HomeMy WebLinkAbout07cpaStaffSEPA_2ConciseAnalysisJefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals
2.1 OVERVIEW
Pursuant to JCC §18.45, Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan
amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA” at RCW
43.21C), the Growth Management Act (“GMA” at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and JCC §18.45, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of
all proposals to identify the potential for cumulative impacts.
In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2)
categories:
Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting
a change in either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density.
Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that broadly apply to the
narrative, goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order
to ensure adequate review of potential environmental impacts, any suggested amendments
that could result in a need to re-designate groups of parcels are analyzed using the same
criteria employed for formal site-specific amendments (i.e., JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)).
This document addresses eight (8) of the nine (9) site-specific amendments on the Final Docket
and the one (1) suggested amendment. This document further divides the amendments into sub-
categories. Note: A separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared for
MLA06-87 the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon.
2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, & Staff
Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in JCC §18.45 and, in turn,
evaluates the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative
impacts. Each amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria,
and a staff recommendation is made based on those criteria. Tables are for summary information
only; please refer to the staff report for each proposal for greater detail.
1.1.1 Growth Management Indicators
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), all recommendations regarding amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan must include an inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators"
listed at JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b). These growth management indicators address the following:
• Growth and development rates;
• Ability to provide services;
• Availability of urban land;
• Community-wide attitudes towards land use; and
• Consistency with state law and local agreements.
These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a
snapshot of Jefferson County’s status during this 2007 amendment cycle. This section will serve
to promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators and is
intended to be a starting point for broader community consideration before the Planning
2-1
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Commission and the BoCC. While this review of the growth management indicators provides
some basic analysis related to County demographics, it is not intended to measure progress in
achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that task is reserved for the State-mandated
Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for completion in 2011.
Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45.050 (4) (b) – growth management indicators
Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b).
(1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is
occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize.
Discussion: The Office of Financial Management (OFM) is the State agency responsible for
compiling population projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2007
OFM Population Estimate for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues,
shows a 2007 population of 28,600. The 1996 “base year” population estimate used in the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (see page 3-3) was identified as 25,754 residents. The 1998
Comprehensive Plan anticipated a population of 28,482 in 2000, 2,529 less than the 2000
census.
The County has passed Resolution #55-03 which adopted the intermediate population projection
from OFM for the period 2000-2024. The population projection anticipates a population of 46,960
in 2024, an annual growth rate of 1.78%. The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in
Jefferson County, and the population projections that were reflective of the unusual amount of
growth at that time. The growth rate of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth rate of
approximately 2%.
That being said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington State and its counties have
tended to exhibit growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even
decline. For example, the “rural rebound” growth trend experienced by most western states in the
early 1990s – at the time of GMA adoption – was the result of an exodus by nearly two million
people leaving California during a severe regional economic recession. Rural and non-
metropolitan growth in Washington, and Jefferson County, during the 1990s was far greater than
anticipated but slowed as California’s economy recovered in the mid-1990s (“Washington State
County Population Projections For Growth Management,” Office of Financial Management, March
2002).
YEAR
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2005
2006
2007
County
Population
8300
6420
8346
8918
11618
9639
10661
15965
20406
27600
28200
28600
Port
Townsend
4181
2847
3970
4683
6888
5074
5241
6067
7001
8745
8820
8865
Percent in
Port
Townsend
50%
44%
47%
53%
59%
53%
49%
38%
34%
32%
31%31%
Jefferson County Population 1910-2007
Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management
As the table above indicates, an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in
the percentage of residents living in the City of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of
residents living in the City has dropped from 59% to 31%, with County residential units
accounting for over 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this shift
towards residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services
outside of Port Townsend.
2-2
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Resolution #55-03 allocates 36% of the growth over the 20-year planning period to the City of
Port Townsend, 17% each to Port Ludlow MPR and Irondale/Hadlock UGA, and 30% to the rural
areas of Jefferson County.
(2) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or
increased.
Discussion: The number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the
County, with the exception of policy decisions made as a result of economic conditions, continues
to be equipped to provide the same levels of service available at the time of Comprehensive Plan
adoption. The County is in the process of adopting GMA compliant plans to provide the
Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) with urban services, specifically sanitary sewer
service and stormwater management.
(3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand
and need.
Discussion: As a part of the planning process for the unincorporated Port Hadlock UGA, an
analysis of vacant lands within the proposed UGA and a build-out analysis were completed.
These studies evaluated the ability to accommodate the allocated population. The Port Hadlock
UGA (partially invalidated by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (see
WWGMHB Case No. 04-2-0022, Irondale Community Action Neighbors and Nancy Dorgan v.
Jefferson, Final Decision and Order (May 31, 2005)) was sized to accommodate 118% of the
growth allocated by resolution #55-03.
With a theoretical carrying capacity of over 30,000, the City of Port Townsend UGA also appears
to be adequately sized to accommodate anticipated future urban growth.
(4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no
longer found to be valid.
Discussion: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, the majority of
assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments to GMA and other laws
made by the State Legislature and precedent-setting decisions made by the Growth Management
Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA.
(5) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of
the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement.
Discussion: The most effective way to judge whether changes in countywide attitudes have
occurred, aside from reference to local election results, is through statistically significant public
opinion surveys. The last such survey in Jefferson County took place in 1991 through the
“Jefferson 2000 Public Opinion Survey” conducted by Elway Research. Many of the opinions
expressed through this survey are reflected in the policy assumptions that form the basis for the
Comprehensive Plan. That said, the opinions expressed through the Jefferson 2000 survey were
not intended to predict the future and an updated survey would be the most effective way to
gauge whether changes in countywide attitudes have occurred.
(6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments.
Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption
in August of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective, these changing circumstances include:
issues surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered
Species Act, County adoption of final development regulations which are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act, Growth Management Hearings Boards
clarifications through case law related to specific provisions of the GMA, the adoption of Unified
2-3
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Development Code amendments establishing a process for locating Major Industrial
Development, the completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study, designation of Glen Cove
Light Industrial/Commercial area, and the designation, and then appeal and partial invalidation, of
Irondale/Hadlock as a UGA. Many of these changes in circumstances were addressed during the
2004, 2005 and 2006 Updates to the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for
Jefferson County.
Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and
the Countywide Planning Policy. In 2004, Jefferson County, pursuant to the Growth Management
Act, conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between
those documents and the Growth Management Act.
2.2 FINAL DOCKET
Following are brief descriptions of each of the ten (10) proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for
reference.
Site-Specific Amendments:
1. MLA07-70; Tukey Investments 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, 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 & 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; 120 acres (approximately) (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 owners); 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 (Statesmen Group of
Companies Ltd. Authorized agent of the property owners); Brinnon; 252.64 acres; MPR
(addressed through a separate EIS).
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
(ILB) provisions of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide additional
employment opportunities for county residents.
2-4
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each
amendment as proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version, or deny adoption.
The eight (8) site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are addressed in this
Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum constitute three (3) individual proposed action
components (i.e., rural residential rezones; commercial and rural forest rezones; and floating
overlay rezones (i.e., MRL Overlay). The environmental review-based alternatives to each
proposed action component are as follows:
• No Action - Continue application of the Comprehensive Plan without any or all of the
proposed amendments;
• Adopt with or without modifications and/or mitigating conditions as appropriate; or
• Defer for consideration during the 2008 Plan and Code Update process.
2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary
Staff recommendations for each proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each
individual proposal in part 2.3. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration. In transmitting the Planning Commission to the BoCC later this
year, staff will have the opportunity to adjust these preliminary recommendations. The
preliminary staff recommendations, including modifications and mitigation measures, are
summarized in the following table:
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL
NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
1
MLA07-70
Tukey; 921182003
20 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5
Approve with
condition.
2
MLA07-79
Gillanders; 702113011
& 702113002
40 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5
Deny.
3
MLA07-90
Broders; 902121002 &
902124002
396 acres; apply MRL
Overlay to CF 1:80
Approve with
conditions.
4
MLA07-93
Rayonier 412182020
43 acres; RF 1:40 to RR
1:5
Deny.
5
MLA07-94
Rayonier 921322002
& 921321004
120 acres; 80 acres CF
1:80 to RR 1:20 & 40
acres RF 1:40 to RR
1:10
Deny.
6
MLA07-96
Hill Timber & Bay
Mountain Timber
(Security Services
Inc./Joseph D’Amico);
902111008 &
902114001
40 acres; RR 1:20 to RF
1:40
Approve with
condition.
2-5
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL
NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
7
MLA07-99
McCarthy - West;
001081005
20 acres; RR 1:20 to RR
1:5
Approve.
8
MLA07-100
McCarthy - East;
001081001
20 acres; RR 1:20 to RR
1:5
Approve.
9
MLA07-104
Jefferson County ILB;
no parcels yet
identified
No acreage yet
identified; could include
two sites designated
“Industrial Land Bank.”
Defer until the
proposal is more fully
developed and
analyzed (i.e., 2008).
