HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005_CPA_staff_rpt_8-3-05
2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT DOCKET
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
with Environmental Analysis
for the Adoption of Amendments
to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
AUGUST 3, 2005
INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT
Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action:
Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents
Department of Community Development
Staff Report and
SEPA Addendum
ii
Principal Contributors/Authors
Department of Community Development
Long-Range Planning
Al Scalf, Director of Community Development
Josh D. Peters, AICP, Senior Planner
Kevin Russell, AICP, former Associate Planner
Kyle Alm, Assistant Planner
Consultants
CASCADIA Community Planning Services
Eric R. Toews, Principal
Technical Contributors
Department of Central Services
Jeff Miller, former GIS Analyst
Logistical Contributors
Department of Community Development
Cheryl Halvorson, Planning Commission Secretary and GMA Archivist
Rose Ann Carroll, Office Administrator
iii
Table of Contents
Page
1 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet.......................................................................................1-1
1.1 Fact Sheet....................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Environmental Summary.............................................................................................................1-5
1.2.1 Introduction and Process ..................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents............................................................1-5
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference......................................................................1-5
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis....................................................................................1-6
1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement......................................................................................1-6
1.2.2 Major Conclusions...............................................................................................................1-8
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................1-8
1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations ........................1-13
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ....................................................................1-15
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty............................................................ 1-15
1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved........................................................................................................ 1-17
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made..............................................................................1-17
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures...........................................................................1-18
1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action .........................................1-19
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals....................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations ..................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators.......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Final Docket................................................................................................................................2-4
2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary........................................................................................ 2-4
2.3 Staff Reports: Site-Specific Amendments...................................................................................2-8
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (4)........................................................ 2-8
2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA05-39 (Nelson/Monroe)..........................................................2-9
2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA05-51 (Kirkpatrick)...............................................................2-12
2.3.1.3 Reference Number: MLA05-59 (Olympic Property Group).........................................2-15
2.3.1.4 Reference Number: MLA05-60 (Olympic Property Group).........................................2-18
2.3.1.5 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential Density...........................2-21
2.3.2 Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural Residential (2)................. 2-22
2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA05-38 (Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP)...................2-26
2.3.2.2 Reference Number: MLA05-61 (Olympic Property Group).........................................2-29
2.3.2.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural
Residential.....................................................................................................................................2-32
iv
2.3.3 Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial.............. 2-33
2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA05-53 (Widell)......................................................................2-35
2.3.3.2 Reference Number: MLA05-70 (Pepper)......................................................................2-38
2.3.3.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural
Industrial or Rural Commercial.....................................................................................................2-42
2.3.4 Requests for Change from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Commercial2-42
2.3.4.1 Reference Number: MLA05-06 (McDiehl LLC) ..........................................................2-42
2.4 Staff Report: Suggested Amendment........................................................................................2-46
2.4.1 Comprehensive Plan Housekeeping.................................................................................. 2-46
2.4.1.1 Reference Number: MLA05-66 (Jefferson County)......................................................2-46
3 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials .................................................................................3-1
4 Distribution List ................................................................................................................................4-1
5 Appendices.........................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Item 1: Legal Notice (August 3, 2005)........................................................................................5-2
5.2 Item 2: MLA05-39 Nelson/Monroe ............................................................................................5-5
5.3 Item 3: MLA05-51 Kirkpatrick...................................................................................................5-6
5.4 Item 4: MLA05-59 Olympic Property Group..............................................................................5-7
5.5 Item 5: MLA05-60 Olympic Property Group..............................................................................5-8
5.6 Item 6: MLA05-38 Barber...........................................................................................................5-9
5.7 Item 7: MLA05-61 Olympic Property Group............................................................................5-10
5.8 Item 8: MLA05-53 Widell.........................................................................................................5-11
5.9 Item 9: MLA05-70 Pepper ........................................................................................................5-12
5.10 Item 10: MLA05-06 McDIEHL LLC........................................................................................5-13
5.11 Item 11: MLA05-66 Oil City.....................................................................................................5-14
5.12 Item 12: MLA05-66 Parcel #712161000 ..................................................................................5-15
5.13 Item 13: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #501032024.....................................5-16
5.14 Item 14: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #901254007.....................................5-17
5.15 Item 15: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #921324028.....................................5-18
5.16 Item 16: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #802363023.....................................5-19
5.17 Item 17: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #802363023.....................................5-20
5.18 Item 18: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #901112040.....................................5-21
5.19 Item 19: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #901034003.....................................5-22
5.20 Item 20: MLA05-66 Parcels without Zoning Parcel #603143001 ............................................5-23
5.21 Item 21: MLA05-66 Parcels without Zoning Olympic National Park (Quinault).....................5-24
5.22 Item 22: MLA05-66 Parcels without Zoning Rat Island; Parcels# 921000000 & 021180000 .5-25
5.23 Item 23: MLA05-66 East Beach County Park...........................................................................5-26
5.24 Item 24: MLA05-66 Dosewallips State Park Parcel #502021001.............................................5-27
1-1
1 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet
1.1 FACT SHEET
Title and Description of
Proposed Action
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA), the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) is considering adoption of 10
individual amendment proposals to the 1998 Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. Nine (9) site-specific
amendment proposals and one (1) suggested amendment
proposal comprise the 2005 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket, which is the “Final Docket” for this
year’s annual amendment cycle.1
This document is a combined Staff Report and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for the 10
proposed amendments. The objective is to analyze the
proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with
regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined
in UDC §9 and potential environmental impacts under
SEPA. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a
non-project action under SEPA and is not intended to
satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e.,
the environmental review needed for future land use or
building permit applications).
