HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Packet 02-27-2019Jefferson County Planning Commission
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Tri-Area Community Center February 27, 2019
P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Cycle and Code Updates Workshop
5:30pm Opening Business
Michael Nilssen, Chair
• Call to Order/Roll Call
• Purpose of Special Meeting
• Approval of Agenda
5:45pm Discussion: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Cynthia Koan
Amend Rule Residential designation to JCC 18.20.295 pertaining to marijuana production,
processing and retailing on zoned Rural Residential. 6:05pm Mark Jochems
Review JCC 18.15.571, Forest Transition overlay (FTO) districts for possible amendment. 6:25pm Matt Sircely
Develop “Ecoland” standards. Increase density while reducing footprint density credits. 6:45pm Chris Llewellyn
Review rural innovation under USDA guidelines. 7:05pm Cynthia Koan
Eco Homestead, permit designation. 7:30pm Adjournment
• Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
1 | P a g e
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
Staff Report and Recommendation on UDC Amendment Chapter 18.45.090 Comprehensive Plan and GMA Implementing Regulations Amendment Process
To: Jefferson County Planning Commission
From: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development (DCD) Date: February 25, 2019
Re: Proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments to Jefferson County
Code (JCC) Chapters 18.05, 18.10, 18.40, and 18.45 and proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws regarding the scope and definition of development regulations (MLA19-00009/ZON19-00004).
Executive Summary On January 28, 2019, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) referred this proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment to the Planning Commission for review, public hearing, and recommendation. Currently, the Jefferson
County Code (JCC) 18.45.090 provides a process to amend all sections of the UDC
including those that implement the goals and policies of the County’s Comprehensive Plan (development regulations) and those that address administrative processes and procedures (procedural issues). The amendment process, as currently written, requires all amendments to be brought before the Planning Commission for a review and
recommendation to the BoCC. While the BoCC considers the Planning Commission recommendation, only the BoCC can adopt amendments. For reasons discussed more fully below, there is a compelling need to separate the approval process for development regulations from the approval process for procedural issues. The proposal below outlines how Staff proposes to accomplish this separation.
Under Washington state laws and regulations, development regulations are the controls placed on development or land use activities. Development regulations do not include ordinances or regulations that addresses administrative processes and
2 | P a g e
procedures related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law.
Consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Planning Enabling Act (PEA), Jefferson County has established public participation processes relating to the development of comprehensive plans and their associated development regulations (Local Review Process). This Local Review Process requires that development
regulations to be brought before the Planning Commission for a public hearing, review,
and a recommendation to the BoCC. Neither the GMA nor the PEA require that procedural issues be considered by the Planning Commission. The limited time afforded for important work of the Planning Commission should be focused on review of development regulations, not procedural issues. In addition, more expeditious changes to procedural
issues will enable DCD to be more responsive to customer needs without impacting
compliance with the GMA or the PEA. Accordingly, the BoCC directed DCD to work with the Planning Commission to amend the UDC to separate the review of procedural issues from the review of development regulations. To accomplish the separation, DCD proposes amending the UDC’s definition of
development regulation to be consistent with state law, which defines development regulation as:
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by Jefferson County, including, but not
limited to, this Unified Development Code (which among other provisions includes zoning, planned rural residential development (PRRD), subdivision, binding site plan and critical areas regulations), the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, and any other official controls implementing the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. A development
regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the Jefferson County board of commissioners.
JCC 18.10.040. Current definition. Staff proposes the following definition:
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on
development or land use activities, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project
permit or project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county (RCW 36.70A.030(7)). However, for the
3 | P a g e
avoidance of doubt, a development regulation does not include ordinances or regulations that address administrative processes and procedures
related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law. Amendments to the UDC meeting the above exception to the definition of
development regulation or regulations, such as a procedural amendment, would be
processed as a Type V legislation action, with BoCC review, BoCC public hearing, and BoCC action. The Planning Commission would not review procedural issue amendments. The proposal will rename the UDC’s “implementing regulations” to “development
regulations” to be consistent with state law and similarly situated Washington counties.
Implementing regulations is a term of art that does not exist under state law. The proposal requires an update to Section 3 and 10 of the Planning Commission’s Bylaws. The proposal also includes updates to 18.05.050, Planning Commission Duties and Responsibilities to accurately reflect their role in developing and amending
development regulations. Benefits The proposal has several benefits. First, it will save Planning Commission time and
resources to focus on substantive comprehensive planning and their associated development regulations, such as updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program. Second, it will reduce the timelines for amendments located within the UDC that are not development regulations. For example, currently a minor procedural amendment must go through both Planning Commission and BoCC review and public
hearings prior to adoption. This amendment will save at least 60 days per non-development regulation UDC amendment. Third, it will save substantial DCD staff resources in preparing for and conducting Planning Commission review and hearings on these non-development regulation UDC amendments. Finally, it reduces risk for the County, as the procedural issue amendment will no longer require 60-day notice to the
Washington State Department of Commerce. Staff Analysis The following law, code, or documents were reviewed in preparation for the proposed
amendments: 1. Revised Code Washington – RCW 36.70 Planning Enabling Act; RCW 36.70A Growth Management Act & RCW 36.70B Local Project Review. 2. Development Regulation definition and process for Kitsap, Snohomish, and Skagit
counties. 3. County Wide Planning Policies of Jefferson County, Washington. 4. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
4 | P a g e
5. Unified Development Code of Jefferson County. 6. Resolution No. 54-97 Planning Commission.
7. By-Laws of the Jefferson County Planning Commission.
1. The proposal is consistent with applicable state law, such as the GMA, the PEA, and Local Project Review.
As discussed below, the GMA, the PEA, and Local Project Review provide a
process for developing and amending development regulations. This Local Review Process requires that Planning Commission review, hold a public hearing, and provide a recommendation to the BoCC. The BoCC then holds for their own review, public hearing, and final adoption on the proposed development regulations. The statutory definition and
application of development regulation does not include “ordinances or regulations that
addresses procedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards
or courts of law.” Accordingly, the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable state law.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70 (Planning Enabling Act), 36.70A (Growth Management Act) & 36.70B (Local Project Review) are sections of Washington State Law that define and control how Jefferson County controls land use development. Applicable sections of the RCW related to the proposed code amendments are as follows: (underlined for emphasis):
RCW 36.70.020 (Planning Enabling Act) Definitions (4) "Commission" means a county or regional planning commission.
(11) "Official controls" means legislatively defined and enacted policies, standards, precise detailed maps and other criteria, all of which control the physical development of a county or any part thereof or any detail thereof, and are the means of translating into regulations and ordinances all or any part of the general objectives of the comprehensive
plan. Such official controls may include, but are not limited to, ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision control, platting, and adoption of detailed maps.
RCW 36.70.040 (Planning Enabling Act)
Department—Creation—Creation of commission to assist department.
By ordinance a board may, as an alternative to and in lieu of the creation of a planning commission as provided in RCW 36.70.030, create a planning department which shall be organized and function as any other department of the county. When such department is created, the board shall also create a planning commission which shall assist the planning department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and
execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the adoption of official controls and/or amendments thereto. To this end, the planning commission shall conduct such hearings as are required by this chapter and shall make
5 | P a g e
findings and conclusions therefrom which shall be transmitted to the department which shall transmit the same on to the board with such comments and recommendations it
deems necessary.
RCW 36.70.545 (Planning Enabling Act) Development regulations—Consistency with comprehensive plan Beginning July 1, 1992, the development regulations of each county that does not plan
under RCW 36.70A.040 shall not be inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan.
