcrcial Crossroad Ea~blishing a commercial aJea at Black Poi.t whc~ none c~t)tly exlsls may have adver~ impac~ ~ su~undJn8 critical a~, including fish and wildlife habilm, sleep slopu~, mid water quality, The impK[a o~cummercial development on Pltasan[ I later and the watts Houd Canal should b~ considcr~ carefully, as [hesc ere ~ragilc ecosystems, Thc increase imperious surfaces, higher density, and run-off gc~orat~ by c~mnerciM could have impacts on aqua(ic species, tn addition, steep ~lopcs ~ in&~d and watched ofthis ama c~ld be dcstabli[zcd by changes in drainage and ~Ru~c~ion ofcomme~ial buildings. Sit.by-site evaluation may ~t su~ to address the cmuulatJve impacts ora new ~cmial ar~. Should the Board decide ~o inWoducc commcrclai development h sh~ld bc accompanlcd by stonnwater and otlmt provis[o[~s that provide the hlgh~t dcgr~ o~ ~otectJon o~critical areas and water quality ~or ~lmon and other species. Tl~mlk-~uu ~r thc ~nuni[y to comment on thc ammJdmen(s to thc (~ompteh~ive Siaoc~ly. BE0-30-99 THU 02:02 PM SNEO NO, 3604076305 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Box 47775 * Olympia, H/a~hington 98;04.7775 * f.'~60J 407.6300 01/01 December 30, 1999 Mr. Warren Hint, SEPA R~ponsible Official /¢ffcrson County D~'partment of Community Development 621 Sheridan Stre~,'t Port Townsend, WA .98368 D~ar Mr. Hart: Thank you for the opporhmity to comment on the mitigated determination ofnonsignificanee to amend the Comprehensive Plan along with associated amendments to the Official Zoning Map with the adoption el'these p'Im~ amendments being a non-project, programmatic action under SEPA, Chapter 43.2 IC RCW, located at various areas within the county. We reviewed thc environmental checklist and have tho following comments: SEPA Coordinator: The checklist indicalx,'s that the actions proposed arc non-project. Even if the county's only action at this time is non-project, the applicant may already have plans for specific actions, such ,as constructh~g homes or a business. Please evaluate each proposal to ensure that the total proposal has been defined. Please see WAC 197-11-060(3) for more information about how "proposals" should be defined and evaluated. Ecology is concerned about groundwater and air impa~ts associat~xl with allowing as cottage ind;;strics auto repair, body work, msd painting and furniture refinishing. Plu'asc rcassess potential in, pacts related to these activities mid develop mitigation measures to prevent air a,~d ground or surface water quality impacts. W_ater Quality: The County should adopt the Maintemanee Ordinmace so that the stom~water BMPs flkat will be installed as a result of'these proposed developments are inspected annually by the County to ensure they are Functioning as designed. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please call Ms. Kari Rokstad (SEPA Coordinator) at (360) 407-6787 or Mr. Gary Kruger (Water Quality) at (360) 407-023g. Abb~Zcercly .... e White SWRO Administration AW:(99-~033) Gary Kruger, SWRO/WQ Karl Rokshad, SWRO/SEA MITIGATIVE MEASURES: The following projects have probable impacts that can be mitigated under current regulations: CPA99-01 Smith property: at time of project specific application a stormwater management plan as required by the Storm~vater Management Ordinance. CPA99-02 Moa property: at time of project specific application stormwater and habitat management plans as required by the Stormwater Management and Critical Areas Ordinances. CPA99-04 Johnston property: at time of project specific application stormwater and habitat management plans and geotechnical report as required by the Stormwater Management and Critical Areas Ordinances. CPA99-05 Spigarelli property: at time of project specific application a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. CPA99-11 Whittaker property: at time of project specific application, a habitat management plan addressing the effected portion of the Quilcene River as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. CPA99-13 Bailey property: at time of project specific application a transportation study as required by the County Subdivision Ordinance, a stormwater management plan as required by the Stormwater Management Ordinance and Aquifer Recharge Report as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Note: Existing documents and reports may be submitted or referenced by applicants at the ti~ne of specific project application per Jefferson County Development Ordinances for consideration of impact mitigation. Other reports or studies may be required as necessary during review of project specific applications. The following projects require additional mitigation under SEPA in order to avoid probable adverse impacts: Finnila & Tudor/Thompson amendments CPA 99-09 & CPA 99-10: The amendment represents an upzone of 26 acres from Rural Residential to Neighborhood/Visitor Commercial Crossroads in a location not identified for such development in the Comprehensive Plan. The probable impacts need to be considered of the future development that would be allo~ved under the Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad designation. Commercial development would be likely to result in an increased need for transportation/infrastructure/public services such as fire and police protection as well as emergency health services. Such impacts might best be addressed through a sub-area planning process. Current regulations set a limit of 45% impervious surface on development. This could result in 11.7 acres of impervious surface at total build-out of a 26 acre commercial zone. Future commercial development is likely to result in increased stormwater run-off as a result of this increase in impervious surface. Drainage from the sites could drain off-site into Pleasant Harbor in Hood Canal. Hood Canal containing Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook, two ESA listed species. In order to address possible significant cumulative impacts that would be encouraged by this amendment, prior to approval of the amendment the folloxving studies will be completed: 1. An engineered stormwater plan addressing the cumulative impacts of complete build-out of the approximately 26 acres. 2. A transportation, infrastructure, public service analysis tied to the level of service assumptions made in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. A full assessment of planning growth management indicators such as population forecasts and allocated non-urban population distributions, existing commercial areas and infill opportunities. Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce CPA99-20: The amendment proposes to delete a policy in the Land Use Element that requires a site to have been in existence and having some built environment in July 1990 and to have current uses serving the Jefferson County population. The amendment proposes that commercial designations be alloxvable for properties that "could serve" the population of Jefferson County. The cumulative result of this amendment might be commercial sprawl with its attendant environmental impacts of increased stormwater run-off, traffic, exhaust emissions, noise, increased infrastructure and public service needs in terms of fire and police protection, and the need to meet fire flo~v requirements. In order to address possible significant cumulative impacts that would be encouraged by this amendment, prior to approval of the amendment, the following studies should be completed: 1. A full assessment of planning growth management indicators such as population forecasts and allocated non-urban population distributions, existing commercial areas and infill opportunities. 2. A transportation, infrastructure, public service analysis tied to the level of service assumptions made in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce CPA 99-22: This amendment would extend West End exemptions in regard to home-based businesses and cottage industries to eastern Jefferson County and would allow light industrial uses conditionally in rural commercial districts in the portion of Jefferson County lying further than 10 miles from an Urban Growth Area. The amendment would mean that home- based businesses and cottage industries sited further than ten (10) miles from an Urban Growth Area would not be required to relocate in the event they grew beyond the scale permitted for such activities but could obtain a conditional use permit to stay in the rural residential location; would not be subject to a limitation on the number of off-site employees; would not be subject to a restriction on retail sales and ~vould not be subject to a restriction on hours of operation. Auto, truck, or heavy equipment repair, autobody work or paint shop and large-scale furniture repair would be allowed as cottage industries. Parking and storage of heavy equipment and storage of materials for use on other properties would not be limited or need to be incidental to the primary nature of the cottage industry. The cumulative result of this amendment might be commercial sprawl with its attendant environmental impacts of increased stormwater run-off, traffic, exhaust emissions, noise, increased infrastructure and public service needs in terms of fire and police protection, and the need to meet fire flow requirements. In order to address possible significant cumulative impacts that would be encouraged by this amendment, prior to approval of the amendment the following studies should be completed: 1. A full assessment of planning growth management indicators such as population forecasts and allocated non-urban population distributions, existing commercial areas and infill opportunities. 2. A transportation, infrastructure, public service analysis tied to the level of service assumptions made in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. CI-IIM_i C U .:~ :.NE~0RHOOD/VISITOR ~Nr~t~.~M C0~RCIAL ZONE CROSSROAD \ \. LEGEND: LAND USE AND RURAL DISCOVERY gat' N EIG IIBO RH"O"O D/VIS [TO R CROSSROAD INTERIM ('OMMERCIAL 'gONE LEGEND: I.A~tA.NCE '~KUCI:~NG ~(O ~YCAYATGNC D~ ~AY GR~RY 4 ~QU~ ~ CO~B~ SCM.E; t' = Jefferson Coun~ Comprehensive Plan 3=43 August 28. 1998 IRGE ,lW ~01024093 TAX 132 901024002 TAX 159 WI'iH & SUBJ / EASE 5.19 a. 901024023 901024005 SE SE (N 350' W Of RD) A TAX 52 (LESS TAX 5.~8 a. SCALE: 1"=200' 901111009 aW NE(E OF ¢0 RO 181 S~/2 NE(E 0FCO R0~8) (CO S~OP 8LOGS A JAIL) 901024082 TAX 111 1.71 o. COUA4~' C~'tURC~I HAOLOCZ 0UMP / % 901111002 -'1/2 NE: NE 20.00 OOv'T LOT ,3 LAND USE AND RURAL NESS' CORNER GENERAL INTEEIM CO.M.',IERCIAL Z~NE 7.,4 INC. SNO~T PLAT $C,U,~: l' := 450' LEGEND: August 28, 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-3 9 TRACT 15 502152019 SW NW (W OF HWY) :19.~8 a. 502152004 TAX ,38 5.07 a. ./ :FAX 39 5.27 a. STATE 502152005 tAX ~9 1.,I.0 a. \ \ LOT 4 50215 2016 LOT 5 0.91 ~. 0.90 50215201 LOT 1 3.07 ~. 502152002 TAX40 6.57 ~. STATE 502152002 TAX 40 N87~6'lg'W (sw~/6 ~ ~- W W 0 ....1 t~lCq 0 OW W ~/~ W 0 x I-- o ~> oo o×~ ~0o .-{ x .~$~ '-4 0 c/1 o · .o 0 i-. I-'~-~ 0 v /2 Gl~,v C,t~.r~ ®oil C, our.~ b/ /c/n//y' /~ ¢rccn/oc/¢ A/x/ting ~oc~ D¢~/'qna/ion T'otd ?er/meter i~ootoc1¢.' IJ.~lg, lf 12;00 POR S ~ SEC 17,T 28 N,R 1 E, W.M. JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON AHEHDHEHT TO ~HER HARBOR YILLAOE COHDO~I~UHS PHASE 3 YDLtOF CO~O$- PD$ 22~-221 14 SOUIli I/4 L"I~NER 2O 10 x / 8 6 PORT ~ -. _LUDLOW BAY 5 (~) 4 3 2 1 / / / / / / = JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Item Information/Description Consent Agenda Item ~'Regular Business (check one) FOR WEEK OF: February 7, 2000 Description -- a brief description of the agenda item: Please include project, road, contract, grant, etc. number if one is available for the Commissioner Index. 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Petition Board Packet Issue -- a short outline of the issue: including poficy issue falls within; strategy or objective issue supports; key reference areas (law/poficy/regulation): The Board has scheduled a public hearing on the fifteen (15) amendment petitions for February 9, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the County Courthouse. Opportunity Analysis --What is the type of action Board is being asked to take: Discussion/decision- -ff decision-what is the range of possible solutions considered by the department in preparing its recommendation. Review the attached information on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Specific Departmental Recommendation -- why was the action recommended and what would be the impact of not taking the action: What specific action is necessary by the BOCC approval - adoption - deny - remand back to department. The information is intended to facilitate the Board's decision making process on the proposed amendments. Review Process -- If this issue was sent back for further review by the Board, please indicate the additional reviews undertaken. If the review is simply good business poficy--indicate what reviews have taken place. Risk Management Fiscal/Budget Public Services Director [] Legal/Prosecuting Attorney Fi Department Head [] Board Management Team Other impacted Departments - Please list Work Plan including What, Who, When and How has been completed. YES (Please provide copy) NO (Why Not?) (Check one) Planning Commission Work Plan JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Al Scalf, Director To: From: Date: Subject: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Department of Community Development February 2, 2000 Public Hearing scheduled for February 9, 2000 on 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Petitions The attached packet contains: · A matrix summarizing the Comprehensive Plan amendment review process so far, · Jefferson County Planning Commission's findings, conclusions and discussion amendments together with attached minority reports, · Agency comments, · SEPA mitigations from the Threshold Determination, and · Maps on the proposed The information is intended to be helpful to the Board in its deliberations on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in conjunction with the public hearing scheduled for February 9, 2000. Building Permits/Inspections (360) 379-4450 Development Review Division Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 Comprehensive Plan Review Matrix CPA # Initial BOCC Threshold Det CTED PC Rec Minority Rpt Staff Rec Action CPA 99-01 Forward for Forward MDNS Deny None Smith consideration CPA 99-02 Forward £or Forward MDNS Deny Deny Yes Moa consideration CPA 99-03 Forward £or Forward DNS Deny Deny Livingston consideration CPA 99-04 Forward for Forward MDNS Deny Approve Johnston consideration CPA 99-05 Forward for Forward MDNS Deny None Spigarelli consideration CPA 99-06 Reject Docket ~ ~,~, ~'~ ~.~ ~ ~ Nesset ' ~:~':~-~, ~' CPA 99-09 Fo~ard for Fo~ard MDNS* Deny Docket Yes Finnila consideration CPA 99-10 Fo~ard for Fo~ard MDNS* Deny Docket Yes Tudor consideration CPA 99-11 Fo~ard for Forward MDNS Approve Deny Whi~aker consideration CPA 99-12 Forward for Fo~ard DNS Approve Approve Hilton consideration CPA 99-13 Reject Forward MDNS Deny Deny Yes Bailey CPA 99-14 Fo~ard for Fo~ard DNS Approve Approve OPG consideration CPA 99-18 Fo~ard for Fo~ard DNS Approve Approve DPW consideration CPA 99-20 Fo~ard for Fo~ard MDNS* Deny Deny Yes Pt Hadlock consideration Chamber CPA 99-21 Fo~ard for Fo~ard DNS Deny Deny EDC consideration CPA 99-22 Reject Forward MDNS* Deny Deny Yes Quilcene/ Brinnon Chamber * In order to address possible significant cumulative impacts encouraged by this amendment, environmental review required certain studies prior to approval. CPA matrix JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 To: From: Date: Subject: Jefferson Coun .t.t.w Board of Commissioners Jefferson Coun .ty Planning Commission January. 27, 2000 Planning Commission Findings on proposed 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Petitions The Planning Commission met on November 3rd, December 15th, 1999 and on January 1st, January 12th, and January 19:h 2000 to deliberate the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan . Public hearings were held on November 17th and December 1, 1999. The Commission accepted ~,Titten public comment until December 9, 1999. The Commission received and reviewed the Threshold Determination made on December 15th, 1999 and reviewed comments on that determination received by the due date of December 29t~'., 1999. On Januarv 19, 2000 the Jefferson Coun.ty Planning Commission voted to forward their findings. conclusions and discussion concerning the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the Board of County Commissioners. Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Heating: Feb. 9, 2000 Public Comment: Nancy Dorgan ! Re: CPA 99-01 (Smith) Acreage for commercial expansion is a precious commodity under GMA planning because our rural character is a precious commodity. I am glad that it is or we end up looking like areas on the other side of Puget Sound for whom smart growth came too late. For some members of the business community, there will never be enough commercial acreage or opportunity, but the state and county have chosen not to go in that direction any more. It is a continuing choice that the Board must make in nearly all of the amendments before you tonight, and I want to encourage you to continue to support smart growth and growth management under known criteria. That is our best hope for the protection of our rural environment from sprawl. Let's concentrate our commercial expansion efforts within urban growth areas as needed and infill parcels that are already available in rural centers. It's not a popular stance with those who have so much to gain from commercial designation of their property, but the destiny of the county is literally in your hands and your efforts to nurture and protect it from unmanaged development and sprawl will be deeply appreciated by many more people than you will ever hear from tonight. Thank you. Olympic EnVironmental Council P.O. Box 1906 Port Townsend, WA 98368 FAX: (360) 379-8442 2-6-00 Board of County Commissioners County Court House Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners, In 1991 the citizens of this county through the Jefferson 2000 survey indicated that the number 1 reason they like living here is the small town/rural atmOsphere and secondly the natural environment. These are the same "factors" the residents of this county believe are most at risk during the next ten years. Almost all the proposed amendments to our newly adopted Comprehensive Plan will manifest this risk. And we ask why after all the years, sweat, and money would we want our plan undermined? Amendments CPA-99-20,21,22 could affect the entire county in very drastic ways, ultimately the loss of rural lands and life style. Such proposals needs public process with broad public participation, SEPA review, and a determination of cumulative impacts. 1-695 and the current tax cut petitions are a wake up call that tax payers are unwilling to subsidize the costs of the impacts from such unfettered speculative development. These amendments wold allow conversion along our highways to commercial strip development via home businesses and cottage industries with impacts that would fall to the tax payers. The limitations on cottage industries in our comp plan are intended to" prevent the activity from detracting from adjacent land uses and the rural character of the area." CPA 99-22 would gut the goals and policies that respect and reflect the vision of the county residents. The permitted uses and performance standards for Rural Commercial Lands and home businesses in our Comprehensive Plan are consistent with the GMA criteria and should not be disrupted. The kind of commercial/industrial activity identified here is exactly what we want to encourage in designated areas in the county. The Economic Development Council is given our tax dollar support to help these local businesses grow in the designated commercial/industrial areas to help sustain our rural communities. Rather than amending our comprehensive plan let's make sure that if there is a home business in Quilcene or Brinnon that needs to grow it gets the assistance the EDC has to offer. There has been an erroneous comparison made between the West End where no commercial lands are designated and the east county. The Comprehensive Plan is very clear about this distinction. The population growth for the West End is projected to be about 43 people. The impacts of the flexibility allowed in the comp plan for home businesses and cottage industries in the West End reflect the nature of the §rowth and economy there. The Bally Amendment CPA 99-13 is another attempt at inappropriate urban development in a rural area. The implications of this amendment are far reaching in that every large parcel of land in the county could eventually find high density small parcels on their perimeters that would bring pressure for conversion, a viral- type of impact that would leave Jefferson County a suburb to the I-5 corridor with all the amenities of Everywhere, USA. It is the very nature of our rural lands which draws people to them and it is this phenomenon that could guarantee their extinction. Thus the GMA and our Comprehensive Plan give us direction on land use in the rural areas so they will not be degraded by speculation. Further the plan provides for commercial growth in designated areas. Many people have chosen a rural home and lifestyle rather than live in urbanized industrial areas. Commercial/industrial ventures are a gamble at making a profit. We support these efforts by providing infrastructure in clearly designated areas. The Olympic Environmental Council encourages you to seek out the desires and values of your constituents through a valid survey-Jeff.erson 2010- to see if the poplation of Jefferson County has changed so radically that their values as revealed in 1991 are no longer relevant. If this was shown to be the case then we would consider the extreme changes being offered by the EDC, Chambers of Commerce and other speculative and commercial entities. Lacking evidence of such a shift it appears that the citizens very much value the natural environment and rural lifestyle as provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, Julie Jaman Board, Olympic Environmental Council Jefferson County Home Builders Association I P.O. BOX 1399 Port Hadlock WA 98339 Phone: 360-379-8784 Fax: 360-379-8785 Websife: www.jeffcohba.com E-Mail: jchba@olympus.com February 9, 2000 Subject: Public Comment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments Attention: Board of County commissioners The Jefferson County Home Builders Association is on record in opposing much of the land use recommendations that were gaffed by an agendized planning department and promoted by the lackey majority on the Planning Commission. The Building Industry Association of Washington continues in it's efforts to amend the Growth Management Act at the legislative level. Since the inception of this ill adviSed legisIation both the urban and rural components of Washington State have found that the GMA has become, the NGMA, the No Growth Management Act. The current planning commission majority has'.validated ~vhat.criticS have been saying. Like Nancy Reagan when she was the first lady and advised the nation to "just say no" to drugs, the current planning commission majority advises the BOCC to just Say no to growth. The county's comprehensive plan is a social document promoted by the no growth community, inside and outside of our county. It is complicated, wordy, replete with lofty ideals and impossible objectives. The plan is a bureaucrat's dream, lots of process guaranteeing job security and assuring a never ending stream of public comment and allowing political cover for inaction. The amendment process now findS' the petiti6ners in l~0nt of the BOCC with another public comment period. The planning commission has 'again' demonstrated that anything that sounds like the "d" word as in development is anathema. Critics of the of,the county's comprehensive plan have been demonized bemuse we questioned the veracity of certain commiSSioners during the election cycle. We were told the countY's plan is a living documentwith the opportunity to modify over time. We now find ourselves once again about to be victimized.by the no growth, Luddite community ably iepreSented by the under achievers on the planning commission. The Growth Management Heatings Board, CTED and citizen activists have effectively "spooked" the BOOC to inaction. The BOCC has given up it's leadership role. This is another election year and leadership and performance will be an issue! If my information is correct, there are twenty two proposed amendments awaiting BOCC action.. As expected the planning commission has not supported anything that relates to opening the door of economic opportunity in Jefferson County. Economic development is the"d" word and this current planning commission is going to have none of that. The Jefferson County Home Builders Association represents a significant portion of the construction workers and suppliers in Jeffers°n County. Our members generally offer higher wages than the average wage in the county private sector. Building generates a significant portion of the sales tax revenue that is collected in Jefferson County. We build communities and live in the communities we build, we are significant stakeholders in working for a prosperous Jefferson County. Mission Statement ~'l'he Trade Association for the building industry of Jefferson County, working with the State and National organizations, to promote and strengthen a favorable business environment for the benefit of Association members and their communities." We wish to comment on CPA 99-13 Opponents of the proposed Bailey subdivision are like barnyard chickens, scratching in the dirt to dig up worms. The coalition of NIMBY'S and no growth activists would have us believe that increasing density would result in a domino effect compromising the integrity of the comprehensive plan. Nonsense! Other than describing densities there is no prescriptive language in the GMA that sets so called bright line densities. If the BOCC insists on following CTED recommendations, why are we having public hearings at all. Why not turn over the management of the comp plan lock stock and barrel to the bureaucrats in Olympic? What ever happened to bottoms up approach as regards the GMA. What ever happened to common sense and logic in Jefferson County?. Is the GMA a crayon to color us stupid? We wish to comment on CPA 99-21 