The following briefly describes each of the 10 proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (note: each case
has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for
ease of reference):
Site-Specific Amendments:
1. MLA05-06 - McDiehl LLC; Port Ludlow;
proposed upzone within the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort (MPR) from MPR Residential to
MPR Village Commercial Center; Agent: David
Goldsmith;
2. MLA05-38 - Hopkins/Barber Family Associates,
LP; Quilcene; proposed upzone from Commercial
Forest (CF) 1:80 to Rural Residential (RR) 1:20;
Agent: Jim Lindsay;
3. MLA05-39 - Nelson/Monroe; Quilcene; proposed
upzone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5;
4. MLA05-51 - Kirkpatrick; Quilcene; proposed
upzone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5; Agent: Linda
Skurdal;
5. MLA05-53; Widell; Port Townsend (adjacent to
the Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive
1 The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on April
18, 2005 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing 11 items.
1-2
Rural Development (LAMIRD)); proposed upzone
from RR 1:5 to Rural Light Industrial Commercial;
6. MLA05-59 - Olympic Property Group (OPG);
Shine; proposed upzone from RR 1:10 to RR 1:5;
7. MLA05-60 - OPG; Port Ludlow; proposed upzone
from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5;
8. MLA05-61 - OPG; Shine; proposed upzone from
CF 1:80 to RR 1:10 and RR 1:5; and
9. MLA05-70 - Pepper; Port Townsend (Four
Corners/SR 20); proposed upzone from RR 1:10 to
Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads);
Agent: Kelly DeLaat-Maher.
Suggested Amendments:
10. MLA05-66 - Comprehensive Plan housekeeping
involving map anomalies and text and table
corrections only, and not for the purpose of
amending policy or narrative description.
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for the nine site-specific
amendment proposals and the Department of Community
Development for Comprehensive Plan housekeeping under
file number MLA05-66.
Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community Development
(DCD)
Long-Range Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official:
Stacie Hoskins, Development Services Manager
DCD Development Review Division
(360) 379-4493
Contact Person:
Josh D. Peters, AICP, Senior Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4466
Authors and Principal
Contributors
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Long-Range Planning
Date of Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum Issuance
August 3, 2005
Date Comments are Due Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission
public hearing, 6:30 PM, Wednesday, August 17, 2005, at
the WSU Community Learning Center in Hadlock. Written
comments are accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning
Commission until 4:30 PM, Wednesday, August 24, 2005.
1-3
Past Related Actions and
Future Anticipated Actions
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at
6:30 PM, Wednesday, August 17, 2005, at the WSU
Community Learning Center in Hadlock. By the end of
September, DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final
DCD Staff Recommendation together with the Planning
Commission Recommendation for all proposals on the 2005
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket.
Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the 10
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under
consideration is expected sometime prior to the end of the
second week in December 2005. The meeting schedules
and agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with
regard to this Docket are available on a Jefferson County
website dedicated to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan annual
amendment cycle process. This website can be accessed
from the Jefferson County homepage:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
Appeal Information Issues relating to the adequacy of a SEPA Addendum and
other procedural issues may not be appealed under the
administrative appeal provisions of UDC 8.10.12. Appeals
of GMA actions (i.e., a legislative decision by the BoCC)
are heard first by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board.
Location of Background
Material and Documents
Incorporated by Reference
Background material and documents used to support
development of the Addendum are available for inspection
from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, at the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development,
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368, (360) 379-
4450. Appointments are welcome.
Relation to Other Documents A series of documents have been prepared by or on behalf
of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations
(i.e., the Unified Development Code (UDC)), including
amendments to both the Plan and UDC. These documents,
listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record,
Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background
information and offer previous environmental descriptions
and analyses. They are incorporated herein by this
reference. The reader is encouraged to refer to these
documents in conjunction with this document for a broader
understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed.
