HomeMy WebLinkAbout07cpaStaffSEPA_1EnvSummFactsheetJefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
1 Environmental Summary & Fact Sheet
1.1 FACT SHEET
Title and Description of
Proposed Action
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), the Jefferson County Board
of County Commissioners (BoCC) is considering
adoption of ten (10) individual amendment proposals
to the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Nine (9) site-specific amendment proposals (one of
which is a Master Planned Resort (MPR)) and one (1)
suggested amendment proposal (relating to
implementation of the Industrial Land Bank provisions
of the GMA, RCW 36.70A.367) comprise the 2007
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which is the
“Final Docket” for this year’s annual amendment
cycle.1
This document is a combined Staff Report and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for eight
(8) of the nine (9) site-specific proposed amendments,
as well as the one (1) suggested amendment
proposal. The proposed site-specific MPR
amendment will be analyzed in a separate
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The MPR
Draft EIS is hereby incorporated by reference to this
2007 Staff Report. The objective of this document is
to analyze the proposed amendments individually and
cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan
amendment criteria outlined in Jefferson County Code
(JCC) §18.45 and potential environmental impacts
under SEPA. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan
amendments is a non-project action under SEPA and
is not intended to satisfy individual project action
SEPA requirements (i.e., the environmental review
needed for future land use or building permit
applications).
Following are brief descriptions of each of the ten (10)
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
that are the subject of this notice. Each case has a
Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for
reference:
Site-Specific Amendments:
1. MLA07-70; Tukey Investment LLC; west side of
Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction
of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads; 20 acres
(tax parcel number 921182003); RR 1:20 to 1:5.
2. MLA07-79; Janet Gillanders; Big Leaf Lane,
1 The 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) on June 18, 2007 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing twelve
(12) items.
1-1
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax
parcel numbers 702113011 & 702113002); RR
1:20 to 1:5.
3. MLA07-90; Richard Broders and Broders Family
Associates LP; west side of US 101 on the west
side of Discovery Bay; 396 acres (tax parcel
numbers 902124002 & 902121002 (partition));
request for Mineral Resource Land Overlay on
CF 1:80.
4. MLA07-93; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P.
(represented by Terra Pointe Services,
authorized agent of property owner); Clearwater
Road, west Jefferson County; 42.91 acres (tax
parcel number 412182020); RF 1:40 to RR 1:5.
5. MLA07-94; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P.
(represented by Terra Pointe Services,
authorized agent of property owner); West of
Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach
Road; approximately 120 acres (tax parcel
numbers 921322002 (partitioned) &
921321004); CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to
RR 1:10.
6. MLA07-96; Hill Timber and Bay Mountain
Timber (Joseph D’Amico, authorized agent of
property owner); west of US 101 in S11, T29N,
R2W W.M.; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers
902111008 & 902114001); RR 1:20 to RF 1:40.
7. MLA07-99; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob
Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number
001081005); west of South Jacob Miller Road;
RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
8. MLA07-100; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob
Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number
001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob
Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
9. MLA06-87; Black Point Properties, KMC, and
W. Kaufman (Statesman Group of Companies
Ltd., authorized agent of property owners);
approximately 252.64 acres as 13 parcels in the
Pleasant Harbor/Black Point area near Brinnon;
east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point
Road; RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to master
planned resort.
Suggested Amendment:
10. MLA07-104; Jefferson County; initiation of the
process and analyses necessary to designate
up to two sites located in east Jefferson County
under the Industrial Land Bank provisions of the
GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide
additional employment opportunities for county
residents.
1-2
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for
the nine (9) site-specific amendment proposals.
Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community
Development (DCD)
Long-Range Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official:
Stacie Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager
(360) 379-4463
Contact Person(s):
Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4482
or
Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4472
Authors and Principal
Contributors
Jefferson County Department of Community
Development Long-Range Planning
Date of Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum and Brinnon MPR
Draft EIS Issuance
September 5, 2007
Date Comments are Due For site-specific amendment proposals numbered 1 –
8 and suggested amendment proposal number 10
above:
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning
Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at the
Chimacum High School Auditorium.
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30
p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2007.
For site-specific amendment proposal number 9 above
(Brinnon MPR):
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning
Commission public hearing, Wednesday, October
3, 2007, 6:30 p.m., at the Brinnon Community
Center.
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30
p.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2007.
1-3
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Past Related Actions and
Future Anticipated Actions
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at
6:30 PM, Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at the
Chimacum High School Auditorium and a public
hearing at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday October 3, 2007 at
the Brinnon Community Center. In early November,
DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final DCD
Staff Recommendation together with the Planning
Commission Recommendation for all proposals on the
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket.
Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the
ten (10) Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals
under consideration is expected sometime prior to the
end of the second week in December 2007. The
meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning
Commission and BoCC with regard to this Docket are
available on a Jefferson County website dedicated to
the 2007 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment
cycle process. This website can be accessed from the
Jefferson County homepage:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
Appeal Information Issues relating to the adequacy of this SEPA
Addendum or the Draft EIS and other procedural
issues may not be appealed under the administrative
appeal provisions of JCC §18.40.330. Appeals of
GMA actions (i.e., a legislative decision by the BoCC)
are heard first by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board.
Location of Background
Material and Documents
Incorporated by Reference
Background material and documents used to support
development of the Addendum and DEIS are available
for inspection from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday
through Friday, at the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port
Townsend WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Appointments
are welcome.
Relation to Other Documents A series of documents have been prepared by or on
behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations (i.e., the Unified
Development Code (UDC) codified at Title 18 JCC),
including amendments to both the Plan and UDC.
These documents, listed in part 3 of this document,
“Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide
substantial background information and offer previous
environmental descriptions and analyses. They are
incorporated herein by this reference. The reader is
encouraged to refer to these documents in conjunction
with this document for a broader understanding of the
issues and impacts analyzed.
In this document, descriptions of and references to the
contents of the proposed amendments have been
1-4
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
provided to the greatest extent possible, but do not
include all information from the Comprehensive Plan
amendment applications. For a more complete
understanding of the discussion presented within this
document, the Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications themselves should be consulted.
Cost to the Public Copies of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum, or selected pages thereof, are available at
cost from the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development (DCD). The text and
selected appendices are also available for free
download on the DCD website dedicated to the 2007
annual amendment cycle, which can be accessed
from the Jefferson County homepage:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. Copies of this
document are available for inspection at DCD and the
Jefferson County Public Library at Port Hadlock.
1-5
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
1.2.1 Introduction and Process
Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA)
on August 28, 1998 and substantively updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. The Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that guides growth and future land use
decisions in Jefferson County. In each successive year since initial adoption, the County has
conducted a Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle as provided by the GMA. JCC §18.45 is the
set of development regulations adopted in December 2000 to guide the process for amending the
Comprehensive Plan. The 2007 “Preliminary Docket” included twelve (12) proposed
amendments. Consistent with JCC §18.45, all site-specific amendments (formal applications
submitted in conjunction with a fee) automatically qualified for the “Final Docket.” The Jefferson
County Planning Commission heard testimony on three (3) suggested amendments on the
Preliminary Docket and formulated a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) regarding the composition of the Final Docket. The BoCC then established the Final
Docket, declining to docket two (2) of the three (3) suggested amendments and establishing ten
(10) as the total number of amendment proposals on the Final Docket (i.e., nine (9) site specific
proposals (including the Brinnon MPR which is being addressed through a separate EIS) and one
(1) suggested amendment relating to the establishment of up to two Industrial Land Banks as
authorized under RCW 36.70A.367).
This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Addendum. The object of this document is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and
cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in JCC §18.45 and
potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The adoption of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented in this
document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review
needed for future land use or building permit applications). This is an integrated GMA/SEPA
document that combines environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering a recommended
action on each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Guidance for preparing integrated
SEPA/GMA documents is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235. The
analysis in this document supplements the existing adopted environmental documents
incorporated herein by reference.
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents
The following existing environmental documents have been adopted through legal notice
published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on September 5, 2007
(Appendix A):
• Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in
anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS, dated
February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, examined the potential cumulative
environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2004 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on
September 22, 2004;
• The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2005 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on
August 3, 2005; and
• The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2006 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on July
19, 2006.
1-6
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The ten (10) Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including all
supplemental information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting
record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, all Appendix Items to this report,
and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are incorporated herein by this
reference, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 635.
The documents listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,”
provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and
analyses. The reader is encouraged to use existing documents in conjunction with this document
for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed.
Moreover, to the greatest extent possible this document includes descriptions of, and references
to, the content of the ten (10) individual proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the
information from each Comprehensive Plan amendment application. For a more thorough
understanding of the discussion presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications themselves should be consulted to supplement the information in this document.
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis
This document provides both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts
as appropriate to the general nature of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
proposals. The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments is classified under SEPA as a non-
project (i.e., programmatic) action. A non-project action, such as decisions on policies, plans or
programs, is defined as an action that is broader than permit review for a single site-specific
project. Environmental analysis for a non-project proposal does not require the same level of
site-specific analysis required in conjunction with a permit application; instead, a document such
as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEPA Addendum discusses impacts and
alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for
the proposal (WAC 197-11-442). The analysis in this document is not intended to satisfy
individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or
building permit application).
SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are ready for
decision, and to exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for decision-
making (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Phased review is appropriate when the sequence of a proposal is
from a programmatic document, such as an integrated GMA/SEPA document addressing
comprehensive plan amendments, to other documents that are narrower in scope, such as site-
specific, project-level analyses (i.e., “project actions” under SEPA).
Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth
management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum will be
used to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. Additional environmental review of development proposals will
occur as specific projects are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications). This will
result in an additional incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions require
a more detailed evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future project
action environmental review for development applications that are not categorically exempt from
SEPA could occur in the form of a supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or threshold
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement
The following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum.
1-7
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
This 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum and
the MPR Draft EIS are available to agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEPA
rules. Comments on the merits of the proposals shall be accepted as outlined below under
“Public Comment Period.”
1.2.1.4.1 Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketing Process
The public process for compiling the final docket has followed the public involvement
requirements of the GMA and the specific procedures established in JCC §18.45.060 through
§18.45.080. DCD staff compiled the preliminary docket following the March 1, 2007 deadline for
applications set forth in JCC §18.45.040 (2) (a).
On April 4, 2007, the Planning Commission and BoCC held a joint workshop to gather information
and review both site-specific and suggested preliminary docketing recommendations.
The site-specific proposals were docketed automatically. After timely and effective public notice,
the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing on April 14, 2007 to receive public
comment on the suggested amendments of the preliminary docket.
On April 24, 2007, Planning Commission transmitted its final docketing report and
recommendations to the BoCC.
On June 18, 2007 the BoCC adopted the 2007 Final Docket of ten (10) proposals for review.
1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Planning Commission Public Hearing - Public
Comment Period
The Jefferson County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold at least one (1) public hearing to
take testimony on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2007
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (2007 Docket). Formal notice will appear in the
newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the public hearings.
The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum and the Brinnon MPR Draft EIS on
Wednesday, September 5, 2007, initiates a public comment period. For site-specific amendment
proposals numbered 1 – 8 and suggested amendment proposal number 10 above:
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at the Chimacum High School Auditorium.
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through
4:30 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2007.
For site-specific amendment proposal number 9 above (Brinnon MPR):
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, Wednesday,
October 3, 2007, 6:30 p.m., at the Brinnon Community Center.
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through
4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2007.
Please submit any written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or
via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Comments submitted prior to the close of the
comment period will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration during that
advisory body’s deliberations. Please note that the Planning Commission may elect at its
discretion to schedule an additional date and time for oral comments, and/or extend the period in
which written comments may be accepted.
Written public comments submitted after close of the Planning Commission comment period will
be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative
1-8
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
decision. The BoCC may hold a public hearing before taking final legislative action on the Final
Docket (formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson
County Leader, prior to the BoCC hearing).
1.2.1.4.3 Availability of Documents
For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed
amendments, the adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact
DCD Long-Range Planning at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or
visit the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where many relevant documents
and maps are available in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 2007 Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycle webpage can be accessed through the County homepage:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
1.2.1.4.4 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Deliberation
Following the public hearings on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Planning
Commission will deliberate on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and formulate
a recommendation on each proposal for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC). It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate its deliberations for proposals
1- 8 and 10 above following the close of oral testimony on September 19, and may continue
deliberating on the proposed amendments during its regularly scheduled meeting of September
25, 2007. For proposal 9 above (Brinnon MPR) it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will
initiate its deliberations following the close of oral testimony on October 3, 2007, and may
continue deliberating on the proposed amendments during other regularly scheduled meetings on
October 17, 2007. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation
and transmittal to the BoCC on all proposed amendments (i.e., including the MLA06-87 – the
proposed Brinnon MPR), by Wednesday, November 14, 2007.
The Planning Commission generally meets the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at
the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock. It is
possible that the Planning Commission will hold one or more special meetings outside of the
meeting schedule outlined above. Following the completion of the Planning Commission
recommendation on the 2007 Docket, DCD will formally transmit the Planning Commission
recommendation to the BoCC along with the DCD final staff recommendations, any comments
submitted during the public comment period, and the record of the Planning Commission
deliberations. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission and DCD recommendations will be
presented to the BoCC in late November or early December 2007.
In making a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning
Commission recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the
Planning Commission, the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background
information), the DCD staff recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission
recommendation, legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, and any written or oral
comments provided to the BoCC before or during a BoCC public hearing on the Docket (should
one be held). If the BoCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket following
receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for
agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A legal notice would appear
in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing any
BoCC public hearings on the 2007 Docket.
A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals
under consideration is expected prior to the end of the second week in December 2007 (Monday,
December 10th has been tentatively identified as a likely adoption date). The meeting schedules
and agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2007 Docket are
available on a Jefferson County webpage dedicated to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan annual
1-9
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
amendment cycle process. This webpage can be accessed from the Jefferson County
homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
1.2.2 Major Conclusions
The summary conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in part 2 of this Staff Report and
SEPA Addendum are presented here for the reader’s convenience. A reading of the analysis in
part 2 in addition to any supporting material referenced in the text, including Appendix Items, is
encouraged. Generally, information presented elsewhere is not reprinted here.