For the purposes of this section, "development regulations" has the same meaning as set forth in RCW 36.70A.030.1
RCW 36.70.550 (Planning Enabling Act)
Official controls
From time to time, the planning agency may, or if so requested by the board shall, cause to be prepared official controls which, when adopted by ordinance by the board, will further the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan. The planning agency may also draft such regulations, programs and legislation as may, in its judgment, be required to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive plan and assure its systematic execution,
and the planning agency may recommend such plans, regulations, programs and legislation to the board for adoption.
RCW 36.70.640 (Planning Enabling Act)
Official controls—Board may initiate
When it deems it to be for the public interest, the board may initiate consideration of an ordinance establishing an official control, or amendments to an existing official control, including those specified in RCW. The board shall first refer the proposed official control or amendment to the planning agency for report which shall, thereafter, be considered and processed in the same manner as that set forth in RCW regarding a change in the
recommendation of the planning agency.
RCW 36.70A.030 (Growth Management Act) Definitions (7) "Development regulations" or "regulation" means the controls placed on development
or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even
though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county or city.
RCW 36.70B.020 (Local Project Review)
Definitions
(4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not
1 This definition is quoted below.
6 | P a g e
limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or
approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a
comprehensive plan or subarea plan, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection.
2. The UDC refers to “implementing regulations”, not “development regulations”, which is not a GMA or PEA term. This proposed amendment changes “implementing regulations”
to “development regulations”.
JCC 18.45.090 refers to “implementing regulations.” The RCW does not define
“implementing regulations,” it only defines “development regulations.” Implementing regulations is a term of art to that refers to all regulations that “implement” the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. By this definition, “development regulations” are implementing regulations, since they implement the land use rules that control the physical development of the County. DCD proposes to change “implementing regulations”
to “development regulations” to be consistent with state law and surrounding jurisdictions. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states, “[t]he Unified Development Code
(UDC) provides detailed regulations for implementation of these goals and policies” (page xvii). An example of Comp Plan goals and policies that would require implementing regulations, but are not development regulations are as follows:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element Permit Processing Goal LU-G-14 Ensure responsive, fair, and efficient permit processing.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.1 Develop and maintain implementing regulations and internal policies
that ensure that development applications are processed in a timely, fair, and predictable manner.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.2 Ensure that permit review and requests for additional information are
fair, consistent and balanced with the needs of the applicant and the public interest at large.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.3 Implement and maintain a land use and building permit enforcement
program that encourages voluntary compliance as the first course of action, but is
protective of the community’s life, safety, and environmental health. This goal and associated policies are consistent with and support the proposed amendment as the proposal is procedural in nature and does not affect substantive
development regulations or official controls over property. Regulations must control and
direct the physical development of property, as well as be within the traditional sphere of
7 | P a g e
land use regulations, such as zoning or critical areas ordinances for them to be considered a development regulation. The proposed amendment will streamline the UDC
amendment process for procedural issues, allowing DCD to bring these proposed
amendments directly to the BoCC for review, public hearing, and action. Accordingly, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment requires modifications relating to the Planning
Commission’s duties, responsibilities, and bylaws. Proposed changes are consistent with
state law and similarly situated Washington counties. The Planning Commission as part of the “Planning Agency,” “shall assist the planning department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and
execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the
adoption of official controls” (RCW 36.70.040). Those “controls” being defined as
“development regulations,” do not include “process and procedure regulations.”
Therefore, “process and procedure regulations” do not need review by or require recommendations from the Planning Commission. The proposed code and bylaw amendments more clearly define “development regulations” and the role of the Planning
Commission in the review and recommendation of those regulations. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to the UDC relating to development regulation are consistent with state law and similarly situated Washington counties.
5. The proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act Review. The proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800(19)(b) “[t]ext amendments resulting in no substantive changes respecting use or modification of the
environment.” Alternatively, this proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-
11-800(19)(a) “[r]elating solely to governmental procedures, and containing no substantive changes respecting use or modification of the environment.” 6. Staff submitted the proposal for Washington State Department of Commerce review.
Washington law requires a 60-day notice and review period for development regulation amendments. On February 6, 2019, DCD submitted a request for expedited review of the proposal to the Washington State Department of Commerce. Summary of Amendments
Summary of Proposed Code Amendments The following sections of the UDC are proposed for amendment:
1. JCC 18.05.050 Planning Commission – Duties and responsibilities (1) & (2) to
remove “land use ordinances” and include “development” to specify which regulations are required for Planning Commission review.
8 | P a g e
2. JCC 18.10.040 D Definitions – to enhance definition to “development regulations.” 3. JCC Chapter 18.45 Comprehensive Plan and GMA Implementing Regulations –
to replace “implementing” with “development.”
4. JCC 18.40.040 Project permit application framework – to amend Table 8-1 to clarify the types of amendments, and Table 8-2 Action Types – Process to clarify the role of the Planning Commission in amendment review. 5. JCC 18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction – to include
“Development Regulations” in the amendment process, as Type V legislative
process without Planning Commission review. 6. JCC 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations – to replace
“implementing” with “development,” and include a revised definition of development regulations.
Proposed Planning Commission Bylaw Amendments: 1. Amendment to Section 3: “The planning commission shall review land use ordinances and regulations development regulations of the county and make recommendations in cooperation with DCD regarding them to the board of
commissioners.” 2. Amendment to Section 10: “Comprehensive Plan Changes, Zoning Changes, By-
Law Changes, Unified Development Code development regulation changes and
other site-specific approvals shall be by the affirmative vote of not fewer than (5)
five members - a majority of the total membership.
Amendments to the By-Laws are not subject to a public hearing or public comment and
can be made at any time by the Planning Commission per Section 16 – Amendments of
the Planning Commission By-Laws.
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposal, conduct a public hearing on March 6, 2019 to take public testimony and take written comments, deliberate
and make a recommendation to the BoCC.
SITE SPECIFIC APP.DOC REV. 2/25/2019 Page 1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451
Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORMAL SITE-SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
MLA # PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME:
For Comprehensive Plan amendments, applications must be completed and submitted to the Department of Community Development by March 1 of the current calendar year in order to be considered during the annual amendment process.
Completed applications that are received after March 1 will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year. Applications for UDC amendments may be considered on a rolling basis. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do
not include all of the information required under the Jefferson County Code) will be returned to the applicant. Submittal Requirements
1. A completed Permit Application, completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, and comprehensive Plan Amendment fee, as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance. Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner.
2. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 3. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit A,” a vicinity map showing the following: a. The location of the area proposed to be redesignated;
b. The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and c. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site.
4. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit B,” a description of the proposed Plan and any associated development proposal(s), if applicable. Applications must include plans and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements. Applications for such redesignations that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services.
5. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit “C,” a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity [i.e., within a three hundred (300)-foot radius]. The exhibit must depict topography, wetlands and buffers, easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site. The intent of the exhibit is to clearly illustrate the physical opportunities and constraints of the site.
6. The current land use designation/zoning of the site is:
7. The proposed land use designation/zoning of the site is:
8. The current use of the site is:
9. The proposed use of the site is:
10. If changes to Comprehensive Plan or UDC text are required, please prepare and label as “Exhibit D,” proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in “bill” format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e.g., underlining), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., strikeouts).
SITE SPECIFIC APP.DOC REV. 2/25/2019 Page 2
11. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit E,” a thorough explanation of how the proposed redesignation/rezone and associated development proposals, if any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following inquiries:
a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize?
b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
c. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County?
f. Do changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
g. Do changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment?
h. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
i. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation?
j. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services)?
k. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
l. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated?
m. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? n. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (i) Access; (ii) Provision of utilities; and (iii) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses?
o. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole?
p. Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan?
q. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA?
r. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the
Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws?