In this document, descriptions of and references to the
contents of the proposed amendments have been provided
to the greatest extent possible, but do not include all
information from the Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications. For a more complete understanding of the
discussion presented within this document, the
Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves
should be consulted.
1-4
Cost to the Public Copies of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum,
or selected pages thereof, are available at cost from the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
(DCD). The text and selected appendices are also available
for download on the DCD website dedicated to the 2005
annual amendment cycle, which can be accessed from the
Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
Copies of this document are available for inspection at
DCD and the Jefferson County Public Library at Port
Hadlock.
1-5
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
1.2.1 Introduction and Process
Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) on August 28,
1998 and substantively updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is a
policy document that guides growth and future land use decisions in Jefferson County. In each successive year
since initial adoption, the County has conducted a Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle as allowed under the
GMA (see RCW 36.70A.130). The process for amending the Comprehensive Plan is outlined in §9 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC) (i.e., the development regulations adopted in December 2000 to implement the
Comprehensive Plan). The 2005 “Preliminary Docket” included eleven (11) proposed amendments. Consistent
with UDC §9, the nine (9) site-specific amendments (formal applications submitted in conjunction with a fee)
automatically qualified for the “Final Docket.” The Jefferson County Planning Commission heard testimony on the
two (2) suggested amendments on the Preliminary Docket, as introduced by the Department of Community
Development (DCD) on behalf of individual County Commissioners, and formulated a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) regarding the composition of the Final Docket. The BoCC then
established the Final Docket, accepting a limited version of the Comprehensive Plan “housekeeping” proposal and
establishing as ten (10) the total number of amendment proposals on the Final Docket.
This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum. The objective
is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan
amendment criteria outlined in UDC §9 and potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The
adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented
in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for a
future land use or building permit application). This is an integrated GMA/SEPA document that combines
environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering a recommended action on each proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Guidance for preparing integrated SEPA/GMA documents is found at Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) 197-11-235. The analysis in this document supplements the existing adopted environmental
documents incorporated herein by reference.
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents
The following existing environmental documents have been adopted through legal notice published in the Port
Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on August 3, 2005 (Appendix Item 1):
• Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS, dated February 24, 1997 and May 27,
1998, respectively, examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative
versions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 22, 2004. The analysis
concerning Agricultural Lands of Local Importance is pertinent to an element of file number MLA05-66.
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The ten Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including all supplemental information submitted
with or associated with the applications, all supporting record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this
document, all Appendix Items to this report, and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are
incorporated herein by this reference, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 635.
The documents listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial
background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. The reader is encouraged to
1-6
use existing documents in conjunction with this document for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues
and impacts analyzed.
Moreover, to the greatest extent possible this document includes descriptions of, and references to, the content of
the ten individual proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the information from each Comprehensive
Plan amendment application. For a more thorough understanding of the discussion presented here, the
Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted to supplement the information in this
document.
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis
This document provides both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts as appropriate to the
general nature of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals. The adoption of comprehensive
plan amendments is classified under SEPA as a non-project (i.e., programmatic) action. A non-project action, such
as decisions on policies, plans or programs, is defined as an action that is broader than permit review for a single
site-specific project. Environmental analysis for a non-project proposal does not require the same level of site-
specific analysis required in conjunction with a permit application; instead, a document such as an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEPA Addendum discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the
non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC 197-11-442). The analysis in this
document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future
land use or building permit application).
SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are ready for decision, and to
exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for decision-making (WAC 197-11-060(5)).
Phased review is appropriate when the sequence of a proposal is from a programmatic document, such as an
integrated GMA/SEPA document addressing comprehensive plan amendments, to other documents that are
narrower in scope, such as site-specific, project-level analyses (i.e., “project actions” under SEPA).
Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth management
planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum will be used to review the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Additional
environmental review of development proposals will occur as specific projects are proposed (e.g., land use and
building permit applications). This will result in an additional incremental level of review when subsequent
implementing actions require a more detailed evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future
project action environmental review for development applications that are not categorically exempt from SEPA
could occur in the form of a supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or threshold Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS).
1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement
Following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2005 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum.
This 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum is available to
agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEPA rules. Comments on the merits of the proposals shall be
accepted as outlined below under “Public Comment Period.”
1.2.1.4.1 Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketing Process
The public process for compiling the final docket has followed the public involvement requirements of the GMA
and the specific procedures established in UDC §§ 9.5 through 9.8. DCD staff compiled the preliminary docket
following the February 1, 2005 deadline for applications set forth in UDC §9.4.2. On March 2, 2005, and after
timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing to solicit comments
1-7
on the proposed amendment docket. On March 10, 2005, the Planning Commission and BoCC held a joint
workshop to review the DCD preliminary docketing recommendations and to gather information regarding the items
on the preliminary docket and the DCD report and recommendations. On March 30, 2005, Planning Commission
transmitted its final docketing report and recommendations to the BoCC. On April 18, 2005, the BoCC adopted the
final docket for review during the 2005 amendment process.