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for
mitigation measures and conditions are within the individual staff reports for each of the proposed
amendments found in part 2 of this document, “Concise Analysis of the Proposals,” or among the
Appendix Items, as appropriate. Summary statements presented in the Summary Matrix are, in
some cases, considerably abbreviated from the full discussion in part 2 and lack explanations of
terminology. Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues of
interest in part 2, and to consult the Appendix Items, the amendment applications themselves,
and other supporting materials listed in part 3, in order to formulate the most accurate impression
of impacts associated with the proposals and staff recommendations.
“Significant” as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse
impact on environmental quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend
itself to a formula or quantifiable text (WAC 197-11-794).
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
1
MLA07-70; Tukey
Investment LLC; west
side of Oak Bay
Road, immediately
north of the junction
of Oak Bay and Old
Oak Bay Roads; 20
acres (tax parcel
number 921182003);
RR 1:20 to 1:5.
None identified.
Recommendation – Approve the
proposed rezone with the Condition
that future development be set
back from the CF 1:80 designated
land located immediately adjacent
and to the south as consistent with
JCC 18.15.150. The parcel meets
the criteria for the RR 1:5
designation, and is surrounded on
three sides by zoned or platted
densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or
greater.
2
MLA07-79; Janet
Gillanders; Big Leaf
Lane, west of US
101, north of
Quilcene; 40 acres
(tax parcel numbers
702113011 &
702113002); RR 1:20
to 1:5.
Yes. The proposal would
likely increase pressure to
up-zone adjacent parcels
which are zoned RR 1:20.
This would be inconsistent
with the overall purpose and
effect of the land use
pattern established in the
1998 Comprehensive Plan
(CP).
Recommendation – Deny the
proposed rezone. The subject
parcel is surrounded on more than
50% of its perimeter by parcels
larger than 20 acres in size that are
zoned for low-density rural
residential use (RR 1:20). An
“established pattern” of 5-acre or
smaller parcels does not exist in
the vicinity of the subject site (see
LNP 3.3.1(a)), because RR 1:20
1-10
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
zoning is currently applied to
adjacent parcels to the north, west
and south.
3
MLA07-90; Richard
Broders & Broders
Limited Family
Partnership; west
side of US 101 on
the west side of
Discovery Bay; 396
acres (tax parcel
numbers
902124002 &
902121002
(partition)); request
for Mineral
Resource Land
Overlay on CF 1:80.
Yes. Application of the
MRL Overlay to designated
and mapped fish and
wildlife habitat areas
located on the eastern one-
third of the proposed
overlay area could result in
significant adverse impacts
to these environmental
resources.
Recommendation – Approve the
proposed Overlay with the following
condition: 1) require the
preparation of a habitat
management plan as a condition
precedent to issuance of any use
permit within the Overlay. As
conditioned, the designation of the
subject property as MRL Overlay is
consistent with NRG 6.0 and
related policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as
the designation criteria set forth in
JCC §18.15.170.
4
MLA07-93; Rayonier
Forest Resources
L.P. (represented by
Terra Pointe
Services, authorized
agent of property
owner); Clearwater
Road, west Jefferson
County; 42.91 acres
(tax parcel number
412182020); RF 1:40
to RR 1:5.
Yes. Removal of the
property from forestland
designation would reduce
the total forest resource
land base of Jefferson
County. It would also be
likely to increase pressure
to up-zone and convert RF
1:40 parcels located to the
northwest of the site. This
would be inconsistent with
the overall purpose and
effect of the land use
pattern established in the
1998 Comprehensive Plan
(CP).
Recommendation – Deny the
proposed rezone. Under NRP 3.3,
parcels designated as Forest Land
(including RF 1:40 lands) in
common ownership separated by a
public right-of-way (e.g., Clearwater
Road) must be considered a single
parcel. The designation of the
property as RF 1:40 is consistent
with the guidance contained in the
Natural Resources Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5
MLA07-94; Rayonier
Forest Resources
L.P. (represented by
Terra Pointe
Services, authorized
agent of property
owner); West of Oak
Bay Road and north
of Mats Mats Beach
Road; 120 acres
(approximately) (tax
parcel numbers
921322002
(partitioned) &
921321004); CF 1:80
to RR 1:20 and RF
1:40 to RR 1:10.
Yes. Removal of the
property from forestland
designation would reduce
the total forest resource
land base of Jefferson
County. The proposal
would likely increase
pressure to up-zone and
convert resource lands
(both CF 1:80 and RF 1:40).