2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
Eight (8) of the site-specific amendment proposals evaluated in this document are grouped
together below according to category:
• Four (4) requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (e.g., RR 1:20 to RR 1:5);
• One (1) request for Change from Rural Residential Density to Forest Resource Land
Designation (e.g., RR 1:20 to RF 1:40);
• Two (2) requests for Change from Forest Resource Land Designation to Rural
Residential Designation (e.g., CF 1:80 to RR 1:20; RF 1:40 to RR 1:10); and
• One (1) request for Application of an Overlay Designation (e.g., MRL Overlay on CF
1:80).
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential
Density (4)
Requests for changes in Rural Residential density are subject to criteria contained at Land Use
Policy 3.3 (page 3-67) in the Comprehensive Plan. These criteria attribute one of three
residential densities to all residential parcels in Jefferson County: one dwelling unit per five acres
(1:5), one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10), or one dwelling unit per twenty acres (1:20), subject
to the following criteria:
POLICIES:
LNP 3.3.1 A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR
1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e.,
5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record;
b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller
parcels along the coastal areas;
c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural
Village Centers; and
d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed “suburban” platted
subdivisions.
LNP 3.3.2 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres
(RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
2-6
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e.,
10 acres);
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a “transition” adjacent to Urban Growth Areas;
and,
d. critical area land parcels.
LNP 3.3.3 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acres
(RR 1:20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e.,
20 acres) or larger;
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a “transition” to Urban Growth Areas or the
[Port Ludlow] Master Planned Resort;
d. critical land area parcels;
e. agriculture resource designated parcels;
f. publicly owned forest lands; and
g. lands adjacent to forest resource land.
The Jefferson County Code defines the term “buildable lot” and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in
size or greater will typically be adequate to meet health standards related on-site wastewater
disposal (i.e. septics) and individual water systems (i.e. well) [JCC §18.10]. Since 1996, the
maximum density that can be achieved through subdivision in Jefferson County is one dwelling
unit per five acres. In January 2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code
(JCC Title 18) which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site-design
through residential “clustering.” These provisions are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-M
(Planned Rural Residential Developments).
The three proposals for residential density changes will be reviewed consistent with these criteria.
A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for each proposal is provided
below.
2.3.1.1 MLA07-70 (Tukey Investment LLC)
Applicant: Tukey Investment LLC (Bill Marlow/Bruce Seton)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 921182003
Location: West side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak
Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would redesignate approximately twenty (20) acres from Rural
Residential one dwelling unit per twenty acres (RR 1:20) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit
per five acres (RR 1:5). The subject parcel is located on the west side of Oak Bay Road near the
top of Yarr Hill, south of Port Hadlock in unincorporated Jefferson County. The parcels adjacent
and to the north and east of the subject site are designated RR 1:5 and have been partially
cleared. Adjacent and to the west lies property zoned RR 1:20. Though designated RR 1:20, this
property lies within the Irondale Acre Tracts (platted in 1910) and has been divided into four (4)
acre parcels which are considered by the County to be legal lots of record, despite their lower
density zoning. The entire southern boundary of the subject site abuts land designated and
zoned Commercial Forestry one dwelling unit per eighty acres (CF 1:80) owned by Olympic
Resource Management. This property is designated timberland (i.e., for deferred taxation
purposes), in active forest management, and was partially harvested in 1997 (FPA97-00001).
The subject site was recently cleared and is comprised by moderate slopes (i.e., less than 15%);
the southeastern portion of the property is identified as having a “slight” risk of landslide hazard
2-7
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
under the County’s environmentally sensitive areas mapping, though there is no known history of
landslides on-site. The subject parcel also includes two seasonal drainages identified as Type 9
DNR streams; these two intermittent drainages converge near the northwest corner of the
property into one Type 5 stream, which would appear to be a tributary of Little Goose Creek.
Redesignation and rezoning of the property would create three (3) additional parcels and permit
up to four (4) dwelling units to be constructed on-site.
2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-70: Tukey
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have substantially changed since the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
valid, or whether new information is available
which was not considered during the adoption
process or any annual amendments to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
However, the applicant has presented new
information relating to the densities of the legal
lots of record within the Irondale Acre Tracts
(platted in 1910) that was not specifically
considered during the adoption process or any
of the annual amendment cycles.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to
be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson
County residents; these views may be made
more evident through the Plan amendment
process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation
and does not adversely affect adopted level of
service standards for other public facilities and
services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements
for transportation. The proposed amendment
should not adversely impact the level of county
services.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
There are no inconsistencies with the
Comprehensive Plan. 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.
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
2-8
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-70: Tukey
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
In the case of a site-specific 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
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land
uses
The proposal is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation. It is similar to
the surrounding properties and their access to
utilities and land uses.
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to
change the land use designation of other
properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan
The site-specific proposal does not affect the
land use and population growth projections that
are the basis of the comprehensive plan. The
proposed land use will be consistent with
surrounding land uses.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within
an area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with
the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A),
the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable interjurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws
The proposed amendment meets the
requirements of GMA. The character of the
rural area will not be affected by redesignating
this property.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or
discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
2-9
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development
that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local
protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local energy conservation standards.
Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established
in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). Two intermittent Type 9 DNR streams that converge
to form a Type 5 DNR stream are mapped on the property. Any issues relating to streamside
setbacks and buffers would be resolved in the land division process.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition that
future development be set back from the CF 1:80 zoned land located immediately adjacent and to
the south as consistent with JCC18.15.150(3)(a). 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 (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
2.3.1.2 MLA07-79 (Gillanders)
Reference Number: MLA07-79
Applicant: Janet Gillanders
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 702113011 & 702113002
Location: West of US 101, north of Quilcene
2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcels are located west of US Highway 101, north of Quilcene, on Big Leaf Lane.
The request would change the land use designations and zoning of both tax parcels, each
2-10
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
approximately 20 acres in size, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The properties to the north, west and
south of the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:20. The property touching the
southwest corner of the subject site is designated and zoned RF 1:40. The parcels adjacent and
to the east, which immediately abut US Highway 101, are designated and zoned RR 1:5. The
Little Quilcene River, a Type 1 DNR Stream, bisects both tax parcels, with approximately twelve
(12) acres of Ms. Gillanders’ ownership lying east of the river, and the remaining 28 lying west of
the river. The western edge of the subject site (i.e., that area lying generally westwards of Big
Leaf Lane) is comprised by slopes identified as having a “slight” risk of landslide hazard under the
County’s environmentally sensitive areas mapping. There is no known history of landslides on-
site. Redesignation and rezoning of the property would theoretically permit up to eight (8)
dwelling units to be constructed on-site, quadrupling the current permissible dwelling unit density.
The applicant has indicated that, if her request is approved, she intends to create three parcels,
consisting of two (2) parcels east of the river each larger than five (5) acres in size, and one
parcel west of the river, twenty-eight (28) acres in size.
2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-79: Gillanders
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
There has been no new information presented
related to this specific proposal that has not been
considered during the adoption process or any of
the annual amendment cycles.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to be
inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County
residents; these views may be made more evident
through the Plan amendment process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment appears inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically LNP
3.3.1(a), which states that five (5) acre zoning
should be applied in areas with an established
pattern of the same or similar sized parcels.
Twenty (20) acre parcels characterize the adjacent
properties to the north, west and south.
2-11
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-79: Gillanders
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific 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 access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable
for the requested land use designation.
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposal would likely increase pressure to up-
zone adjacent parcels which are zoned RR 1:20,
thus eroding the overall purpose and effect of the
land use pattern established in the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land
use and population growth projections that are the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment meets the requirements
of GMA and County planning policies.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
2-12
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or
discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
The proposal is not likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal,
state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local energy conservation standards.
Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is inconsistent with the zoning criteria
established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). The Little Quilcene River, a Type 1 DNR
Stream bisects the property. The proposal would be likely to increase the number of potential
building sites abutting the river; streamside setback and buffer areas would have to be resolved in
the land division process.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
The Little Quilcene River, a Type 1 DNR Stream within the “Conservancy” designation of the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. If approved, the proposal would quadruple rural
residential densities on the subject site, and increase the potential number of dwelling units
abutting the river. To the extent that approval of the proposal may conflict with LNP 3.3 of the
Comprehensive Plan, it may be viewed as encouraging land uses incompatible with the County’s
rural residential land use designation scheme.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
As noted in the response to Question #5, above, the proposed amendment conflicts with the
zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). More than 70% of the
perimeter of the subject site abuts areas zoned for RR 1:20 densities. Thus, the proposed rezone
area does not lie within an area where an established pattern of 5-acre parcels and densities
currently exist.
2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment. 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
2-13
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). Because RR
1:20 zoning is currently applied to adjacent parcels to the north, west and south, application of the
RR 1:10 land use designation to “transition” between areas of varying densities would also
appear inappropriate. Approval of the request would be likely to increase pressure to upzone
adjacent parcels which are zoned RR 1:20, thus eroding the overall purpose and effect of the
land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP).
2.3.1.3 MLA07-99 (McCarthy) - West
Reference Number: MLA07-99
Applicant: Sharon McCarthy
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001081005
Location: West of South Jacob Miller Road
2.3.1.3.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located west of South Jacob Miller Road and east of Hidden Trails Road
north of the County Landfill and near the Port Townsend municipal boundary. The request would
change the land use designation and zoning of this twenty (20) acre from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
The properties to the north, west and south of the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:5.