1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Planning Commission Public Hearing - Public Comment Period
The Jefferson County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold at least one public hearing to take testimony on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (2005
Docket). A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, August 17, 2005, 6:30 PM at the WSU Community
Learning Center in Port Hadlock, pertaining to all items on the 2005 Docket.
The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, August 3, 2005, initiates a public comment
period that remains open through Wednesday, August 24, 2005. Oral comment may be provided to the Planning
Commission at the August 17, 2005 public hearing previously referenced. Written comment may be submitted to
the Planning Commission via DCD through 4:30 PM on August 24, 2005. Please submit written comments to DCD
at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Comments
submitted prior to the close of the comment period will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration
during that advisory body’s deliberations. Please note that the Planning Commission may elect at its discretion to
schedule an additional date and time for oral comments, and/or extend the period in which written comments may
be accepted.
Written public comments submitted after close of the Planning Commission comment period will be forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative decision. The BoCC may hold a
public hearing before taking final legislative action on the Final Docket (formal notice will appear in the newspaper
of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the BoCC hearing).
1.2.1.4.3 Availability of Documents
For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed amendments, the
adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact DCD Long-Range Planning at the
mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle
webpage, where as many relevant documents and maps as possible are available in Portable Document Format
(PDF). The 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage can be accessed through the County homepage:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
1.2.1.4.4 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Deliberation
Following the public hearing(s) on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission will
deliberate on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and formulate a recommendation on each proposal
for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). It is anticipated that the Planning Commission
will deliberate on the proposed suggested amendments during regularly scheduled meetings on September 7 and
September 21, 2005, or until such time that it formulates a recommendation for transmittal to the BoCC. The
Planning Commission generally meets the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at the WSU Community
Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock. It is possible that the Planning Commission
will hold one or more special meetings outside of the regular meeting schedule. The most likely dates for these
meetings would be August 24 and/or August 31, 2005. Following the completion of the Planning Commission
recommendation on the 2005 Docket, DCD will formally transmit the Planning Commission recommendation to the
BoCC along with the DCD final staff recommendations, any comments submitted during the public comment
period, and the record of the Planning Commission deliberations. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission
and DCD recommendations will be presented to the BoCC in the month of October 2005.
In making a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning Commission
recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission, the
minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff recommendation
that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office,
1-8
and any written or oral comments provided to the BoCC before or during a BoCC public hearing on the Docket
(should one be held). If the BoCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket following receipt
of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for agencies and the public to
provide formal comments on the Docket. A legal notice would appear in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County
Leader, the publication of record, announcing any BoCC public hearings on the 2005 Docket.
A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under
consideration is expected prior to the end of the second week in December 2005. The meeting schedules and
agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2005 Docket are available on a Jefferson
County webpage dedicated to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This webpage can
be accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
1.2.2 Major Conclusions
The summary conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in Part 2 of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum
are presented here for the reader’s convenience. A reading of the analysis in Part 2 in addition to any supporting
material referenced in the text, including Appendix Items, is encouraged. Generally, information presented
elsewhere is not reprinted here.
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for mitigation measures and
conditions are within the individual staff reports for each of the proposed amendments found in part 2 of this
document, “Concise Analysis of the Proposals,” or among the Appendix Items, as appropriate. Summary statements
presented in the Summary Matrix are, in some cases, considerably abbreviated from the full discussion in part 2 and
lack explanations of terminology. Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues
of interest in part 2, and to consult the Appendix Items, the amendment applications themselves, and other
supporting materials listed in part 3, in order to formulate the most accurate impression of impacts associated with
the proposals and staff recommendations.
“Significant” as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on
environmental quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or
quantifiable text (WAC 197-11-794).
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
1
MLA05-06 - McDiehl
LLC; Port Ludlow
MPR; upzone from
Master Planned Resort
(MPR) Residential to
MPR Village
Commercial Center.
None identified.
Adopt the proposal as proposed by the
applicant.
1-9
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
2
MLA05-38 - Hopkins
/Barber Family
Associates, LLP;
Quilcene; upzone from
Commercial Forest (CF)
1:80 to Rural
Residential (RR) 1:20.
Yes. Approval of the proposal
would be likely to result in
indirect and cumulative
significant adverse impacts to the
environment in the form of
increased pressure to convert
Commercial Forest Resource
Lands to higher intensity rural
use; this would likely erode the
overall purpose and effect of the
1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP).