This would be inconsistent
with the overall purpose and
effect of the land use
pattern established in the
1998 Comprehensive Plan
(CP).
Recommendation – Deny the
proposed rezone. The designation
of the property as CF 1:80 and RF
1:40 is consistent with the guidance
contained in the Natural Resources
Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
1-11
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
6
MLA07-96; Hill
Timber and Bay
Mountain Timber
(Joseph D’Amico,
authorized agent of
property owner); west
of US 101 in S11,
T29N, R2W W.M.; 40
acres (tax parcel
numbers 902111008
& 902114001); RR
1:20 to RF 1:40.
None identified.
Recommendation - Approve the
requested downzone, with the
condition that parcels either be tied
together via restrictive covenant, or
that a boundary line adjustment be
completed to ensure that the
minimum 40-acre parcel size
criterion for RF 1:40 is satisfied.
7
MLA07-99; Sharon
McCarthy - West;
South Jacob Miller
Road; 20 acres (tax
parcel number
001081005); west of
South Jacob Miller
Road; RR 1:20 to RR
1:5.
None identified.
Recommendation – Approve the
proposed rezone. The applicant’s
contiguous property ownership
(i.e., including both parcels
001081005 and 001081001) meets
the criteria for the RR 1:5
designation, and is surrounded on
all sides by zoned or platted
densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or
greater.
8
MLA07-100; Sharon
McCarthy - East;
South Jacob Miller
Road; 20 acres (tax
parcel number
001081001; adjacent
and to the west of
Jacob Miller Road;
RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
None identified.
Recommendation – Approve the
proposed rezone. The applicant’s
contiguous property ownership
(i.e., including both parcels
001081005 and 001081001) meets
the criteria for the RR 1:5
designation, and is surrounded on
all sides by zoned or platted
densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or
greater.
1-12
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
9 MLA06-87; Black
Point Properties,
KMC, and W.
Kaufman (Statesman
Group of Companies
Ltd., authorized agent
of property owners);
approximately 252.64
acres as 13 parcels
in the Pleasant
Harbor/Black Point
area near Brinnon;
east of Highway 101
and south of Black
Point Road; RR 1:5,
RR 1:10 and RR 1:20
to master planned
resort.
Nine (9) issues and impacts
are addressed in the Draft
EIS including 1) shellfish, 2)
water quality, 3)
transportation, 4) public
services, 5) shorelines, 6)
fish & wildlife, 7) rural
character, 8) archaeological
& cultural, and 9) critical
areas.
A staff recommendation will be
prepared after reviewing the Final
EIS.
10
MLA07-104;
Jefferson County;
initiation of the
process and analyses
necessary to
designate up to two
sites located in east
Jefferson County
under the Industrial
Land Bank (ILB)
provisions of the
GMA (RCW
36.70A.367) in order
to provide additional
employment
opportunities for
county residents.
At the time of this writing,
the proposal is insufficiently
developed to meaningfully
assess its potential range of
land use and environmental
impacts.
This suggested amendment (which
when more fully developed might
also incorporate up to two site-
specific rezones) is not prepared
for adoption at this time. It is
recommended that a final
legislative decision on the proposal
be deferred, and that the matter be
included on the County’s
Comprehensive Amendment
docket for 2008.
1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District
Designations
The following table displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use
district (from the Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information System database, and
other sources), and the proposed change in the number of acres under each district under the
proposals. The reader should understand that these numbers are approximations for planning
purposes only, and all figures have been rounded. They do not necessarily represent the actual
numbers of acres on the ground. They are, however, the best approximation available at this
time. The purpose of the table is to set a context for the legislative decision before the Board of
County Commissioners for this year’s amendment cycle.
1-13
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
All acreage figures in the following table are in gross acres, including road rights-of-way and
some water features. The net developable acreage would be lower.
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2006 Plan)
Potential Future
Gross Acreage
Under Applicant
Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation
Rural Residential
RR 1:5 29,212 29,355 (+143
approx.)2
29,272 (+ 60 approx.)
RR 1:10 9,874 9,914 (+40 approx.) No change
RR 1:20 51,444 51,304 (-140
approx.)
51,404 (-100 approx.)
Incorporated UGA
Port Townsend UGA 4,466 No change No change
LAMIRDs
Rural Village Centers
(Hadlock, Brinnon,
Quilcene)
242 No change No change
General Crossroads 96 No change No change
Convenience
Crossroads
11 No change No change
Neighborhood
Crossroads
122 No change No change
Master Planned Resort
MPR - Village
Commercial Center
43 No change3 No change
MPR - Resort
Complex 10:1
57 No change No change
MPR - Multiple Family
10:1
75 No change No change
MPR - Single Family
4:1
1,431 No change No change
MPR - Single Family
Tracts 1:2.5
114 No change No change
MPR - Recreation
Area
259 No change No change
MPR - Open Space
Reserve
356 No change No change
Parks & National Forest
Parks, Preserves,
Recreation - Not MPR
2,859 No change No change
Olympic National
Forest
57,299 No change No change
Olympic National Park 139,463 No change No change
Forestlands
Rural Forest 8,645 8,602 (- 43 approx.) 8,685 (+ 40 approx.)