SITE SPECIFIC APP.DOC REV. 2/25/2019 Page 3
12. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, if
necessary.)
13. The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate
representation of the proposed amendment; and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false.
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE DATE
PROPERTY OWNER’S SIGNATURE DATE
PROPERTY OWNER’S SIGNATURE DATE
PROPERTY OWNER’S SIGNATURE DATE [NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner.]
COMP PLAN AMEND APP.DOC REV. 01/2019 See JCC Chapter 18.45
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451
Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
E-mail: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION
TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Project/Applicant Name: MLA #
For Comprehensive Plan amendments, applications must be completed and submitted to the Department
of Community Development by March 1 of the current calendar year in order to be considered during this
year’s amendment process. Completed applications that are received after March 1 will be placed on the
preliminary docket for the following calendar year. Generally, applications for text amendments are
proposals that broadly apply to the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Applications for suggested UDC amendments may be considered on a rolling
basis. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do not include all of the information required under the
Jefferson County Code) will be returned to the applicant.
Submittal Requirements
1. A completed Permit Application and all required Exhibits.
2. A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist.
3. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed
amendment.
4. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit A,” a description of the proposed text Comprehensive Plan/UDC amendment. Applications for such amendments that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services.
5. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit B,” proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both
the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in “bill” format, with text to be added indicated with
underlining (e.g., underlining), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., strikeouts).
6. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit C,” a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the following inquiries (NOTE: Simple “yes” or “no” responses are unacceptable.)
a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize? b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased;
c. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County?
COMP PLAN AMEND APP.DOC REV. 01/2019 See JCC Chapter 18.45
f. Do changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
g. Do changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment?
h. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive
Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
Demonstrate that the following conditions are met (if applicable):
i. The proposed text amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); j. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; k. The proposed text amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; l. In the case of a text amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Access; (B) Provision of utilities; and (C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; m. The proposed text amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; n. The proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; o. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; p. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws.
COMP PLAN AMEND APP.DOC REV. 01/2019 See JCC Chapter 18.45
7. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, if
necessary.)
The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and provide an
accurate representation of the proposed amendment; and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any
approval issued on this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false.
Signature: Print Name: Date:
DRAFT PC Comp plan amendment application text
Hi Austin et al;
Please find attached four documents comprising the draft comp plan text revision application components - Exhibits A, B, C, plus
the text from question #7. Because these are drafts and not yet passed by the Planning Commission, I focused on content more
than form. I trust that whatever is passed by the PC on Wednesday can be included in a final application in its complete form after
the meeting, yes?
Please distribute to the rest of the Planning Commissioners ASAP so they have time to review. I will be preparing the second draft
submission today and have it out by tomorrow morning.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Koan
Cynthia Koan <cynthiakoan@gmail.com>
Mon 2/25/2019 8:20 AM
To:Austin Watkins <AWatkins@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mike
Nilssen <nilssen51@gmail.com>;
4 attachments
Code application Exhibit C.docx; Code application Exhibit A.docx; Code application text.docx; Code application Exhibit B.docx;
Page 1 of 1DRAFT PC Comp plan amendment application text - Planning Commission Desk
2/25/2019https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/
2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT “AA”
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
7. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets,
if necessary.)
Background
In early 2015, when the Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC) reviewed proposed code for
cannabis production, processing, and retail in Jefferson County, Jefferson County was under a
moratorium for all cannabis businesses until our county took the time to thoughtfully develop
regulations for locating these facilities.
Medical cannabis (medical marijuana) had been legal in our state for over fifteen years, but the
legalization of recreational marijuana in November of 2012 brought the licensing and enforcement of
cannabis production and processing into the purview of the Washington State Liquor Control Board
(now the Liquor and Cannabis Board) for the first time. As the State scrambled to decide how to
regulate these businesses, so did local jurisdictions. While some jurisdictions in the state chose to
prohibit all cannabis businesses, many chose varied regulations to locate and limit cannabis production,
processing, and retail businesses.
Since Washington State and the State of Colorado were the first to legalize recreational
marijuana/cannabis, little was known about what these businesses looked like and what impacts these
businesses would have on the communities that allowed them.
The JCPC spent six months reviewing draft regulations, studying what other cities and counties around
us were doing to regulate cannabis businesses as well as looking within the hearts and minds of our local
residents to find the right balance for our unique Jefferson County. For six months regular Planning
Commission meetings and special hearings were crowded with both proponents and opponents. Some
community members were excited about the potential for opportunities for local business,
employment, and retail sales taxes as well as the promise of taxes from production (growing) and
processing (packaging and manufacturing). Other community members were concerned about the
effects of cannabis on our health, safety, environment, and communities. Much was unknown.
The JCPC struggled to find a code solution that balanced opportunity with protection, while
acknowledging that because Washington State had no predecessors in the United States, we were doing
our best to guess at and mitigate real impacts. One of the areas that Planning Commissioners discussed
at great length was around cannabis production and processing in rural residential zones. Discussions
around whether production (growing) of cannabis should be likened to agriculture, similar to the
growing of tomatoes, or more closely likened to industrial activity, were long and difficult. State law
dictated special rules and security around any cannabis production or processing, whether indoor or
outdoor, and this in and of itself set these businesses apart from other agricultural production and
processing, but what would the impacts be? Would it be as bad as some predicted, no big deal, or
somewhere in between?
Concern for potential opportunity weighed against concern for potential negative impacts as Planning
Commissioners deliberated. Sizing of buildings was discussed at great length – should we follow the
Jefferson County Cottage Industry standard, relying entirely on that code and process to regulate these
facilities? Or should a different standard apply? In a rural agricultural county that voted
overwhelmingly for cannabis legalization in Washington State, but that harbored fears of a drug long
(and still) regulated in the United States as a Schedule 1 drug, and without any real experience of
legalized recreational cannabis to draw on, the Planning Commission took these deliberations and these
concerns very seriously.
It is important to note that the Planning Commission is a volunteer board of nine members from the
three Commissioner Districts around Jefferson County. Any recommendations from the Planning
Commission must pass a majority vote of the Commissioners, and that any majority (or minority)
recommendations from the Planning Commission are merely recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners of Jefferson County, who can pass the Planning Commission’s draft recommendations in
whole or part, or they can ignore these recommendations altogether.
In July of 2015, after six months of study and deliberations, the Planning Commission passed by majority
vote draft regulations to send to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, while clearly
noting that these regulations would require review once Jefferson County and the State of Washington
had more experience with the actual impacts of these businesses. We, the Jefferson County Planning
Commission, believe that time is now.
What we know now
What we now know through experience is that these businesses have impacts beyond what community
members and Planning Commissioners imagined; impacts that were not anticipated. We as a county
now know what these facilities look like, sound like, and smell like. For example, in 2015 the JCPC spent
little time discussing the intense and pervasive smell of a commercial cannabis production facility
because these smells, while now widely known and reported on, were not yet known to us.
Far from being the small and inconspicuous mom and pop businesses that looked more like tomato
farms, large production and processing facilities that have been built in a variety of locations around
Jefferson County, and even more have been proposed, pitting proponents with plans for large industrial
facilities against quiet rural residential neighborhood communities.
While the Conditional Use Process (CUP) is in concept one that gives applicants an opportunity to make
a case that an unnamed or unimagined use which might still befit a site, and while the CUP process is in
its design if not always in its implementation one that relies heavily on the applicant to make a case for
their proposed use, Marijuana/Cannabis businesses as a new and very specific use has proved itself, at
least in its current legal context, to be industrial and high-impact in nature and does not fit in rural
residential neighborhoods.