Recommendation - Deny the proposed
rezone.
Alternatively - Approve the rezone with
modifications, including the following:
• Downzone parcel numbers
601224003 and 601228 (adjacent to
subject) from RR 1:5 to RR 1:20;
• Require future subdivision
development to conform to the
residential cluster provisions of the
UDC; and
• Commit to developing and adopting
clearer policy guidance governing
Commercial Forestry upzone
proposals during the 2006 CP
amendment cycle to prevent an
erosion of the purpose and effect of
the 1998 CP.
3
MLA05-39 - Nelson/
Monroe; Quilcene;
upzone from RR 1:20 to
RR 1:5.
If left unmitigated, yes.
Approval of the proposal would
be likely to result in indirect and
cumulative significant adverse
impacts to the environment in the
form of increased pressure to
upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher
rural residential densities; this
would likely erode the overall
purpose and effect of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
Recommendation - Deny the proposed
rezone. The subject parcel is surrounded
on more than 50% of its perimeter by
parcels larger than 10 acres in size that are
zoned for lower density rural, agricultural
and forestry uses (i.e., RR 1:20; AP 1:20;
and RF: 1:40). Thus, an "established
pattern" of 5-acre or smaller parcels does
not exist in the vicinity of the subject site
(see LNP 3.3.1(a)). Because RR 1:20
zoning is currently applied to adjacent
parcels, application of the RR 1:10 land
use designation to "transition" between
areas of varying densities would also
appear inappropriate.
1-10
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
4
MLA05-51 -
Kirkpatrick; Quilcene;
upzone from RR 1:20 to
RR 1:5.
If left unmitigated, yes.
Approval of the proposal would
be likely to result in indirect and
cumulative significant adverse
impacts to the environment in the
form of increased pressure to
upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher
rural residential densities; this
would likely erode the overall
purpose and effect of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
Recommendation - Deny the proposed
rezone. Though adjoining parcels to the
north and east are generally 5 acres in size
or smaller and zoned RR 1:5, at least 50%
of the perimeter (i.e., the south and east)
of the subject parcel is comprised of
parcels of 40 acres or larger (i.e., an
"established pattern" of 5 or 10-acre or
smaller parcels does not exist in the
vicinity of the subject site) (see LNPs
3.3.1(a) and 3.3.2(a)).
Alternatively - Approve the rezone as
modified by staff, with the following
conditions:
• Rezone the parcel from RR 1:20 to
RR 1:10 to provide a density
transition between adjacent CF and
RR 1:5 areas;
• Require future subdivision
development to conform to the
residential cluster provisions of the
UDC; and
• Develop and adopt clearer policy
guidance governing Rural
Residential upzone proposals during
the 2006 CP amendment cycle.
5
MLA05-53 - Widell;
Port Townsend
(adjacent to Glen Cove);
upzone from RR 1:5 to
Rural Commercial
within/adjacent to Glen
Cove Limited Area of
More Intensive Rural
Development
(LAMIRD).
None identified.
Deny the proposed rezone. Jefferson
County's LAMIRD boundaries are the
result of exhaustive review and
deliberation, and have been reviewed and
upheld by the WWGMHB. Though
rational arguments have been advanced
for this proposed rezone, staff
recommends against revisiting this
LAMIRD boundary.
1-11
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
6
MLA05-59 - Olympic
Property Group (OPG);
Shine; upzone from RR
1:10 to RR 1:5.
None identified.
Recommendation - Approve the proposed
rezone. Though the parcel is some 40
acres in size, it is surrounded on three
sides (east, south and west) by an
established pattern of parcels of 5 acres or
smaller which are designated RR 1:5.
Consequently, approval of the rezone is
appropriate and consistent with LNP
3.3.1(a). That said, the development and
adoption of clearer policy guidance
governing Rural Residential upzones
during the 2006 CP amendment cycle
would help to guide future decisions on
proposals of this type, and help to prevent
an erosion of the purpose and effect of the
1998 CP.
7
MLA05-60 - OPG; Port
Ludlow; upzone from
RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
If left unmitigated, yes.
Approval of the proposal would
be likely to result in indirect and
cumulative significant adverse
impacts to the environment in the
form of increased pressure to
upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher
rural residential densities; this
would likely erode the overall
purpose and effect of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
Recommendation - Deny the proposed
rezone. LNP 3.3.1 and the topography of
the proposed rezone area warrant
continued application of the RR 1:20
designation. Six of the seven lots
involved are bounded on 50% or more of
their perimeters by large lots designated
RR 1:20.