The property adjacent and to the east of the subject property is also owned by the applicant, is
subject to a separate rezone application evaluated herein (i.e., MLA07-100), and is also
designated and zoned RR 1:20.
A review of Jefferson County environmentally sensitive area maps reveals the presence of a
pond and wetland in a shallow depression located in the northeast quadrant of the parcel. The
property is enrolled in the designated forest land tax program (i.e., for deferred taxation
purposes), and was subject to an un-even aged harvest in 2002 (FPA2605035). Redesignation
and rezoning of the property would theoretically permit up to four (4) dwelling units to be
constructed on-site, quadrupling the current permissible dwelling unit density. The applicant has
indicated that, if her request is approved, access would be provided to the property from Jacob
Mill Road via an easement traversing her property adjacent and to the east.
2.3.1.3.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-99: McCarthy - West
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to the area have
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. In 2006, Jefferson County
approved the upzone of the Cleo Austin property
(tax parcel number 001081002) lying adjacent and
to the east of Jacob Miller Road. With the approval
of the Austin rezone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5, the
McCarthy properties (i.e., both tax parcels) became
an isolated inholding of RR 1:20 surrounded by RR
1:5 zoned lands. Prior to the approval of the Austin
downzone, the McCarthy properties were part of a
contiguous block of RR 1:20 zoning abutting the
Port Townsend City limits.
2-14
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-99: McCarthy - West
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
However, the applicant has presented new
information relating to the Austin downzone (2006),
which represents a change in circumstances since
the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
1998.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to be
inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County
residents; these views may be made more evident
through the Plan amendment process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
There are no inconsistencies with the
Comprehensive Plan. 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 (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific 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 access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable
for the requested land use designation.
2-15
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-99: McCarthy - West
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to
change the land use designation of other
properties, with the exception of parcel 001081001,
which is owned by the applicant and lies adjacent
and to the east of the subject site. Though
functionally related and in common ownership, the
applicant opted to submit two separate rezone
applications for her properties (MLA07-99 and
MLA07-100). No erosion of the overall purpose
and effect of the land use pattern established in the
1998 Comprehensive Plan would be expected to
result from approval of the requested rezone.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land
use and population growth projections that are the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
Although in relative proximity to the boundary of the
Port Townsend UGA, the proposed amendment is
not located within an area that is currently under
review for UGA designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment meets the requirements
of GMA and County planning policies.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or
discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development
that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local
protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
2-16
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local energy conservation standards.
Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established
in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). An undelineated and unclassified pond and
associated wetland lies on the northeast quadrant of the subject property. Any issues relating to
wetland setbacks and buffers would be resolved in the land division process.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.1.3.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment. 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 (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
2.3.1.4 MLA07-100 (McCarthy) - East
Reference Number: MLA07-100
Applicant: Sharon McCarthy
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001081001
Location: Adjacent and west of South Jacob Miller Road
2.3.1.4.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located immediately adjacent and to the west of South Jacob Miller Road
and east of the property discussed in MLA07-99, immediately above. Thus, it too is north of the
County Landfill and near the Port Townsend municipal boundary. The request would change the
land use designation and zoning of this twenty (20) acre from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The properties
to the north, south and east of the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:5. The property
adjacent and to the west of the subject property is also owned by the applicant, is subject to a
2-17
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
separate rezone application evaluated herein (i.e., MLA07-99), and is also designated and zoned
RR 1:20.
A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of
mapped environmentally sensitive areas. The property is enrolled in the county’s open space
agriculture program (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes), and was subject to an un-even aged
harvest in 2002 (FPA2605035). The applicant’s home, constructed in 1991 and remodeled in
1997, lies within the limits of this tax parcel. Redesignation and rezoning of the property would
theoretically permit up to four (4) dwelling units to be constructed on-site, quadrupling the current
permissible dwelling unit density. The applicant has indicated that, if her request is approved,
access would be provided to the property adjacent and to the west (i.e., tax parcel number
001081005) from Jacob Mill Road via an easement traversing the subject parcel.
2.3.1.4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-100: McCarthy - East
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to area have changed
substantially since the adoption of the Plan. In
2006, the County approved the upzone of the Cleo
Austin property (tax parcel number 001081002)
lying adjacent and to the east of Jacob Miller Road.
With the approval of the Austin rezone from RR
1:20 to RR 1:5, the McCarthy properties (i.e., both
tax parcels) became an isolated inholding of RR
1:20 surrounded by RR 1:5 zoned lands. Prior to
the approval of the Austin downzone, these
properties were part of a contiguous block of RR
1:20 zoning abutting the City limits.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
However, the applicant has presented new
information relating to the Austin downzone (2006),
which represents a change in circumstances since
the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
1998.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to be
inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County
residents; these views may be made more evident
through the Plan amendment process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
2-18
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-100: McCarthy - East
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
There are no inconsistencies with the
Comprehensive Plan. 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 (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific 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 access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable
for the requested land use designation.
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to
change the land use designation of other
properties, with the exception of parcel 001081005,
which is owned by the applicant and lies adjacent
and to the west of the subject site. Though
functionally related and in common ownership, the
applicant opted to submit two separate rezone
applications for her properties (MLA07-99 and
MLA07-100). No erosion of the overall purpose
and effect of the land use pattern established in the
1998 Comprehensive Plan would be expected to
result from approval of the requested rezone.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land
use and population growth projections that are the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
Although in relative proximity to the boundary of the
Port Townsend UGA, the proposed amendment is
not located within an area that is currently under
review for UGA designation.
2-19
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-100: McCarthy - East
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment meets the requirements
of GMA and County planning policies.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or
discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development
that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local
protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local energy conservation standards.
Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established
in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). The property is unlikely to affect environmentally
sensitive areas.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
2-20
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.1.4.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment. 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 (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
2.3.1.5 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential
Density
The four (4) proposals for change of rural residential density involve a total of five (5) tax parcels
encompassing approximately one hundred (100) acres. Approval of these four amendments, as
proposed by the applicants, would have the practical result of creating the potential for fifteen (15)
additional rural dwelling units over baseline conditions (i.e., from five (5) currently, to twenty (20) if
all are approved). All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to use the clustering provisions
of county code, would be subject to review pursuant to the JCC at the time of application. Based
on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would
preclude the use of these sites for higher density rural residential purposes. Additionally, the fact
that the requests are located in geographically separated areas (i.e., near Port Townsend, south
of Port Hadlock, and north of Quilcene) minimizes the potential for negative cumulative
environmental and capital facility impacts.
It should be noted, however, that one of the proposals (MLA07-79) appears likely to result in
indirect and cumulative impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert
low density rural residential areas (i.e., RR 1:20) to higher intensity rural use (i.e., RR 1:5); this
would make likely other similar upzones in the future, eroding the overall purpose and effect of
the rural residential land use scheme established by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.2 Request for Change from Rural Residential to
Forest Resource Land Designation (1)
Requests for changes from Rural Residential density to Forest Resource Lands must be
considered against both the Rural Residential classification and designation criteria set forth
under section 2.3.1 of this document, above, as well as the classification and designation criteria
set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at
pages 4-1 through 4-5; and NRG 3.0 and NRPs 3.1 through 3.5 and NRG 4.0 and NRPs 4.1
through 4.8). Relevant excerpts from this Natural Resources Element narrative and goal and
policy language include the following:
Forest Lands
Classification and Designation of Forest Lands
Jefferson County’s Forest Lands Designation and Conservation strategy was developed based
on an analysis of local conditions and the following guidelines provided by the Washington
Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED):
2-21
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Table 4-1
Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource Lands in Jefferson County
Indicator Comments
1. Availability of public
services and facilities
conducive to the
conversion of forest lands.
Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are intended to be
served by public facilities and services within a twenty-year period,
forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be located
outside of UGA boundaries.
2. Proximity of forest land
to urban and suburban
areas and rural
settlements.
To protect forest lands of long-term commercial significance from
encroachment by incompatible uses, they should be located
outside the urban and suburban areas and rural settlements.
3. Size of the parcels. Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should consist of
predominantly large parcels.
4. Compatibility and
intensity of neighboring
land uses and settlement
patterns with forest lands
of long-term significance.
Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be
adjacent to large parcels to allow for adequate buffering and
setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settlement patterns.
5. Property tax
classification.
Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be
eligible for assessment as open space or forest land pursuant to
RCW 84.33 or 84.34.
6. History of land
development permits
nearby.
Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should not be
designated in areas under development pressure that are likely to
convert to higher intensity land uses.
In order to conserve the forest resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry
industry while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, it was determined that Forest Lands
would consist of three classes:
• Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80);
• Rural Forest Lands (RF-40); and
• Inholding Forest Lands (IF) for parcels entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural
Forest Lands unless the parcel is less than twenty (20) acres in size or if a development
application for the parcel is vested. The landowner must submit a written request to have
the parcel removed from Forest Resource Inholding designation.
Any parcel that meets the following criteria will be classified as Forest Land and designated as
Forest Land of Long-Term Commercial Significance:
• The land should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one (1) through four (4) as
mapped by the Department of Natural Resources.
• Minimum parcel size should be a minimum of nominally eighty (80) acres for Commercial
Forest Lands forty (40) acres for Rural Forest Land, with parcels smaller than the
minimum included when the acres of at least the minimum size are contiguously owned
and the land is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status.