The time is now to take the experience we’ve garnered in the last three and a half years and use it to
protect existing neighborhoods and future applicants from the cost of a lengthy and stressful process for
an industrial use that ultimately cannot find fit in rural residential neighborhoods. It is our belief that
there are plenty of available locations around our county that befit this kind of industrial production and
processing without including rural residential parcels. Because such activity cannot “be conducted in
rural residential neighborhoods without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and
rural character in the vicinity”, these zones must be removed from consideration for use as cannabis
production and processing and make them a “no” use in rural residential zones in our Jefferson County
Code.
2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT “A”
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
4. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit A,” a description of the proposed text Comprehensive Plan/UDC
amendment.
This text amendment will change text in Jefferson County Code sections (list) to disallow marijuana
production and processing in all Rural Residential zones and to reduce the building size allowed for such
businesses in other zones to be consistent with longstanding current JCC Cottage Industry regulations. It
will also reduce the maximum allowable size of growing structures (separate from and in addition to the
allowed 5,000 square foot processing structures, from 21,780 square feet to 10,890 square feet.
2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT “B”
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
5. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit B,” proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the
Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in “bill” format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e.g.,
underlining), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., strikeouts).
Proposed Amendments to JCC 18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana/Cannabis
JCC 18.20.295 (3)(a),(b),(c) and (4)(a),(c),(f),(h)
(3) Use Zones. Three categories of recreational marijuana activities are recognized by rules of the state of Washington
as follows: “production,” “processing” and “retailing”; and each category of such use shall be allowed in the following
comprehensive plan zones and as further shown in JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1, and JCC 18.18.040, Table 3A-1:
(a) Production. Allowed as a yes use in agricultural zoning district, rural industrial and urban industrial zoning
districts. Allowed as a conditional discretionary (C(d)) use in rural residential zoning districts and forest resource
zoning districts. Prohibited in rural residential, rural commercial, urban commercial, urban public, urban
residential, county waste management essential public facility (CWMEPF) and mineral resource lands (MRL),
parks, preserves and recreation (PPR) and Port Ludlow master plan resort zoning districts.
(b) Processing. Allowed as yes use in rural industrial and urban industrial zoning districts. Allowed as a
conditional discretionary (C(d)) use on agricultural resource lands. Allowed as conditional discretionary (C(d))
with a cottage industry permit in forest resource lands and rural residential zoning districts. Prohibited in rural
residential, rural commercial zoning districts, urban commercial, urban public, urban residential, county waste
management essential public facility (CWMEPF) and mineral resource lands (MRL), parks, preserves and
recreation (PPR) and Port Ludlow master plan resort zoning districts.
(c) Retailing. Allowed as a yes use in neighborhood/visitor (NC), general crossroads (GC), rural village center
(RVC), urban commercial (UC) and urban industrial (ULI) zoning districts. Allowed as a conditional discretionary
(C(d)) use on agricultural resource lands. Allowed as conditional discretionary (C(d)) with a cottage industry
permit in forest resource and rural residential zoning districts. Prohibited in rural residential, convenience
crossroads (CC), visitor-oriented commercial (VOC), urban public, urban residential, county waste management
essential public facility (CWMEPF) and mineral resource lands (MRL), parks, preserves and recreation (PPR)
and Port Ludlow master plan resort zoning districts.
(4) The following standards shall apply for all recreational marijuana activities:
(a) Producing in the forest resource lands and rural residential zones is allowed as a conditional discretionary
(C(d)) use subject to the recreational marijuana standards and structure size limitation:
(i) Permanent and temporary growing structures on rural residential lands RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20
and forest resource lands shall meet the following standards in addition to all other applicable sections of
the Jefferson County Code.
(A) Rural Residential 1:5 – Temporary or Permanent Growing Structure Size. The allowed structure
size is a total combination of square footage of gross floor area for all growing structures.
(I) Five percent of gross parcel size in square feet, up to a maximum 10,890 square feet gross
floor area.
(B) (A) Rural Residential 1:10 and 1:20 and Forest resource lands CF-80, RF-40, IF – Temporary or
Permanent Growing Structure Size. The allowed structure size is a total combination of square
footage of gross floor area for all growing structures.
(I) Five percent of gross parcel size in square feet, up to a maximum of 21,780 10,890 square
feet gross floor area.
(c) Processing in the forest and rural residential zoning districts is allowed subject to a conditional discretionary
(C(d)) use permit per JCC 18.20.170, cottage industry standards, and as consistent with this section, recreational
marijuana. In addition to the maximum structure size of 5,000 square feet for a processing structure authorized
as a cottage industry per JCC 18.20.170(4)(o) for cottage industry, an additional growing structure(s) such as
greenhouses may be allowed up to the size limits per parcel size and structure size for producing only per
subsection (4)(a)(i) of this section.
(f) Outdoor Producing. All outdoor producing activities in rural residential and forest zones shall have an unlimited
outdoor canopy without size limitations. All outdoor producing activities for a cottage industry shall have an
unlimited outdoor canopy without size limitations.
(h) Setbacks. All recreational marijuana structures and activities in agriculture, commercial forest, rural forest, or
rural commercial or rural residential zone that abut residential zoned land shall be a minimum 25 feet setback
from all property lines including front road setbacks. Setback requirements for other zone combinations are as
stated in JCC 18.30.050, development standards, Table 6-1, Density, Dimension and Open Space Standards. In
the event of conflict, the more restrictive measures shall apply.
2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MARIJUANA CODE REVISION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT “C”
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
6. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit C,” a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets,
conflicts with, or relates to the following inquiries (NOTE: Simple “yes” or “no” responses are unacceptable.)
a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than
anticipated, or is failing to materialize?
Growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring at an anticipated pace.
b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased;
There is no change in the capacity of the county to provide adequate services.
c. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
Yes, sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need
d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or
is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments
of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid.
e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County?
Yes, the proposed amendment reflects the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County.
f. Do changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values
embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
No, changes in county-wide attitudes do not necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the
basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. However, changes in county-
wide attitudes and understanding dictate a change to our code.
g. Do changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment?
Yes, changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment.
h. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the
County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
No, inconsistencies do not exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive
Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
Demonstrate that the following conditions are met (if applicable):
i. The proposed text amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. j. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; Yes, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. k. The proposed text amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; No, the proposed text amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; l. In the case of a text amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Access; (B) Provision of utilities; and (C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. m. The proposed text amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the
change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. n. The proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; No, the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. o. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; Not applicable for this proposed text amendment. p. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. Yes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County-
Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local or state laws, or federal law as currently applied. (how do we deal with this?)
2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION ECO-PERFORMANCE STANDARD ACTION - TEXT CODE REVISION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT “AA”
The Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC) and the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners, Staff, and Citizens have recently completed more than four years of community
engagement in updating the vision, goals, and policies of our Comprehensive Plan.
One of the themes front and center in nearly every community and Planning Commission conversation
was Housing. And more specifically and urgently, how to create opportunities and remove obstacles for
worker housing, including farmworker housing, while holding the true to our community values of
preserving rural and community character, protecting agricultural and forest lands, and not just
preserving but improving the environmental health of our air, our land, and our waters.
This newest revision of our Comprehensive Plan sought to find bold ways of not just “striking a balance”
between human and environmental needs, but in actually finding pathways to excel at both goals,
improving the ability for humans and the environment to thrive.
To this end, the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan revision included language to encourage
“innovation” and “performance-based” regulations in relation to residential building, agricultural worker
housing, and environmental goals and policies.