Alternatively - Approve the proposed
rezone with modifications, including the
following:
• Rezone the most northerly lot from
RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 recognizing that
this one lot is bounded on more than
50% of its perimeter by smaller
parcels designated RR 1:5, but is
heavily constrained due to
topography;
• Require future subdivision
development to conform to the
residential cluster provisions of the
UDC; and
• Commit to developing and adopting
clearer policy guidance governing
Rural Residential upzone proposals
to prevent an erosion of the 1998
CP.
1-12
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
8
MLA05-61 - OPG;
Shine; upzone CF 1:80
to RR 1:10 and RR 1:5.
Yes. Approval of the proposal
would be likely to result in
indirect and cumulative
significant adverse impacts to the
environment in the form of
increased pressure to convert
Commercial Forest Resource
Lands to higher intensity rural
use; this would likely erode the
overall purpose and effect of the
1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP).
Deny the proposed rezone.
Alternatively, partially approve the
proposed rezone request, with
modifications, including the following:
• Rezone those portions of the subject
site lying within the Bywater Bay
Water Service Area from CF 1:80 to
RR 1:20;
• Require future subdivision
development to conform to the
residential cluster provisions of the
UDC; and
• Commit to developing and adopting
clearer policy guidance governing
Commercial Forest and Rural
Residential upzone proposals as
noted above.
9
MLA05-70 - Pepper;
Port Townsend (Four
Corners); upzone from
RR 1:10 to Rural
Commercial
(Neighborhood
Crossroads).
Yes. Approval of the proposal
would be likely to result in
indirect and cumulative
significant adverse impacts to the
environment in the form of
increased pressure to upzone
rural commercial areas in a
manner contrary to the
requirements of the GMA (RCW
36.70.070(d) and (e) and the
adopted policies of Jefferson
Country; this would likely have
the effect of eroding the overall
purpose and effect of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
Deny the proposed rezone. Upzoning the
parcel is inconsistent with the criteria for
LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d). Jefferson County's
current LAMIRD boundaries are the result
of exhaustive review and deliberation, and
have been reviewed and upheld by the
WWGMHB.
10
MLA05-66;
Comprehensive Plan
housekeeping involving
map anomalies and text
and table corrections.
None identified.
Approve the amendments as proposed by
staff.
1-13
1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
The following table displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use district (from the
Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information System database, and other sources), and the proposed
change in the number of acres under each district under the proposals. The reader should understand that these
numbers are approximations for planning purposes only, and all figures have been rounded. They do not
necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the ground. They are, however, the best approximation
available at this time. The purpose of the table is to set a context for the legislative decision before the Board of
County Commissioners for this year’s amendment cycle.
All acreage figures are in gross acres, including road rights-of-way and some water features. The net developable
acreage would be lower.
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2004 Plan)
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under
Applicant Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation (including
MLA 05-66 Corrections)
Rural Residential
RR 1:5 29,168 29,568 (+ 400 approx.) 29,227 (+59 approx.,
including +19 under MLAO5-
66)
RR 1:10 9,886 9,914 (+28 approx.) 9,945 (-50 approx.,
including -10 under MLA05-66)
RR 1:20 51,475 51,280 (-195 approx.) 51,466 (-9 under MLA05-66)
Incorporated UGA
Port Townsend UGA 4,466 No change No change
LAMIRDs
Rural Village Centers
(Hadlock, Brinnon,
Quilcene)
242 No change No change
General Crossroads 96 No change No change
Convenience Crossroads 10 No change No change
Neighborhood
Crossroads
122 132 (+11) 122 (no change)
Unincorporated UGA
UGA - Commercial 262 No change 262
(+0.09 MLA05-66)
UGA - Visitor Oriented
Commercial
14 No change No change
UGA - Light Industrial 25 No change No change
UGA - High Density
Residential 14-24
50 No change No change
UGA - Medium Density
Residential 7-14
66 No change No change
UGA - Low Density
Residential 4-6
802 No change No change
UGA - Public 72 No change No change
1-14
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations, continued
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2004 Plan)
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under
Applicant Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation (including
MLA 05-66 Corrections)
Master Planned Resort
MPR - Village
Commercial Center
43 44 (+1) 44 (+1)
MPR - Resort Complex
10:1
57 No change No change
MPR - Multiple Family
10:1
75 No change No change
MPR - Single Family
4:1
1,431 No change No change
MPR - Single Family
Tracts 1:2.5
114 No change No change
MPR - Recreation Area 259 No change No change
MPR - Open Space
Reserve
356 No change No change
Parks & National Forest
Parks, Preserves,
Recreation - Not MPR
2,859 No change 2,860 (+1 approx., under
MLA05-66)
Olympic National Forest 57,299 No change No change
Olympic National Park 139,463 No change 140,449 (+986 approx., under
MLA05-66)
Forestlands
Rural Forest 8,645 No change No change
Commercial Forest 310,327 310,078 (-249 approx.) 310,627 (+300 approx., under
MLA05-66)
Inholding Forest 7,228 No change No change
Resource Based
Industrial Zone
152 No change No change
Agricultural
Commercial Agriculture 4,296 No change No change
Agricultural Lands of
Local Significance
3,220 No change 3,239 (+19 approx., under
MLA05-66)
Industrial
Heavy Industry (Mill) 278 No change No change
Light Industrial (Glen
Cove)
72 78 (+6) 72 (no change
Light Industrial/
Manufacturing
(Quilcene, Eastview)
56 No change No change
Light Industrial/
Commercial (Glen
Cove)
90 No change No change
1-15
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations, continued
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2004 Plan)
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under
Applicant Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation (including
MLA 05-66 Corrections)
Essential Public Facilities
Airport EPF 289 No change No change
Military Reservation 3,452 No change 3,460 (+8 approx., under
MLA05-66)
Waste Management EPF 241 No change No change
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found in the
Summary Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan future
development proposals in a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how mitigation measures or
existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none of the
potential impacts of the future development scenarios evaluated in this document would meet all of the parameters
(significant and unavoidable and adverse). The staff recommendation includes recommended mitigation measures
that go beyond the regulatory framework currently in place. For more information on the relationship of plan and
policymaking to future review of development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of
Mitigation Measures below at §1.2.4.2.