There is no legal requirement to have an Economic Development Component in the comp plan. However we are in support of recognizing economic development as a goal. What we are not in support of is a social dissertation with "feel good" words and no specifics. None of us are against education, transportation, the disadvantaged and the litany of other societal needs. Economic development should be specific with realistic goals and measurable results. Our industry and endeavors were completely ignored in the current section. The social components of the current language are more than amply covered in other sections of the comp plan. We support the common sense approach of the proposed amendment. Respectively submitted, ' I'M HOPING THAT AFTER TONIGHT AND TOMORROW NIGHT'S STATEMENTS ABOUT OUR COMP. PLAN -- Our entire comm unity will UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BETTER THAN WE DO NOW ABOUT WHY THERE IS SUCH INTENSE FEELING ABOUT PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAN. THIS DOESNq' MEAN IT CANNOT AND WILL NOT EVOLVE OVER TIME. BUT THERE ARE SOME REASONS -- CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND, IN MY OPINION -- WHY CHANGE OF THE PLAN SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN WITH GREAT CAUTION... In the past 10 years it has not been easy to be an advocate of a Growth Management - based comp plan. Jefferson County has had only one previous comp plan (in New England, comprehensive plans, of sorts, go back into the last century ). Urban areas, with extreme pressure for growth, have had them for a long time. Rural counties -- some might say, backward rural counties, have been slow to adopt them. Given the requirements for constraint that a comp plan brings, we can see why. DAVE CU NNINGHAM, NOW VICE PRESIDENT FOR POPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WAS, TO MY NOWLEDGE, THE FIRST PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNTY, AND MIDWlFED THE FIRST COMP. PLAN -- AND HE TOLD ME ONCE ABOUT FINDING THINGS BURNING ON HIS LAWN WHEN THE PLAN FIRST CAME OUT. BY 1990, THAT PLAN WAS CLEARLY OBSOLETE -- VAGUE, SHALLOW, HARDLY WORKABLE, AND IT WAS CLEAR THAT A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD BE REQUIRED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY -- REQUIRED, THAT IS, IF WE WERE TO MAINTAIN A RURAL QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE FACE OF A RAPIDLY INCREASING RATE OF GROWTH. The GMA, coming in 1991 held out great hope that we could come together as a community around the need to MANAGE this growth. A rapid rate of growth seems to make everyone a little crazy. There's money to be made, if you know how to exploit the growth, and if you have a free hand -- that is, if you have no regulations to slow down your ambitions. You begin to see housing developments where farms used to be; people who can afford "open land" feel that the world is coming to an end -- tourists from the screwed up urban areas used to seeing pretty rural vistas and red barns get very upset when they see clear-cuts, traffic jams, and endless tracts of houses insetead -- and visions of various suburban villans -- the one I've referred to most frequently is the Kent Valley, south of Seattle -- when I was a boy, some of the most productive farm land in the world -- now completely paved over. are the questions that had to be asked in 1990 -- asked from scratch -- and we were have then county commissioners who asked them: Can the growth be focussed? CAN OlD SPRAWL? Can the infrastructure costs of new developments be born by the er, and the in-coming people, and not long-term residents? Can a rural quality of life be maintained in the face of rapid growth? Can the very water systems upon which all economic viability depends, be protected while there is rapid development? Can there be efficient transportation systems planned in advance, prior to development sprawling anywhere and everywhere? Can fish-bearing streams -- or former fish-bearing streams for the most part -- be protected during growth? Can there be some continuance of forestry and agriculture -- for jobs, and for the possibility that we would begin evolving towards the self-sufficiency that was once the hallmark of rural America -- all this in one of the fastest-growing counties in the state -- in the co untry, actually. Those were the questions that had to be asked, and THOSE WERE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT ASKED. As a newcomer to the county -- seeking to return to my boyhood haunts, finding myself on the Planning Commission just as the CMA hit, I knew it was going to be a tough ride. I thought it would be tough, not because people didn't see the wisdom of the CMA, but rather, because the GMA itself was complex and flawed. Still, I thought we could work it out -- and it would bring us together as a community. I quickly found that there was a fierce resistance to any growth management -- to any planning whatsoever -- let alone zoning. YET, AFTER 8 LONG YEARS, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ACHEIVED -- AMIDST (I COUNTED THEM BACK A FEW YEARS) OVER 60 COMPRISES MADE -- PRE'FrY WELL EVENLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE VARIOUS FACTIONS -- _~_~..'.'_~_~;; ,~n..~.~NWTHFR.q,, Awn ,,pA~ ~_,_,_%~.:~UlNG- SO I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE REASON THERE IS A SENSE OF PROTECTIVENESS AROUND THE COMP PLAN IS NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE DONq' REALIZE IT IS A "LIVING DOCUMENT", AS RICHARD WOJT HAS PUT IT, AGAIN AND AGAIN...OF COURSE IT HAS TO CHANGE AND EVOLVE... ·.. BUT BECAUSE IT TOOK 8 LONG YEARS TO ACHIEVE, MEETING AFTER MEETING -- LITERALLY, THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF CITIZENS' TIME, COMING OUT TO SHARE THEIR HOPES AND DREAMS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTY. THE COMP PLAN IS BORN OF HUGE WORK, GREAT PAIN, SOME AMAZING WISDOM ... THERE HAVE BEEN HEARINGS AND HEARINGS ... ATTEMPTS AT END RUNS AROUND THE WHOLE THING .... POLITICAL CAMPAIGNSS RUN, IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, ON A PLATFORM TO GET RID OF THE CMA COMPLETELY. ..... IT IS BASED ON THE SIMPLE FACT THAT, IN THE FACE OF RAPID GROWTH, YOU WILL NOT MAINTAIN THE VALUES YOU HAVE CHERISHED IN A COMMUNITY IF YOU DONq' RESTRAIN YOURSELVES. THE COMP PLAN IS A STATEMENT OF THAT RESTRAINT -- IT IS A COMPRIMISE, AMONG US, LAS A COMMUNITY, EVERY INCH OF THE WAY. IT IS A GUIDE TO GROWTH BASED ON THE HOPE THAT IF WE ADHERE TO THIS PLAN, THE GROWTH WILL NOT LEAVE US LOOKING LIKE SOUTH KITSAP COUNTY, OR, YES, THE KENT VALLEY SOUTH OF SEATTLE. FINALLY, WOULD WE BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE COMP PLAN? YES, OF COURSE, BUT NOT IN THE WAY THAT ENEMIES OF THE COMP PLAN USUALLY MEAN: WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT IT, IF WE LIVED TOGETHER LIKE COOPERATIVE NEIGHBORS, RESPECTING EACH OTHERS' VALUES -- CARING FOR THE LAND ... AND EVEN FOR EACH OTHERS' ECONOMIC NEEDS LIKE WE'RE CAPABLE OF DOING, BUT WHICH WE NEVER SEEM TO GET AROUND DOING. SINCE WE HAVEN't YET LEARNED TO LIVE TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY -- AND SINCE THE HOPE OF THIS DIMINISHES TO THE DEGREE THAT WE ENCOURAGE RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTY -- WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF US ... IN THE MIDDLE OFOUR DIFFERING VALUES, OUR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AWARENESS ON JUST HOW SERIOUS OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS ARE, OR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS -- THE COMP. PLAN IS RIGHT THERE -- A BUNCH OF WORDS, TRYING TO FIND MIDDLE GROUND -- SUPPOSEDLY SPEAKING FOR THE COMMON GOOD. I SAY ALSO THIS IN HOPES THAT THE REASONS SO MANY HERE FEEL PROTECTIVE OF THE COMP PLAN WILL BE BE'FI'ER UNDERSTOOD -- THAT WE WILL ALL COME TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THAT THE COMP. PLAN CAN AND MUST CHANGE -- AND THAT, WHERE IT DOES CHANGE, IT WILL BE DONE WITH THE COMMON-GOOD -- THE ESSENCE OF OUR HOPES FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS COMMUNITY-- IN MIND. I SUGGEST THIS BE THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING WHETHER to accept CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITY PLAN IS APPROVED. Do the proposed ammendments serve the common good. Feb. 9, 2000, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Meeting. To: County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Glen Huntingford, & Richard Wojt From: Kenneth & Evelyn Livingston Re: CPA 99-03 submitted by Kenneth & Evelyn Livingston While we respect the difficulty of the task of the Planning Commission, we also want to voice our disappointment and disapproval of the findings. We would like to address the first four findings, which seem to be the major objections pertaining to the Lopeman Lot. Findings #1 "In order to approve the amendment, lot 1 of the Lopeman Short Plat and several of Morrissey's addition would need to be rezoned in order to connect the requested lot to the Rural Village Center." Rebuttal. These lots were previously designated commercial, and as for Lot #1, owned by George Barber, he supports this amendment 100% and has shared in the cost of filing this amendment. I have a letter to prove this. Findings #2 This paraphrases Findings #1. Rebuttal. If the above properties reverted back to their original status, there would be no leapfrogging. Findings #3 "This lot is within the boundary of the PUGA..." Rebuttal. Tenuous at best. Note the word "Provisional" before the UGA. Findings #4 "In addition to the allowed residential use, there are non- residential uses permitted in RR 1:5." Rebuttal The list is not realistic. As for the veterinarian hospital, there is one less than a quarter of a mile away, the same for a commercial nursery. The other businesses include bed and breakfast, church, assisted living, group home, and nursing home, all of which require a modicum of tranquility, not a busy road across from the Public Works Facility, which if the RR 1:5 designation remains, becomes a public nuisance. Which brings us back to our original argument, voiced over the past two years at countless meetings. The main obstacle is the highly visible Public Works Facility, with its procession of cats, and earthmovers, and highway department vehicles so enormous a sign warns about them right across from the Lopeman page 2 of 2 lot. Not to mention the solid waste dumpsite, the county jail, and a gravel pit, in the vicinity. Also, the trucks loading up at the A&L Topsoil business adjacent to the property, Lots 3 & 4 of the Lopeman Lot. Half the Lopeman Lot has been operating as commercial property for the past 12 years. The owners, Mr. & Mrs. Smyth, are trying to terminate the lease but since the property would then revert to RRi:5, they no longer have that option. The Smyths, along with Mr. Barber, are 100% in favor of this amendment. In sum~ What you are seeing on the map is inconsistent with the reality of the area, namely the encroachment of the county properties, including the newly acquired Cotton Lot by the PUD, which will add to the problem. The intensification surrounding the lot requires that it be included within the Rural Village Center. Thank you for your favorable consideration. Comments before the BOCC February 9, 2000 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Although I'm signed up to comment on CPA 99-01, the current amendment application, my comments are in regards to spot rezoning in general. I've read the applications for several of the site-specific rezone requests, and the opinions of the planning staff and commission. When most of these rezone requests are analyzed, reasonable arguments can be made for their approval when ONLY THE SITE IN QUESTION OR ITS IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS ARE CONSIDERED. However, you, as commissioners for the whole county, must consider the cumulative impacts. It may appear that justice is being served with one rezone here and an adjustment to a commercial tightline there, but over the course of just a few annual amendment cycles, we're back staring down the paved throat of a beast that the GMA is supposed to keep at bay; that beast is SPRAWL. These are not easy decisions, and I do not wish to swap places with any of you for a minute. Property owners of residential land adjacent to busy roads and commercial sites can make a compelling argument for rezoning to commercial. However, adjacency to commercially zoned property is not a valid justification for conversion to commercial zoning. There will ALWAYS be some conflict at land use boundaries, and that's exactly why the GMA specifies that tightlines be drawn around industrial and commercial areas, and those boundaries not be taken lightly! There is much support for the intent as well as the implementation of the GMA in this community. Please consider that as you make your decisions regarding all the site-specific amendments. Well-intentioned rezones will lead to roadside sprawl, with its high infrastucture costs and acres of pavement. We must find a way to ensure that the property owners who bear the brunt of decisions made for the larger community aren't left dangling, but a rezone isn't always the solution. Phil Dinsmore PO Box 796 (320 Meadow Rd.) Port Townsend 379-0225 To: Jefferson County Commissioners Wojt, Harpole, and Huntingford Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments ~'~,. t'~l T ~9 February 9, 2000 I am hem tonight to express my opinions about whether or not there is any hope of establishing a balanced economic growth environment for Jefferson County. I am a board member of the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Port Townsend C 'hamber of Commerce, and a voting member of the Jefferson County Economic Development Council. I have lived in Jefferson County with my wife, and now, two daughters, for just over seven years. We came to Jefferson County for what we saw as an area having the potential for economic opportumty, as well as a safe and beautiful environment. I was raised in a small town in New Hampshire where the political issues on growth and environment were much the same as what we have here. How can we best use our land in order to provide for our citizens, while at the same time preserving the quality of our lands and resources? I left New Hampshire in the spring of 1989 and have stayed in touch with my family back east. When I call home, we often talk of what has changed in our town since I left. When I left New Hampshire, the economy was devastated by recession. Minimum wage employment was thought to be a Godsend. In the eleven years since I left New Hampshire, the economic and environmental conditions have changed dramatically. The rural transportation corridors around and through my hometown have seen tremendous growth, mostly in the form of outlet-stores and strip- malls. The old mill district and historic downtown has seen a vast amount of restoration and development into a more tourist-based center. As my interests have been stimulated in Jefferson County's economic and environmental conditions, I have tried to understand some of the more apparent things that changed my small hometown, and how these same changes could affect Jefferson County. Certainly, the transportation corridors were the natural areas for the promotion of economic growth, and so was the historic draw of the downtown/Main Street area. But what ultimately stimulated the process of rapid economic growth, came from policy changes made by the county's and town's citizens who were fed-up with the attempts of the local government elected officials to maintain the schools, roads, sewers, government offices, etc. by repeatedly increasing property taxes. Preservation policies that had been based on balanced growth with respect for the environment were changed to promote only economic gain so as to provide stability to the tax base. These measures have obviously worked, for my mom, while on a recent visit from New Hampshire, has informed me that her property taxes have actually gone down, wl~dle the value of her property has gone up. New and technologically advanced public and private schools have been built. Roads and fire and police protection have been maintained and enhanced, and there are solid plans and schedules for providing sewer facilities in the outlying areas where aquifer recharge areas can be protected from the inevitable residential growth. When I look at the solutions that thc people of my small hometown community came up with, I wonder if these are thc same choices that the people of Jefferson County will be faced with. The Growth Management Act and our Comprehensive Plan provide policies and guidelines that should help our county and city elected officials make the right choices for providing balanced economic growth and maintaining a quality way-of-life for their constituents. It Is unfortunate that ~1 no growth special interest groups keep clouding the real issues for our elected officials in how to promote a balanced growth plan. Jefferson County's population will continue to grow beyond the twenty-year projections. Therefore, a no growth stance is not the answer, nor is it responsible. But neither are strip-malls and outlet stores. The proposed Comprehensive Plan .aanendments regarding proper designation for Urban Growth Areas and the use of the land through the Land Use Tables and Maps will appropriately provide space for new businesses, and for existing businesses who wish to expand, as well as opportunities for more affordable housing. This will provide sales tax revenues and bring stability to our property tax base. We need to recruit businesses that provide clean, high tech~tlight industrial growth opportunities, and that can provide good paying jobs for our citizens. We need desperately to make ~g that all of the people have the ability to provide sustainable and/or prosperous hfestyles for then' farmlies. When the promot~o~l~e-based businesses and cottage industries, through the use of loop-holed policies which provide the only means of unrestricted economic development in our county, have infiltrated our privacy that we have come to find in our rural residential areas, everyone 'Mil ask, why didn't we have the fore-sight to provide real oppommities for economic development in appropriate areas throughout the county? We need sustainable economic growth opportunities that will make our community more diverse and somewhat independent of fluctuating regional, national, and worldwide economies. Tourism, home-based businesses, and cottage industries alone can not do this. You, as Commissioners, should not let the minority mtluence of t · ' ' ', -- .... , who attempt to restrict every oppommity for competition in the marketplace, and who attempt to restrict the use of any additional lands for economic opportunity, affect your decision on whether or not to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. If you do not approve these amendments and continue to follow down the "no growtherl" path without considering taking the path of balance, the results will ultimately bring the same conditions that brought strip-maNs and outlet stores to my hometown. Because I want Port Townsend and Jefferson County to be my family's hometown, I urge you, as our elected officials, to set the fight policies for balanced growth using the ~ amendments proposed to the Comprehensive Plan. You must listen to the tree majority of your constituents who are desperately hoping for a more positive economic outlook for Jefferson County. Sincerely, Mark L. Grant, 75 Haada Laas Road, Port Townsend, Wa 98368 TRACY M. HEIMS Attorney at Law 9875 BRIDGEPORT WAY SOUTHWEST · LAKEWOOD, WA 98499-2825 PHONE (253) 581-9900 · FAX (253) 581-9920 EMAIL: Heimslaw@aol.com February9, 2000 Jefferson County Master Plan Amendment Council Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA 98368 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MASTER PLAN, JEFFERSON COUNTY To whom it may concern.: My name is Tracy M. Heims and I represent Jean Johnson, a land owner and business owner in the city of Brinnon and Jefferson County. This letter is intended as a record of objection to the proposed amendments of the master plan for the city of Brinnon and the surrounding area. Our main concerns are CPA99-09, CPA99-10 and CPA99-22, variances from residential to light commercial, in order to enable the construction of a golf course, condominiums, and a grocery store, all to be located outside of Brinnon. The Council has already established this area as residential. The Master Plan was established to control growth and to properly develop the area. The proposed changes convert a residential area to light commercial. The city of Brinnon needs to maintain its city center, its core. Many times the building of a "sub-community," or "urban sprawl" takes away from the city center and ultimately has a reverse effect on business. Brinnon needs to maintain the city integrity by building and creating new business within the city core, not on the fringes. The RCW $ 36.70A.110(3) states that "Urban Growth Areas should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development." Growth of the grocery store variety should be encouraged inside the city where service capacities already exist, and growth of the golf course and resort area should be encouraged outside the city area. There are certain legal issues regarding utilities and other systems that need to be considered as well. If the golf course, hotel and grocery store are allowed, utilities will obviously be affected. For example, recapture and maintenance agreements (for power, sewer, etc.), water retention and detention facilities, water treatment facilities (commonly used in golf resort communities) and, typically, reciprocal easement agreements and declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions. We are particularly concerned with utilities and waste management from all proposed facilities due to their proximity to the Hood Canal. These lands are extremely important to our state and our area. A proper SEPA and NEPA report should be submitted by a disinterested, outside party, and the Shoreline Management Act also needs to be considered due to the proximity to the Hood Canal. A golf course, condominiums and grocery store are simply not worth destroying the delicate, environmental balance. Maintenance of the proposed area is also a concern. Access roads will need to be maintained due to increased traffic from tourism. Utilities will need to be maintained and a police presence as well as fire station coverage will need to be implemented. Many of these costs will probably fall on the local, year long residents in the form of tax increases. Page 1 of 2 Another issue to consider is possible conflicts between residents and visitors. The golf course and proposed improvements are said to be done for the benefit of the Brinnon community. Conflicts will arise regarding many issues including, but not limited to, tee times at the golf course, priority of usage at the golf course, use of the amenities at the hotel, water rights, water access, boat moorage, and general use and enjoyment of the Hood Canal and surrounding areas. Finally, if these proposes are approved by this council, there needs to be some assurances from the hotel developer and any other developers involved. There must be assurances that once work is begun that it will be prosecuted with continuity and diligence to completion. The quality of developments surrounding the hotel, condominiums and grocery store must be similar, if not higher, to that of the hotel, condominium and grocery store. Unfinished developments surrounding the hotel, condominium and grocery store are surely worse than no development at all. In conclusion, our desire is that no new variances be granted. The variance requesting area outside of Brinnon has been zoned residential for a reason. That reason is to allow homeowners to build and to maintain the beauty of the area. New business should be encouraged to locate in the city, so that the city may rejuvenate and may utilize an already existing infrastructure. Our second major concern is the ecological balance of the area. The Hood Canal in our area is pristine and needs to be protected. Grocery stores and other business is wonderful for the area, but should be located appropriately; never at the cost of destroying our environment. ~Tracy?~l. Hehns/ Attoriaey at Law TMH/tmh CC: SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PASSAGE OF COMP. PLAN AMENDMENTS. HEARING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 9TH. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-20 Applicant: Ouilcene/Brinnon and Port Hadlock/Tri-Area Chambers of Commerce I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this amendment to the land use chapter, to properly reflect the original intent as well as the change (by amendment SB6094) in State Law. Under LNP 5.1 (Land Use Chapter Policy 5.1) as written, no new commercial locations will ever be allowed, and there will never be commercial services at Coyle, Gardiner, Shine, Black Point, Cove Park, Leland, Center, or Highway 104/Beaver Valley Road. We need to assure that we rural residents will get the services we need in our own communities so we do not have to rely solely on services elsewhere. The Brinnon community in particular is at risk of being isolated by natural disaster (flood, fire, landslide, bridge damage) and must have the commercial services available to be self-sufficient. As rural communities grow and tourism increases, services will be needed to serve the local and traveling public. amendments to the Growth Management Act under Senate Bill 6094 allowed for these changes, but not all parts of the county plan were updated to include them. Please adopt Amendment 99-20 to the Jeff'erson County Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-22 Applicant: Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this amendment to the county Comprehensive Plan to give all rural communities an equal designation and equal opportunity. Home businesses and cottage industries in all east-side rural areas are under greater restrictions than those in Queets and Clearwater, even though the rural conditions are the same. Home businesses and cottage industries in ail rural parts of our county provide viable economic support for many residents, provide small-scale services for other community members, and create the remote community atmosphere that is an essential part of rural living. Please adopt amendment 99-22, and allow home businesses and cottage industries in our Brinnon and Quilcene communities, as well as others like Coyle and Gardiner, the same exemptions in policies as were provided for those in the west-end. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-21 Applicant: Economic Development Council .(EDC) I ask the Board of Cotmty Commissioners to amend the Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to give greater focus to economic development in the language of the chapter. As citizens, and as county administrators, we must recognize and put a stop to the economic downturn in our county. To this end, the Economic Development Council is a much-needed agency of our local government. The EDC was asked by the Board of County Commissioners to advise them on the possibilities/hr keeping businesses in the county and attracting new businesses. The EDC found that by its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 3 Dated this~ 7"/-./hay of .: , its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Fiunila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please _adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Dated this' ~) day of ~'~Z J'c/~'v . 2000 / its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finni!a, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Conunissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of thmilies of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Datedthis ~ dayof,..~__~o .2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement.(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plato The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commexcial fbrest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discus~d herein, and 9tjpj~ve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ~ ~~ff -~~//~--'~-~' Datedthis tS~)7 dayof ~--~ ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial/:brest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Dated this'~]~} day of .,~_~.,~,, ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) ofcommerciaI forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ~k '~) 6k C C ~O3 ~ Dated this ~g' day of ~Z_ e- ¢' ., 2000 7 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s).99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial areas which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Start Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial fbrest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein,.~.~..~d approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Dated this ,,,.~/f/ day. ' . ,2000 / / its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amen. dement(s) .99-09/99-10 Submitted. as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson.. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial fbrest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments di~ ssed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ? ff~.~d~/~.,'~'gd,~/~_~ Dated this ~ .day of~-J~Z/~'7~' ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comlxehensive Plan Amen.dem. em(s] 99~09/99-10 Subr~itted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial ~brest land to Rural Residential 1 '20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt,this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed( ~'~---herein'/and~//] ,,~appr°ve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 7// ~'-~'~ Datedthis ~ dayof .~e_~._.~ . ,2000 [~ its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 S'ubmitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area~ which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial fbrest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment 0t~ ~ a~ ~ Jefferson County L~ommissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. dayof 7~~-~ ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the conunercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "dom-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston ! ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial fbrest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Dated this. day of ;~~ ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Start Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discu~e. At herein, and approve, these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. .~~W~._~ ~e.~ ~)~ Datedthis c~/.~ dayof ~,'t.l/j~. ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. t ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston l//i ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ~)~ ~7 ~ Dated this _~day of x3d-A~-~~t ~£A~r'2oo0 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10_ Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson, I ask the Board of County Conmfissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions 0fthe current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tfi-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. n /~ Please adopt this amendme t ~ I/~ ~/- Jefferson County Commissioners f~ Q/O~ ]C.2t Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford t,,' ~0~,,~ pP;O~' TBo°Lls2e2n0d, WA 98368 fP' ~, ~ As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, ii ask that you favorably consider the Amendments ,.~ dis?sseSherein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ff~ 00 ~ /~ ' Datedthis ~ dayofJ~2'/. , 0 ^ its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 ~ubmitted as a joint req.uest by plea~nt Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "dom-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ~~~7~Z.~:2__> ~2.-~--.--Dated this _~ay of ._~--~zct.o~ ,2000 ()' : its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural~based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadloek/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ,, /~9,--,---, - ........ Dated this q day of ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. C_Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Plea.qant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Conanercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: St, an Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please a_dopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ._ __.~--~,-,~.~_~-~_~,:~t2'ttL~'~, Dated this FO~;l~day°f O'~~ .,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson, I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt thi.q amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ~,O:_~f. I~c~ .l~l~[C3..Olk3 . Datedthis 72~l[~dayof F~f, OlA4~f ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should.be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleamnt Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thom sp_~_:. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Td-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. /¢2-/ ,, 2000 Dated this 7 ~'~ day of ~G~-/~t-v'J S K O 0 K O' M fi, C. Pg- zl Building Community Spirit February 8, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sirs, The Skookum staff has reviewed the Economic Development Council's (EDC) proposal to amend the Economic Development Chapter of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. We feel compelled to offer the following comments in regard to the two areas where we have some expertise: the county recycling program and economic development as it relates to the lives of the special needs and disadvantaged members of this community. The EDC proposes to eliminate a number of references to infrastructure and support services to special needs populations, apparently based on the rationale that these goals and policies do not belong in the Economic Development Chapter, or that they are redundant. The goals we are referring to include EDG 1.0, 2.0, and 7.0 and all of their attendant policies. We are quite taken aback by this proposal. We believe all existing references to employment training and support for the disadvantaged should remain intact. The infrastructure described above is integral to allowing all members of our community access to the workplace. Economic development encompasses much more than bringing new jobs to town, and it is not limited to private business. It includes training, transportation, and child care, as well as other services and facilities that create a skilled workforce that can find jobs and keep them. Every resident has the right to participate in the economic life of this community and their values and needs should be reflected in this document. It certainly makes strong economic sense to incorporate the disenfranchised into Jefferson County's job recruitment and retention. Employment of individuals from at-risk groups saves us $3700.00 per worker per year in public support monies. The EDC also proposes to strike references to support recycling programs and industries (EDP 6.7 and strategy 2 on p.7-17). Our community brings 250 tons ofrecyclables per month for processing at our local facility. This clearly demonstrates county residents' commitment to recycling programs, a commitment which is congruent with community values expressed in the current comprehensive plan. Removing such references upsets the plan's balance between protecting the environment and managing resources with care. ADMINISTRATION: 385 BENEDICT STREET * RO. BOX 1159, PORT-I-OWNSEND, WA98368 PHONE (360) 385-4980 FAX (360) 379-9049 E-mail. PSNS: 2604 BURWELL STREET .:. BREMERTON, WA 98312 PHONE (360) 475-0756 We do not support adoption of the EDC's amendment proposal, which is the work of a few individuals. The present plan, as you know, reflects the values and experience of a much wider cross-section of Jefferson County, representing the effort and input of many citizens. The removal of key language narrows the scope of the document and makes it vulnerable to interpretations that do not fit with the stated values of our community. Sincerely, J~toakllum Management Team February 9, 2000 To: Re: Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, Glen Huntingford Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan, CPA 99-21 The overall effect of this amendment changes the intent of the County Comprehensive Plan and opens the door to development without regard to quality of life issues and proposes financial costs to taxpayers.. This is particularly apparent in the proposed revisions on P. 7-19 of the Comprehensive Plan, Part B, "Initiative to Attract New Economic Development,' Action items 3 and 4. These Action Items were originally written to provide incentives to specific industries recruited to locate here: value-added wood products, ecosystem rehabilitative industries, as well as small business and cottage industries. As revised in the EDC amendment, the wording is changed to "...incentives, tax breaks, or direct subsidies to business expansion and retention." In other words, tax subsidies to any and all business coming into or in the County, not the specifically named industries. The change warps the intent of this section and proposes a tax burden on the people of this County. A blank check for economic development is contrary to the Growth Management Act as is development without reference to social services, quality of life issues, people and the environment. Chapter 36.70A.020(5) of the GMA, when addressing planning goals, states, (and these are excerpts)- "Encourage economic development.., that ...promotes economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for the unemployed and disadvantaged persons, and... growth ... within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities." Lest I be labeled a "no growth" proponent, I would like to state emphatically that that is not true. I recognize growth as a fact of life. Baring some kind of disaster, it's going to happen and in some cases, needs to happen. This is exactly why the GMA and this County Comprehensive Plan were written: to provide a frame work to channel and encourage growth that benefits and enhances our communities. If we learn from mistakes in the past and from other areas of the country and wisely plan, we can all benefit and still maintain the unique qualities of this area we all call home. I respectfully ask you to reject this amendment. Marilyn Muller ~~2~~-~ P.O. Box 1754 Port To~vnsend, WA 98368 37%9553 mmuller@olympus.net JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GMA HEARING FEBRUARY 9, 2000 Testimony by Joseph Wheeler in support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Bailey/Chevy Chase Property. Introduction. My name is Joseph Wheeler. I live at Kala Point and I have lived in Jefferson County for 27 years. I speak in support of the Chevy Chase Amendment, and will address the following issues: The future of the County's most affordable 18-hole golf course The so-called "catastrophic domino effect" The economic impact of the proposed project, and The need for moderate, common-sense decision making. First, I found a February 2 Port Townsend Leader front page article pertinent to these deliberations because while you consider an action that could negatively impact a public golf course, other County officials and residents are calling for expanded recreational facilities: an aquatic center, play fields and athletic fields. Rejection of the Bailey amendment will certainly adversely impact the continued operation of a wonderful "recreational" facility. The Baileys may well decide not to further subsidize their golf course investment by (1) selling both the home sites and the course itself to investors who could build mega-sized homes and convert the course to private, membership-only use; or the Baileys could (2) convert all of the existing golf course property to 10-acre home sites. Either way the recreational opportunities in Jefferson County could be dramatically reduced. II. Second, the so-called catastrophic domino effect suggested in the February 2 Leader cartoon ad, as well as the Planning Commission majority report, is a remarkable example of scare-tactics at their worst, and stretches past the point of credibility. Given generally accepted growth projections, and given the amount of existing space, this predominantly rural quality is not going to change in my lifetime, and probably not in my children's. We who now live in our "slice-of-heaven" have no right to deny "slice-of- heaven" opportunities to others. III. Third, the economic impact of the proposed project must be factored into the Bailey amendment decision-as well as all growth management decisions. Our County has become a favored re-location destination, especially for new retirees who seek the kind of quality-of-life we enjoy. These are persons who, often, can afford waterfront homes, golf-course frontage homes, view property_as well as more modest home sites; and by relocating here they have already becomiY~a powerful "driver" in the County's economy. These new residents support real estate and home building companies, restaurants, retail shops, the professions including doctors, lawyers, accountants, schools and hospitals, as well as a myriad of other services. They also pay taxes which help keep the County liveable. You, as Commissioners, must recognize the economic impact as you consider these kinds of decisions. We cannot afford a no-growth economy. IV. Lastly, I want to address the issues of good-faith and findings-of-fact. Both must be given proper attention in coming to a decision on this amendment request. The Baileys had worked in good faith with the County for several years, but when the project was abruptly canceled in mid-1999, they first sought a legal remedy--one that would have been very costly to both the County (and its taxpayers) and themselves. But they canceled this litigation when both the Commission and its staff suggested that the project might be better addressed through a GMA amendment. The Baileys also compromised their first project scope by dropping the density by more than 50 percent. Then, in January, the Planning Commission majority issued a report which recommends denial of this new avenue, based upon "findings-of-fact". A minority Planning Commission report, however, differs dramatically, and a review by three, well- respected land-use attorneys also dramatically differs with the majority report and states that findings-of-fact d__Qo support the Growth Management amendment. So what do these differing reports mean? Quite simply, they mean that growth- management actions are not cast in bronze and, as a consequence, you as our elected County Commissioners must approach this decision with no bias and with a large dose of common sense. We in Jefferson County have gone through a decade of tumultuous land-management planning--from no growth to open growth--and we have witnessed similar shifts in the majority position of the Commission itself. Two years ago the majority of Jefferson County residents voted for a Commission we believed would find a common ground and move forward to make moderate, thoughtful growth management decisions. We believe supporting the Bailey amendment represents a moderate, common-sense approach and we urge you to adopt the amendment. CHEVY CHASE GOLF COURSE To: The Jefferson County Commissioners From: Barbara Bailey and Bruce Bailey Ch~,,y Chas~ Golf Course Febmary8,2000 .qq- 13 Given the full agenda at the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendments scheduled for Wednesday/February 9, we are sending you this material in advance of the meeting. We have only recently received in the mail Majority Report from Planning Commission Hearing, and it has takm some time and legal analysis to put together our reactions. Our research conflicts with many of the points of this majority report. We highlight these below and then give you additional comments as an attachment. Certainly, we would not plan to read all this material into the record at the Public Hearing on 2/9, but we would hope you would consider this input in your final decision. We feel the points we raise here are quite compelling. Our current 1:10 zoning for our 200 acres at Chevy Ch~qe includes approximately 70 acres of non-golf course property. This acreage presently can be used for seven (7) ten acre lots if the golf course is kept as is. If future economic analysis would suggest the highest and best use of this land eliminates the golf course, then under current zoning there could be twenty ten acre lots on the property. flour amendment were to pass, we would have the potential for fourteen (14) five acre lots on the non-golf course property. Again, if future economic analysis would suggest the highest and best use of this land eliminates the golf course, then under the new zoning (I:5) there could be up to forty 5 acre lots on the property. Good land planning would suggest clustering homes on our property a much better approach than the large estate lots that would result from either # 1 or # 2 above. But clustering lang,_rage is now NOT included in Jefferson County land policy. If and when such language would ever be included in JeffCo policies is open to conjecture. The advertisement in last week's Leader, suggesting if the Chevy Chase amendment were to pass "all the rural areas could disappear" is silly at best. From the Leader of 12/18/97, it is stated that 87% of Jefferson County is owned by the State or County. Of the remaining acreage, half (6%) is long term commercial timber production. These numbers alone hardly suggest a future without a rural character. 5 The majority report Finding #5 of the Planning Commission is simply incorrect in stating "the subject property is part of an established pattern of lots 10 acres or greater in size." Our property is made up 15 parcels with these acreages taken from County ma_ps: 43.06, 14.40, 1.0, 2.90, 1.91, 4.25, 39.18, 16.05, 20.04, .92, 23.00, 1.00, 2.87, and three(3) Tukey block of 3 lots, 2 lots, and 12 lots. Sixty percent of these parcels are less than 5 acres in size.(Note list of tax lot numbers in our attachment )It would be difficult to say there is any established pattern in this wide range of lot sizes. This finding is typical of the vagueness and inaccuracy of many of the findings in the majority report. 6 The Planning Commission recommendations of the current set of proposed amendments should be consistent in applying crits~ria. See Hilton rezone action. www. chevychasegolf com 74Ol CAPE GEORGE ROAD PORT TOWNSEND WASHINGTON 98368 phonc 8oo.385.8722 or 36o.385.o7o4 ./;ix 360.379.9362 The argument passing this amendment sets a dangerous precedent as a sort of"domino theory" will impact future zoning policy is spurious for three reasons. First, our property is totally SURROUNDED by mostly 1:5 zoning. Chevy Chase does not abut any property to trigger such a domino effect. Secondly, Chevy Chase is a totally unique piece of property..a 200 acre golf course open space with adjoining land. There is no other property similar to this in Jefferson County, nor will there probably ever be such a piece again. Therefore, Chevy Chase will not set a precedent, because of this uniqueness. But most importantly, the domino theory is not creditable because of the speciiic Comprehensive Plan amendment process itself, approved by the Commissioners on behalf of the County. This process, as we have discovered, is complicated, time consuming and expensive. This process is designed to take each proposal on a case- by -case basis and on the facts of each case IN THE END, THE COMMISSIONERS WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON THE CRITERIA OF FUTURE LAND USE POLICY IN JEFFERSON COUNTY. 8 As is stated in Finding/t.4 in the minority report of the Planning Commission, we feel strongly and are supported by facts that our amendment clearly meets LNP 3.3.1 criteria for RR 1:5 Our application also is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. (see attachmen0 Of come, NOTHING would ever happen in terms of development of the Chevy Chase property, no matter what its zoning designation, without close scrutiny of such plans by appropriate County officials and the general public. In other words, all the checks and balances remain in place to ensure that anything proposed for the property at Chevy Chase would be in line with existing laws and policies. We feel these points, which are expanded upon in our attachment, as well as just plain reason and common sense, provide a solid basis for you to approve our amendment. This information will be our last formal input on this matter before your vote. However, we do request now the option of speaking for a few minutes at the end of the comment period on our amendment at your Hearing if we feel our comments are necessary. Our position has been based on compromise, as well as the advice we have received from County officials on the most effective ways to ensure the future of the Chevy Chase Golf Course. We have spent a significant amount of time and effort attempting to define a reasonable position for this future. All we can do now is ask for your support. amara Bailey (~ Attachments: Supporting documentation R. The Planning Commission cites two Hearing Board cases in support of its recommendation to deny the application. R careful reading of both cases actually supports the application. 1. In Cotton Corporation u Jefferson County, case no 98-2- 6617, the Hearing Board upheld Jefferson Countus approach to rural densities by confirming that the RR 1:5, l:lG, and l:ZG densities do not constitute urban growth and satisfies the GMR requirement outlined in RCW 36.?GR.GTGYiS)Cb) For a uariety of rural densities Cfinding 9 page 3327). The addition of twenty 5 acre lots in the rural area does not uiolate this Board decision because Jefferson County will still haue a uariety of rural densities throughout the County. 2. In Smith, Panesko u Lewis CountU, case no 98-2-8011c, the Hearing Board considered a situation in which the County adopted a uniform density of 1:5 throughout all rural areas of the County. The Board stated that although CTED states that densities of less than 1 du per 18 or 28 acres should predominate rural areas, Lewis County is correct when it asserts that S-acre lots in the rural area arc not, per se, a uiolation of GMR (at page 3314). The adoption of 5 acre lots in the rural area is consistent with the GMR and in this case does not result in an extensiue use of 1:5 densities. B. The Planning Commission found at Finding 8 that there are conflicting legal opinions on the use of OFM population guidelines. This is not the case. We preuiously cited the clear language of the Court of Rppeals decision in Clark County, 94 Wash. App. 6?8 (1999). Pro£essor Richard L. Settle is a recognized expert in Washington land use law. In a recent article, Ppofcssor Settle states that in the Clark County decision, the court strictly applied the GMR statute holding that the OFM population projections were only releuant to urban areas. He further stated that The OFM projections were legally irreleuant to county prouisions for nonurban or rural growth. EashJng~ons Gcouth Management ReuolutJon Goes to Court, page 53, in Seattle UniuersitU Law Reuiew, Summer 1999. C. The Chevy Chase property presents a very unique set of Facts that cannot be replicated elsewhere in the rural area. Over 80Z of the surrounding area is currently 1:5, it is not surrounded by Farms or resource lands, and the golf course is not a typical rural use. Given the unique nature of the Chevy Chase property, it is difficult to understand hou the so called domino effect precedent is relevant. D. The Chevy Chase application, as well as any other, should be judged on its merits against the established criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and not an arbitrary standard not contained in the criteria. If an application meets the criteria, the application should be approved. E. The Planning Commission did consider surrounding residential properties in the Hilton rezone application which it approved. See Finding number 3. F. RC~ 36.?OR.G?G(5)(c) suggests that the County can protect the rural character of the area by assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area and reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development in the rural area. The applicable law encourages consideration of the surrounding area and discourages inappropriate conversion of active open space. The Cheuy Chase application is consistent with the law. Proposed BOCC Findings submitted by Chevy Chase 1. The Cheuy Chase property consists of 288 acres of land under single ownership. 