Over the last thirty-five years or so, implementation of green building codes and the development of
alternative building materials and water and energy saving designs and products have revolutionized the
building industry. And concern for the effects of stormwater infiltration and runoff on our ground water
and waterways have brought much needed design and implementation reforms. But far from making
housing more affordable, these regulations have (in concert with other factors, such as the cost of land
and building materials) made the cost of building and buying homes rise beyond the reach of many.
But there is an irony to this trend. While the intention of these prescriptive building standards was to
reduce energy use as a percentage and to lower the impacts both of construction and human habitation,
there is evidence to suggest that large, highly-engineered buildings that meet all current prescriptive
regulations have a far greater impact in real numbers than small, very low-cost, low-impact or impact-
positive residential buildings that use proven innovations in water and nutrient recycling.
And yet some of these very low-impact or impact-positive building methods are either prohibited
outright or they are only allowed along-side higher-impact, higher-cost technologies, costing the
homeowner and our environment much, much more in the process.
Moreover, we all know that stealthy innovators have been building and living in these dwellings in our
county for generations, living always in fear that their low-impact or positive impact homesteads may be
discovered and flagged by county officials, while legal, conforming structures use more water, power,
fuels, chemicals, and high-impact building materials but are legal to build and live in - if you can afford
them.
This creates a financial and eco-impact burden on our communities and our environment that is
artificially imposed by well-intentioned prescriptive regulations with unintended consequences.
These buildings and systems could be built and maintained at very low cost if we create a set of
regulatory opportunities for owners were willing to subscribe to a level of impact far below what now is
considered standard.
The Jefferson County Planning Commission believes that it is time to start developing new and
innovative regulations that meet or exceed the on-the-ground performance of current codes in ways
that are not currently recognized.
Specifically, to create opt-in standards of low-impact or positive-impact residential performance that
would allow property owners to easily and affordably permit and build residential structures and
alternative black and gray water systems that are not currently allowed under our current regulations
but that significantly and demonstrably lower impact in terms of water use, energy consumption, soil
disruption, and storm water impacts, and herbicide/pesticide/insecticide use.
Once this opt-in, performance-based low-impact/positive-impact standard is developed, benefits to
landowners for signing onto these standards with a note to title might include minimal permitting, the
ability to build on sites that would benefit from positive-impact living, and the ability to build residential
buildings that would perform better with much lower impact, or even positive impact, than we see
demonstrated in conventional building and living.
This would also allow existing stealth homesteads to be legally permitted and for them potentially to
contribute to a performance-based design database of tested and proven gray and black water systems,
and for legal residential structures with out-of-compliance septic systems to build systems that are
affordable, impact –positive, and will keep them on their land and in their homes.
Jefferson County stands out as one of innovative and hardworking community-minded and
independent-thinking individuals who are willing to work together to literally build a better world. It is
important to reward that initiative and fortitude with opportunity. People are hungry to build (or live
legally in) eco-homesteads, eco-ADUs, and eco-clusters.
The City of Port Townsend has a president in their Planned Unit Development code that allows an
applicant to request a waiver from current code by demonstrating a public value. Unfortunately this
code still involves an expensive application process that goes before a hearings examiner. The JCPC
believes that Jefferson County can go farther and with more accessible results by determining a
measurable standard and ultimately a pre-determined code, possibly administered by a citizen permit
review board comprised of knowledgeable and experienced citizen volunteers, that would allow
innovation a legal path to building truly affordable permanent housing for Jefferson County.
The Jefferson County Planning Commission believes it is time to build the path, with the first step to
endeavor now to set the standard for future opt-in low-impact or positive-impact performance
regulations by adding such action item to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in this update.
2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION ECO-PERFORMANCE STANDARD ACTION - TEXT CODE REVISION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT “A”
This text amendment would add an action item to the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to work now to build ultra-low impact/impact-positive eco-building performance measures that will be used for a future set of opt-in eco-building codes.
Existing goals/policies:
Goal HS-G-2 Promote a variety of housing choices throughout the county with innovative land use practices, community redevelopment strategies, development standards, design techniques, and building and infrastructure permit requirements.
▶Policy HS-P-2.1 Explore regulatory opportunities that help minimize costs to developing affordable housing while
ensuring that public health, safety, and environmental quality standards are not compromised.
▶Policy HS-P-2.2 Encourage and support greater opportunity for the development of innovative housing types toincrease the inventory of affordable housing throughout the county. Work cooperatively with public and private housing experts on community redevelopment strategies, residential mixed-use development, single and multi-family attached housing, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, apartment houses, mixed-use, senior, and multi-care facilities, community housing, farm worker housing, tiny homes, etc. Encourage development patterns such as clustering in Rural Village Centers and Urban Growth Areas, provided adequate infrastructure and services are in place.
▶Policy HS-P-2.3 Pursue demonstration and pilot projects that document the safety and reliability of innovativetechnologies such as composting toilets, gray water systems, site-specific nutrient management plans, water conservation, and net zero energy systems that minimize housing development costs, reduce environmental impacts, and provide more affordable housing options throughout the county.
ADD TO SECTION 3.5 ACTION PLAN:
[new bullet] Convene panel of citizens knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS-P-2.3 (composting toilets, gray water systems, site-specific nutrient management plans, water conservation, and net zero energy systems) to research and recommend a set of performance measures upon which to build a setup of opt-in, very-low-impact and/or impact-positive building standards for Jefferson County.
2/27/2019 - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION ECO-PERFORMANCE STANDARD ACTION - TEXT CODE REVISION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT “B”
This text amendment would add an action item to the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to work now to build ultra-low impact/impact-positive eco-
building performance measures that will be used for a future set of opt-in eco-
building standards for Jefferson County.
Existing goals/policies: Goal HS-G-2 Promote a variety of housing choices throughout the county with innovative land use practices, community redevelopment strategies, development standards, design techniques, and building and infrastructure permit requirements.
▶Policy HS-P-2.1 Explore regulatory opportunities that help minimize costs to developingaffordable housing while ensuring that public health, safety, and environmental quality standards are not compromised.
▶Policy HS-P-2.2 Encourage and support greater opportunity for the development ofinnovative housing types to increase the inventory of affordable housing throughout the county. Work cooperatively with public and private housing experts on community redevelopment strategies, residential mixed-use development, single and multi-family attached housing, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, apartment houses, mixed-use, senior, and multi-care facilities, community housing, farm worker housing, tiny homes, etc. Encourage development patterns such as clustering in Rural Village Centers and Urban Growth Areas, provided adequate infrastructure and services are in place.
▶Policy HS-P-2.3 Pursue demonstration and pilot projects that document the safety andreliability of innovative technologies such as composting toilets, gray water systems, site-specific nutrient management plans, water conservation, and net zero energy systems that minimize housing development costs, reduce environmental impacts, and provide more affordable housing options throughout the county. ADD TO SECTION 3.5 ACTION PLAN: [new bullet] Convene panel of citizens knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS-P-2.3 (composting toilets, gray water systems, site-specific nutrient management plans, water conservation, and net zero energy systems) to research and recommend a set of performance measures upon which to build a setup of opt-in, very-low-impact and/or impact-positive building standards for Jefferson County.
JeffCo ADU CODE:
18.20.020 Accessory uses and structures.
Accessory uses are customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of a structure or site. They must be:
• Clearly secondary to, supportive of, and compatible to the principal or
permissibly principal uses except for Eco-ADU as defined in 18.20.430.
• Consistent with the purpose of the land use district; and
• In compliance with the provisions of this code. The land use category of
an accessory use shall be the same as that of the principal use(s) listed in
Table 3-1 or Chapter 18.18 JCC, unless otherwise specified.