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty
Following is a table summarizing key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers:
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
1
MLA05-06; McDiehl
LLC; Port Ludlow;
Master Planned Resort
(MPR) Residential to
MPR Village
Commercial Center.
The subject parcel is currently separated from Osprey Ridge Drive by a sliver of
land designated as part of the "protected area" or "reserve area" of the adjoining
plat. Access to the parcel appears to be via Oak Bay Road only. With 89
vehicle trips per day anticipated with a 2,500 s.f. commercial building, obtaining
access on two sides of the subject parcel would be advantageous for both
commercial access and fire safety.
1-16
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
2
MLA05-38;
Hopkins/Barber Family
Associates, LP;
Quilcene; Commercial
Forest (CF) 1:80 to
Rural Residential (RR)
1:20.
The subject parcel encompasses soil types, geology, topography and
environmentally sensitive areas similar to many other parcels designated CF
1:80 in Jefferson County. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated
that the parcel is well suited to commercial forestry use; moreover the majority
of the parcel has been in timber tax classification since the 1970s, indicating its
suitability for timber production. Redesignation and rezoning of the property to
RR 1:20 could create a precedent with far reaching implications, including over
time, incremental erosion of the Comprehensive Plan's overall forest land
designation approach. Both the GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan discourage redesignation of forestland.
3
MLA05-39;
Nelson/Monroe;
Quilcene; RR 1:20 to
RR 1:5.
What constitutes "an established pattern of same or similar sized parcels" (LNPs
3.3.1 through 3.3.3) is unclear. A reasonable interpretation of these policies
would suggest that in instances where 50% or more of the perimeter of a parcel
abuts areas both designated and divided into parcels of equal or lower density,
that the existing zoning should be retained. Application of this interpretation
indicates that an established pattern of 5-acre parcels does not exist in this
instance.
4
MLA05-51;
Kirkpatrick; Quilcene;
RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
The above discussion relative to MLA05-39 also applies here. Fifty percent
(50%) of the boundary of this 20-acre parcel abuts designations and actual
densities of RR 1:20 and CF 1:80. Moreover, upzoning lands immediately
abutting commercial forestland designations would appear to be inconsistent
with LNP 3.3.3(g), and increase the potential for conflicts between rural
residential uses and forestry uses, as well as increasing the pressure to convert
forestlands to rural residential uses in future.
5
MLA05-53; Widell;
Port Townsend
(adjacent to Glen Cove);
RR 1:5 to Rural
Commercial.
As noted previously, Jefferson County's LAMIRD boundaries are the result of
exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the
WWGMHB. The proposal raises the question whether LAMIRD boundaries,
once designated, appealed, and upheld, may properly be reconsidered in light of
information not available or undiscovered at the time of initial LAMIRD zoning,
absent manifest errors in application of the designation criteria.
6
MLA05-59; Property
Group (OPG); Shine;
RR 1:10 to RR 1:5.
As is the case with the other proposed rural residential upzones, this proposal
raises an issue of interpretation of adopted County policy (i.e., LNP 3.3.1(a)).
Specifically, under what circumstances is it appropriate to redesignate and
rezone lower density rural residential parcels for higher density rural residential
use? In this instance, because the parcel is bounded on approximately 75% of its
perimeter by an established pattern of parcels of 5 acres or smaller which are
designated RR 1:5, approval is recommended. However, clearer policies should
be developed to guide decisions on rezones of this nature in the future; doing so
would assist in ensuring rational decision-making that does not erode the
purpose and effect of the Comprehensive Plan's rural residential land use
scheme.