• The parcel should be part of a Forest Land Block at least three hundred twenty (320)
acres in size that meets the designation criteria. The Forest Land Blocks will continue to
exist even though individual parcels may be removed in the future because they no
longer meet the established designation criteria. The Forest Land Block shall apply if the
amount of designated Forest Land in the block falls below three hundred twenty (320)
acres, but not if the acreage of the block falls to zero (0).
• No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Urban Growth Area or within one
half (1/2) mile of the three designated Rural Village Centers or within approximately one
half (1/2) mile of the urbanized boundary of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
2-22
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
• The parcel is currently in a deferred forest tax status pursuant to RCW 84.33 or RCW
84.34 or classified or designated Timber Tax land, or State or Federal land outside the
National Forest Service boundary; and
• A majority of the parcel should be located outside any community water system service
area.
The Regulatory Framework for Forest Lands
Jefferson County is currently regulating forest lands and forest practices under JCC title 18,
sections 18.15, 18.20, 18.30 and 18.40.
The best opportunity to manage forest land uses occurs at the state and local permitting stages.
Landowners must apply for a Forest Practices Permit when conducting forest practices that have
the potential for adverse impacts on public resources as described in WAC 222-16-050.
Landowners choosing to maintain their land in forestry uses must state their intent to do so on the
Forest Practice Application.
Since the adoption of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance in January, 1997, the County has heard
from both timber owners and adjacent landowners regarding conflicts over forest lands activities
adjacent to residential lots that were previously platted in sizes too small to provide an adequate
buffer from effects of activities such as noise and the spraying of herbicides. In 2002, a Forest
Transition Overlay district was established to address potential conflict between forest resource
lands and pre-platted high density residential parcels of one acre or less in size. Any future
changes in the Forest Lands Ordinance or Forest Lands designations would require full public
review.
All forest practices in Jefferson County must comply with the Washington State Forest Practices
Act (RCW 76.09), administered by the Department of Natural Resources. These laws are
designed to protect water quality, shorelines, fish and wildlife habitat and the public’s opportunity
to enjoy these resources. Regulations will also be developed and applied to incorporate the
recommendations of agreed-upon watershed and salmon recovery plans related to land and
resource management, which is further discussed in the Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Landowners choosing to convert their land to non-forest uses also must state their intent on the
Forest Practices Application. As provided in the Forest Practices Act, these landowners must
conduct their forest practices in accordance with applicable local government regulations, which
may include, but are not limited to, the Critical Areas Ordinance and the State Environmental
Policy Act.
Forest lands being converted to non-forest uses should be managed to guide the manner and
extent of alteration and to minimize adverse environmental impacts. The 1997 State Legislature
enacted Substitute Senate Bill 5714, requiring local governments to issue forest practice permits
for harvest sites which will be converted to non-forestry purposes (Class IV – General). The bill
also mandates that local governments develop a public process for lifting the six-year moratorium
on conversion required when the landowner does not state an intent to convert or when a harvest
project occurs without obtaining the appropriate Forest Practice application. This law expands the
County’s regulatory role in forest practices, and will require closer coordination with the State
Department of Natural Resources.
FOREST LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 3.0 Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
2-23
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
POLICIES:
NRP 3.1 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth
Management Act and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying and
designating Forest Lands for long-term commercial significance based on the
quality of the forest environment, the size of the parcel, the tax status, current
use, and distance from populated areas.
NRP 3.2 Encourage the continued diversity of forestry by designating classes of long-term
commercially significant forest land that allow the continued existence of a range
of approaches to forest management.
NRP 3.3 Parcels designated as Forest Land in common ownership separated by a public
right-of-way shall be considered as a single parcel.
NRP 3.4 Allow commercial forest management and harvest, mineral extraction, sand and
gravel operations and those land uses which maintain, enhance, or have no
impact on the long term management of designated commercial forest lands.
NRP 3.5 Support and facilitate the improvement of state and local environmental
regulations affecting the forest products industry in order to improve operational
predictability, minimize regulatory costs to forest land owners, and encourage
protection of the forest environment and surrounding watersheds.
GOAL:
NRG 4.0 Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land
use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands.
POLICIES:
NRP 4.1 Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes
except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Allow
one dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law.
NRP 4.2 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth
Management Act and the interim ordinance for conditional uses in Forest Lands.
NRP 4.3 Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing site and design
requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated forest land.
NRP 4.4 Minimize dangers from natural disasters such as fire, through siting and design
criteria for structures on designated Forest Lands.
NRP 4.5 Minimize conflict between primary and secondary forest production facilities and
related developments and forest management activities through siting and design
requirements.
NRP 4.6 Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire
districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Forest Lands
except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay.
NRP 4.7 Address community concerns and land use conflicts which may arise as a result
of forest practices in cooperation with the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, forest landowners, and the general public.
2-24
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
NRP 4.8 Facilitate a cooperative process bringing together timber company
representatives, environmental groups, landowners, and other interested parties
to address concerns related to incompatible land uses between parcels existing
adjacent to forest lands at the time of adoption of Ordinance #01-0121-97, the
interim Forest Lands Ordinance.
2.3.2.1 MLA07-96 (Hill Timber & Bay Mountain Timber/D’Amico)
Applicant: Hill Timber & Bay Mountain Timber (D’Amico – agent)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 902111008 & 902114001
Location: West of US 101 in S11, T29N, R2W W.M.
2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information
The request would change the current land use designation of two contiguous 20-acre tax parcels
(902111008 & 902114001) located in west of US 101 in S11, T29N, R2W W.M. from low density
Rural Residential (RR 1:20) to lower density Rural Forest (RF 1:40). The northerly tax parcel
(902111008) is owned by the Hill Timber Partnership (formed by the Gunstone family). The
southerly tax parcel (902114001) is owned by Bay Mountain Timber (also formed by the
Gunstone family). The subject tax parcels are located immediately adjacent and to the west of the
Richard Broders property that is the subject of a separate MRL Overlay request evaluated herein
(MLA07-90). The properties to the north and west of the subject site are designated and zoned
RR 1:20. The property adjacent and to the south of the subject property is also owned by the Hill
Timber Partnership, and designated and zoned RF 1:40. The elevations on the subject site range
from over 650 feet near the eastern boundary to just under 600 feet on the western boundary. A
review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of
mapped environmentally sensitive areas.
Both parcels are identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as designated forestland (i.e., for
deferred taxation purposes). No permit data are available to indicate whether or not the
properties have been recently harvested. Redesignation and rezoning of the property would
theoretically reduce the permissible dwelling unit density of the properties from two (2), to one (1),
halving the current permissible density. The applicant has indicated that, if his request is
approved, a conditional use application will be submitted to establish a shooting range on the site
(note: shooting ranges are permissible via CUP approval within the RF 1:40 zone; see Table 3-1
of JCC §18.15.040).
2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
2-25
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-96: Hill Timber/D’Amico
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to area have changed
since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
1998. In brief, the landowner has expressed a
willingness and desire to downzone the property
and expand the County’s forest resource land
base; this is a significant change in circumstances
from the conditions that prevailed in 1998.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to be
inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County
residents; these views may be made more evident
through the Plan amendment process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
As recommended be conditioned by staff, the
proposal would appear wholly consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed RF 1:40
zoning of the parcel appears consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s narrative and policies
relating to the designation of rural forest land.
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific 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 access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable
for the requested land use designation.
2-26
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-96: Hill Timber/D’Amico
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific 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
Approval of the proposal would be unlikely to lead
to other downzones of Rural Residential land to
Forest Resource land. In any event, such
proposals should not necessarily be viewed as
eroding the overall purpose and effect of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land
use and population growth projections that are the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
As conditioned by staff, the proposed amendment
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan polices
and designation criteria governing rural forest
resource lands; the proposal is wholly consistent
with Plan and GMA provisions which favor the
preservation and enhancement of forestry uses.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
The proposal would reduce current allowable density, and therefore be unlikely to result in a
significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal,
state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
2-27
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific
development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation
standards.
Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
As recommended be conditioned by staff, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is
consistent with the forest resource land classification and designation criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan (see the Plan narrative on pp 4-2 through 4-4 of the Natural Resource
Conservation Element, including Table 4-1).
Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. To the extent that approval of the
proposed rezone would expand rural forest zoning it would appear to encourage use that is
consistent with the County's adopted Plan and the GMA.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment appears to be wholly consistent with
Comprehensive Plan narrative, designation criteria and policies governing forestlands (see the
Plan narrative on pp 4-2 through 4-5 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element, as well as
and NRGs 1.0 and 3.0 and the policies thereunder). The proposal would also appear to be
consistent with the natural resource industry goal of the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.040(8)).
2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition that the
two tax parcels either be tied together via restrictive covenant, or that a boundary line adjustment
(BLA) be completed to consolidate the parcels and ensure that the minimum 40-acre size
criterion for the RF 1:40 designation is satisfied. As conditioned, the subject site would meet the
criteria for rural forestland designation set forth in the Natural Resource Conservation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, as follows:
• The parcels are comprised predominantly of forest land grades 1 through 4 as mapped
by the DNR;
• As conditioned by staff, the parcel would be at least 40 acres in size;
• The property is part of a forest land block of at least 320 acres in size;
• No part of the proposed rezone area lies within ½ mile of a UGA or Rural Village Center;
• The parcels are, and have been, enrolled in a deferred forest tax program; and,
• No portion of the proposed rezone site lies within a community water system service
area.