(1) Limitations on Accessory Uses and Structures. Accessory uses and
structures are permitted in any district, except as limited or prohibited in this section, in Table 3-1, or in the sections covering the various land use districts in Chapter 18.15 JCC, in Chapter 18.18 JCC, or in section 18.20.430.
(2) Accessory Dwelling Units. With the exception of allowing multiple Eco-ADUs as part of a conditional discretionary use, one accessory
dwelling unit is permitted per legal lot of record as an accessory to an
existing single-family dwelling or on a legal lot of record as an accessory to
an existing industrial use in LI or LI/C zones; provided, that the following
requirements are met:
(a) Maximum Size. An accessory dwelling unit shall have a maximum size of 1,250 square feet of gross floor area.
(b) Owner Occupied. To obtain an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) designation, the owner of the subject property shall reside on the premises, either in the main or accessory dwelling. An employee of the property
owner or tenant business shall occupy an ADU in place of the owner within
LI or LI/C zones.
(c) Certificate of Occupancy. A certificate of occupancy is required pursuant
to the International Building Code and shall be obtained from the building
official and posted within the ADU. The code inspection and compliance
required to obtain a certificate of occupancy in an existing building shall be
restricted to the portion of the building to be occupied by an ADU and shall
apply only to new construction, rather than existing components.
(d) Outbuildings. Outbuildings may be constructed or expanded to accommodate an ADU within the structure. ADUs established in these outbuildings shall not be larger than 1,250 square feet in floor area. ADUs in LI and LI/C zones are exempt from the special setback requirements for residential uses abutting light industrial uses or zones specified in Chapter
18.30 JCC.
(e) Exterior Entrance. In order to preserve the outward appearance of
single-family neighborhoods, the front of the house shall have only one
exterior entrance. A separate exit doorway to the outside is required for
each dwelling unit. This provision does not apply to Eco-ADU projects as defined in section 18.20.430.
(f) Water and Wastewater Disposal Service. Prior to obtaining a permit to construct or place an ADU, the applicant shall provide proof of an adequate potable water supply as provided in RCW 19.27.097 and applicable regulations and policies established by the Jefferson County board of
health or the Jefferson County board of commissioners, and proof of
on-site septic system approval from the Jefferson County department of
environmental health.
(g) Travel Trailer/Recreational Vehicles. For the purpose of this chapter,
accessory dwelling units shall not be travel trailers, recreational vehicles,
recreational park trailers, buses, truck storage containers, or similar manufactured units which are not originally intended to be used for residences and built to the International Building Code adopted by Jefferson County.
(3) Outdoor Residential Storage. This subsection shall apply only to outdoor storage accessory to residential uses in residential districts.
Outdoor storage other than accessory uses subordinate to a primary
residential use may be permitted only in those districts where specified as a
permitted use in Table 3-1 or Chapter 18.18 JCC, and shall meet other
applicable requirements of JCC 18.20.280 relative to outdoor storage yards.
(a) Outdoor residential storage shall be maintained in an orderly manner and shall create no fire, safety, health or sanitary hazard;
(b) Not more than two unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on
any lot unless totally screened from view of neighboring dwellings and rights-of-way. Such screening shall meet all applicable performance and development standards specific to the district in which the storage is kept, and shall be in keeping with the character of the area. Screening shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.30 JCC. Outdoor storage of three or more junk motor vehicles is prohibited except in those districts where specified
as an automobile wrecking yard or junk (or salvage) yard and allowed as a
permitted use in Table 3-1 or Chapter 18.18 JCC, and such storage shall
meet the requirements of JCC 18.20.100, Automobile wrecking yards and
junk (or salvage) yards. In no case, shall any such junk motor vehicles be
stored in a critical area.
(4) Junk Yards. Junk yards shall be prohibited, except where permitted as specified in Table 3-1 or Chapter 18.18 JCC and in accordance with the requirements of JCC 18.20.100, Automobile wrecking yards and junk (or salvage) yards.
(5) Minor Public Facility Accessory Structures. Minor accessory additions to
existing public facilities will be considered as accessory uses not requiring
discretionary use review or a conditional use permit. Such minor accessory
structures include, for example, a water tower or small shed at a fire
station, or construction of a cover over an existing playfield at a school or
park, but not, for example, construction of a new wing to a public building or
construction of a major new building or structure on the site. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
======
NEW SECTION: 18.20.430 (placeholder number)
Definitions:
“Eco-ADU”. An Eco-ADU is an ADU approved for habitation under this
section following the issuance of a Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit by the
Director. Eco-ADUs are limited to residential parcels of 5 acres or greater. All regulations as defined in section (cite) apply to Eco-ADUs except for the
sixth provision. Eco-ADUs are not required to contain every amenity that a
standard ADU is expected to contain, with exemptions subject to review by the Review Panel and the Director. “Agricultural Eco-ADU”. An Eco-ADU project located in agricultural zones is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU, and Eco-ADUs must comply with special criteria, including the maintenance of a farm plan.
“Sustainable Forest Eco-ADU”. An Eco-ADU project located in forest zones
is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU, and Eco-ADUs must comply with
special criteria, including the maintenance of a sustainable forestry plan.
“Eco-ADU project” - A project comprised of one of the three types of Eco-ADUs, In this section, the word ‘project’ refers to an Eco-ADU project. “Citizen Expert Review Panel” - In this section, the term “Review Panel” shall refer to the Citizen Expert Review Panel as defined by (cite)
“Living Land Stewardship Standard” - The Living Land Stewardship
Standard is also referenced within this section as “the standard”, “the
guidelines” or the “Eco-ADU standard”. The voluntary standard intends to
ameliorate four primary areas of concern with regard to allowed
conventional construction techniques and lifestyle choices, and agricultural and forestry practices. The four primary areas of concern that are addressed by the standard are: 1) the presence and use of toxics and materials such as synthetic pest control products or synthetic fertilizers that are intended for outdoor use and/or stored in outdoor storage. 2) substantial disturbances of soil due to grading, roadbuilding, or erosion 3) the standard prohibits the siting of ADUs in areas that would require the
felling of large trees, and/or place residents in a location with a high
probability of imminent tree fall; and 4) Eco-ADUs shall not be used as
short-term rental units.
“Stewardship Credit” - Land set aside in exchange in order to direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi-parcel clustered site plan (Conservation Village) may include, but are not required to include critical areas as currently defined by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Land set aside in exchange in order to direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi-parcel clustered site plan (Conservation Village) may include preservation of other
natural and agricultural areas.
“Conservation Village” - a multi-parcel clustered site plan which is able to achieve approvals from the Review Panel and the department “Eco-ADU Project Lead” - The term “Eco-ADU Project Lead” referred to in this section as “Project Lead” is a designated sole point of contact and authoritative decision-making on behalf of a particular project. All Eco-ADU
projects must identify a singular Project Lead. The Project Lead may be the
property owner, and may also be a tenant or a representative of a sponsor
organization, and must be designated as authorized to act on behalf of the
project starting with initial consultations and continuing through and beyond
all permitting procedures. The Project Lead may designate that a program tenant, representative of a sponsor organization, or a third party may also represent the project in discussions.
The creation of an Eco-ADU shall be subject to the following requirements, which shall not be subject to variance.