Commercial Forest 310,327 310,247 (-80
approx.)
No change
2 MLA06-87 a proposed MPR would potentially change the future gross acreage of RR 1:5 by ± 253 acres.
3 Potential Gross Acreage under applicant proposal MLA06-87, which is being addressed through a
separate EIS, would increase overall MPR areas by 253 acres (approx.).
1-14
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations, cont.
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2006 Plan)
Potential Future
Gross Acreage
Under Applicant
Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation
Forestlands, continued
Inholding Forest 7,228 No change No change
Resource Based
Industrial Zone
152 No change No change
Agricultural
Commercial
Agriculture
4,296 No change No change
Agricultural Lands of
Local Significance
3,220 No change No change
Industrial4
Heavy Industry (Mill) 278 No change No change
Light Industrial (Glen
Cove)
72 No change No change
Light Industrial/
Manufacturing
(Quilcene, Eastview)
56 No change No change
Light Industrial/
Commercial (Glen
Cove)
90 No change No change
Essential Public Facilities
Airport EPF 287 No change No change
Military Reservation 3,452 No change No change
Waste Management
EPF
241 No change No change
Note: The total resource land area subject to the Mineral Resource Land Overlay is not depicted in the
above table. Proposal MLA07-90 would result in the overlay being applied to approximately 396 acres of CF
1:80 zoned land; however, the underlying zoning would not be altered, allowing the commercial forestry use
to resume after extraction of mineral resources and reclamation.
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse
are found in the Summary Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about
the ability to plan future development proposals in a way that would minimize impacts, or
assumptions about how mitigation measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based
upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none of the potential impacts of the future
development scenarios evaluated in this document would meet all of the parameters (significant
and unavoidable and adverse). In at least two instances, the staff recommendation includes
recommended mitigation measures that go beyond the regulatory framework currently in place.
For more information on the relationship of plan and policymaking to future review of
development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
below at §1.2.4.2.
4 MLA07-104 would seek to establish up to two (2) industrial land banks in east Jefferson County under the
provisions of RCW 36.70A.367. However, the location and size of these potential industrial lands is
unknown at the time of this writing.
1-15
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty
The following table summarizes the key environmental issues and options facing decision-
makers:
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
1
MLA07-70; Tukey
Investment LLC;
west side of Oak
Bay Road,
immediately north of
the junction of Oak
Bay and Old Oak
Bay Roads; 20
acres (tax parcel
number
921182003); RR
1:20 to 1:5.
As has been the case since adoption of the Plan in 1998, what
constitutes “an established pattern of same or similar sized parcels”
(LNPs 3.3.1 through 3.3.3) is somewhat unclear. A reasonable
interpretation of these policies would suggest that in instances
where 50% or more of the perimeter of a parcel abuts areas
designated and/or divided into parcels of equal or lower density,
that the existing zoning should be retained. Application of this
interpretation in this instance suggests that the applicant’s request
should be approved, rezoning the subject property to RR 1:5.
However, clearer policies should be developed to guide rezoning
decisions in the future; doing so would help to ensure rational
decision-making that does not erode the purpose and effect of the
Plan’s rural residential land use scheme.
2
MLA07-79; Janet
Gillanders; Big Leaf
Lane, west of US
101, north of
Quilcene; 40 acres
(tax parcel numbers
702113011 &
702113002); RR
1:20 to 1:5.
The above discussion relative to MLA07-70 also applies here.
Approximately 70% of the boundary of this property abuts
designations and actual densities of RR 1:20 and lower. This
proposal, as is the case with the other proposed rural upzones,
raises the issue: under what circumstances is it appropriate to
redesignate and rezone lower density rural residential parcels for
higher density rural use?
3
MLA07-90; Richard
Broders & Broders
Family Associates
LP; west side of US
101 on the west
side of Discovery
Bay; 396 acres (tax
parcel numbers
902124002 &
902121002
(partition)); request
for Mineral
Resource Land
Overlay on CF 1:80.
This proposal raises the issue as to how JCC §18.15.170(6) should
be applied to individual requests for application of the MRL Overlay
designation. Many of the County’s most productive resource lands
contain significant fish and wildlife habitat resources. Should the
criterion identified above be interpreted as precluding application of
the overlay to areas containing designated and mapped fish and
wildlife habitat areas?