2. The parcels and applicable acreage within the Chevy Chase property are as Follous and as shown on the attached map: Parcel ~cre$ B. C. D. E. F. G. H I J g L M M 0 881-292-~65 e81-293-8~4 681-293-~89 881-293-818 e81-384-8~1 ~81-3~4-882 ~81-384-884 881-384-~86 801-311-882 801-311-005 ~81-322-~7 999-28~-4~2 999-288-485 999-2~-5~2 3. Ouer 80~ o£ the area surrounding the Cheuu Chase propertu is currentlg zoned RR 1:5 4. The applicable criteria for designation of RRl:5 zoning is policu LHP 3.3.1. as described belou: fl residential land use designation o£ one duelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1'5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the Countg uitb' a. an established pattern oF the same or similar sized parcels Ci.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels o£ similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediatelu adjacent to the boundaries o£ the Bural Uillage Centers; and d. as an ouerlau to pre-existing deueloped suburban platted subdivisions. 5. This policu clearlg states that the RR 1:5 designation shall be assigned to those areas throughout the Countg uith an established pattern o£ the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., S acres) or smaller sized existing lots o£ 3 APPENDIX B / .zz o.I 62-, record. The plain meaning of the policy provides that County consider the surrounding area and not just the subject property. 6. The Chevy Chase application clearly meets the criteria of LNP 3.3.1. and RCW 36.?OR.O?OCS)(c) for designation as RRI:5. 7. In addition to LMP 3.3.1, approval of the Chevy Chase application promotes and is consistent with the Following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: LNP 1.7 Encourage the use of innovative site planning and design techniques, including lot consolidation opportunities, as a means of preserving rural character, open lands, and protecting the natural environment through development regulations. LNP 3.3 Rural residential densities shown on the Land Use Map shall be designated bg three [3) residential land use densities: one dwelling unit per five {5) acres, one dwelling unit per ten (lO) acres, and one dwelling unit per twenty (2G) acres in size and subject to the following criteria: LNP 18.0 Protect and foster the Countys rural character. Rural character is defined bg local rural lifestyle, local rural visual landscapes, resource productivity, environmental quality, and significant areas of open space. LNP 18.4 The preservation of high-value open space is directly linked to the maintenance of Jefferson Countys rural character. Protect open space consistent with the goals and policies of the Open Space Element of this plan. LNG 23.8 Encourage residential land usc development intensities through techniques such as clustered housing that protect that character of rural areas, avoid interference with resource land uses, and minimize impacts upon environmentally sensitive areas. LMP 23.1 Rural residential cluster subdivisions shall be encouraged, consistent with development regulations throughout the rural areas. The open space tracts to these subdivisions shall be permanently preserved. OSG Preserve and enhance the existing open space lands. OSP 1.3 Investigate and consider a variety of techniques to preserve and protect open space including public acquisition and clustered development. EDP Support retention and expansion of existing local businesses, and recruitment of new businesses that provide quality jobs, and preserve and enhance Jefferson Countys quality of life. EDP 1.4 Encourage a range of economic activities and businesses that serve both the needs of local residents and visitors to Jefferson County. EDG 8.6 Promote the development of tourist and tourist- related activities as a prouider of employment and business opportunities in Jefferson County. EDG 9.0 Encourage economic development that conserues natural resources and open spaces, protects environmental quality and enhances Jefferson Countys overall quality of life. 8. Thc Chevy Chase property cannot be developed with 40 lots and maintained as a golf course without thc Countgs adoption of a clustering regulation as suggested in policies LMP 23.1 through 23.?. 5 Wednesday, 9 February 00 Presentation to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Janis Fisler, President of the Bayview at Chevy Chase Property Owners' Association We are requesting that you not adopt amendment CPA-99-13, submitted by Bruce Bailey, asking to change rural density from one unit per 10 acres to one unit per five acres for land at the Chevy Chase Golf Course. As the Planning Commission pointed out, the Chevy Chase property is part of an established pattern of lots of ten acres or greater. The amendment is inconsistent with the Growth Management Act and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the goal of which is to ensure that rural development "preserves rural character, protects rural community identity, is compatible with surrounding land use, and minimizes infrastructure." The Bayview at Chevy Chase Property Owners are concerned about the increased density that will result from the adoption of this amendment and the precedent it would set for the establishment by amendment of other high density developments in an area designated as rural. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan should be allowed to prove its worth and amending it to allow for high-density projects violates both the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive Plan. As residents and property owners in this rural Quimper Peninsula community we urge you not to adopt amendment CPA-99-13. Thank you. I ort Townsend Sails, Inc. 315 Jackson, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-1640 Fax (360) 385-0476 email: ptsails@olympus.net Recycled Paper February 10, ,2000 Hearing Exhibits My name is Renate Wheeler and I live at 81 Kala Lagoon Ct in Kala Point. I was one of the original developers of that community. With just a little under 400 acres, the lot s~es there are jus~ DE acre each. Yet I believe the great majority of the approximately 800 people that live there think of Kala Point as being rural, not urban. The plan presented to you by the Baileys is for a small area around the golf course to be developed in five acre parcels- retaining, let us not forget, the entire 130 acres of open space - the golf course itself. The original plan presented to you by the Baileys for 95 homes has already been pared down to less than half of that- 35 - 40 homes on 200 acres. Certainly not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Not only is clustering the development concept of choice in most every area, it is consistent with our own comprehensive plan which encourages lot consolidation as a means of preserving open space. Quite simply, in this ease the 'open space' be'rog requested for preservation is a golf course, a highly prized area enjoyed by the entire commurdty and a great source of tax revenue to the county. If the Baileys cannot afford to continue to operate the golf course without being granted this amendment, they have thc legal rig~ht now, under this growth management act, to develop the entire 200 acres in ten-acre sites. Hardly in anyone's best interest. Rather than fight this amendment, we should be doing everything possible to allow the golf course to remain profitable enough so it can remain available for our recreational enjoyment, and remain a long-te~xn benefit to Jefferson County. I hope you will give this amendment request careful consideration. Please let us not forget that the growth management act was never intended to be forged in stone, but to be a living document. I urge you, as our elected commissioners, to be open to amendments that, will be beneficial to our entire community. Ocean Grove Lot Owners Association An incorporated Community Association with more than one hundred members Eric Lucas, President 24 Huntingford Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Phone: 360 379 8627 February 01, 2000 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Bailey's Proposal to Increase Residential Density The Board of Directors for the Oceam Grove Lot Owners Association reviewed the above-noted proposal to change the residential density in the Chevy Chase area. Without dissent, the directors adopted a motion to oppose the change and directed me to bring the board's opposition to the attention of those who are responsible for approving and implementing the Growth Management Plan in Jefferson County. Our primary objection is that it is inappropriate to initiate such changes at this early date in the plan's history. The Growth Management Plan was approved after extensive review and input from all segments of Jefferson County. It should be given an oppommity to demonstrate its own effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) before significant changes are ordered-particularly when requests are based on the expressed needs of individuals and not on the apparent needs of the community. ~ Ocean Grove Board also rejects the statement in the minority report regarding the level of community support for the requested change. It cannot substantiate such a claim and, in fact, has considerable evidence that the statement is false. Many questions plague the project. Will the Chevy Chase water well, which is certified for agricultural use only, become a part of the P[3D # 1 water system necessitating treatment and degradation of the community water supply? Will the development degrade the wells of neighboring property owners? Will the development impact the traffic flow in the area? Until those questions are resolved to the satisfaction of neighbors and decision makers, it is premature to make a change in the density at this time. Sincerely, Eric L. Lucas Jefferson County Planning Commission Gabe Ornelas Ocean Grove has an assessed valualion of over $I~O,Q~)Q and pays $105,656 in property taxes.. February 9, 2000 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Gabe Ornelas 7174 Cape George Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Chairman: ! am here in behalf of the People for a Rural Quimper (PRQ). Arguments both pro and con on this proposed amendment have b~'-cn submitted for the record. Tonight this body now must decide if all those responsible and knowledgeable on the study of this issue, were correct in their final analysis. You must take into consideration if the reign to this amendment by our Planning Commission, or the advice by the State to .reject the amendment, or your own staffs' recommendation to reiect the amendment and lastly the communities' efforts and concerns articulated for the need to reject this amendment were in the best interest of ,ali the residents of our community. ! think one Planning Commissioners remarks made at a recent heating on the matter projected the belief and concerns of many when she said, ."This amendment would be catastrophic for our County,. We in the community agree. I ask this Board to also consider this important underlying, critical factor that has not been addressed: Our community is very concerned that our County, the place that we reside, where we vot~ and where we worked hard to develop our Comprehensive Plan, is at risk due to this amendment. The intent of our Plan was to preserve the rural character and diversify of our County. ~[n contrast to that, you have the submission of this amendment by persons whose sole intent is economic benefit; not the impact that this will have to the people who reside on the Quimper Peninsula and their quality of life. We want to protect our rural character from more density and the malignancy of SPRAWL that this amendment will cause, We respecEully urge this Board to protect our Comprehensive Plan by viewing our Plan in a wide perspective and if you do that you will all draw the curtain down on the possibility of eroding our Comprehensive Plan by this amendment. We need this Board to "STAY TIlE COURSE". Thank you February 9, 2000 TO: Jefferson County Commissioners Port Townsend, WA 98368 FROM: Bruce & Barbara Forman 140 Combs, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: CPA-99-13 Bailey's Chevy Chase Golf Course & Development and Water Issue This discussion has gone on for years which has been entirely too long. The project was approved to proceed years ago. No problem. Then why is there a problem now? Bailey has been a good steward of the land. The idea of enlarging the golf course to an 18 hole and adding homes benefits everyone. Numerous people have come forward after the fact to oppose the project. We have lived here for 20 years which is longer than most of our neighbors including those people along the Cape George Rd and Old Discovery Rd. We do not find this development objectionable. Therefore, we recommend that Mr. Bailey should be permitted to build the dwellings he first asked to build as long as he can provide the utilities for the proposed project. The City should not be dictating the policies for the County. The people of the County also support the City, therefore, the City should not stand in the way of County development. Addressing the water issue: This can be resolved by the PUD. The well on the golf course property should only be used for agriculture or fire flow. It should never be co-mingled with drinking water to the LUD 3 transmission line. The PUD does have other sources that can be used and more can be developed. The Bailey's do have tap rights to LUD 3 that have not been used. We, the undersigned, support the rejection.of the Chevy Chase Amendment, CPA- 13 Name Print Name Address Phone No. I We, the undersigned, support the Chase Amendment, CPA- 13 rejection_of the Chevy Name Print Name ~ .-~ ~- ~ Charlotte Petersen Address 113 Vancouver Lane Phone NO. 360-379-8617 Port Townsend, WA 98368 President, Discovery Bay Heights Homeowners Association representing 59 members Wednesday, 9 February 00 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners We the undersigned urge that the BOCC not adopt amendment CPA- 99-13, submitted by Bruce Bailey, asking to change rural density from one unit per 10 acres to one unit per five acres for land near the Chevy Chase Golf Course. We are concerned that the arnendment would encourage high-density development and result in the erosion of our rural community character. Thank you. From: Jerry Chawes 6350 Cape George Rd. Port Townsend WA 98368 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: CPA Amendment 99 - 13 Feb. 10,2000 I wish to specifically address an aspect of the proposed amendment that to me poses a very disturbing issue. There has been testimony here about the valuable part the Chevy Chase golf course plays as a recreational resource to the County, and that not giving the Bailey's this amendment will endanger the future of this resource. The application for this amendment, CPA 99-13 requests the change to RR 1:5 for 200 acres (pg. 1), and then states (pg. 2), and I quote, "At that density, the maximum development could be up to approximately 40 dwelling units.' There is here, no commitment to maintain a golf course or any other type of recreation area, and in fact could be developed if the owner wanted to, this being zoned as "rural / residential', into 40 lots of 5 acres with a house on each, and no room left for a golf course. This is, as they say, a free country, and the Bailey's can get out of the golf business if they want to. Now I am sure that the intent of the Bailey's at this time is to work as hard as they can to maintain the Chevy Chase golf course. The fact is though, the Bailey's like everyone else are mortal, and there is never any guarantee that in the future the Bailey's or any future heir or purchaser will keep the golf course. In short, the County should never make plans which will hold them captive to the best of intentions of any developer. Owners come and owners go. If the golf course is such an important resource to the County, then perhaps the County should buy the property and maintain it as a 200 acre park and golf course. This is not an unheard of idea, and one which many counties and cities follow for the perpetual benefit of their citizens. From: Jerry Chawes 6350 Cape George Rd. Port Townsend WA 98368 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: GMA Amendment 99 - 13 Feb. 10,2000 I wish to specifically add~ a distortion of a statement made by the planning Commission in regard to a so called 'catastrophic effect' if the Chew Chase properties were changed from RR 1:10 to RR 1: 5. The distortion is that opponents of the zone change claim that this will have an automatic domino effect, and all properties larger than 5 acres will rush in and demand a similar zone change. Not so. We don't claim that at all. The intent of the majodty statement was that if a large property borders smaller properties, then that in itself is no basis for down zoning the property because, and as emphasized at the meeting, ALL LARGE BLOCKS OF PROPERTY MUST AT SOME POINT HAVE A PROPERTY BORDER ON SMALLER PROPERTIES. What the planners stating the majodty position emphasized was that the intent of the GMA was to wherever possible, maintain large pieces of property as blocks in a mixture of smaller parcels. And this in fact is the situation of the Chew Chase properties. It is made up of large parcels in an area of other predominantly large parcels, and this is what helps to maintain the rural character of the community. I now want address another aspect of the proposed amendment, and to me this is in fact a more disturbing issue. There has bccn testimony here about the valuable part the Chew Chase golf course plays as a recreational resource to the County, and that not giving the Bailey's this amendment will endanger the future of this resource. The application for this amendment, CPA 99-13 requests the change to RR 1:5 for 200 acres (pg. 1), and then states (pg. 2), and I quote, 'At that density, the maximum development could be up to approximately 40 dwelling units.' There is here, no commitment to maintain a golf course or any other type of recreation area, and in fact could be developed if the owner wanted to, into 40 lots of 5 acres with a house on each, and no room left for a golf course. This is, as they say, a free country, and the Bailey's can get out of the golf business if they want to. Now I am sure that the intent of the Bailey's at this time is to work as hard as they can to maintain the Chew Chase golf course. The fact is though, the Bailey's like everyone else are mortal, and there is never any guarantee that in the future the Bailey's or any future heir or purchaser will keep the golf course. In short, the County should never make plans which will make them be held captive to the best of intentions of any developer. If the golf course is such an important resource to the County, then perhaps the County should buy the property and maintain it as a 200 acre park and golf course. This is not an unheard of idea, and one which many counties and cities follow for the perpetual benefit of their citizens. Commissioners My name is Richard Stelow and my address is 5754 Cape George Road, Port Townsend. I originally had decided not to speak, when I found that public testimony to the Planning Commission appeared to mean nothing, since an over whelming majority of the comments that I heard during the hearings were very supportive of this amendment. And yet the group decided to recommend that it be rejected. However, based on what I have heard over the last two days, I feel compelled to speak. There are a few things that concern me: first of all, I have a minor housekeeping issue. A few people have spoken to this hearing stating that they represented the citizens of Jefferson County. I checked back through my papers and cannot find any thing that I have signed that would suggest to anyone that they had a right to speak for me. Therefore, either I am not a citizen of Jefferson tJotmty, or what was said was not tree, but was intended to suggest to the commissioners that all of the people in the County are against this (or any other amendment). The logical conclusion would be that since you are elected officials, you only have one choice, and that is to follow the "will of the People". I would challenge that point of view vigorously. Last night when you asked yourselves the opening questions, your responses suggested that you have received a substantial number of contacts both for and against this amendment. I am not sure that you kept score, but I have a feeling that the number contacts and the variety of the points of view expressed would suggest that the above position of "one voice" may not hold water. The second point is not new, but a reinforcement of what Mr. Huntingford stated last night. The GMA as adopted, allows for a process of amendment. If it were intended that the original GMA as adopted, were cut in stone, then an amendment process would not have been included. If, in fact, the GMA has an amendment process, then the only question is, does this amendment request have merit? I am confident that you will seriously include the GMA amendment process, and if an amendment has merit then exercise your right and obligation to approve it. In yesterday's edition of the Leader, there was a letter to the Editor that addressed whether or not the Baii~y's voluntarily withdrew their court case against the County relative to the property that is the subject of this this amendment. In this letter is says "Court records will show the court dismissed the case against the county because Bailey did not have a prima fascia case against the county". I submit to the Commissioners copies of the court records that show that the court did not dismiss the case for lack of merit, since the hearing on merit had not even taken place, but it was in fact dismissed at the request of the Bailey's. I am a neighbor of the Chevy Chase Golf Course. Your decision will directly impact me. This county is in need of economic infusion. Without it, our infrastructure will fail, and the "rural environment" that we will have will be back to the days of wagon tracks, not paved roads. The Bailey's are requesting to put in 30 - 45 houses on 200 acres. In my opinion, this request is not only fair but shows a considerable mount of restraint on the part of the owners. I recommend strongly that you give this amendment your positive consideration and approve it as requested. Prove that the saying that the GMA is a "hying" document is not just a sound bite, but is a fact. 10 11 12 13 14 ORDER This matter having come before the Court upon the above stipulation for dismissal, and the Court being fully advised, now, therefore It is hereby ORDERED that this action be and hereby is dismissed without cos.ts to either party. DONE IN OPEN CO~LrRT this '''I ~'~' day ~~/---"~ , l~ ~-~Cou Co ner Presented by: 16 Mark R. John~n, WSBA//11080 17 Karr Tuttle Campbell 18 Attorneys fdr Respondent Jefferson County 19 Approved as to form; notice of presentation waived: 20 22 M S. Harris, WSBA//4710 23 Harris, Mericle & Wakayama Attorney for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION FOR AND ORDER OF D_.ISMISSAL - 2 0270189~01 / 30313-007 KARR'TUTTLE.CAMPBELL 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 - ~9 linc 17 AH lO: 50 .J£F~'E,D, S O~ COUNTY Zd~R!~~LTERS, ¢I.£RK S~E~OR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR IEFFE~~~ ~ ~Y c~K BRUCE V. BAILEY and BARBARA BAILEY d/b/a FORUVUS, TENANCY IN COMMON, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, ¢ DN COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Respondent-Defendant. 19 2O 21 22 23 ~W 24 ~-BA #4~'~ 0 25 Harris, Mericle & Wakayama Attorney for Plaintiffs 26 27 8 STIPULATION FOR AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL . 1 0270189.01 / 30313-007 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 99-2430193-1 STIPULATION FOR AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL COME NOW plaintiffs Bruce V. Bailey and Barbara Bailey doing business as Foruvus, in Common, and defendant J'efferson County, by and through their respective attorneys of record, and stipulate to a dismissal of this action without costs. It is se stipulated. DATED this/~_ day of December, 1999. ark R./Ghnse ,vffW-SBA #11080 Karr Tuttle Campbell Attorney for Defendant L.~ O~. KARR'TUTTL£.CAMPBELL FERSON coUNTY · Jg~ ' . Rs, CLERK ~ ARIANI,IE ¥/ALTE . IN T~E SUPERIOR COURT OF T~E STATE OF WA~ IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON , BRUCE V. BAILEY and BARBARA ) BAILEY d/b/a FORUVUS, TENANCY ) IN COMMON, ) ) Petitioners-plaintiffs,) ) Vs. ) ) JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political ) Subdivision of the State of Washington, ) ) Respondent-Defendants. ) ) NO. 99-2-00193-t MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has read the pleadings filed herein, heard argument of counsel, re-read the pleadings and reviewed RCW 36.70C et seq. The Court finds that there is no basis to allow li,ve testimony on a LUPA Appeal. Accordingly, It is ORDERED that Petitioners' motion shall be and is horeby denied. Petitioners' appeal brief shall be due December 7, 1999. The county shall respond not later than December 28th. The reply brief shall be due January 3, 2000. Date this 6th day of December, 1999. THO~ S. ~,AJ~-IAN Superior Court Commissioner Ed Voris P. O. Box $11 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385 3323 evoris~olypen.com Febmary9,2000 Jefferson County Commissioners P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: CPA 99-20 CPA 99-21 CPA 99-22 Commissioners Harpole, Wojt and Huntingford: I come to oppose the adoption of these proposed amendments, and urge your rejection of them. I moved to Jefferson County last year after spending about 15 years in community economic development work in the San Francisco Bay Area. Having lived and worked in Western Washington for over 20 years prior to moving to California, I was well familiar with the many assets of this community. So, when I decided last year to retire from active employment in the Bay area, I was able to fulfill the long-held dream of making this my home. I chose Jefferson County for my home because it is a uniquely desirable community - rich in virtually everything we value in life - unparalleled natural beauty; a mild, pleasant climate; and a rich cultural life - reflecting the intelligent and informed residents who live here. Most of the people I've met since moving here came from somewhere else as well, and I think, without exception, every one of them was attracted here for these very same reasons. I believe these foundational assets - a highly skilled and motivated population, a community committed to building a future for itself and a breathtaking natural environment - must be the essential building blocks upon which an economic development strategy is implemented. And I believe the Economic Development Component of the Comprehensive Plan is just that. I believe it is a model which should be emulated by communities across the country. This carefully-dram vision for sustainable economic development, establishes as its first priority the economic security for all residents. It provides bench marks of success - economic growth with job creation, diversity, sustainability, and environmental protection. This Plan should receive the enthusiastic support it so richly deserves, and the amendments presented in CPA 99- 21 should be rejected. This effort to undermine and eliminate the community goals clearly stated in the Plan should be rejected. Letter of Ed Voris to BOCC, February 9, 2000 Page 2 The report card has long been in - all net new jobs in America are being created by small business, and a sound economic development plan should begin with that premise. Our security and our future lies in the businesses and jobs which can be created, fight here among our neighbors. Together we can build a sound future for ourselves and our environment. I believe CPA 99-20 and 99-22 suffer from a similar and related flaw. It is critical to safeguard the existing residential uses in the County and protect the rural character of these areas. We will all lose if these proposed changes were to open the door to urban sprawl. I urge you to reject these proposals. I'm confident you will make the fight choice in rejecting these requests. We'll all be best served by working to make the vision of the Comprehensive Plan a reality. I hope we can join together in building economic opportunity for all the citizens of the County. I look forward to working together. ctfully, , John l.,ockwood 1510 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 voice: (360) 385-4745 e-mail: Fennwood~Pygrnyboats.com 2/10/2000 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Dear Commissioners: In the State's Growth Management Act. RCW 36,70A,020 Planning goals. Thc following goals arc adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans...: (1) URBAN GROWTH. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2) REDUCE SPRAWL, Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, Iow-density development RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans - Mandatory elements. The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under _~o./u^.u,4v shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36,70A~ 140. Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: (1) A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. The land use element shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies. Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and storm water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. (2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single-family residences; (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and tbster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and prqiected needs of all economic segments of the community. (3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a s/x-year plan that will finance such capital thcilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money l~br such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. (4) A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines. (5) RURAL ELEMENT. Counties shall include a mini element including lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The following provisions shall apply to the rural element: (a) Growth management act goals and local circumstances. Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36 70A020 and meets the requirements of this chapter. (b) Rural development. The rural element shall penmt rural development, forestry, and agriculture in rural areas. The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses. In order to achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character. (c) MEASURES GOVERNING RURAL DEVELOPMENT. The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character of the area, as established by the county, by: (i) CONTAINING OR OTHERWISE CONTROLLING RURAL DEVELOPMENT; (ii) Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area; (iii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development in the rural area; (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 2,5.70A.¢~¢, and surface water and ground water resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 3fi70A. 170. (d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (i) Rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas, whether characterized as shoreline development, villages, hamlets, rural activity centers, or crossroads developments. A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of(d)(iv) of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of (c)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection. An industrial area is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population; (ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (iii) 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 existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the isolated nonresidential use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (iv) A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection. Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of low-density sprawl. Existing areas are those that · The county shall establish the logical outer boundary of an area of more intensive rural development. In establishing the logical outer boundary the county shall 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, and land forms and contours, (C) the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and (D) the ability to provide public facilities and public services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl; (v) For purposes of(d) of this subsection, an existing area or existing use is one that was in existence: (A) On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan under all of the provisions of this chapter; (B) On the date the county adopted a resolution under RCW 36.70A.040(2), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter under R CW 36~ 70A~ 040(2); or (C) On the date the office of financial management certifies the county's population as provided in RCW 3670AO40(5), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040(5). (e) (6) A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with, the land use element. (a) The transportation element shall include the following subelements: (i) Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;... The above excerpts are from State Law. Our Comp Plan LNP 5.1.a (CCP 3-70) specifies the built environment as of 1990 because state law explicitly requires this as a "Mandatory Element in our Comprehensive Plan", The commemial zoning refereed to in LNP 5. l.b is the commercial land inside the tighflines that existed when the Comp Plan was adopted. The proponents of this amendment are narrowly focussing on the statement in the RCW and in our Comp Plan that undeveloped lands may be "INCLUDED" in the logical boundary the state law required you as county commissioners to draw. I believe this sentence means just what it says. The state required you to both write a comprehensive plan and required you to draw tightlines around existing development. It was obvious that within those tightlines there would be parcels that were surrounded by a built environment that were not yet developed. These are the undeveloped lands refereed to above in the RCW. It is also clear that lands "may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection", does not imply that inclusion is not also limited by the other nmjor goals ~md policies of the GMA, such as limiting sprawl or preser~Sng the rural nature of mini areas. The clear intent of the GMA is to strengthen our towns, village centers, rural cross roads, existing commercial centers, and to protect the as yet unbuilt rural environment. This amendment to our Comp Plan (CPA 20) is part of an ongoing decade long attack on the Growth Management Act. Please remember that compliance with the GMA is not a choice that counties have. Counties are required to comply with the GMA. It is State Law. The Washington State Office of Community Trade and Economic Development has stated that they do not think this amendment is compliant with the GMA and has recommended rejection of the amendment. Please remember that it was the people of the State of Washington that passed the GMA. You as commissioners are required to implement the GMA despite the fact that some of your constituents do not like it. Please remember that in the Jefferson 2000 survey that was sent out to every resident in Jefferson county, 74% of the respondents said their primary reason to live in this county is the small town and rural atmosphere of the county. In the section of the survey on Growth Management Goals: 66% said the County should, "work aggressivelyn to manage growth; 64% said it was important to "reduce sprawling developments". Clm~l;) has recommended against this amendment. The Planning Commission has recommended against the amendment. The people who have moved to rural Jefferson County, chose to live in a rural environment and want the rural character of the area preserved. The people who grew up in rural Jefferson County and have lived here all their lives love this place and do not want to see sprawl down all the main roads in the county. Sincerely yours . John Lockwood representing himself representing People for a Liveable Community 2/10/00 Page 1 of 2. To the Jefferson County BOCC. We the undersigned applaud all of the excellent work that went into the Comprehensive Plan. It is a document which meets the intent of Washington's Growth Management Act and has the potential of controlling the inevitable growth and development here in Jefferson County. We also support the guidelines and the process outlined in the plan for making amendments. That process is now underway, and the wise recommendations of the Planning Commission, which are before you this week, demonstrate that the Plan can work. We urge you to support the process, accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission on all of the amendments which you are considering, and keep intact the Plan that the citizens of this county worked so hard to develop. The ultimate measure of the success of the Plan is not whether it fulfills the desires of an individual property owner or business, but whether it provides a public benefit and meets the needs of future generations. Thank you for your time and for all that the three of you do for this wonderful county. Respectfully,...... .,~ page 2of 2 ~ ,~~1 '5 ~'5'--'7'7c/q MOA ESTATE 154 Highway 20 Port Townsend, WA 98368-9316 February 09, 2000 Board of Commissioners, Jefferson County Jefferson County Court House P. O. Box 1120 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Reference: Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. CPA 99-02 Regarding: Request to re-instate a portion of Tax Lot 31 which had been historically zoned commercial Dear Sirs: As stated in our application, we require sufficient land to accommodate our building(s) footprint, roads, services, utilities, etc. The Comprehensive Plan dated August 1998 tight-lined our property to the extent that we do not have the latitude to properly expand. We sincerely ask your assistance in solving this problem. The Minority Report of the Planning Commission dated January 12, 2000 accurately set forth how this amendment could fit within the scope and vision of a "living" Comprehensive Plan. We are a local small business that wishes to expand and grow to meet a demand that no one else is serving. That is namely the Hwys. 101/104 traffic. We have held the property for over 100 years and carried on the motel business for over 50 years. As you have been made aware of the many advantages of this proposed redevelopment by my several letters on file and by my numerous personal presentations, I don't feel it necessary to repeat all this information at this time. Instead, I would like to comment on the Majority Report of the Planning Commission. I find that this report lacks credibility as some of the points are just plain not true and others are misleading. I offer the following comments in the same order as shown. 1) The proposed expansion does not split the property any more that did the 1990 commercial zoning. In fact, the expansion does coincide with natural boundaries as pointed out by the Jefferson County Planning Department. As a side note, all the adjacent portions of the subject property are split between commercial and residential; and, a good portion of the commercial lot below the subject property is in wetlands and is therefore not usable. 2) The existing motel business cannot be upgraded within the existing boundaries primarily due to the lack ofpercable lands for on-site sewerage disposal. In addition, the current "sffip of land" is not wide enough (100 feet) to easily accommodate the building(s) footprints, roads, etc. 3) All our Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad businesses cater to the transient traffic of Hwys. 20 and 101. Our proposed expansion will be kept in a rural flavor that will feature a destination farm type atmosphere. In addition, it will meet the current transient accomodation demands -2- of Hwys. 20/101/104 and will provide the County with a real long term benefit that is currently going to Clallam and Kitsap counties. 4) We have been advised that currently, the Department of Health is not considering off-site non-commercial drain fields; and therefore, the entire expansion application becomes a non- conforming application which is not acceptable. 5) Expansion of the boundary is supported by LNG 8.0 and LNP 8.3. 6) Infrastructure does exist but needs further expansion to service the project's requirements. We have power, telephone, roads and a Class A Water System in place. The water system will have to be upgraded for fire flows; but, we are prepared to do this $100,000 expenditure if the project goes forward. As this upgrade needs to be done in any event, this upgrade will be a tremendous benefit to the entire community. If the project does not go forward, it is projected that water rates will have to be at least quadrupled to cover this long term capital cost. Additional sewerage work will be required for the project; but, this work may also benefit the community. 7) Proper expansion is encouraged under the intents of RCW 36.70 A.(5)(d) and RCW 36.70 A.030(14)(b). 8) This intersection is not nearly the most dangerous intersection in comparison with the intersections located at Hwys. 19 and 20 and Hwys. 19 and 104. In fact, we will not increase the traffic at this intersection as 99% of our traffic already exists. In addition, our access is off Hwy. 20 which has a low traffic count as opposed to Hwy. 101. 9) The County has several good reasons to justify this expansion. It will create a lot of family sustaining jobs and will produce a substantial increase in the tax base of the area. As the area's businesses are all oriented toward servicing the Hwys. 20 and 101 transient traffic, all local jobs depend upon growth of these business for additional jobs. As a result, our community works together so that we complement each others business; so, widespread support does exist. 10) This application does conform with the goals and spirit of a "living" Comprehensive Plan that that pre-anticipated changes that would occur as part of the proper growth of our community and County. In closing, please favor us with an approval of this expansion so that we can proceed with this project while that timing is still economically feasible. As a local-grown and long-established business, we feel that we meet the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and the Board of Commissioners to be a real asset to Jefferson County and its residents. Thanking you for your assistance, I remain; Yours very truly, Estate of Walter A. Moa Sr. p~E)x~28(days) February 9, 2000 To: Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, Glen Huntingford Re: Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan, CPA 99-22 The proponents of this amendment, in an effort to stimulate economic development in rural areas of Brinnon and Quilcene, are asking for exemptions from Comprehensive Plan Policies which govern home-based business and cottage industries. The justification is that western Jefferson County is exempt from these regulations, so this area referred to as "South County" should also be exempt. The proponents wish to improve and encourage economic opportunities for their area is laudable. However, western Jefferson County is unique. The entire area is sparsely populated and projected to have no population growth over 20 years. It is very isolated. It is very distant from the rest of the county. In fact, I can't understand why it is part of Jefferson. It would be more appropriately part of Clallam and Grays Harbor. Towns like Queets and Clearwater are not the same as Brinnon and Quilcene. Many of the policies regulating home-based businesses and cottage industries protect adjoining residential properties. Certain businesses which would adversely affect them such as auto, truck or heavy equipment repair shops, auto body or paint shops are prohibited. Other policies protect from noise, hours of operation, numbers of employees, etc. It seems only logical to have these restrictions on businesses that operate in residential areas. Further, this amendment would extend the exemptions throughout the county by defining "rural" as areas 10 road miles from an Urban Growth Area. This is clearly contrary to the Growth Management Act which protects rural areas and regulates business development and expansion to specific areas, UGAs, in order to prevent sprawl. Please reject this amendment. Marilyn Muller P.O. Box 1754 Port Townsend, WA 98368 379-9553 mmuller@olympus.net CPRq - I February 10, 2000 To the Commissioners of Jefferson County: In keeping with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, I urge you NOT to adopt the changes to the Comprehensive Plan contained in CPA 99-21 as proposed by the EDC. I am making this statement on two levels - on behalf of, and as an employee of Clallam- Jefferson Community Action Council (C-JCAC), a non-profit social services umbrella organization, and as a private citizen. I work with the low-income and disadvantaged population, which represents a sizeable segment of this county's residents. If this amendment recommended by the EDC is adopted it wilt be (as is usually the case) the people who are disadvantaged, disenfranchised and who feel the futility of speaking out, who will be the most severely damaged by it. To begin with, the term "affordable housing" will not mean building housing that is affordable to those in the growing retail and service industries, whose annual wages are less than $15,000. This currently comprises 46% of the total county population. The income needed to afford the median priced rental in Jefferson County is $25,160, while the income needed to purchase the median priced home (1998 - $123, 794) is $39,649. "Affordable housing" will not include building more multi-family units where a single parent on Public Assistance with two children receiving $546/mo. will be able to pay no more than 30°/3 of their income to live in a decent apartment. While I am not anti-growth per se, it seems to me that as more and more homes are built it will not be the residents of this county who were horn and raised here who will be buying this so- called affordable housing. It will likely be people who buy houses in which to sleep, but who will be working and spending their money outside of Jefferson County, and who will have no real stake in how this area grows. If educational and job training components are deleted from this section of the Plan, we will not have a population of residents equipped to deal with the requirements of desirable business or industries that might locate here and would demand an educated workforce. The Comprehensive Plan was born after a long and difficult labor. A great deal of consideration was given to all aspects of the quality of life in this county. That term may be a little like pornography - we haven't defined it, but we all know it when we see it!). I heard a speaker at a recent Planning Commission meeting I attended state that the Economic Development section of the Comp. PIan is not where social, environmental and education concerns belong. I strongly disagree, for those issues are integral to, and should be a driving force in the direction that economic growth occurs. Leaving in the wording addressing the social, environmental and educational components in this part of the Plan would certainly cause no harm. From the viewpoint of the Community Action Council it would actually be beneficial to be able to point to the provisions of the Economic Development portion when writing grants seeking funds for the various programs our agency delivers. Finally, I am addressing you as a private citizen who chose a number of years ago to live in this county specifically because of its rural character and its citizens concern for the natural environment. I have already once lived through the growth and ruin within a mere 12 year period of a formerly beautiful rural area. This was an area where no one ever thought urban blight would occur; an area where no one thought it would be possible to build too many houses; or that it would ever see a time when the bom and bred residents of that county would be unable to afford to live there. This is an area no one ever thought would become a bedroom community to a big city, or that there could ever be strip malls because there were malls less than an hour away. All of that happened, and it happened pretty quickly, because people weren't thinking long term impact, and they weren't paying attention. Please, let's pay attention. Respectfully submitted, PD;tfic~ul~.inDga~l&~ Cictl~lel~mand Jefferson community Action Council, Inc. FEBRUARY 10,2000 To The County Commissioners, I too am coming to you to urge you not to adopt the amendments to the ,County Comprehensive Plan submitted by the EDC. I am an employee of Clallam/defferson Community Action. I work with the .four defferson County Food Banks as the food bank coordinator, as well as ~pport person for the three Nutrition sites in defferson County and director of the Tri area Community Center which represents a large and varied ~gment of county folks. lf social service, educational and job training issues are eliminated from the plan it appears to send a message that if it isn, t strictly business then it simply does not matter. .~ may not be the intent however that is how it appears. I feel I am in business.., the business of assisting low income people in a variety of ways. Cotnmunity Action is a social service agency that employs 235 people in Clallam and defferson countiex~half of these employees lives m defferson County also they are the forth largest employer in defferson County. ~We ali contribute to the economy here and that should mean something. g hm~e lived in defferson County for 15 years and have found it to be most generous and caring to the less fortunate in the area. ~he original ptan represented those thoughts and views with sensitivity to ~not on~ the less fortunate but for education and employment training. We live in a wonderful community and I am concerned that we need to be --a~vare and careful to assure that we are fair to all and although some may ~t agree.., one important way is to leave well enough alone regarding the comp plan. _Thank You for your attention to this very serious matter. cerely, "l;'inda -HaskeY Assistant Division Director ~lallam defferson Community Action Council Catharine Robinson 1070 Tremont Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 February 9, 2000 Jefferson County Planning Commission Dear Planning Commision Members: Economic development is vital to all of us. But it cannot happen, nor can it be sustained, in a vacuum. You could say it has needs too. Economic activity needs support services, like education and health care. It needs social services, like day care and reentry programs. Such programs and services are essential for vibrant, sustainble economic growth, because people need these services, as well as a healthy environment. And people are at the heart of economic growth. EDG2.0 "Encourage programs aimed at providing education, job training and retraining, and skills enhancement hat are responsive to the changing needs of local businesses and residents." EDG7.0 "Support the full range of human and social services necessary to encourage a strong local economy." EDG9.0 "Encourage economic development that conserves natural resources and open spaces, protects environmental quality and enhances Jefferson County's overall quality of life." Education and health care in particular are often given as benefits to employees as part of a wage package. In fact, many people expect health care benefits as part of their employment. ^ good business will look for these opportunities for its workforce. Viable businesses know that they benefit from a workforce that is educated and trained', physically and emotionally healthy and has what it needs to focus on the job. I submit that keeping these three goals in the county comp. plan is essential to developing our local economy in a vibrant and sustainable way that is inclusive of all the denizens of the county. Please reject the EDC's proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. Sincerely, Catharine Robinson Joseph M. and Joy L. Baisch 3485 Dosewallips Road Brinnon, WA 98320-9645 (360) 7964886 February 10, 2000 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Testimony CPA 99-20 and CPA 99-22 Dear Commissioners: The following opinions are cogent for both amendment applications and therefore much of this will apply to both except where a particular issue is identified otherwise. CPA 99-20 - The amendment specifically addresses the commercial areas as outlined in LNG4.0 and its policies LNP4.1 - LNP4.9 and LNG 5.0 and its policies LNP5.1 - LNP5.8 CPA 99-22 - The amendment specifically addresses the home based business and cottage industries as outlined in LNG6.0 and its policies LNP6.1-6.2 and LNG7.0 and its policy LNP7.1.8 and LNG11.0 and its policies LNP 11.3.4 and LNP11.3.4a It is clear that this Comprehensive Plan's language does not address the legislative changes in the GMA with the passage of SB6094. The specific changes to these goals and policies should be undertaken by the County to insure that the current GMA statutes are followed. SB6094 and the resultant RCW's describe the legislature's intent as regards to rural character and the designation of commercial areas in rural communities. RCW36.70A.070(5)(a) states the the county shall have a rural element" including land that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The following provisions shall apply to the rural element" (a)"Growth management act goals and local circumstances. Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county_ may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and meets the requirements of this chapter. Likewise, RCW36.70A.020(5) states "promote economic opportunities for all citizens of this state, especially the unemployed and disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth". RCW36.70A.(5)(d) states that commercial land boundaries "may include undeveloped lands, if limited" and "be delineated predominantly by the built development". RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b) states "Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (b) that foster traditional lifestyles, rural based economics, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas." The remote rural designation and plan exemptions allowed for the the "West End" are also relevant to South East Jefferson County. As referenced in the preceeding RCW's, we contend that the GMA with the revisions of SB6094 included, supports this contention. The "West End" is 12 mi. from county to Forks, its nearest community. The "South End" is 10-13 mi. from the nearest UGA (including Pt. Ludlow) The "South End" is far more remote topographically and geographically when the natural constraints include rivers north and south and currently unstable hills in Mason County that close the only highway South. Highway 101 is the only through road that runs in both the "West End" and "South End" areas. RCW36.70A. 100 and 36.70A.210 refer to the issue of consistency in the Comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW36.70A.040 in part "shall be consistent.., with which the county of city has, in part, common borders or related issues." FACT: The county was correct in identifying the "West End" as remote rural but it did not complete its task and identify the "South End" as well pursuant to the RCW's and SB6094. FACT: The exemptions for home business and cottage industries do not exempt us from the regulatory process stated in LNP6.2.12 and LNP6.2.16(c) LNP6.2.12 "a cottage industry shall not be disruptive to the use of adjacent properties. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupations which creates excessive noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property"' LNP6.2.16© "exemptions allowed under this section shall be regulated subject to LNP6.2.12. Any hearings associated with regulation under LNP6.2.12 or conditional permit review procedures shall be held in Rural Jefferson County close to the residents who may be affected. FACT: Brinnon Community Plans which included WaWa Point area, Brinnon Flats and the Black Point areas of commercial locations, have been in existence and a special element of Jefferson County's first Comprehensive Plan of 1982. An updated version of that plan in 1995 which has gone through all the review processes including the Planning commission prior to a draft being prepared for the BOCC's review in October 1995. Clearly meeting the 1990 benchmark identified in SB6094. FACT: It is the County that must change its language in the Comprehensive Plan to meet the current State statutes. FACT: Brinnon was an established community in 1863 and became linked by road to Quilcene in 1893. It has a long history of economic vitality until as recent as 1980. Brinnon's customs and culture has long been established as being as self sufficient as any community in Jefferson County until land use regulations and ordinances began curtailing that vitality. FACT: Brinnon School has 75% of its children on free or reduced meals. Quilcene has a similar profile within a few percentage points. Brinnon and Quilcene have 11% of the county population but account for 30% of the Sheriffs Department calls, much of the activity being drug related and domestic violence. Truly a sign of hopelessness and despair. We urge you to accept these two amendments as submitted. l~espectfully, '~los~eph M. ,Baisc / JogL. Baisch Freida Fenn 1510 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 385-4745 Feb 9, 2000 RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 99-11~ ATTENTION: Board of County Commissioners--Richard Wojt, Dan Harpole, and Glen Huntingford Gentlemen, First, I would like to thank you for holding this Public Hearing in the evenings for maximum citizen participation. Democracy takes time and is somewhat slow. I applaud your willingness to devote two full nights to this important public process. Now, regarding CPA 99-22. I oppose this amendment. Here's why. The policy advocated in the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce Amendment would act as a disincentive for industries to locate in the designated light industrial parks in Quilcene and Glen Cove. This amendment would also discourage the development of business and industry at Rural Village Centers and Commercial Crossroads. Clustering prevents sprawl. This amendment promotes dispersion of business activity rather than the smart growth strategy of clustering. Ke~,,The Jefferson Comp. Plan projects a population growth of 43 people for the West end of /'Jefferson County over the next 16 years. In high contrast, the unincorporated areas of East Jefferson are expected to grow by 8, 323 additional people. These are extremely significant and different rates of growth. Amendment 99-22 wants to apply the loose regulations on business desi~rned for the remote West End as a basis and justification for weakening standards in the East-County. An additional 8,323 people in the rural countryside of East Jefferson will have significant impacts on adjacent property, owners. The Comp. Plan (Chapter 5) estimates 3,875 additional households added to the East side's rural areas. Since we are one of the fastest growing counties in Washington state, it would be unwise to loosen protections on rural character and land uses during this period of rapid population growth. According to the US Census Bureau, 1 million new residents will move into Washington state in the next 10 years. That means the current rate of 2,000 new residents arriving each week is fully expected to continue. An incredible number of people will choose the climate and beauty of Washington state over 47 other states between now and the year 2020. These are all official US Census statistics. The pressures of growth will continue, even escalate. Our efforts to channel growth, using smart growth strategies are essential if we are to protect and enhance the quality of life in this beautiful County. In light of these realities, please reject CPA 99-22. It is not good planning. It would seriously weaken essential, smart growth management measures. Thank you. Sincerely, ida Fenn People for a Liveable Community Comments received February 11, 2000 Planning panel issues recommendauons County to consider plan amendments at Feb. 9 hea in9 ! [ The following ...... enda- ng, bedandbreakfasti .... hur_c.h: etedunt, fitoh~S~ebt~clraenadP;ntilthge dom~oeffecteventualyresulting ofth .... prehensivep, .... at ~ ~ ~(..2 ' a lannin on the pefimete .... ld result in a circumstances since the tions on Jefferson County compre- group home, nursing ho.me .R~( process ~s c. ~.p "ui ed b" the in a -roliferat on o' five-~cre or would warrant changing the com- hensive plan amendments (CPA) parkandveterinar~hospital--~g.a3 necessary sma es req r~ ~ v . · . ' · '~ review are com eted. smaller parcel* and eroding the mercla[ designation criteria. recently .... forwarded to the coul~ also be appropriated S~h~.~)~nfiin~;ariety of rural densities in the Adding motel.s, .R.~ ~pa~st;ra~I Board of County Commissio ..... p ...... /~a di~isi;n need~ Io be read'about ~ounty sorts marinas and g~R snop~ A public hearing is set for 6 '~ · -/.a~e.c,~2 ..... hole through the / The subject property is part of of the smaller co. mmerc?.l areas, p.m Wednesday Feb. 9intheSu- .CPA99-04, submattea[ ...... it lannin,~rocess -fan established pattern o£ lots 10 would be~slstent wire rura~ perior Court courtroom at the by Start Johnston, asking~ p ~ acres or greater in size. It is this charanct~f} ) Cm°~nn~Yfr;°mUt~he°;uS~lltC°onh~ers;~e~. for removal of land from CPA 99 11, subm,tted ;i:t&;~nethr ~ot nme~id2t~n~th~ailnn~ea~.]~ D.~."~C~.21, submitted ommendations, commercial forest desig- by Michael Whittaker, o~' land use~z~_~ng in the county, by the Economic Develop- Thecommissionerscanchoose nation asking to change zoning O,a-~r to accept or reject the Planning The commission voted unani- for Quilcene area land ~CPA 99-14, submitted merit Council, asking for Commission's findings, mously to recommend adoption of revisions in the economic from one unit per 20 acres by Olympic Property development chapter · CPA 99-01, submitted The commission said the sub- to one unit per five acres Group for land at Port The commission voted to rec- ' by Patrick Smith, asking ject parcels were improperly clad- ~ The commission voted five in Ludlow ommend against adoption of this to be included in Chi- sifiedascommemialforestoflong- favor and two opposed to recom- The commission x;oted unani- amendment, with eight in favor term significance according to the mend rejection of the proposed mously to recommend adoption ot' add one opposed. The commission found quality- macum Commercial Forest Land Ordinance because amendment, the amendment'. Crossroads their total acreage was not suffi- The flood plain of the Big The commission determined of-life issues -- including social The commission was unable to cient to meet the minimum block Quilcene River is a critical area, the proposed rezone more accu~ services, living wages and the form a majority opinion on this r · ' ' ' ' · andthesitealsocontainsafishand rarely reflects the improvements vlronment, an educated work amendment. The planning com- ?~ wildlife critical area, th .... mis'~tkng, i< the plat force, and disadvantaged workers missionerssaidChimacumshould /cemswillbeadflres.se_d_b_y. the~ub-/ sionsaid. Torezonepropertyb~t~u]~ ' __should notbeeliminatedfrom be able to stand on its own and ~Arevie.~ on the perimeter would re.quit ina ~ff.;/, ~'1~ o 1 ~.~o~d the economic development chap- trated at the intersection rather than · CPA 99-05, submitted ~~-6~ Y locate in commercial areas also stmngoutalongRhodyDrive. The ~. r~i,arelli askino smaller parcels and er~the. Telecommunications wouldlocateincompatibleusesin application perhaps should be uy a.,m~ ot',s ~ ~' ~~ensities in the w^~h.~alA,tvisorv Com- the same zone. that five acres next to ~-"~tv. '~-,~ ........... ~-.~, , .~ . The amendment proposes su~- docketed until Tri-Area planning C__ircle and Square auto ~ ~ .... m. lttee, ;;ell;;~l~luPn~. ;iud~2 .... ly broad array of is finished. (.'~/~ · CPA 99-02, submitted repair in P~~be · CPA 99-12, submitted s~ons fo~ . . The original chapter was cre- rcial so b Lela Hilton, asking to tions imrastrucmre ~ · · zoned comme y ated through an extensive pubhc '~byWalterMoa, askingfor estin Bir can rezonea arcel Thecomm,ssmnrecommended :~e~.xeinsntilylhlde W: ,additional commercial l~cate tg~~ The co~mr~issi .... tet~ ..... i- tsheev~nr~amveo~l fo°~eado;~{)~ ~[°v;e~2-nb~aem~ns land in Gardiner for Val- '~,~~t~o mously to recommend adoption of abstention' The chapter as it ex $ I The commlsslOTi~vas illlal~l¢ ti . . . one . oa^~ted ~lan s more renresenta- I :ley View Motel expansion form a majority opinion on this the amename, n.t. ~ .- ~ v e The commission determined ~v ~..~v '-unt than t~'e revisedI . The parcet ~s part or a o,oc~ o. ,~. ........ n ~e-dment ironic- ttve oi me cu y Thecommissionvoted$ixinfa- amendment.. . - ~arcels most of which are five ,-~ v-~e .... ?'" 7 , '~:~_ chaptersubmittedbytheEDC, thel vorandtwoopposedtorecommena posed boundary is not .... istent .... s.°.rsmati.er'~se~[t2ca~eg~''' UTP8.1 and action item E(l). /~'-'~':':~*~' ...... : denial oftheproposedamendment, with the criteria for designating parT~i~etzhoey~uld ~ot 'ed :r A ........... p .....a ti~at ,s tq }~-99 22, submitted : The commission said the existing rural crossroads and the area is dj- ~ the public notice and public ~-' [,a~p . , ~otel business can be upgraded tectly affected by the planning pro- ~~lg~ volvement aspects of telecommu-~y the Greater Quflcene/ '.within the existing boundaries and .... for the Tfi-AreaUGA. or ~b~~ nieati .... iting should be ex- BrinnonChamberofCom' ff nmtet larger than what is presently ~ral character. Infrastructure does · CPA 99-09, submitted ' "" ' ' · in the way commercial ~liot currently exist and the state has by Charles Finnila, ask- 2 r;'commended against expanding lallds are designated ;~-ossroadsboundariestoincludeva- in, to create a new corn- The amendment proposes a ;cantlands. mercial visitors cr.s)s~ Greater Quilcene/ · t~. ~,-,1 c~' ' CPA 99-13, submitted (greater than 10 miles from a · ' roads near Brinnork ~ov~ . . Brinnon Chamber of definitionofruralJeffersonCounty ;:: ,CPA99-03, sUbmitted The commission voted~ byBruceBmley, askmgto Commerce, asking for UGA) and that the West Jefferson :~y Kenneth & Evelyn favor, two opposed and one ab- change zoning from one greater flexibility in siting County exemptions contained in the home-based business and cot- 'Livingston, asking for in- staining to recommend that the unit per 10 acres to one commercial properties amendment be docketed until the tage industry policies apply to this clusion in the Port Had- sub-area planning process for the unit per five acres for land The amendment proposes dele- area. Additionally, it proposes that aOCk RuraIVillage Center Bfinnon areais completed and un- near Cheatings. base. Golf tion of LNP 5.1 and other wording a policy designed to apply only to The commissi .... ted ..... in tilth ...... sary. studies required Cours~'~fl~.~ changes toLandU .... d Rural the WestEnd--LNPT.1.Sunder Vdt and one opposed to r_.g.gl:~- by the SEPA review are completed. The c&mllI~ion voted five in Goals 4.0 and 5.0 and their poll- Small-~ale Recreational and Tour- mend denial vf tl)~ed A decision needs to be made favor and two opposed to recom- cies which establish tile county's ist Related Uses -- apply to rural a~dm"~.nt. ' abouttheareaasawhole, thecom- mend rejection of the proposed commercialareas. Jefferson County and suggests a The commission voted to rec- new policy which would allow · The commission said the lot in /m~ion said. amendment. ~~omx/1101~-~ The commissionsaid ablockof ommend against adoption of the light industrial uses conditionally ~~...~e~..~? also is'''a'~i CPA 99-10, submitted parcels of sufficient size estab- amendment, with seven in favor in rural commercial districts Io- within the boundary of the provi- b L' d ~-~-- ar~ . lishesapatteminandof|tself. The and two 0pposed. cateflinmralJeffersonCounty. sionalUGAandwould~.edir_~_.ectly n~Ol~l;~2~l)raasn~n~e; density orsizeofparcelsinthe Thecommissienfounddeleting Thecommissi .... tedtorec- 'affected by th~'UGA blanning pin- ch. The comr~is- create a new commercial ac[iacent zone outside the block LNP 5.1 would leave the compre- ommend against adoption of the mustbydefinitionbedifferentthan hensiveplanwithoutminimumcri- amendment, with seven in favor sion also notedthat in addition to visitor center at Black that within the block. The integ- teria for the designation of corn- and two opposed. rity of the block is what should be mercial areas and would mean that An amendment which proposes the allowed residential use, there are non-residential uses permitted Point near grinnon the designation criteria would not significant changes from the preserved. Zoning blocks are de- in Rural Residential l :S areas un- The commission voted five in lineatedontheirperimeterbypar- meet the requirements of the adoptedplanneedstohavehaflsig- der current county law -- such as )hvor and three opposed to recom- cels of a different zoning chamc- Growth Management Act. nificant public input and support, commercial nursery, assisted IVy- mend that theamendment be dock- teristic. To rezone property based Them has not been a change of the commission found. The intent of this amendment could best be Board of CounB' Commi~Lcea~s .PO Box !220 Pon Townsend~ WA 98368 Dmqr Cam_mission,s: 9 Febru~'~ 2.000. I fee! that ~_he o.~t ~heusive plan ~onomic d~,e!opm~t cb,_~ter aco~mtely ~%0eciAes a !~th th~at notes the strong desires of a ~fifi_mm_~t parA_ion of counB- residems, The ct~ent wor6J, ng is the result of m,'my years o£ stud5.,' and dialog, Ma~ag th__ese signifi~m ch~_'mges (aK proposcx! in _C~PA 99-2!) m!! caum f~ _more ~ss~_tio~!_ th&n_ the relatively minor dL~omtort you will experi_'~¢e i~you rm~ctiee a conservative ,.'q~ach and do r~o_t r_em~e emire ~cti~s or ch~'mge crucial w~ding As yon canlemplate proposed_ am~_dsnents to the compressive plan k__eep ~ ~nd t~t ~y ~_fic exmp!e of econ~ic d~'~ent mi!! ~ dJ~cl~!t !o L~p!em~ ifil d~tales ~g=~fi~ntly from the values sh~, in ct~t sumeys plus ~'~ ~v~ y~rs of studies, to ~ ~ron~y held ~ ~unB' residers, ~ thom who We ~sing ~4ews on. ~o~h~ ~e o_~eut ch~ ~ ~.ic d~,el~t, w~!e not ~t ~ a~ne's ~, at !~qst at!~vs for g~ml a~t wh~ ~um~ng ~fic ~siness ~s m ~t~ the cotm~', ~at would not ~ the ca~ with the ~s~ cha~g~. You will kave ~ated a ve~ sig~fi~t murce of counB' ~& ~ssent and ¢~fl~ct K you m~e the ~md chugs. By not do~g m you mill ~t is m~e~ ~t the E~ ~t ~e m~j~B' of the con~- will still ~ milh you, even ff th~' hold ~sing ~4~'s ~ d~el~L The signifi_~m_.t eF.~nges th,~.t the EDC proposes mill not i_u themselves make economJ_c d~!opment andy e~q~ does the current p!~ make it ~qrd~: The cm-r_~___! plan does not place Lmpedkments in !he eth gl!~. B'pe of deve!opmenl tt~qt at! of us agree we want to see ~ the ~tm~. !n the long nm~ gromh we may experi~ce ~.__nxter_ the current pi.sm oou!d be ~om developm~t that ~er?one m~ght welcome, even. those th~_t warn to make the eha~_ges~ If your actions give en_eonmgem~t to locate h~e to even one ~m~ t!~qt ~ays !itOe h~ !o sine of the values the E~ ~qnts ~o rem~'e from the ctl~! cha~, the co~u~ces m the economic via~li~' of the e~m~ could ~ ~stmus, It is ~t~al m ~ze the values k~ bhe c~t c~q~ ~,~ if th~' ~ re~t~ ~ve!~t that is excluded ~ doing so has ~ exm!!~t ~k~!k~ of being d~ekgmeut t~qI could ~au~ cx~ to the ~nn~, tb~on~ !it~qti~ and Oe~a~Oon ~nd exp!~tafion of~tb the ~!e ~ ~~t of the F~ m,'m._y of the same r~s~s ! oppo~_m making t**~o ftmher c~q. nges to the c~~ve plan, ~e fir~ ~md in CPA99-20~ which would cb~ge the m~m~. ~te~a for the de~ati~ of n~! c~m~at ar~qs~ ~e ~nd, CPA-22 ~s m ~!y ex~i~s a!~, in pla~ for h~e ~d ~siness ~d ~age indu~es of West Jeff~son Cot~ to the rest o~ the couuB'~ ! would u~e you to fo!Bw the recomm~dati~s o~ the p!~i~ ~ssion in ~ing the~ ch~ges~ The mqJuc3~r oft, his letter ~!1 be commems on ~ci~c language in the E!'X2. ch~ges to the economic developmen! chapt~ and ~4t! be enc!o, ~qec! as a Sel~_qrate at~hment. Tho_nX you for the time ~md effcca· yon'ye expended in workingto m~e our counB~ a better pb~ce to live! POB 78l Po~t Town~ ~qend WA 98368 (_~__c!.osum) CO~MME~_.NTS ON TB'F~. EDC'S PROPOSED COMPRE!4,ENS!VE PLA_N _A_M~IE_ND_ ME~S (!m--ge and text referents t~k_en from the ammendme~_t) N_rY!'E~ _~: the EDP or EDG numbers below refer to the m~mbe~ng ~,stem usecl in the EDC's com~eh~sive plan amendm~X document of A_ug~ 28~ !998 BEFORE the ~ope~sed EDC cha~nges am made ~3~qt i_s, the EDP~DG numbers are t~om that ore overstmck im the EDC'_~ s rex!), ~e t_he ~ text notes on n_~mbe_ri_ng gvgtern i_rregt!_~larities a~ folm_d, cm 15~q_ge~ 7-70.7-21, and_ 7-22, In the ~_qecA. ion: SUSTAJNABLE ECONOMIC DE~LOPME~ STRATEGY Page %11 Do not ~!ete the .__q~_.ions on women ownec!__ bt)siness a~. the ~__een revo!utLrm In the section: GO_~S &.X!D POL!CIES Page 7-! 3 Reta~in C~a_! EDG !~0~ the ~ ~t'a3o_ ~d change would be fine to i~c!ud~e as Und~ PO!,!C~S: EDP L !, retain "r, re__~r~ .'e and" a~ "~al_iB, of life", the ._'Od4tim of "economic we!! being" is fine EDP !,3~ ma_kc ncyae of Lhe ~c~_sed chauges~ Fa~!i~t~e a~a_d Sustain are v~' different words! EDG 2.0, __rc~_'~_ke no cha_nges Und~ POL.!C~S: EDP 2~ ! th_rough EDP 2,4~ make no c~anges Page 7-14 EDP 2~5 and EDP 2,6~ make no changes Page 7-15 Under_ GO_Al EDG 3.0~ retain "H~.!th C~m & Retirem~t" Und~ POL.!C~S: EDP 3.2, rm~ke no changes P_age 7-16 Un&--r .POt,ICeS: EDP 6.3~ Make no c~nges excel_ for a~ddi_ '_fion of "h~.t not limited to" Note that "~.o.'.!it~te" is a mx~_ch cli_'fferent word than "Al!ow", EDP 6_5~ mq_ke no changes EDP 6~7~ mxake aa changes EDP 6.8~ m__ake ~o changes NOTE_.: t~e ac!ditio~ of EDP 5~7 (as num_berect in the EDC's numbe_n_'ng method) ~s to be an add,ia_n_ t~ would be in k~?dimg with the GMA ~an~.rds ~.d. w_m~!d be a reasc_m_~able ad~ticm Page 7-17 Un_der._ GOAI.S E_DG 7:0~ n~_~'lke no chang~ Under_ C~ POL!CI~.S E_r~_~ 7~!, make no chang~ E_DC~ 7~2~ m~ke no changes EDG 7,3~ make r~o changes Page 7-1g Un~ EDG 9.0, make no cha,tges Un_der_ _POL!C~S EDP 9~ L make _no changes EDP 9,2~ m~ke no changes EDP 9,T m. ak~ no changes Und~ C~AL Note: !! ~s e~r~e!y i~a~t ~o t35s is not a small Page 7-20 Under STR~ _ATAG!ES Under ACTION !TEMS Retain [he first, t._hree action _items Note: th_er_e .seems to ~ a ~ob!em of.som~ k_ind in the nnmberi_ng ~,st.em of my plan ~'~ a cb__,..~_ge is m,~.e to action items, a gap in tb.¢ m~m~m appeaxs a-nd the n~x! two items rece~,e the s~ _'tree number, Becau~ of this D1 knc!,_~le a s~g!e ide~ti~,i-ng word from the act_ion item in ( ) my refere-nce to Retakn item 7 (faming) Make sugg~ted changes to item 7 Page 7-21 Ma_kc s~.moges_t_e4! c~'m~s to item 9 (P~i__nsu_!a College) Make suggested c~mg~ to ilem !2 (state job tm.i_nj~g) Retai_n item !4 (special Poe, e 7-22 U_n_der B, !N!T!AT!\~ TO AT!'RACT NEW ECONOMIC _DEVELOPMF,?~_: Und~ ACT!!ON !TEMS: Make sugges_t~ c!~'mges t.o item ! (C_oope~_ratio-n) Retain text on re~'¢!i-ng (~esumab!y orig,_a! item !) Make the suggesteA changes to itm 3 ~t add t~ words "for thom bn~ness's meeti-ng the COALS & !~_ LICKS of t_h~ plan Om..~siness ex~_nsio_~) Reta~ al! of it.em 4 (i_n_com _patib!e u~_ms) Note: iX is ve~~ necesmry to -not make this EDC suggested_ change R~ai_n_ al! of item 5 (public wat~ access) Note: it_ is very necesm~ to not make th_is EDC ~J. ggested change To: From: Subject: The Board of County Commissioners Kate Marsh 80 Brinnon Lane P.O. Box 47 Brinnon, Washington 98320 Phone/Fax (360) 796-4935 Comments Pertaining to CPA99-20 and CPA-99-22, Including Rebuttal to Commission Findings. These comments are in addition to my public testimony regarding these amendments. Please vote to accept these amendments. Law: The Comprehensive Plan, page 3-1, in the Land Use and Rural Strategy Guidelines, key policy guidelines #3 and #4 refer to preserving or protecting and enhancing rural character. On page 3-2 is a quotation from the SB6094 amendment to the GMA 36.70A.030(14), the definition of rural character (in particular, please take note of sub-paragraph [b]): "... Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment; b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas ..." Further, the Comprehensive Plan states in the subsequent paragraph that is has, in language, adopted amendment SB6094: "The land use designations and the goals and policies of this element have been developed to meet these criteria. Goals and policies of other elements of the Comprehensive Plan have been evaluated for consistency with the protection of rural character as defined above, and by the other factors contributing to local "rural character" as provided under the full text of the amendment." Finding: I submit that the writers of the plan did not follow through in practice. LNG 5.0 and sub-paragraphs are concrete examples of the Plan not being adjusted to meet the letter of the law. Let me point out specific pans of the Plan that show how the planning focus was never expanded to incorporate the intent of the GMA amendment. Law: Under Comprehensive Plan Planning Assumptions and Goals, the fourth bullet (on page 3-9) is worth noting; it reads: "Prior to the County's first interim zoning code in 1992, options for commercial development were relatively unrestricted throughout the county. The 1994 zoning ordinance recognized and limited many established commercial areas and uses, and included adjacent undeveloped land that may not meet GMA criteria for rural commercial land. Marsh, K. 2/11/00 Page 1 Finding: The language of SB6094 significantly expanded the criteria for rural commercial land. In Brinnon, as elsewhere in the county, previously designated commercial areas that meet the criteria following the passage of SB6094 had already been removed from county maps, and were not reconsidered within the context of the full amendment. Law: The last point under land use assumptions makes clear the county understood one of our most basic issues: "Local employment helps to limit local commuter traffic on Highway 101 and State routes 19 and 20, where traffic increases would require costly upgrades to meet level of service standards and prevent congestion." Fact: Even though some language in the Comprehensive Plan paid service to the advantages of rural communities being self-sufficient, available commercial zones were cut and home businesses and cottage industries were limited (relative to the provisions for the West End). Finding: This was a blatant disregard for equity, parity, fairness, and consistency in the Comprehensive Plan. Fact: Page 3-9 of the Plan lists six criteria rural commercial lands should satisfy. Many of these criteria can be related directly to the rural areas needing to be self-sufficient: to provide jobs for un-employed adults as well as young people needing to access the job market in order to acquire skills; to maintain sufficient goods and services in a rural area to accommodate the appetites of both the traveling public and the residents. The fifth item on the list is "Support natural resource-based industries." Finding: When our timber and fishing industries have dwindled so drastically and some of the shellfish industries are in danger of pollution-caused restrictions (Seattle PI article of Feb. 7th.) it is reasonable to expect that rural areas will need new industry to fill the void in employment. We need the same latitude provided to the West End applied to all of rural Jefferson County, in order to provide jobs for our citizens. Fact: On page 3-15, the Comprehensive Plan under Criteria for Determining Commercial Land Boundaries again lays claim to having included SB6094 provisions. Section 1. does include the measures spelled out in 36.70A.070(5)(c). Section 2, however, which is criteria from 36.70A.070(5)(d), only relates the provisions of part (d)(iv), with one exception. The exception is from part (d)(i), and is very wrong: "Existing industrial areas are not required to principally serve existing and projected rural population." Law: Preceding language in the law [paragraph (d)]states "... the rural element may allow for.., limited areas of more intensive rural development.., as follows: (d)(i)... (last sentence): An industrial area is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Marsh, K. 2/11/00 Page 2 Fact: The Comp. Plan authors changed the meaning of this statement entirely by changing the first word "An" to "Existing," which was not the intent of the law. Finding: At first glance this may seem unremarkable, until you view this error in conjunction with the omissions of Page 3-15, Section 2 generally. Fact: The GMA Amendment 6094 added significant language to the law relative to the rural element of a county's comprehensive plan: Law: In 36.70A.070(5)(b), ...In order to achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering .... and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character. Paragraph (5)(c) Adds five measures governing rural development, including the statement that: The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect the rural character o£the area .... Paragraph (5)(d) Adds an extensive subsection relating to Limited areas of more intensive rural development, which states, in pertinent parts: ...the rural element may allow/'or limited areas of more intensive rural development, ... as follows: (5)(d)(i) Rural development consisting o£the in_[ill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas .... (5)(d)(ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial £acilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. (5)(d)(iii) The intens~[ication o£development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new development o_£ isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural residents. (5)(d)(iv) states: "Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection." Finding: Even though statements are made in the Comprehensive Plan to indicate that provisions of the amendment SB6094 were considered in delineating commercial areas for rural communities (page 3-15), it is clear that only the more restrictive parts of the amendment were incorporated. Rural communities were not evaluated within the proper context of the law's paragraphs 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i), (d)(ii), and (d)(iii). The possible changes that could have been made to rural planning given the whole intent of the law were circumvented by writing criteria with a very narrow focus, bordering on an appearance of an obstructed viewpoint. Marsh, K. 2/11/00 Page 3 The inequities in the Comprehensive Plan are plain: 1) The writers did not wholly apply the SB6094 amendment to the GMA and revise rural planning accordingly. Commercial areas that had existed or were in use should have been reconsidered and primarily restored. 2) The standards for home businesses and cottage industries that were designed for the Queets/Clearwater communities should have also been applied to other parts of rural Jefferson County. South County, for example, is also very distant from an urban growth area. We, too, rely heavily on home occupations to provide a large percentage of our economic basis. We have very limited commercial property available, and because of the remoteness of our community, precious little to offer our young people who need a place to learn to work. Expanding the possibilities of home business and cottage industry jobs will give them a place to start. In response to the Planning Commission's findings relative to CPA99-20: Finding 1. Deleting LNP 5.1 would not leave the Plan without criteria; the text of the RCW still is the law. In point of fact, a change to LNP 5.1, addressing the whole of the law, would be in order. Finding 2. The "change of circumstances" the commission looks for would not be obvious to them .... A change is warranted because the whole intent of SB6094 was not reflected in the Plan. Finding 3. This is a red herring. None of the proponents for CPA 99-20 has intended nor asked for "...motels, RV Parks, resorts, marinas and gift shops (in) all of the smaller commercial areas" Finding 4. Performance standards do, indeed, provide guidance! For the staff or project proponents, consistency is in the use of the law...considering input from hearings...using best judgement applied fairly! Use-tables will always be challenged by the desire to change to reflect actual business possibilities for appropriate land use. Finding 5. I am not privy to the Threshold Determination and cannot comment with specifics on this finding. However, it is my opinion, based on the commission's statement, that a study cannot shed any further light on the general nature of this amendment's request. In particular, the Threshold Determination needs some analysis .... Finding 6. If LNP 5-1 is struck, or if it is replaced by another policy, the text of the RCW is still law. In particular, this amendment should not be denied on the basis that some work has to go into repairing the defective Comprehensive Plan. Finding 7. By what measure is "significant public input" determined? As a point of fact, the Chambers of Commerce whose representatives worked together to craft this amendment are evidence of significant public input; our community members, many of whom have addressed you are a testament to public input, and our letters of support from the community are all representative of significant public input. Marsh, K. 2/11/00 Page 4 In response to the Planning Commission's findings relative to CPA99-22: Finding 1. Read "Finding 7," above. Finding 2. There have been too few commercial areas designated in the other rural parts of the county. A major aspect of the rural character of Jefferson County is the reliance on home occupations to support the economic viability of the communities. Even if we did have an additional commercial possibility, lessening the restrictions on home occupations would enable a greater number of our un-employed and young people to find jobs. Finding 3.. What is the logic here? Why insist on writing an ordinance before considering a change in law? It should have no bearing. In fact, it would seem to be a protective attitude .... Finding 4. The intent of this amendment is to focus on all of rural Jefferson County. If these changes were put forward as part of a community planning process, then it would only be serving a single community. Finding 5. Rural businesses will always be encouraged to expand into designated commercial areas. However, many more businesses can become viable by virtue of being home occupations or cottage industries before taking that critical next step to relocation. Finding 6. Any industrial activities desiring to locate or re-locate would fall under the same review process as now in place. Public input is very valuable in these decisions. Finding 7. The "change of circumstances" the commission looks for would not be obvious to them .... A change is warranted because the Plan was written with inconsistencies and inequities that should be corrected. Finding 8. A red herring. The fact is that home businesses and cottage industries ARE rural character in the outlying areas of Jefferson County. Finding 9. This amendment furthers rural residential character, and does nothing to restrain or infringe on the rights of adjacent residential property owners. Do not overlook the fact that there are still policies in place that govern the day-to-day operations of these occupations. Finding 10. This amendment would comply, provided the goals, policies, and strategy objectives of the Plan were equal to the law. Finding 11. I am not privy to the Threshold Determination and cannot comment with specifics on this finding. However, it is my opinion, based on the commission's statement, that a study cannot shed any further light on the general nature of this amendment's request. In particular, the Threshold Determination needs some analysis .... Finding 12. The definition of rural should include a distance from both Port Townsend and Port Ludlow, in order to avoid being too inclusive. All other communities more than 10 miles from these two locations should be included, since, like Brinnon and Qtlilcene, they need the exemptions in home occupation policies that were given to the West End. Marsh, K. 2/11/00 Page 5 To the Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County. Following is the testimony which I had intended to presen~?~lf~}i~ Wednesday but was unable to do so as time ran out. I have been living in Port Townsend for about three years. I moved here because of the scenic beauty of the area, its diverse population and the quality of life. The Chevy Chase golf course is an important part of that quality of life, not only for me but, I suspect, for many people who make their home here. Chevy Chase is one of the most beautiful golf courses almost anywhere, and one of the most affordable. That alone makes it one of the major assets of this community. I suspect that in some people' minds golf conjures up the notion of "elitist"or "rich", and for that reason alone they reject the sport and anything that goes with it. I frequently go to Chevy Chase alone and pair up with whomever happens to be there. I have played with fishermen, loggers, mailmen, construction workers and many retirees, who more and more make up the economic base of this community. Hardly an elitist crowd. The Baileys have been loyal and important supporters of this community for far longer than most of the people who oppose their plan. They provide employment, bring tourist dollars to our community and support worthy causes. But they, like everybody else, have to make a living. They have been injecting significant amounts of money into the Chevy Chase course for many years with little to show for it so far. Their housing project will ensure that Chevy Chase will remain a viable enterprise in the future and an asset that makes an important contribution to the welfare of this community. The Bailey plan incorporates many of the values we hold dear. By clustering homes it avoids the urban sprawl and contributes to the maintenance of the area's rural character. One hears the term 'high density' being used. Five acres per housing unit is hardly 'high density'. Furthermore, it would appear that the average lot size of the Chevy Chase Home Owners Association which opposes the Bailey plan is far less than 5 acres. Another argument is traffic congestion. When one considers how many buildable lots there are between Chevy Chase and Cape George the additional traffic generated by 40 or so units is hardly worth mentioning. Could it be that those people who oppose the plan want to have their cake and eat it too, and that at the expense of someone else? One of the arguments frequently heard is 'lets stick to the Growth Management Plan', a convenient way to block any development that is not convenient. Yet,. individuals involved in the creation of the plan have repeatedly stated that the plan was designed to be amended. And that is the proper way to go about it. Ahyone who has ever been involved in serious planning knows that a plan that cannot be altered and adapted to changing circumstances is a bad plan that is destined for the trash heap. I can only urge the individuals responsible for making the decision on the plan for Chevy Chase to rule for its adoption. It is good for Port Townsend because it provides employment, supports tourism and helps to diversify the economy, something that is much needed in Jefferson County. And above all, it is fair. Bruno Richter 115 Kala Lagoon Ct. Port Townsend, Wa F~m-ZZ-O00Z=eT-- C~ii)C-~ ~g-J/-e'B Fax Me~age''~'~' FEB 1 1 ~¢~"~' 'l'olal # of i)ag.s: ~ Feb-11-O0 02:27P P.02 Brinnon General Store306413 ttighway 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 (360) 796-4400 F~mary 1 !, 2000 ~ ~ Jefferson County Mastff Plan Amendment Council Department of Community Development 62I Sheridan Port Townsend, WA 98368 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MASTER PLAN JEFFERSON COUNTY I ask the Board of County Commissioners to disapprove Comprehensive Plan Amendments 99-09, 99- I 0, and 99-20, asking to change the land use classification. The rural communities in question have not, as yet, shown significant growth to support large-scale development. Adding retail stores with minimum-wage seasonal jobs does not promote economic growth. At this time, the areas needs do not support expansion. The county planning commission has already addressed these issues in Land Use Chapter Policy 5.1, which guarantees that the areas in question will remain rural and residential. It is intended to restrict commercial growth, as adopted by the council members, and in keeping with the county's Growth Management Act. The RCW § 36.70A. 110(3) states that "Urban Growth Areas should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development." Additionally, the current commercial businesses in the areas of Brinnon, Quilcene, and other surrounding communities would be threatened and a decline in their business would occur. The proposed amendments do not comply with the council's earlier findings, and should remain unchanged. Black Point is a dangerous interchange for any business area to be located without changes to the roadway, at the taxpayer's expense. Maintenance of the proposed area is also a concern. Access roads will need to be maintained due to increased traffic from tourism. Utilities will need to be maintained and police presence as well as fire station coverage will need to be implemented. Many of these costs will fall on the local, yearlong residents in the form of tax increases. Many permanent residents are retired and on fixed incomes. The burden of development should not rest on their shoulders. Of deep concern also are many environmental issues, including waste management and pollution of Hood Canal's fragile ecosystem and fisheries. Earlier expansion of the marina has already increased pollution in the waterways. The proposed further expansion will only increase this problem; mn-off from the maintenance of a golf course could P.03 Feb-11-O0 02:27P Brinnon General Store 306413 Highway 101 (360) 796-4400 Brinnon, WA 98320 wreak havoc on our delicate shellfish beds. The EPA has already determined that Hood Canal is a fragile fishery and should be protected from pollution caused by over development. Rural areas have aesthetic value that is distinct from economic value. Rural residents value rural character and open space that is the essence of rural character. Open space is essemiai for protection of wildlife habitat and water quality. We must ensure the predominance of open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation in rural areas in order to protect and maimain our rural way of life. I beg the Jefferson County Master Plan Amendment Council to disapprove these amendments. We must protect our rural character and reconcile existing development. The Growth Management Plan created by the county commissioners provides an astute vision for the Hood Canal area and must not be tampered with. Owner, Brinnon General Store Marjorie M. Noga P. O. Box 134 Port Townsend, WA 98368-0134 SUPPORI'ING ARGUMENTS I'O THE COMMISSIONERS FOR 'FHE PASSAGE O[ AMENDMENTS. HEARING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 9TH. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-20' '" ..................... " Applicant: Ouilcene/Brinnon and Port HadlocldTri-Area Chambers of Commerce I ask the Board of CountF Commissioners to approve this amendment to the land use chapter, to properly reflect the original intent Its well as the cb_l~rlge (by ~mendmcnt 8B6094) in State Law. Under LNP 5.1 (Land Use Chapter Policy 5.1) as writterk no new commercial locations will ever b~ allowed, and there will never be commercial services at Co¥1¢, Gardiner, Shine, Black Point, Cove Park, Leland, Center, or Hi[hwa¥ 104/Beaver Valley Road. We need to assure that we rural residents will get the services we need in our own communities so we do not have to rely so1¢I¥ on services elsewhere. The B[irmon con-,munitF k p~icul~r is at risk ofb~ing isolated by natural disaster (flood, fire, landslide, bridge dan~ge) and must have the commercial services available to be self-sufficient. As rural communities grow and tourism increases, services will be needed to serve the local and traveline public. amendments to the Growth Management Act under Senate Bill 6094 allowed for these changes, but not all parts of the county plan were updated to include them. Please adopt Amendment 99-20 to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-22 Applicant: Ouilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this amendment to the county Comprehensive Plan to give all rural communities an equal designation and equal opportunity. Home businesses and cottage industries in all east-side rural areas are under greater restrictions than those in Queers and Clearwater, even though the rural conditions are the same. Home businesses and cottage industries in all rural parts of our county provide viable economic support for many residents, provide small-scale services for other community members, and create the remote community atmosphere that is an essential part of rural living. Please adoot amendment 99-22, and allow home businesses and cottage industries in our Brinnon and Quilcene c~mmunities, as well as others like Coyle and Gardiner, the same exemptions in policies as were provided for those in the west-end. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-21 Applicant: Economic Development Council (EDC) I ask the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to give greater focus to economic development in the language of the chapter. As citizens, and as county administrators, we must recognize and put a stop to the economic downturn in our county. To this end, the Economic Development Council is a much-needed agency of our local government. The EDC was asked by the Board of County Commissioners to advise them on the possibilities for keeping businesses in the county and attracting new businesses. The EDC found that by its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson, I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will fbster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Connnissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. _~-~_r~.a,,~ / ]~'~ e_~.~_.~. Dated this~ .day of ~Cov,.~a~..] ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very econonfic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wqjt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments ql. iscuss~l herein, ~m{{ approve these Amendments to the Jefferson Co~unty Comprehensive Plan. -%' - .... Dated this~ of ~-~v )' ,2000 Kenneth V. Gaul 246 Robinaon Rd. Brinnon, WA 98320 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Pleasant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific amendment(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port Hadlock/Tri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the community. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quilcene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Dated this --~ay of (¢o ,2000 its language the Comprehensive Plan is restricting the very economic development that it should be encouraging. Please adopt the amendment as currently presented by the Council, and make possible a healthy economy in this county. Comprehensive Plan Amendement(s) 99-09/99-10 Submitted as a joint request by Ple~qant Harbor Corporation/Chuck Finnila, and Linda Tudor/Dennis Thompson. I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve the(se) amendment(s) and reinstate the commercial zone at Black Point. The(se) site-specific mmendmem(s) request a change to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Permitted plans that are held by the parties for a small retail square, a restaurant, and other services, are hindered by the "down-zoning" effected by the restrictions of the current Comprehensive Plan. The change of designation of this as a commercial area, which is strongly supported by the community, will foster our rural-based economics, serve the local population as well as the traveling public, and is allowable in the Comprehensive Plan with the GMA amendment of Senate Bill 6094. Amendments proposed and supported by the Port HadlockITri-Area and Quilcene/Brinnon Chambers of Commerce would support the re-zone of Black Point. Please adopt this amendment and allow a Neighborhood Visitor Commercial Crossroads at Black Point. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-04 Applicant: Stan Johnston I ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve this site-specific amendment for a change in parcel designation. The applicant's interest in re-designating two parcels (276 acres) of commercial forest land to Rural Residential 1:20 is in keeping with the traditional rural lifestyles of families of long standing in the cornmunky. This change is allowable under the change in law with adoption of SB6094.. Please adopt this amendment Jefferson County Commissioners Dan Harpole, Richard Wojt, and Glen Huntingford P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 As a resident of the Quileene/Brinnon community, I ask that you favorably consider the Amendments discussed herein, and approve these Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. / ._ dayof /~/'/~;. ,2000 2-10-00 Board of County Commissioners Court House Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners, iI--. FEB 1 1 .!EFFEi'iSON !.';OLii',i!Y f'JO RP OF ¢,Of¥ !¥!!S,qiriivERF; I write to you as a resident of many years and a concerned and active citizen. You came to me and my neighbors in 1994 and asked us to help define our planning area through the 'development of the Quimper Community Plan. We did the heavy lifting through meetings, research, survey, and vote with the guidance of the Planning Department. In the end we submitted a plan that represented the will of most residents and met the criteria and intent of the GMA. This document has yet to be adopted into the Jefferson Comprehensive Plan. Why? We have never received a letter from the county about the status of our plan, the quality of our work, or even a thank you. Currently you are considering proposed amendments to our Comp Plan including the Bally amendment. Simply put, how is it that one individual can take precedence over an entire community in terms of this process? We committed our time and money just as Mr. Bally has. Our community plan represents the broad vision and goals of most of the community residents. It appears that Mr. Bally, a non resident and not a voter in 3efferson County, is again being allowed to jump ahead of everyone else in this process with consideration of his amendment. If you recall in 1994 Baily was allowed to submit his preliminary application to the planning department as substantially complete without having to get on the appointment list behind dozens of other applicants. The result was that Mr. Bally slipped under the moratorium while all the rest of the people on the list ahead of him were subject to the moratorium. And recently this land was given an underlying density of 1:10 based on the IGSO rather than our Comp Plan criteria which would have established a 1:20 density. I am very concerned that a trend is occurring in our rural county to bolster economic development anywhere and by any means necessary at the expense of the tax payers and the quality of life which is not just a pay check issue. I am sure you realize that there is no guarantee that Mr. Bally or his heirs will continue in the golf course business. That land at 1:10 or 1:5 can easily be subdivided and lost forever as recreational open space along with the loss of the long term employment it provides. Please consider, also, that nowhere in our comprehensive plan is there policy for the purchase and preservation of open space by the county. If the Chevy Chase Golf Course were ever to come on the market it would be appropriate for the county in consortium with other entities to purchase it as recreational open space. There is not one park, one preserve, one vista point on the Quimper owned by the county. There are thousands of buildable lots mostly owned by a few individuals with speculative interests with the obvious intent of making money based on the beautiful rural environment we enjoy. We have an obligation for our future to invest some of our tax dollars in the Quimper to help sustain this invironment which, indeed, is worth a hell of a lot of money. Respectfully, ~ Julie Jam~n Quimper Resident cc. Ocean Grove Lot Owners Association People for a Rural Quimper Quimper Community Planning Committee (Untitled) BRINNON GENERAL STORE INC. PO BOX 639 BRINNON, WA. 98320 360-796-4400 FEB 1 ! ?;i ii February 11,2000 Jefferson County Master Plan Amendment Council Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan,Port Townsend Wa. 98368 SUBJECT; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MASTER PLAN,JEFFERSON COUNTY Jefferson County Commissioners Mr. Harpole, Mt. Weir, and Mr. Huntingford I ask the Board of County commissioners to disapprove comprehensive plan amendment 99-9 ,99-10 asking to change the land use classification The rural communities in question have not,as yet,shown significant growth to support a new retail complex. Land Use Chapter Policy 5-1 guarantees that the areas of Black Feint will remain rural and residential. It is intended to restrict commercial growth. Additionally the current commercial businesses in the areas in Brinnon, Quilcene, and other surrounding communities would be threatened and a decline in their business would occur. There ara four retail stores in the Brinnon area mt the present. Cove Park is Closed for the winter due to lack of business. Yelviks closes two days a week in winter for the same reasons, Among our concerns are CPA99-09 CPA99-10, and CPA99-22, variances from residential to light commercrial. The Council as already establish ed this area as residential. The Master Plan was established to control growth and to properly develop the area. The proposed changes convert a residential area to light commercial. The city of Brinnon needs to maintain its city center, Its core many times the building of a (sub-community,) or (urban sprawl) takes away from the city center and ultimately has a reverse effect on business. Black Point, the area in question, is a dangerous interchange for any business area to be located without changes to the romdway, at the taxpayer's expense. Another concern is the EPA as determined that Hood Canal is a fragile Fishery and Shellfish location. It should be protected from pollution caused by over development. In conclusion, our desire is that no new variances be granted. The variance requesting area outside o~ Brinnon as been zoned residential for a reason. That reason is to allow homeowners to build and to 02/1~/2000 16:49 3607954400 BRINNON GEN STORE (Untitled) maintain the beauty of the area, The Hood Canal in our area is pristine and needes to be protected. The reason the majority of the residents of Brinnon have elected to make this area their home is because it is far removed from the big city lifestyle and population. Lorna Delaney From: Rima Phillips [rima@olympus.