1. Conditional Use.
a) Following initial consultations with the Review Panel and/or Director, all
Eco-ADU project leads shall applicants must attain a Discretionary [“C(d)”]
Use Permit. b) Upon the granting of a permit, Eco-ADU project participants immediately receive an additional 300 square feet of ADU allocation in addition to the 1,250 sq ft limit established by the county, which together with any unused ADU allocation, can be combined and then divided into multiple detached ADUs appropriate for lot size and zoning criteria as defined in 2.
d) Applicants located in AP-20 - Commercial Agriculture and AL-20 - Local
Agriculture zones may apply for a Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit to
establish a Agricultural Eco-ADU project. In addition to the other criteria outlined in this section, applicants must design, submit and pursue a credible farm plan to the review committee, which then determines whether to continue consultations or submit a recommendation to the director as to whether the conditional use permit should be approved or denied. It is not necessary for the Sustainable Forest Plan to include intent to engage in
commercial timber harvest and sales. Performance evaluations and any
variance from the initial plan shall be assessed no less than annually by the
Review Panel. Sustainable Forestry Plans shall be limited to use of agricultural products and materials that are allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU
projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional
materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis.
e) Applicants in RF-40 - Rural Forest, IF-20 - Inholding Forest, and CF-80 -
Commercial Forest zones may apply for a Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit to establish a “Sustainable Forest ADU” project. In addition to the other criteria outlined in this section, applicants must design and submit a credible Sustainable Forestry Plan under the guidance of the review committee, which then determines whether to continue consultations or submit a recommendation to the director as to whether the conditional use
permit should be approved or denied. It is not necessary for the
Sustainable Forest Plan to include intent to engage in commercial timber
harvest and sales. Performance evaluations and any variance from the
initial plan shall be assessed no less than annually by the Review Panel.
Sustainable Forestry Plans shall be limited to use of agricultural and
agroforestry products and materials that are allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis.
2. Number. No more than 2 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels of 5
acres and less. No more than 5 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels
between 6 and 10 acres. No more than six Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels between 10 and 20 acres in size. On parcels 20 acres and above, total Eco-ADU allocation shall be limited to 5% of the total surface area of the parcel. On parcels 40 acres and above, the total Eco-ADU allocation is limited to 2% of the total surface area of the parcel. 3. Size of Eco-ADU. An Eco-ADU must contain at least 200 square feet,
and no more than 800 square feet, excluding garage area. If the ADU is
located on a single floor, the Director may allow an increase so that floor
area may be efficiently used, provided all other standards for ADUs are met. 4. Composition and Compliance. The ADU may include facilities for cooking, living, sanitation, and sleeping, however unlike conventional ADUs, Eco-ADUs are is not required to include every type of amenity,
depending on the project goals, the needs and preferences of tenants, and
the permissions granted by county departments in compliance with
Jefferson County Code. The Review Panel may choose to assist applicants
in the development of new systems and methods to satisfy requirements as
set forth by county departments and the JCC while also meeting program requirements. 5. Citizen Expert Review Panel a) Members of a Citizen Expert Review Panel (Review Panel) shall
establish and maintain an updated list of criteria that shall be defined as the
“Living Land Stewardship Standard”. The standard shall be consistent with
all the criteria listed in this section as well as all other county codes.
b) Members of the Review Panel shall be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners for a term of two years. The Review Panel shall be a voluntary board comprised of nine members from Jefferson County, three from each district appointed by the commissioner representing the same district in which the appointee resides. c) The Review Panel shall establish bylaws which shall be updated and approved annually by the membership. The goal of the Review Panel is to
provide guidance, consultation and official recommendations to the
department director. The director may instruct the Review Panel to answer
questions or investigate and/or address concerns.
c) Eco-ADU projects are subject to inspection by members of the Review Panel. In cases of potential conflicts of interest, or if the the landowner objects, or if there are procedural considerations for any reason, the Review Panel may authorize a third party to perform review, provided that the individual or organization performing the review is also free of potential conflicts of interest and has been determined by both the Review Panel
and the department to be reasonably qualified and capable of carrying out
the necessary tasks.
d) Prohibited under the voluntary standard is the outdoor use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers and other nutrients of a synthetic nature or containing synthetic ingredients, unless allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and
Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel
may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in
Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve
additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis.
e) Eco-ADU projects are subject to inspection by members of the Review Panel. In cases of potential conflicts of interest, or if the the landowner objects, or if there are procedural considerations for any reason, the Review Panel may authorize a third party to perform review, provided that the individual or organization performing the review is also free of potential
conflicts of interest and has been determined by both the Review Panel
and the department to be reasonably qualified and capable of carrying out
the necessary tasks.
f) Program participants and sponsor organizations may choose to offer
appropriate permissions to allow the Review Panel and/or a third-party
review organization to physically sample onsite data for research and analysis. g) The Review Panel shall maintain clear guidelines for managing household hazardous waste and contained management of fluids and materials required for the operation and maintenance of ordinary household vehicles, and assess and mitigate the presence and/or probability of engine
oil drips, for example from older vehicles or machinery. The Review Panel
may require the operator and/or landowner to design, implement, and
maintain a containment plan for any potentially hazardous materials that
are allowed on site. h) The Review Panel shall consider fire danger as paramount, and ensure that each program participant receives a training in fire-preventative techniques and immediate response. The Review Panel shall encourage every tenant and program participant to maintain awareness of current
local fire dangers and events, as well as develop a suite of techniques
essential to wildfire prevention. At the Review Panel’s request, either as part of the initial application or during ongoing review procedures, that the Eco-ADU applicant must detail pathways of access for first responders and firefighters to all Eco-ADU dwellings and any areas considered by the Review Panel to be at high-risk of fire for any reason.
6. Stewardship Credits. Stewardship credits allow separate entities which
willfully enter a mutual development agreement to create a single entity,
known as a Conservation Village (CV). The Conservation Village must
design, manage and maintain a site plan. Before any construction begins
on a project involving Stewardship Credits from two or more adjoining parcels, there must be a binding legal agreement between the owners of all parcels involved, as well as any third parties acting as sponsor organizations. Stewardship Credits shall not augment an Eco-ADU allocation by more than 75%.
7. Removable. All Eco-ADUs must be removable unless constructed from
natural materials such as wood not treated with chemicals, stone, untreated
metals and/or other non-synthetic materials. In the event of a permit
revocation or a Project Lead choosing to opt-out of the program, all
applicable buildings must be removed. Removal of slabs and footings is not
required under such circumstances unless directed by the Review Panel or Director. 8. Revocation of Eco-ADU Conditional Discretionary Use Permit. The Director retains the authority under the conditional use permitting procedures to revoke a permit with or without the recommendation and consent of the Review Panel. Permit revocations shall be subject to appeal
to the Hearing Examiner. In the event of a dispute between the Review
Panel and the Director where the Director opposes a recommendation from
the Review Panel consisting of a vote of no less than two-thirds of a
quorum, the Review Panel may choose to refer the case to an automatic appeal at no cost to applicant or project. The Review Panel may also designate one or more members to advocate for the applicant or project before the Hearing Examiner, but only with the consent of the Eco-ADU Project Lead or the Project Lead’s designee. 9. Eco-ADU Opt-out. In the event that an existing Eco-ADU Project Lead
choses or decides to Opt-out of the Eco-ADU program, the Project Lead
must coordinate the removal of all Eco-ADUs
10. Bonus Allocation. Eco-ADU applicants may apply for additions to the Eco-ADU allocation. Project applicants and participants may calculate how much of their ADU allocation is unused at the time of application and add that number to the additional 300 square feet that are immediately allocated when a participant opts into the program. With permission from
the Review Panel and Director, applicants and participants can choose to
add a bonus allocation of 15% once they have demonstrated an intention
and ability to meet criteria in one or all of four bonus categories.
• Structure elevation (for example, pier blocks instead of a concrete slab) to
allow the passage of wind, water and wildlife underneath the building. • Alternative energy installations excluding biomass energy generation • Incorporating living building design components that aid biodiversity and ecosystem vitality as determined by the Review Panel. • A primary residence with a footprint of less than 10,000 square feet.