2-28
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Change from Rural
Residential to Forest Resource Land
The proposed RR 1:20 to RF 1:40 amendment evaluated in this report will further advance the
purpose of the County’s Forest Resource Land designations set forth within the 1998
Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.3 Requests for Change from Forest Resource
Land to Rural Residential Designation (2)
Requests for changes from Forest Lands to Rural Residential density must be considered against
the classification and designation criteria set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the
Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-1 through 4-5; and NRG 3.0 and NRPs 3.1
through 3.5 and NRG 4.0 and NRPs 4.1 through 4.8). Relevant excerpts from this Plan narrative
and goal and policy language are set forth in section 2.3.2 of this document, above.
The three (3) proposals for rural commercial and industrial changes will be reviewed consistent
with these criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for each
proposal is given below:
2.3.3.1 MLA07-93 (Rayonier/Terra Pointe) - Clearwater
Reference Number: MLA07-93
Applicant: Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (Terra Pointe Services, agent)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 412182020
Location: Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The request would change the current land use designation of an approximately 43 acre parcel
(42.91) from Rural Forest one dwelling unit per forty acres (RF 1:40) to Rural Residential one
dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1:5). The subject parcel lies adjacent and to the east of the
Clearwater River in S18, T24N, R12W W.M., and is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor
as designated forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). An FPA issued on May 19, 2003
authorized an uneven aged harvest and associated road construction on the property, indicating
that it has been in active forest production (FPA2605389). The abutting properties on the north,
west (i.e., across the Clearwater River) and south are designated and zoned RR 1:5. The
property adjacent and to the east is Commercial Forest (CF 1:80). Additionally, the property
which meets the northwestern-most corner of the subject parcel is also designated and zoned RF
1:40. A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County reveals that the Clearwater
River is identified as a Type 1 DNR stream, and that wetlands may be present on the
southeastern quadrant of the property (i.e., on the east side of Clearwater Road). Redesignation
and rezoning of the property would theoretically increase the permissible dwelling unit density of
the property from one (1), to eight (8), an eight-fold increase in potential dwelling unit density.
2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
2-29
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-93: Rayonier/Terra Point - Clearwater
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1998.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to be
inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County
residents; these views may be made more evident
through the Plan amendment process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal would appear to be inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The current RF 1:40
zoning of the parcel appears consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s narrative and policies
relating to the designation of rural forest land. No
persuasive arguments or evidence has been
presented to suggest that the property was
incorrectly designated as RF 1:40.
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific 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 access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable
for the requested land use designation.
2-30
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-93: Rayonier/Terra Pointe - Clearwater
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific 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
Approval of the proposal would be likely to increase
pressure to convert Rural Forest Resource Lands
to higher intensity use, eroding the overall purpose
and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP).
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land
use and population growth projections that are the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan polices and designation
criteria governing rural forest resource lands and
runs contrary to Plan and GMA provisions which
disfavor conversion of productive forest lands to
higher intensity uses.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
The proposal would theoretically result in the construction of seven (7) additional dwelling units
over baseline conditions. However, these additional units would be unlikely to result in a
significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal,
state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific
development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation
standards.
2-31
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
Though the subject parcel contains wetland areas, and a riverine environment, ongoing protection
of these areas under the County’s environmentally sensitive areas regulations would help to
prevent any adverse impacts of potential future development.
Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
The Clearwater River is a Type 1 DNR Stream within the “Conservancy” designation of the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. If approved, the proposal could lead to an eight-fold
increase in residential densities on the subject site, and increase the potential number of dwelling
units abutting the river. To the extent that approval of the proposal may conflict with the forest
resource land classification and designation guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be
viewed as encouraging land uses incompatible with the County’s Forest Lands designation
scheme.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment appears to be inconsistent with Comprehensive
Plan narrative, designation criteria and policies governing commercial forestlands (see the Plan
narrative on pp 4-2 through 4-5 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element, as well as and
NRGs 1.0 and 3.0 and the policies thereunder). The proposal would also appear to clearly
conflict with the natural resource industry goal of the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.040(8)).
2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment. The parcel continues to meet
the criteria for rural forestland designation set forth in the Natural Resource Conservation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows:
• The parcel is comprised predominantly of forest land grades 1 through 4 as mapped by
the DNR;
• The parcel is over 40 acres in size;
• The property is part of a forest land block of at least 320 acres in size;
• No part of the proposed rezone area lies within ½ mile of a UGA or Rural Village Center;
• The parcel is, and has been, enrolled in a deferred forest tax program; and,
• No portion of the proposed rezone site lies within a community water system service
area.
Removal of the property from forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land
base of Jefferson County, an action that is strongly disfavored under both the GMA and the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. It would also be likely to increase pressure to up-zone
and convert RF 1:40 parcels located to the northwest, thus eroding the overall purpose and effect
of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Staff notes that 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.
2-32
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Accordingly, the designation of the property as RF 1:40 is consistent with the guidance contained
in the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.3.2 MLA07-94 (Rayonier/Terra Pointe) – Mats Mats
Reference Number: MLA07-94
Applicant: Terra Pointe Services, agent for Rayonier Forest Resources L.P.
Assessor Parcel Number(s): Portions of 921322002 & 921321004
Location: West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road
2.3.3.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The request includes two component parts: first, it would seek to change the current land use
designation on a portion of one (1) tax parcel of approximately forty (40) acres in size (tax parcel
number 921321004) from Rural Forest one dwelling unit per forty acres (RF 1:40) Rural
Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres (RR 1:10). The same tax parcel number is associated
with a 160-acre block of land to the southwest of the proposed rezone area that is currently zoned
Commercial Forest one dwelling unit per eighty acres (CF 1:80). Second, the proposal would
seek to split-zone a tax parcel of approximately 160 acres in size (tax parcel number 921322002,
upzoning the eastern half (i.e., 80 acres) of this parcel from Commercial Forest one dwelling unit
per eighty acres (CF 1:80) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per twenty acres (RR 1:20).
Thus, the total proposed rezone area comprises some 120 total acres.
The forty (40) acre area proposed for rezoning from RF 1:40 to RR 1:10 (a portion of tax parcel
921321004) lies immediately adjacent and to the east of Oak Bay Road, just east of Mats Mats
Bay. It is bounded on the north by land designated and zoned RF 1:40, on the west by land
designated and zoned CF 1:80 which is also subject to this rezone proposal. On the south, the
forty (40) acre component is bounded by land zoned RR 1:5 and “local agriculture”; on the east
(i.e., across Oak Bay Road) is land designated and zoned RR 1:10. The Jefferson County
Assessor identifies the parcel as designated forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). In
addition to the application for rezoning, recent permit activity concerning this parcel includes the
following: an uneven aged harvest in 2003 (FPA 2605459); a stormwater permit with SEPA (i.e.,
a FPA Class IV General Conversion, December 18, 2006; BLD06-00710); and a timber harvest
and associated road construction earlier this year (FPA2608296). A review of maps and
information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of any environmentally
sensitive areas on that portion of this tax parcel subject to the rezone proposal.
The eighty (80) acre proposed rezone area (i.e., the east half of tax parcel number 921322002) is
bounded by land designated and zoned as follows: on the north by RR 1:5; on the west by CF
1:80 (i.e., the west half of tax parcel number 921322002); on the south by CF 1:80 (a portion of
tax parcel number 921321004); and on the east by RF 1:40 (i.e., including the proposed RF 1:40
to RR 1:10 proposed rezone area described above). The Jefferson County Assessor also
identifies this parcel as designated forestland. This parcel was apparently also subject to the
application for stormwater permit with SEPA (i.e., a FPA Class IV General Conversion, December
18, 2006) under BLD06-00710 referenced above.
A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of
any known environmentally sensitive areas except for “slight” landslide hazard areas in proximity
to the northern boundary of the proposed rezone area (i.e., tax parcel number 921322002).
Taken together, redesignation and rezoning of this 120-acre area would theoretically increase the
theoretical dwelling unit density of the property from two (2), to eight (8), a significant increase
over current permissible density.
2-33
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
2.3.3.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-94: Rayonier/Terra Pointe – Mats Mats
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1998. However, the
applicant contends that data regarding the number
of vacant buildable lots within the North Port
Ludlow area are obsolete, and that increased
demand for larger rural residential lots, in
conjunction with the recent amendments to the
County’s environmentally sensitive areas
regulations, represent a substantial change in
conditions.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
The applicant asserts that data regarding the
supply of larger vacant rural residential parcels are
obsolete. Staff notes that creation of a supply of
rural residential lots was not a significant factor
guiding the initial application of resource land use
designations. Protection of existing rural character
and existing resource related industries were
significant objectives.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
To the extent that the proposal would permit an
erosion of the County’s resource land base, the
proposed amendment may be inconsistent with the
values of Jefferson County residents; these views
may be made more evident through the Plan
amendment process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal would appear to be inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The current RF 1:40 and
CF 1:80 zoning of the parcels appears consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan’s narrative and
policies relating to the designation of rural forest
land. No persuasive arguments or evidence has
been presented to suggest that the property was
incorrectly designated as RF 1:40 and CF 1:80 in
the first instance.