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 10:20 To: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa, us Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendments FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMMENDMENTS Dear Commissioners Hapole, Wojt, and Huntingford, Please oppose CPA 99-21, the EDC's revision of the Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. This proposed change would be a major erosion of the Comprehensive Plan, gutting economic policies regarding the environment, health care,recycling, open space, transportation, arts, local food production, education, quality of life, and sustainability. Sincerely Rima Phillips 2957 Sherman St Pod Townsend FROM : SADPD~2 FAX NO. MICHAEL K_ WHITTKAER DORA LEA ~HITTAKISR P.O. BOX 220/170 MOONVALLEY DR. QUILCENE, WASH, 98376 FEB. 11TM, 2000 : 360 765 3960 F6b. 11 2000 03:15PM P2 REFERRENCE # CPA99-11, REQUEST TO INCREASE RURAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY DEAR COMMISSIONERS, OUR 20.86 ACRE PLOT WAS PURCHASED IN AUGUST OF 1981 WITH FOUR DWELLINGS ON IT. WE PUT A DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE ON TIlE PROPERTY TO LIVE IN, BRINGING THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS TO FIVE. THOSE DWELLINGS STILL EXIST. THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON ALL SIDES OF Tiffs PLOT EXCEPT THE EAST SIDE IS RK 1:5. THE ZONING ON THE PIECE ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS A 162 ACRE PARCEL, IS RR 1:20. THE SECTION LINE BETWEEN SECTIONS 22 AND 23 DIVIDE THIS 162 ACRE PARCEL AND OUR PROPERTY'. EACH PIECE OF PROPER'I'~ IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OURS ON THE WEST SIDE OF SECTION 22 EXCEPT OURS IS ZONED RR 1:5. OUR PROPERTY WAS GIVEN A RR 1:20 DESIGNATION ALTHOUGH IT SITS AMOUNG MANY RR 1:5 ZONINGS AND HAS FIVE DWELLINGS ON IT. THE PLANNING BOARD FELT TI-IAT CHANGING THE ZONING ON TI-lIS PIECE WOULD START A DOMINO EFFECT AND MANY V/ITI-[ LIKE PARCELS WOULD WANT TO CHANGE TI-IEIR zONrNG. IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT ANYONE WITHA TWE~ ACRE PARCEL WITH FIVE DWELLINGS ON IT SI-IOULD HAVE AT LEAST A RR 1:5 DESIGNATION. INCIDENTLY, IF YOUR ZONING MAP IS CORRECT., PENNY CREEK QUARRY, WHICH SITS 1,000 FEET AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTY ACROSS FIIGHWAY 10'i, IS ON RR 1:5 ZONING. HAVING BEEN BORN AND RAISED iN LOS ANGELES, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF URBAN SPRAWL. HOWEVER, REGARDLESS OF HOW OUR PARCEL IS ZONED, THERE WILL STILL BE FIVE DWE!J,INGS ON IT. CONSEQUENTLY, URBAN SPRAWL SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, A HOARD OF PEOPLE WANT TO COME OUT HERE A_ND SQUAT FOR THE SHEER DELIGItT OF IIEARINO THE QUARRY OPERATE. JUST KIDDING. THANKS FOR YOUR TROUBLE, MICHAEL AND DORA LEA WHITTAKER From: Jerry Chawes 6350 Cape George Rd. Port Townsend WA 98368 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: CPA Amendment 99- 13 Feb. 11,2000 This is an addendum to my oral testimony given on Feb. 10, 2000. On the surface, the application CPA 99-13 asks for a change in the comp. plan so as to make the property conform to the density of the surrounding area. This is clearly stated on page 1 of the application, and I quote, "This amendment is proposed in order to bring the subject property's permitted residential density into harmony with the permitted density of the other properties in the general area.' Again on page 3, 'The subject property is virtually surrounded by lots that have been platted at a density of 1:5.' Your own planning staff disagrees with this assessment, and an examination of the land use map shows that the statement on page 3 is clearly wrong. If you grant the amendment on this basis, then obviously you will only increase the density of RR 1:5 lots, and if you grant this to Bailey, then in the future you must grant it to every one else with property adjoining 5 acre lots. This is exactly the expected domino effect of creeping downzoning. Then what else is at issue? The preponderance of testimony in favor of the proposed amendment, including the testimony of Bruce Bailey, was about providing economic relief for the operation of the Chew Chase golf course. The amendment proposal itself says nothing about making the golf course economically feasible. So what we have here is in fact a hidden agenda in the proposal. The obvious reason would be that the GMA is about land use designation and land use planning. It says nothing about providing economic relief for distressed businesses. In a sense, almost every proposal heard in the two days of testimony had a bottom line which said that unless their proposed amendment was accepted, they would suffer economic consequences. So if you give economic relief to the Chew Chase property, you must also give it to the other applicants. If there is something special about a golf course that gives it preference over other proposals, then there is nothing in CPA 99-13 which says it will guarantee the operation of a golf course. There is no evidence in the application that building homes at the present designation of RR 1:10 would not provide the income n~ry for the operation of the golf course. Further, has a ruling been made that the golf course which is a pdvate commercial operation, can be averaged into the total land area for determining the housing density? These questions, plus my comments on 2/10/00 indicate the complexities of this amendment and the uncertainties of its future. Jerry Chawes cc: From: Sent: To: Subject: Comment on #CPA 99-21: Proposed EDC Amendment Auto forwarded by a Rule February 11, 2000 TO: Board of Jefferson County Commissioners - Dan Harpole, Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt RE: Public comment on CPA #99-21 - Proposed EDC amendment to Economic Development chapter (Comp Plan) and CPA #99-20 and #99-22. The proposed amendment/revision to the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by members of the EDC Executive Committee is flawed and arrogant. Of all the changes proposed in this EDC Comp Plan amendment, none serve better to demonstrate their reckless actions than the exclusion of EDP 6.1.1 from the Plan. This exclusion would seem to open the County to the sort of sited-sprawl that the Comp Plan was designed to prevent. Proposed deletion: "EDP 6.6.1. Any proposed major industrial development located outside of a designated UGA and which meets all the criteria set forth in RCW 36.70A.365 cannot be developed as a commercial shopping development or as muRi-tenant office parks." Proposed replacement: "EDP5.1. In conjunction with the City of Port Townsend, develop a process for authorizing the siting of new major industrial developments outside of designated Urban Growth Areas that is consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.365 and pursuant to the county-wide Planning Policy." The magnitude of changes like this, presented by a few minority voices, cannot be accepted. This sweeping EDC amendment did not comply with the process of submitting answers to questions explaining the reasoning for the proposed changes. A multitude of residents spoke against numerous omissions and changes in this new document at the Planning Commission public hearing. Subsequently the EDC attempted to reinsert the education component back into the (new?) chapter again with any explanation and after the deadline. Call it semantics, dismiss it as a technicality, better yet, call it the need for integrity in how we work together - be it the Planning Commission or the BOCC or the citizens of this County. The Comprehensive Plan is the voice of Jefferson County's future. Allowing a few individuals to mutilate the Economic Developments chapter of this Plan without any regard to the interests of all its residents is unacceptable. We respectfully request that this ill-conceived EDC amendment be declined along with CPA #99-20 and #99-22. Mary Ann Hunt and Michael C. Hunt P.O. Box 1447 Port Townsend, WA 98368 M Hunt[SMTP:MERRY@OLYMPUS.NET] Friday, February 11,2000 3:22:10 PM dharpole@co.jefferson.WA.US; ghuntingford@co.jefferson.WA. US; rwojt@co.jefferson.WA.US To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Gretchen Brewer, 1230 - 29th Street, Port TownsendWA Date: 11 February 2000 Re'. FEB 1 '! Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments #CPA99-01 - CPA99-22 Blanket Comments Dear Commissioners: I urge you to vote against ALL of the proposed amendments, and wish to add the following comments to reasons for doing so. I am a member of EDC, and as a freelance carpenter and boatbuilder, I am a businessperson. You've heard the scenic beauty and quality of life arguments. I won't duplicate them, but will only add that no mall, subdivision, or any other type of urban environment of any kind is as beautiful as the natural landscape. Growth can be had without wholesale paving of the landscape. Frankly, it doesn't even have to involve increasing urbanization or any of its attendant problems. Opponents of sprawl have been characterized misleadingly as "no-growth." Rather, I say growth does not have to equal sprawl, pavement, urbanization, and I'd like to break the equation of "growth=pavement=good." Both sides possibly see "growth" as "quality of life." The quality of life I would like to see our County promote is protected natural environments; finding alternatives to urbanization as the solution to our problems. Further, ! encourage us to measure well-being~ not simply by Jobs and Dollars of Income, but rather by access to adequate medical care, education, by clean enough and sufficient food and water supplies to minimize the ~eeds for medical care, by care for our seniors, babies, youth and adulLs, and by the latitude we each individually have to define, develop and realize our own dreams. Our County's beautiful natural environment is part of the cleaning and generating system for the elements needed for the continued existence of people, plants and animals on this planet. None of the proposed amendments seek to reduce density or revert land to its natural state. It is not so extreme as it sounds, then, to suggest that after arriving at and implementing a land use plan, we consider a policy that for each step an acre takes from natural undeveloped state through rural residential to commercial, one acre somewhere in the county must take a step the other direction toward permanent, natural environment. Cut one tree, plant one tree; build a building, tear one down; despoil land, dean that and at least an equal amount up. My comments on CPA99-04, to convert 127 acres of Commercial Forest to Rural Residential can be applied to all the proposed amendments. Thank you, Gretchen Brewer To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Gretchen Brewer, 1230 - 29th Street, Port TownsendWA Date: 11 February 2000 Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments #CPA99-04 Dear Commissioners: I urge you to vote against CPA99-04, requesting rezoning appx. 127 acres of Commercial Forest to Rural Residential. I am a member of EDC, and as a freelance carpenter and boatbuilder, I am a businessperson. As I said in the hearings on Wed., Februrary 9, 2000, once land is zoned from Forest, sooner or later, the bulk of the trees will be cut down. Forest lands are vital to the health of not only our area, but of the planet, We can, t control the dearcutting elsewhere, but we can do something about it here. Even if the person applying for the zoning change doesn't plan to clear cut, the zoning change makes it possible. Talk to boatwrights for a perspective on forests. Last year while I attended boat school I listened to speaker after speaker -- boatbuilders of many stripes, some of whom consider themselves environmentalists, but frankly, many who do not -- describe form_er btti!ding tectmfiqwes that are no longer possible because the wood is no longer available. They t. alked about the diminished size and the diminished_ quality of the wood once old growth wood has been cut out. Only one hundred years, ago, three-foot wide planks were commonplace. The wood had structural qualities that is not available in wood today. This wood had been available literally for millenia. In less than one htmdred years ~ less than twice the age and within the lifetime of many of us -- that quality of wood is gone. I hope I am preaching to the converted, but let me reiterate some important points, which you know regardless of which side of any political fence you are on. Trees, forests, and undespoiled streams are vital parts of the system for .cleaning and regenerating the healthy planet on which we are dependent for our very lives. We can't afford to be chopping down 127 acres here, 127 acr_es th_ere, or even 20 acres here, 20 acres there. At the risk of hyperbole, what percentage of your own veins can you lose before you simply die? One hundred twenty seven acres makes a difference. If the owners of the land feel they need to become wealthy from the land, let's encourage them to find a way to do so while maintaining the health of the forests in their stewardship. Thank you, Gretchen Brewer To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Gretchen Brewer, 1230 - 29th Street, Port TownsendWA Date: 11 February 2000 ~ Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments #CPA99-18 Jeffco Telecommunications Tech Advisory Committee Dear Commissioners: Having not seen the text of the Public Works amendment, I will only say I hope it isn't a stealth amendment. Thank you, Gretchen Brewer To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Gretchen Brewer, 1230 - 29th Street, Port TownsendWA i.~.::: i Date: 11 February2000 i i~ Re.' Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments #CPA99-22 Economic Development Element Dear Commissioners: I urge you to vote against CPA99-22, amendments to the Economic Development Element. I am a member of EDC, and as a freelance carpenter and boatbuilder, I am a businessperson, and I am against ALL of the proposed changes submitted in this proposal. Growth does not need to mean inviting in corporations. Growth does not mean leaving behind the common person or forgetting that we are part of a community. The proposed changes cut out strong ways to bring up those who are struggling, to expand opportunities for those who are strong, to help those who are growing to grow in a healthy manner. Significantly, all the elements proposed to be stricken are paths that, while giving community members needed boosts, allow them to maintain their autonomy, dignity, and independent vision. Left in would be a shell that encourages blind pursuit of independent monetary goals of those who already have money, and creating an environment in which those who do not already have sufficient means of their own (monetary or not) are left without recourse except to turn to those with money - in essence to put themselves in service to them - for their needs and well-being. Without going into a more detailed analysis, it sets up an environment for increasing the already too large gap between the haves and the have-nots in our supposedly egalitarian sodety. In addition, attention to protections for the environrnent, including recycling, would be omitted. These considerations not only benefit those who have little, but those who have everything they want, and are part of a healthy vision for the County. Recreation, education, health, sodal services such as elder and youth services, food bank and so on, are all part of this healthy independent vision and should be actively maintained. Please reject amendment CPA99-22. Thank you, Gretchen Brewer 81 MARTIN ROAD · PORT TOWNSEND -~ L~ ,WA 98-368 February 10, 2000 Jefferson County Commissioners: We like the job you are doing. Thank you. We are opposed to suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to allow the Chevy Chase project. The area is absolutely inappropriate for a housing development - and certainly nothing built there would be "affordable." The proposal would create higher average densities and bring increased traffic to a distinctly rural area. There are many parcels of land within the Quimper planning area with a lot sizes of 7 acres or less - plenty to accommodate projected growth over the next 20 years. The County planning staff AND the Planning Commission have recommended against the proposed amendment. We need to hold the line somewhere. We also find the EDC's thinking regarding the economic development portion of the Comprehensive Plan contrary to what city and county residents want. Some control must be developed to handle haphazard business/building proposals. "Jobs" are only one part of it: the community as a whole spent many months of work to arrive at the conclusion that our goal is to maintain the rural residential of this area "preserving rural character, protecting rurtal community identity...minimizing infrastructure." The "Sequimization" of Highway 20 is now well under way, the once- graceful entry into downtown is blocked by a new motel, flanked by two ugly condos that still (two years or more now) flaunt CONDOS FOR SALE signs (at that time, developers insisted that condos for the town was an urgent need), the Port property is turning into huge, blank blue walls of buildings that will be rising ever higher, and now the Port intends to remove the always-delightful curve of old railroad and fill one of the last remaining vistas with a mass of boats, most of which will never move from moorage. Help! ~cere~,~ PETER M. BRAD~ Catharine Robinson 1070 Tremont Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Dear Commissioners: February 10,2000 Please reject comprehensive plan amendments CPA-99-20 and CPA-99-22. The need for living wage jobs throughout Jefferson County is clear. These amendments, however, are not the solution. They are a desperate attempt from a very shod-term view. To allow economic activity anywhere anytime in the county would create more problems; infrastructure and public service delivery would untenable for our rural county. Please hold firm to the county sub-area planning processes that are underway. Encourage all to participate in their communities. We can find a better solution than these two amendments. Sincerely, Catharine Robinson CC ', DCfi~ ~ Catharine Robinson 1070 Tremont Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Dear Commissioners: February 10,2000 Looking at CPA-99-1, CPA-99-3 and CPA-99-5, I see a commonality. All are asking for property to be rezoned to commercial status, with the properties being outside of the current Tri-area commercial zones. In one case, CPA-99-3, the property is a distance outside the commercial zone of Hadlock. In the other two cases, CPA-99-1 and CP^- 99-5, the affected properties are contiguous to a commercial zone, making the latter request appear, at least superficially, more reasonable. I ask, however, that you reject these three amendments. It is not good to set the precedent of individually rezoning property to commercial use when there is already property available within the commercial zone, especially when there is a larger planning process underway for the area. The principles must come before the specifics for there to be fairness to all and preservation of the communities. The Tri-area has to have the chance to complete its planning process, before these kinds of specific rezones can be considered. Please support that planning process and reject these three amendments to our County's comprehensive plan. Sincerely, Catharine Robinson The Maizefield Company A full service woodworking shop specializing in the design, fabrication, and installation of integrated architectural millwork Mantels Turnings Staircases Mouldings February 11, 2000 Jefferson County Commissioners Dear Sirs: I must urge you, having been in business here for 23 years, not to adopt the changes to the Economic Development section of the County Comprehensive Plan, as drawn up by the Economic Development Council. I feel that they' do not accurately' represent the diverse range of businesses and opinions about how to grow jobs here. I have recently been selected to represent some of these additional voices as a member of the EDC, and as we all work together to improve our county and the comp. plan we'll have a better solution to how to state it in the comp. plan. Until then, please ask for a better, more inclusive version. In other parts of the plan, please understand that there are forces working to erode the gains we've made in insuring a carefully planned route for growth to follow, and that we would do well to avoid conflicts with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the many citizens that want to preserve our rural lifestyle. I insist that you disallow exceptions to the densities listed for the rural parts of Jefferson County. Thanks very' much for your carefull consideration of these issues. Sincerely yours, Sebastian Egge~~/~~~ 325 'Tenth Street Post Office Box 336 Port Townsend WA 98368 360.385.6789 voice and fax www. maizefield.com maizefield@olympus.net Licensed, bonded and insured since 1978 'cc: FEB 1 1 Commissioner, s This letter is to make you aware of our concerns about the future of the South County commercial area, s and home based industries. As a community we are in need of developement, so our Seniors dont have to drive so far to obtain basic necessity, s and so our children dont have to move away to obtain a living w~ejob. It seems our area has been targeted for a retirement ~tge population add that working age adults must leave the area for work and there are little or no possibility, s of starting your own bussines. All South County residents are urged to shop in Port Townsend - 30 or more minutes away, we would like the option to shop in our own communities, but without adequate zoneing this will never happen. I urge you to consider the impact these zoneing proposals will have on the future of communities like Brinnon. Our Country is made strong by the industiousness of her people. Small bussiness has been a building blOck of our .great Nation, where fairness is a way of life! Please be fair with South County !Don, t Redline us out of economic growth and Pidgon Hole us into a Retirement and Resort Community. Thank You Klm petitjean /'~ . , i ..),- f February l0th, 2000 Dear County Commissioners, FEB 1 1 ?0(? I urge you to retain the language of our county comprehensive plan as it read prior to Revisions Recommended by the Economic Development Council. Specifically, I would like to address the section 3.2 that aims to "encourage businesses that are environmentally sound." I am proprietor of the used building material store Waste Not, Want Not which operates in the Port of Port Townsend. At five years of age my business has had contact with thousands of Jefferson County Residents who carry a strong recycling ethic. My customers come from all areas of our county and Ive been amazed at the commitment they have to passing on unwanted reusable materials and their co~nmitment to purchasing used items. Fortunately, at present there is a hand-full of recycling businesses that offer everything from used building materials to household items, clothes and educational materials. A valuable part of our tax base and fair employers, these businesses pass on great savings to the consumers making it possible for many residents to afford life in Jefferson County. Jefferson County may be unique with its concentration of resource conscience citizens. With this enthusiasm we have an opportunity to lead with a growing network of businesses and services that have profound effects beyond our county lines to a global level. Small business such as these often needs encouragement and assistance in their early stages to make a go of it. I know this from experience and today I am grateful for the help I received as watch my business grow with each passing year. It should be argued that we could never have enough business that aim to conserve our precious finite resources. Removing the text that supports these enterprises would be a great disservice to the people of Jefferson County, our state, country and our planet. Please keep recycling businesses and services an integral part of our comp plan. Sincerely, Br09don Cardinal -> Proprietor, Waste Not, Want Not // Used Building Materials cc', Otto Lorna Delaney,. ..... From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bob and Gudne [rsmyth@bendnet.com] Friday, February 11,2000 6:46 AM jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa, us Livingstons IMPORTANT! Correction. FEB 1 CORRECTION! The lot numbers on the pervious communication were wrong! Please replace it with this corrected one ATT: County Commissioners Dan Harpole Glen Huntingford Richard V!ot From/ Robert and Gudne Smyth P.O. Box 945 Lapine Oregon 97739 Ph (541) 536 5260 Re: The hearing on "The Hadlock Rural Village Center" We are 100% in favor of extending the RUCB boundary to Lopeman Road which would include our commercial property lots 3 and 4 of the Lopeman short plat ,(which is contiguous with the Livingston property) Please note: Our property has had a commercial activity going on for 12 continuous years and has always had a commercial designation. Requesting your favorable consideration, Sincerely, Robert Smvth