EXHIBIT “C”
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSALS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
6. Please prepare and label as “Exhibit C,” a thorough explanation of how
the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the following
inquiries (NOTE: Simple “yes” or “no” responses are unacceptable.)
a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan
occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize? Growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring at an anticipated pace. At the same time, the cost of housing has dramatically outpaced income growth, which presents new challenges for longstanding Jefferson County residents and newcomers alike. During the
most recent Comprehensive Plan Update cycle, public comments
overwhelmingly favored affordable housing options and tended to
encourage less-intensive land use practices and environmentally conscious
innovations. The goal of this amendment is to address these public
sentiments with a variation on the existing codes and ordinances governing
ADU construction in the county. The amendment intends to increase low-impact housing options that are environmentally ambitious and thoughtfully planned. The intent is to create a very affordable option for individuals, housing cooperatives, and sponsor organizations to explore and use as a springboard for their own ideas and innovations. This amendment works to provide access to additional affordable housing in Jefferson County through an environmentally ambitious opt-in program that
allows multiple ADUs in exchange for adhering to a set of guidelines. The
program will foster dignified, affordable living situations that also reduce
impacts over the long term by striving to be more ecologically responsible
than conventional alternatives. b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased; The capacity of the county to provide adequate services has not changed.
Implementation of the amendment will not diminish the capacity of the
county to provide adequate services. In so far as the amendment is
designed to move people from substandard housing options into safer, dignified environments, including with beneficial electrification as prioritized by statewide decarbonization initiatives, the program may increase the county’s capacity to provide services by reducing overall social costs such as those associated with substandard housing, illness and homelessness.
c. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand
and need?
Yes, there is sufficient land to meet projected demand and need. However,
because land is increasingly expensive, it follows that many of the homes projected to be constructed in rural Jefferson County using conventional designs and methods will be large, expensive, and resource-intensive. This amendment builds on the existing provisions to add a new and flexible option to voluntarily achieve the goals of the conditional and amendable criteria.
d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new information
available which was not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
All of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are valid. This amendment is being proposed outside of the ordinary Comprehensive Plan Update Cycle as a precautionary way to give the time and attention necessary to ensure that the amendment works to advance the most recently updated goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of
the residents of Jefferson County?
Yes, the amendment certainly reflects the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County, as was confirmed during the most recent cycles of public comment. During the most recent Comprehensive Plan Update cycle, public comment in favor of affordable housing solutions were common and compelling. Comments regarding the increase of ecologically-oriented housing options to foster innovative and localized
solutions were extremely common and also overwhelmingly in favor
(reference: Appendix A: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY VISION
2038 — Summary of Public Comments and Feedback June –November 2016; p5). Both of these priorities are deeply held by an overwhelming majority of Jefferson County residents, according to the public comment record and as indicated by goals and priorities in the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment works with both of these county priorities to create a framework for deliberate rural growth, achieve short-term goals of
innovation
f. Do changes in county-wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the
goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive
Plan Vision Statement? No, this amendment works to translate county-wide preferences into policy in a way that is extremely consistent with the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement.
g. Do changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendment?
Yes, an amendment is needed due the challenges of affordable housing
availability, home and land prices outpacing local incomes, and continuing
environmental challenges similar to those faced by other counties in the
Puget Sound region. h. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County? No, there are not inconsistencies. This amendment works to dovetail
together a number of solutions into new affordable and
ecologically-oriented housing options as a way of advancing the county’s
existing goals and policies.
Demonstrate that the following conditions are met (if applicable): i. The proposed text amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental
services);
Not applicable because there are no changes in zoning, rather an effort to better focus anticipated growth by fostering more low-impact and affordable options. Conditional permitting procedures allow county departments to evaluate this concern and other concerns before permitting on a case-by-case basis.
j. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and
implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan;
Jefferson County recently finished its Comprehensive Plan Update cycle, which incorporated several years of deliberations and hundreds of public comments into the updated plan. The document is described as a decision-making tool for officials and citizens in guiding future growth and development in Jefferson County was adopted following a unanimous vote before the Board of County Commissioners in late 2018. The “Plan
Foundation” contains a subsection entitled “Framework Goals” which offers
substantial support that the goals of this amendment have received
overwhelming public support in Jefferson County. Specifically, the goals
numbered I, II, III, IV, VI, IX and X demonstrate that the amendment is
consistent with many goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. In truth,
similar issues and proposals have been discussed since the dawn of GMA in Jefferson County. Positive public sentiment towards these goals and policies have increased as affordable housing challenges, farmland preservation challenges, and overall environmental challenges have galvanized public engagement and appear to have increased support for the goals of the amendment.
Framework Goal I — Preserving Rural Character
Conserve Jefferson County’s functioning rural way of life, agricultural and
forest working lands, shoreline and mountain vistas, and natural
ecosystems, not just to be preserved to provide scenery, but to be preserved as a living, working, and sustaining rural landscape with which the community has a living/working relationship.
Framework Goal II — Sustainable and Suitable Growth Patterns
Maintain a rural landscape by smartly growing in urban areas, resorts, and
established rural centers and crossroads. Plan for infrastructure
needed to care for these communities. Consider environmental, economic, and fiscal sustainability when investing in infrastructure and adding new development in rural and urban places.
Framework Goal III — Enhancement of the Rural Economy
Grow a robust economy with living wage jobs based on resource lands,
manufacturing, tourist and recreation-oriented services, and
evolving technologies that allows our communities to thrive;
through a concept of a sustainable rural economy – benefiting
the county’s clean environment, and benefiting from the
county’s clean environment.
Framework Goal IV — Housing Variety and Affordability
Create opportunities for innovation and flexibility in housing types affordable and attainable across incomes, ages, and abilities. Promote an adequate supply of quality year-round housing for the work- force, seasonal housing for farmworkers, and
recreational homes or accommodations for visitors.
Framework Goal VI — Environmental Conservation
Foster environmental stewardship, preserve clean air and water, and
protect fish and wildlife habitat. Anticipate and respond to
climate change with mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Framework Goal IX — Continuous and Ongoing Public Involvement
Provide opportunities for meaningful public involvement. Engage diverse stakeholders.
Framework Goal X — Compliant with GMA
Maintain a Comprehensive Plan consistent with GMA goals, requirements, case law, and the County-wide Planning Policies, and within
this framework, strive to provide leadership and collaborative
work with the State on legislative and local solutions to the
challenges met with GMA by rural counties.
k. The proposed text amendment will not result in probable significant
adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; Yes, there are no changes in zoning, rather an effort to better focus
anticipated growth by fostering more low-impact and affordable options.
Conditional permitting procedures allow county departments to evaluate
this concern and other concerns before permitting on a case-by-case basis.
l. In the case of a text amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Access;
(B) Provision of utilities; and
(C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses;
m. The proposed text amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; This proposed text amendment is designed to ameliorate and respond to any public pressure for changes in land use designations. The vast majority
of public sentiment is in favor of better focusing growth by encouraging
clustered housing, small structures, and responsible environmental
practices in the county.
n. The proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; No, the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections. The amendment may help more
Jefferson County residents remain in Jefferson County as home and land
prices will likely continue to rise.
o. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed text amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; Not applicable. Eco-ADU projects will not permitted within Jefferson
County’s UGA.
p. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management
Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson
County, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. Yes, as previously stated, there is longstanding sentiment in Jefferson County that supports the amendment, and in the spirit of GMA, this amendment represents how members of the Jefferson County community
strive work together to intentionally solve problems and plan a better future
together.