1-16
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
4
MLA07-93; Rayonier
Forest Resources
L.P. (represented by
Terra Pointe
Services, authorized
agent of property
owner); Clearwater
Road, west Jefferson
County; 42.91 acres
(tax parcel number
412182020); RF 1:40
to RR 1:5.
The subject parcel encompasses soil types, geology, topography
and environmentally sensitive areas similar to many parcels
designated RF 1:40 in Jefferson County. The property is in timber
tax classification, indicating its suitability for timber production.
Redesignation and rezoning of the property to RR 1:5 could create
a precedent with far reaching implications, including over time,
incremental erosion of the Plan’s overall forest land designation
approach. Both the GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan strongly discourage the redesignation of forestland.
5
MLA07-94; Rayonier
Forest Resources
L.P. (represented by
Terra Pointe
Services, authorized
agent of property
owner); West of Oak
Bay Road and north
of Mats Mats Beach
Road; 120 acres
(approximately) (tax
parcel numbers
921322002
(partitioned) &
921321004); CF 1:80
to RR 1:20 and RF
1:40 to RR 1:10.
The above discussion relative to MLA07-93 also applies here. The
subject parcels encompass soil types, geology, topography and
environmentally sensitive areas similar to many parcels designated
CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 in Jefferson County. Both parcels are in
timber tax classification, indicating their suitability for timber
production. This proposal, as is the case with the other proposed
forest land upzones, raises the issue: once designated, is it
appropriate to remove a property from forest land designation
absent a manifest error in the initial zoning?
6
MLA07-96; Hill
Timber and Bay
Mountain Timber
(Joseph D’Amico,
authorized agent of
property owner); west
of US 101 in S11,
T29N, R2W W.M.; 40
acres (tax parcel
numbers 902111008
& 902114001); RR
1:20 to RF 1:40.
The proposal as presented is a downzone from RR 1:20 to RF 1:40,
changing from a rural residential to resource land designation.
Should such a rezone be approved, the authorized agent may apply
for a conditional use permit to site a shooting range on the rezoned
parcels. However, such a potential permit application decision is
not part of this rezone decision nor would approval of this rezone
proposal bind the County to either approve or deny such a permit
application.
1-17
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
7
MLA07-99; Sharon
McCarthy; South
Jacob Miller Road; 20
acres (tax parcel
number 001081005);
west of South Jacob
Miller Road; RR 1:20
to RR 1:5.
The above discussions relative to MLA07-70 and MLA-07-79 also
apply here. Application of the “50% criterion” suggested above,
would suggest that the rezoning request should be approved, since
the property is not part of an “established pattern” of RR 1:20
parcels.
8
MLA07-100; Sharon
McCarthy; South
Jacob Miller Road; 20
acres (tax parcel
number 001081001;
adjacent and to the
west of Jacob Miller
Road; RR 1:20 to RR
1:5.
The above discussions relative to MLA07-70, MLA07-79, and
MLA07-99 also apply here.
9 MLA06-87; Black
Point Properties;
KMC; W. Kaufman
(Statesman Group of
Companies Ltd.,
authorized agent of
property owners);
approximately 252.64
acres as 13 parcels
in the Pleasant
Harbor/Black Point
area near Brinnon;
east of Highway 101
and south of Black
Point Road; RR 1:5,
RR 1:10 and RR 1:20
to master planned
resort.
The proposed establishment of a master planned resort must be
analyzed for potential environmental impacts and the level of
interest within the community for such a level of development
intensity in a rural area. Environmental impacts are analyzed in the
Draft EIS referenced in this document.
1-18
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
10 MLA07-104;
Jefferson County;
initiation of the
process and analyses
necessary to
designate up to two
sites located in east
Jefferson County
under the Industrial
Land Bank (ILB)
provisions of the
GMA (RCW
36.70A.367) in order
to provide additional
employment
The proposed designation of industrial land bank locations must
include consideration of where to site such areas and analysis of
the potential impacts.
1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made
The Comprehensive Plan states that, “a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life
of its citizens” and further provides four essential components for environmental protection:
• Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy;
• Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review;
• Critical Area Protection Strategy; and
• Public Education and Involvement Strategy.
Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact environmental quality.
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations in
the Unified Development Code (UDC) (now codified within Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code
(JCC). The UDC was developed such that protective measures are incorporated into permit
decisions. For more discussion on how this process operates, refer to §1.2.4.2 below.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals on this year’s Docket may have the potential, if
adopted, to affect the environment. For this reason, each proposal must be carefully analyzed for
potential impacts, both as an individual proposal and with respect to cumulative impacts when
associated with the other proposals on the 2007 Docket, and if necessary, denied, conditioned, or
modified appropriately.