2-34
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-94: Rayonier/Terra Pointe – Mats Mats
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific 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 access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable
for the requested land use designation.
The proposed site-specific 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
Approval of the proposal would be likely to increase
pressure to convert Commercial and Rural Forest
Resource Lands to higher intensity use, eroding the
overall purpose and effect of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land
use and population growth projections that are the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan polices and designation
criteria governing rural forest resource lands and
runs contrary to Plan and GMA provisions which
strongly disfavor conversion of productive forest
lands to higher intensity uses.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
2-35
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
The proposal would theoretically result in the construction of six (6) additional dwelling units over
baseline conditions. However, these additional units would be unlikely to result in a significant
increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal,
state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific
development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation
standards.
Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The subject parcels contain slight landslide hazard areas on the northern boundary of the
proposed CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 rezone area. If the request were to be approved, development in
these areas would be reviewed and if necessary, conditioned under the landslide hazard area
provisions of the County’s environmentally sensitive areas regulations.
Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
The proposed rezone area does not involve the Shoreline jurisdiction. However, if approved, the
proposal could lead to a four-fold increase in residential densities on the subject site. To the
extent that approval of the proposal may conflict with the forest resource land classification and
designation guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be viewed as encouraging land uses
incompatible with the County’s Forest Lands designation scheme.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment appears to be inconsistent with Comprehensive
Plan narrative, designation criteria and policies governing Commercial Forest Lands and Rural
Forest Lands (see the Plan narrative on pp 4-2 through 4-5 of the Natural Resource Conservation
Element, as well as and NRGs 1.0 and 3.0 and the policies thereunder). The proposal would also
appear to clearly conflict with the natural resource industry goal of the GMA (see RCW
36.70A.040(8)).
2-36
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
2.3.3.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment. The subject parcels continue
to meet the criteria for commercial and rural forestland designation set forth in the Natural
Resource Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows:
• The parcels are comprised predominantly of forest land grades 1 through 4 as mapped
by the DNR;
• The parcels are over 40 and 80 acres in size, respectively;
• The property is part of a forest land block of at least 320 acres in size;
• No part of the proposed rezone area lies within ½ mile of a UGA or Rural Village Center;
• The parcels are, and have been, enrolled in a deferred forest tax program; and,
• No portion of the proposed rezone site lies within a community water system service
area.
Removal of the property from forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land
base of Jefferson County, an action that is strongly disfavored under both the GMA and the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. It would also be likely to increase pressure to up-zone
and convert CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 parcels located elsewhere in the vicinity, thus eroding the
overall purpose and effect of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan
(CP). Accordingly, the existing designation of the properties as CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 is
consistent with the guidance contained in the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Finally, staff notes that 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.
2.3.3.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Forest
Resource Land to Rural Residential Designation
The two (2) proposals for removal of commercial and rural forestland designation involve a total
of approximately 163 acres (i.e., 80 acres of CF 1:80 and approximately 83 acres of RF 1:40).
Approval of these two amendments, as proposed by the applicants, would have the practical
result of creating the potential for thirteen (13) additional rural dwelling units over baseline
conditions (i.e., sixteen (16) total, up from three (3) under current zoning) if approved. All
subsequent subdivision, including the ability to utilize clustering provisions, would be subject to
review pursuant to the JCC at time of application. Based on this programmatic environmental
review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would preclude the use of these sites for
residential purposes. Additionally, the fact that the requests are located in geographically
separated areas (the West End and near Mats Mats on the east side of the County) minimizes
the potential for negative cumulative environmental and capital facility impacts.
It should be noted that both proposals appear likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant
adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert commercial
forest lands to higher density rural residential use (i.e., RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20); approval
of these rezones would appear to make other similar upzones more likely in the future, eroding
the overall purpose and effect of the commercial forest land designation scheme within the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
2.3.4 Request for Application of the Mineral
Resource Land Overlay to an Underlying
Commercial Forest Land Designation (1)
Requests for application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay designation must be evaluated
against Mineral Resource Land classification and designation criteria set forth within the Natural
Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-6 and 4-7; and NRGs
2-37
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0, and NRPs 6.1 through 9.2). Relevant excerpts from this Natural Resources
Element narrative and goal and policy language include the following:
Mineral Lands
Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands
Based upon the criteria provided by the Department of Natural Resources, there are three key
issues that
need to be addressed in the designation and conservation of mineral resource lands:
1. Classifying the types of mineral resources that are potentially significant in Jefferson
County;
2. Defining the amount and long-term significance of aggregate that is needed to meet the
demand of
Jefferson County’s projected population; and,
3. Determining how to balance a variety of land uses within mineral resource areas.
Future mineral resource lands consist of areas identified with the potential for the existence of
mineral resources. These areas:
• appear to contain the resource, based upon the information supplied by Department of
Natural Resources;
• are not primarily within critical areas, for example, the 100-year flood plain or high quality
wetland areas; and,
• are at least 80 acres in size, of which one forty (40) acre parcel or two twenty (20) acre
parcels are currently vacant.
The criteria used to classify mineral resource lands in Jefferson County were based on the
guidelines provided by the state and an analysis of local conditions. Limited geological
information is available to accurately identify, evaluate, and designate mineral resources of long-
term commercial significance. U.S. Geological Survey Maps and Department of Natural
Resources surface mining data were reviewed by the Mineral Lands Work Group for the County
to determine current and potential mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance.
Based upon this evaluation, and in conjunction with the analysis and assessment of forest
resource lands, a high degree of overlap between lands devoted to growing timber and land
potentially containing commercial mineral deposits was identified. Because of the amount of
forest cover and geology of Jefferson County, most mineral resources are located in forest
resource lands.
Therefore, the inclusion of mineral extraction and primary processing as a permitted use on
designated forest land will protect mineral resource lands from the encroachment of incompatible
development, conserve the mineral resource land base of Jefferson County, and allow for its
future utilization by the mining industry. In addition, the County has included in this strategy an
action item to perform an analysis to determine the 50-year construction aggregate supply, so as
to ensure that the lands to be protected will meet the 50-year projected demand within an
economically feasible distance to the market area or areas within County jurisdiction. This
satisfies the GMA requirements to not knowingly preclude opportunities for future mining and, as
the lands are identified, to inform nearby property owners of the potential for future mining use of
these areas in order to prevent or minimize potential conflicts.
The Natural Resource Lands Element and JCC title 18 identify the extraction of sand, gravel,
rock, and minerals as a permitted use. The JCC provides development regulations on mining
activities such as size, clearing, stormwater controls and protection of critical areas.
The Land Use map of this Plan depicts the location of existing mining operations which currently
2-38
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
operate under a Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Reclamation Permit, and
provides an underlying land use designation. The Mineral Lands map accompanying this element
shows the parcels regulated under DNR permits, although it should be noted that the mining
operations for a number of the sites do not occupy the entire parcel.
The Regulatory Framework for Mineral Lands
Once identified, lands under consideration for commercial mineral extraction must also be
evaluated to assess land use compatibility, economic issues, and environmental impacts. A
matrix (Table 4-3) accompanying NRP 6.2 is provided as a reference point for both the County
and applicant to assess the feasibility of designating and protecting the mineral resource and
should be linked to future land use decisions. Specific areas of review will include, at a minimum,
the following: compatibility with neighboring land uses; noise; traffic; visual impacts; water
resources, including surface water, ground water, and wetlands; soil, including erosion, slopes,
flooding, and contamination; and fish and wildlife habitat.
Eventually, as the mineral resource is depleted, mining sites are abandoned, or the operations
discontinued for long periods of time. Reclamation of abandoned, depleted, or discontinued
mines creates opportunities for new uses compatible with adjacent land uses. Reclamation
reduces the dangers associated with some types of abandoned mines, improves the aesthetics of
the site, and can create environmental amenities, such as lakes, ponds, wetlands, and forests.
Reclamation plans are required by the Department of Natural Resources and will be considered
by Jefferson County during environmental assessment of proposed mining operations. Policies in
this Plan encouraging reclamation plans will be addressed through SEPA review of mining
operations regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. The State Department of Natural
Resources regulates mining sites of three (3) acres in size or larger.
MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 6.0 Conserve and protect Mineral Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
POLICIES:
NRP 6.1 Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Interim Mineral
Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Mineral Resource Lands of
commercial significance based on physical and topographic characteristics, distance
from populated areas, and the quality of the resource.
NRP 6.2 Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes a process for reviewing mineral
lands designation petitions which assesses the feasibility of designating mineral
resource lands according to Table 4.3, and considers compatibility with adjacent land
uses, economic issues and environmental impacts.
NRP 6.3 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the interim
ordinance allowing mineral extraction and the primary processing of materials on
designated Forest Lands, provided that the extraction is conducted under a
Washington State Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Permit and/or
other applicable permit and is performed in accordance with the guidelines for best
management practices established by Jefferson County.
NRP 6.4 Mitigate conflicts with adjacent land uses by zoning and regulations including
operation, siting, buffering and design requirements which minimize conflicts
between mineral extraction/primary processing activities and land use activities
2-39
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
located adjacent to designated mineral lands.