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
The legislative adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A project action would be a decision on a land use or
building permit reviewed under the general policy framework offered by the Comprehensive Plan
and its implementing regulations. SEPA review is required for project actions, unless those
actions are categorically exempt from SEPA review when the proposal is compared to the list of
1-19
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
exemption thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental review such as the analysis contained
in this document is useful and essential at the non-project level in order to set up a regulatory
framework that protects the environment. Mitigation for non-project actions in this sense is
essentially the extent to which the established regulatory framework is effective when applied to
future development proposals. Generally, mitigation measures would not be required for the
programmatic action of adopting a Comprehensive Plan or development regulation amendment,
but may be useful and appropriate to address probable significant adverse environmental impacts
identified at the project level. It is often the case that project action environmental review is
where specific mitigation measures can be applied to condition a proposal such that the approval
and execution of the proposal does not present a significant adverse environmental impact. With
regard to environmental review of this year’s Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle
docket, it should be understood that Jefferson County has in place a regulatory framework that
follows the guidance established in Washington State laws, such as SEPA, the Growth
Management Act (GMA), and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).
Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective
January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive
Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive Plan was
implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place prior to the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses within the various
districts set forth upon the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures
Ordinances outlined the development permit review process and related administrative matters.
The UDC replaced these and other previously existing ordinances. It has now been codified at
Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC).
Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for what
are now called “environmentally sensitive areas” are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-D, et
seq. Environmentally sensitive areas are protected through the application of overlay districts.
Examples of such overlay districts include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded
Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, and Wetlands (JCC
Articles VI E-I). The County maintains data to assist in identifying these areas from a variety of
sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal government, in a Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create maps depicting the
approximate location and extent of environmentally sensitive areas.
Development Review Division planners use available GIS information when reviewing land use
and building permit applications and apply the protective measures accordingly. Frequently an
applicant is required to submit a Special Report, such as an Aquifer Recharge Area Report,
Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan, Habitat Management
Plan, or Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are governed by
JCC §18.45 Article VI-J. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and
building permit approval, but can augment existing data for the County GIS database on
environmentally sensitive areas.
Sometimes the existing regulations are insufficient to effectively protect the environment when
examined in the context of a particular project. Depending on the particular aspects of a
development proposal, mitigation measures above and beyond the protections provided by the
established development regulations may be needed to avoid significant adverse environmental
impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions may employ their “SEPA substantive authority” to further
condition approval of a development application. These mitigation measures are generally
developed through project action SEPA review and established as permit conditions through an
EIS or a threshold Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS).
Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of any one of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year’s cycle is not always as clear as placing a
condition on a permit. For example, the legislative decision to adopt a modified version of the
1-20
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
original Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal may also be considered a form of mitigation.
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) may be effectively mitigating the potential
environmental impact of adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified
proposal or even deciding not to adopt the proposal based on environmental considerations. For
formal site-specific amendment applications, the BoCC could apply a mitigation measure that
affects future use of the land in question. In any of these cases, mitigation as applied to a non-
project action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct from mitigation as applied to
a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action review that established
protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas and other development standards are
applied to proposals for on-the-ground development. Judging the effectiveness of mitigation
measures in this context requires on-going attention.
1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action
Eight (8) of the site-specific proposals and one (1) suggested proposal to implement the Industrial
Land Bank provisions of RCW 36.70A.367 (MLA07-104) reviewed in this document are relatively
minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction from implementation
of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan. In deciding when it is appropriate to up-zone lower
density rural residential parcels to higher density rural residential designations, or when it is
appropriate to up-zone commercial forest land to rural residential designations, the County will
establish precedents with far-reaching implications that will be used to judge the appropriateness
of similar rezone proposals in years hence. In consequence, determinations that appear to have
little direct environmental impact when viewed in isolation in 2007 may have significant indirect
and cumulative environmental impacts if employed as justification for a substantial number of
similar rezones in future Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. Choosing not to approve
certain rezone proposals that would increase pressures to convert commercial forest land and/or
rural lands to higher intensity land use designations will likely reduce present and future
environmental impacts, prevent sprawl, and preserve future planning options.
The County has identified nine (9) areas of probable significant adverse impacts from the
proposed Brinnon MPR. Analysis and possible mitigations to these environmental concerns are
included in the Draft EIS.
Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and development under the County's adopted
Comprehensive Plan will result in some adverse impacts that are impossible to avoid. The
County's adopted Plan is designed to accommodate the Washington State Office of Financial
Management (OFM) population projections for the year 2024. Under any of the action
alternatives reviewed in this document, continued growth and development under the adopted
Plan is likely to result in increased growth and development in certain areas of the County,
cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, increased demands upon transportation facilities
and transit, and increased demand for public infrastructure and facilities. The County will
continue to plan for distribution of growth that will result in the lowest levels of environmental
impacts, focus on infill, and balance capital investment.
1-21