Table 4-3
Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands
NOT
SUITABLE
FOR
DESIGNATION
CONSIDER
FOR
DESIGNATION
DESIGNATION
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
HIGHLY
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
CRITICAL
QUALITY OF
DEPOSIT
Low grade
deposit.
Variable but
located near use
area or
processing plant.
Deposit made
economical to
mine by
upgrading
material.
Grade meets the
requirements for
road construction
or can be
upgraded.
Concrete quality.
SIZE OF
DEPOSIT
Small deposit. Small deposit
(less than 2,000
tons)
Medium-size
deposit.
Large deposit
(7.5 million tons)
Very large
deposit (10
million tons).
ACCESS
DISTANCE
FROM
MARKET
More than 20
miles from use
area.
Distance from
use area is
minimized due to
access to
interstate.
Less than 10
miles from the
use area;
alternative
access route
available.
Large deposit
presently beyond
economical
hauling distance
to present use
areas. Near
highways: access
can be provided.
Within 5 miles of
uses area.
Adjacent to
highway with
access for trucks.
COMPATIBLE
WITH
NEARBY
AREAS
Adjacent land
use presently
incompatible with
mining
(appreciable
residential
development
within range of
excessive noise,
dust, blasting,
vibrations, etc.)
Scattered
development
within outer
range of impacts
of mining; owners
may not object to
mining.
Adjacent land
suitable for
development and
within commuting
distance of use
area.
Imminent
incompatible
development on
adjacent lands.
No incompatible
land uses
existing or likely
in the
foreseeable
future (adjacent
land in national
forest, operator’s
ownership,
agricultural land
use).
IMPACT OF
NOISE
Noise level in
adjacent
presently
developed areas
would clearly
exceed
standards if
mining occurred.
Noise level in
adjacent
undeveloped
areas would
exceed
standards for
likely use, but
use of these
areas can be
easily delayed or
economical
mitigation can be
provided by
barriers.
Noise at adjacent
residential areas
less than 50
dB(A) due to
distance or
topographical
barrier, berm can
be constructed
easily.
IMPACT OF
BLASTING
Too close to
existing
subdivision.
Blasting no
required;
permanent open
space between
quarry and other
uses;
topographical
barrier between
quarry and other
land uses; only
occasional light
blasting; blasting
compatible with
adjacent uses.
2-40
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Table 4-3 continued
NOT
SUITABLE
FOR
DESIGNATION
CONSIDER
FOR
DESIGNATION
DESIGNATION
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
HIGHLY
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
CRITICAL
IMPACT OF
TRUCK
TRAFFIC
Only access is
local road
through
residential area.
Slightly longer
alternative route
exists.
Alternative truck
route can be built
at reasonable
expense;
alternative
transportation
(conveyor, etc.,
can be used past
residential
streets).
Adjacent to
freeway with
access to site.
VISUAL
IMPACT
Mining would
destroy or create.
Mining activity
cannot be
screened and
would
permanently alter
landscape.
Some activity
visible from
residential areas,
but no permanent
deterioration of
landscape.
Mining activity
can be easily
screened by
berms and/or
vegetation.
Activity screened
by topography or
vegetation, or
appreciably
reduced by
distance.
SURFACE &
GROUND
WATER
IMPACTS
Potential adverse
impacts to water
resources on site.
Water resources
on site and can
be avoided.
Limited water
resources on site
and can be
mitigated.
No water
resources on site.
WETLANDS
IMPACT
High quality
wetlands
throughout the
site.
High quality
wetlands only on
a portion of site
and can be
avoided.
Lower quality
wetlands on site
and can be
mitigated.
Wetlands can be
avoided on site.
No or minimal
wetlands on site
and of low
quality.
SLOPES Site located in
active unstable
slope area.
Potential or
historical
unstable slopes.
Unstable slopes
on site can be
avoided.
Minimal slopes
throughout the
site.
Level grade
mining with
minimal slopes.
BIOLOGICAL
IMPACT
Rare and
threatened/
endangered
plants or animals
on site.
Site includes
priority wildlife
habitat that would
be permanently
moved by mining.
Species of
Special Concern
habitat located
on site.
Minor or
temporary loss of
fish and wildlife
habitat.
No significant
biological
resources;
rehabilitation of
site would
replace or create
habitat.
IMPACT OF
FLOODING
Mining would
cause erosion of
adjacent
property; could
be prevented
only at great
expense.
Mining would
create erosion
hazard for roads,
bridges, and
utility lines;
however, these
structures could
be strengthened
at reasonable
costs.
Mining would
create flood
control channel
and would not
damage adjacent
land.
GOAL:
NRG 7.0 Provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mining
extraction and processing operations.
POLICIES:
NRP 7.1 Require environmental review on all mineral lands designation requests and/or
conditional use permits.
NRP 7.2 Provide for the following factors in mineral resource land use decisions:
a. The range of environmental impacts, including short-term and long-term effects
arising over the lifetime of the proposal;
2-41
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
b. The ability of the site to confine or mitigate all operational impacts;
c. The compatibility of operations with adjacent land uses when mitigating
measures are applied;
d. The capacity of transportation facilities to handle safely the transport of
products from the site; and,
e. The adequacy of plans for reclamation of the site for appropriate future use.
NRP 7.3 Develop standards and guidelines to identify and address the impact of mining
operations on adjoining properties. Such conditioning should not have the intent of
rendering mining operations economically unfeasible.
NRP 7.4 Evaluate small mining operations to determine when the cumulative impact of small
operations becomes a significant adverse impact upon the land or upon adjacent
lands.
GOAL:
NRG 8.0 Ensure that County mineral resource lands are restored to safe and useful
condition with enhancement and mitigation of damage to the function and
aesthetics of the environment and subsequent land uses.
POLICIES:
NRP 8.1 Develop requirements for reclamation plans for mineral extraction activities. These
requirements may exceed minimum State requirements.
NRP 8.2 Ensure that reclamation plans preserve the safety, function and value of adjacent
lands including aesthetic and environmental and water resource values.
NRP 8.3 Encourage reclamation plans which provide enhanced public value such as parks,
play-grounds, open space, trails, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat.
NRP 8.4 Encourage reclamation that occurs on an ongoing basis as mineral deposits are
depleted.
NRP 8.5 Avoid the potential for aquifer contamination in importing material used for
reclamation backfill or storage and in approving subsequent land use activities on
reclaimed mining lands.
NRP 8.6 Establish standards for performance bonds unless otherwise required for
reclamation activities to be provided prior to the initiation of mineral resource
extraction land use activities.
GOAL:
NRG 9.0 Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral
extraction activities.
POLICIES:
NRP 9.1 Regulate mining operations to prevent adverse impacts to ground or surface water
quality.
NRP 9.2 Establish a preference for the protection of aquifers and recharge zones from the
effects of surface mining in the event that adverse impacts cannot be avoided
through best management practices.
2-42
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
The proposal for application of the MRL Overlay designation will be reviewed consistent with this
narrative, goal and policy direction. A general description, criteria review, and staff
recommendation for the proposal is provided below.
2.3.4.1 MLA07-90 (Broders)
Applicant: Richard Broders and the Broders Family Associates LP
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 902124002 & a portion of 902121002
Location: West side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay
2.3.4.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would seek to apply the Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay
designation to approximately 396 acres of CF 1:80 designated and zoned land. Because the
proposal is to apply an overlay designation to the subject properties, it would not seek to change
the underlying CF 1:80 land use designation and zoning. The subject parcels are located
immediately west (though not directly adjacent) to US Highway 101 in S12, T29N, R2W W.M.
The northerly tax parcel (90211002) is owned by the Broders Family Limited Partnership. The
proposal is to apply the MRL Overlay designation to the southern one-half of this tax parcel (i.e.,
approximately 320 acres), as well as to tax parcel number 902124002 (i.e., approximately
seventy-six (76) acres), which lies adjacent and to the south. Parcel 902124002 is owned by
Richard Broders. These properties lie adjacent and immediately east of the parcels proposed to
be downzoned to RF 1:40 under MLA07-96, discussed previously in this document.
The current land use designations and zoning of surrounding properties are as follows: to the
north is the remainder of parcel 901124002 owned by the applicant and zoned CF 1:80; to the
west lie two (2) twenty (20) acre parcels designated RR 1:20 and one (1) property designated RF
1:40 (note: these RR 1:20 parcels are those proposed for RF 1:40 zoning under MLA07-96); to
the south lie parcels designated RR 1:20; and to the east is a combination of RR 1:20 and RR 1:5
designated land. The elevations on the subject site range from approximately 150 feet near the
eastern perimeter of the proposed overlay area, to over 500 feet on the western perimeter. A
review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County reveals the presence of the
following mapped environmentally sensitive areas: wildlife habitat areas, including areas likely
within ¼ mile of an Eagle’s nest apparently located off-site, along the shoreline, and northeast of
the proposed MRL Overlay; one field verified Type 4 DNR Stream and a number of Type 5
streams on the eastern one-half of the property; both moderate and slight landslide hazard areas,
also situated roughly on the eastern one-half of the proposed MRL Overlay area; and two
relatively small erosion hazard areas in the southeastern corner of the property.
The entire proposed MRL Overlay area is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as
designated forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). Redesignation would in not change
the permissible dwelling unit densities on-site, which would continue to be restricted to one
dwelling per eighty acres consistent with the underlying CF 1:80 zoning.
2.3.4.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
2-43
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA07-90: Broders
UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)) Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have substantially changed since the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to area have
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the
requirements of the JCC, the applicant has
provided geological and economic report
evaluating the potential extractable mineral
resources on-site; moreover, the applicant has
requested application of the MRL Overlay,
consistent with the procedures for designation
outlined in the Plan and codified in the JCC.
Together, these facts are sufficient to reach the
conclusion that conditions have changed
relative to the site since initial adoption of the
Plan in 1998.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
valid, or whether new information is available
which was not considered during the adoption
process or any annual amendments to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
However, the applicant has presented new
information relative to the commercial
significance and quality of the sand and gravel
deposits on this site that was not specifically
considered during the adoption process or any
of the annual amendment cycles.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to
be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson
County residents; these views may be made
more evident through the Plan amendment
process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation
and does not adversely affect adopted level of
service standards for other public facilities and
services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements
for transportation. The proposed amendment
should not adversely impact the level of county
services.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
There do not appear to be any clear
inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan.
The parcel would appear to meet most of the
assessment criteria set forth in Table 4-3 of the
Plan’s Natural Resource Conservation Element
for “designation desirable.” However, to the
extent that the proposed overlay encompasses
areas that are classified and designated as Fish
and Wildlife Habitat area under JCC
§18.15.285, designation may be problematic
under the “biological impact” criterion of the
assessment matrix. Please also refer to the
discussion of the criteria in JCC §18.15.170 in
the table below.
2-44
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA07-90: Broders
UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)) Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features that cannot be
mitigated.
In the case of a site-specific 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
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land
uses
The proposal is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation. It is similar to
the surrounding properties and their access to
utilities and land uses.
The proposed site-specific 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
The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to
change the land use designation of other
properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The site-specific proposal does not affect the
land use and population growth projections that
are the basis of the comprehensive plan. The
proposed land use will be consistent with
surrounding land uses.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within
an area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with
the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A),
the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable interjurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws
The proposed amendment meets the
requirements of GMA. The proposal also would
appear to satisfy the criteria set forth in JCC
§18.15.170, except for criterion 6 relating to
Fish and Wildlife Habitat areas. Impacts to Fish
and Wildlife Habitat areas will be analyzed
through a habitat management plan and include
mitigations to prevent adverse impacts to the
natural resources.
In addition to the findings and conclusions required under JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners must also develop additional findings and
conclusions as set forth under JCC §18.15.170 that consider specific criteria relative to mineral
lands. Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial significance are those lands from which
the commercial extraction of minerals (i.e., sand, gravel, rock and other valuable aggregate or
2-45
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
metallic substances) can be anticipated within twenty (20) years, and which are characterized by
affirmative findings relative to all of the criteria set forth in the table below.
Assessment of Long-Term Commercial Significance of Mineral Resources –
MLA07-90: Broders
UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.15.170) Staff Evaluation
Has a known or potential extractable resource
in commercial quantities been verified by
submittal of a geologic and economic report
prepared by a qualified professional?
Yes. Mr. Dan McShane, a licensed engineering
geologist for the Statum Group of Bellingham,
Washington, was retained by Mr. Broders to
prepare such an evaluation. Mr. McShane has
concluded that a high quality deposit of at least
.5 million tons exists within the proposed overlay
area. Please refer to pages 3-5 of the Mr.
McShane’s report (included as part of Mr.
Broder’s application) for further detail.
Is the parcel is a minimum of 10 acres in size?
Yes. As indicated previously, the proposed
overlay encompasses approximately 396 acres.
Is the subject property surrounded by parcels
no smaller than five acres in size on 100
percent of its perimeter?
Yes. The proposed overlay is bounded
predominantly by twenty (20) acre and larger
parcels. On the eastern boundary there is a
triangular tax parcel, which while oddly shaped
and relatively small, nevertheless slightly
exceeds five (5) acres in size. The parcel is
owned by Ramon Broders, zoned RR 1:5, and
lies entirely west of US 101. This is the smallest
parcel bordering the proposed MRL Overlay
site.
Does the current, or will the future, land use
designation have a residential density equal to,
or lower than, one (1) unit per five (5) acres?
Yes. The existing and future permissible
density of all areas within the proposed MRL
Overlay is one dwelling unit per eighty acres
(CF 1:80).
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside the
shoreline designation, an urban growth area or
rural village center, and more than one-half
mile of any established or potential urban
growth area or rural village center boundary, as
shown on the official maps of the
Comprehensive Plan?
Yes. The proposed MRL Overlay area is
several miles north of the Discovery Bay
Crossroads Neighborhood Commercial area.
No portion of the proposed site lies within the
shoreline jurisdiction or a current or potential
future UGA.
2-46
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
Assessment of Long-Term Commercial Significance of Mineral Resources –
MLA07-90: Broders
UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.15.170) Staff Evaluation
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside of
regulated wetland or fish and wildlife habitat
areas pursuant to Article VI-H and VI-I of
Chapter 18.15 JCC [Ord. 8-06 § 1]?
No. A significant portion of the northeastern
quadrant of the proposed MRL Overlay, almost
entirely on tax parcel number 901124002 would
appear to fall within the limits of a Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Area designated under §JCC
18.15.285.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or
discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
A habitat management plan will be required so that the proposal would not affect plants, animals,
fish, or marine life. Moreover, future mineral extraction activities that may occur as a result of the
proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals,
fish, and marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local energy conservation standards.
Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established
in the Comprehensive Plan (see the Mineral Lands Assessment Matrix, Table 4-3, of the Natural
Resource Conservation Element of the Plan). One Type 4 DNR Stream and several Type 5 DNR
Streams exist within the limits of the proposed MRL Overlay. Any issues not addressed through
this non-project review of the proposal relating to streamside setbacks and buffers could also be
resolved in the mine permitting process, consistent with the requirements of JCC §18.20.240, the
performance and use specific development standards for mineral extraction, mining, quarrying
and reclamation activities.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
2-47
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment does not appear to conflict with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan. However, note the concerns raised in the tables above regarding Fish and
Wildlife Habitat areas and the “biological impact” criterion of the Mineral Lands Assessment
Matrix (Table 4-3) in the Natural Resource Lands Element of the Plan, as well as JCC
§18.15.170(6), the criterion which requires that the MRL Overlay not include designated habitat
areas. To the extent that the proposed MRL Overlay encompasses designated habitat areas, it
would appear to conflict with the County’s Code.
2.3.4.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MRL Overlay amendment, with one condition:
• A Habitat Management Plan that provides appropriate mitigation to prevent adverse
environmental impacts to the critical area shall be prepared and submitted to the County as
a condition precedent to issuance of any use permit for mining activities within the MRL
Overlay.
2.3.4.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Application of the
Mineral Resource Land Overlay Designation to an Underlying
Forest Resource Land Designation
As modified by staff, the proposed application of the MRL Overlay to the property subject to
MLA07-90 will advance the purpose of the County’s MRL Overlay designation set forth within the
1998 Comprehensive Plan, while also preserving the property for future commercial forestry use.
2.4 STAFF REPORT: SUGGESTED AMENDMENT
2.4.1 Implementation of RCW 36.70A.367 Relating to the
Establishment of Industrial Land Banks
2.4.1.1 MLA07-104 (Jefferson County)
Applicant: Jefferson County
Assessor Parcel Number(s): N/A
Location: Unknown at this time (Comprehensive Plan map and text
amendments)
2.4.1.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information
The nature and extent of this proposed amendment cannot be ascertained with any degree of
accuracy at this time. The information gathering and analysis process that may ultimately lead to
the designation of one up to two Industrial Land Bank (ILB) sites in the County is in its formative
stage. Accordingly, analysis within this document would appear premature.
2-48
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
2.4.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Please refer to the comment in section 2.4.1.1.1, above. Because the proposed amendment has
not been developed at the time of this writing, it is not possible to assess the proposal against the
review criteria of JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)).
Findings assessing Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Because the ILB alternatives have not yet been developed or analyzed, it is premature to attempt
to assess their potential environmental impacts under SEPA. Accordingly, a supplemental sheet
for nonproject actions has yet to be prepared.
2.4.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
This suggested amendment (which when more fully developed would also incorporate up to two
(2) site-specific rezones) is not prepared for full review or 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.
On March 30, 2007, the County entered into a Professional Services Agreement with E.D. Hovee
& Company to prepare key elements of the analyses necessary for the County to determine
whether or not it wishes to pursue the designation of one or more ILB sites under RCW
36.70A.367. The work being conducted by Hovee & Company will result in the preparation of the
following project deliverables:
• An Economic Futures Report;
• A Searchable Database Report (i.e, of commercial and industrial businesses within the
County);
• Industrial/Commercial Land Use Scenarios (i.e., Industrial land use alternatives);
• An Assessment of Commercial/Industrial Land Use Needs; and
• SEPA analysis of any sites recommended for designation as ILBs under RCW
36.70A.367.
These analyses must be completed in order to identify and propose any site-specific land use
redesignations that might form part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket for
2008.
2-49