1-17
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
7
MLA05-60; OPG; Port
Ludlow; RR 1:20 to RR
1:5.
Areas along both the eastern, northwestern, and western perimeters of the
subject site are constrained due to steep slopes - this is particularly the case
along the western and northwestern perimeter of the site. The site is comprised
of seven separate Assessor's parcel tags; only one of the seven, the northern-
most, has more than 50% of its perimeter bounded by parcels and zoning of
higher density. Lower parcel densities and designations bound all remaining
parcels within the subject site on more than 50% of their perimeters. This
proposal, as is the case with the other proposed rural residential upzones, raises
the issue: under what circumstances is it appropriate to redesignate and rezone
lower density rural residential parcels for higher density rural residential use?
8
MLA05-61; OPG;
Shine; CF 1:80 to RR
1:10 and RR 1:5.
The sequence of procedural events surrounding the establishment of both the
initial CF 1:80 zoning, as well as the water service area boundary, remains
somewhat unclear (please refer to the analysis of the proposal, below). That
said, CF 1:80 zoning was clearly applied to the subject site under interim forest
land regulations that pre-date both the establishment of the water service area
boundary and the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that less than 1/2 of
the subject site lies within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area, indicating that,
regardless of the timing and sequence of zoning and water service area boundary
designation, the parcel has been appropriately zoned CF 1:80. Both the GMA
and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan discourage the redesignation of
forest lands.
9
MLA05-70; Pepper;
Port Townsend (Four
Corners); RR 1:10 to
Rural Commercial
(Neighborhood
Crossroads).
Jefferson Transit recently selected the subject site as the location for its new
principal operations and maintenance facility and transfer station. Transit is
presently in the midst of the appraisal process, a necessary precedent to
purchase/acquisition negotiations with Ms. Pepper. The present RR 1:5 zoning
of the property would appear to permit Transit's desired use and development of
the property via a conditional use permit process. The parcel has previously
been the subject of site-specific rezone proposals identical to the current
proposal that have been denied as inconsistent with the LAMIRD boundary
criteria of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan.
10
MLA05-66;
Comprehensive Plan
housekeeping involving
map anomalies and text
and table corrections.
None identified.
1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made
The Comprehensive Plan states that, “a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its citizens” and
further provides four essential components for environmental protection:
1-18
• Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy;
• Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review;
• Critical Area Protection Strategy; and
• Public Education and Involvement Strategy.
Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact environmental quality. Comprehensive Plan goals
and objectives are implemented through development regulations in the Unified Development Code (UDC). The
UDC was developed such that protective measures are incorporated into permit decisions. (For more discussion on
how this process functions, refer to 1.2.4.2 below.)
The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals on this year’s Docket may have the potential, if adopted, to affect
the environment. For this reason, each proposal must be carefully analyzed for potential impacts, both as an
individual proposal and with respect to cumulative impacts when associated with the other proposals on the 2005
Docket, and if necessary, denied, conditioned, or modified appropriately.
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
The legislative adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). A project action would be a decision on a land use or building permit reviewed under the
general policy framework offered by the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations. SEPA review is
required for project actions, unless those actions are categorically exempt from SEPA review when the proposal is
compared to the list of exemption thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental review such as the analysis
contained in this document is useful and essential at the non-project level in order to set up a regulatory framework
that protects the environment. Mitigation for non-project actions in this sense is essentially the extent to which the
established regulatory framework is effective when applied to future development proposals. Generally, mitigation
measures would not be required for the programmatic action of adopting a Comprehensive Plan or development
regulation amendment, but may be useful and appropriate to address probable significant adverse environmental
impacts identified at the project level. It is often the case that project action environmental review is where specific
mitigation measures can be applied to condition a proposal such that the approval and execution of the proposal
does not present a significant adverse environmental impact. With regard to environmental review of this year’s
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle docket, it should be understood that Jefferson County has in place a
regulatory framework that follows the guidance established in Washington State laws, such as SEPA, the Growth
Management Act (GMA), and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).
Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective January 16, 2001) as
the unified set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the
adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive Plan was implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in
place prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses
within the various districts set forth upon the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures
Ordinances outlined the development permit review process and related administrative matters. The UDC replaced
these and other previously existing ordinances.
Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for what are now called
“environmentally sensitive areas” are contained at UDC §3.6.4, et seq. Environmentally sensitive areas are
protected through the application of overlay districts. Examples of such overlay districts include Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas (UDC 3.6.5), Frequently Flooded Areas (UDC 3.6.6), Geologically Hazardous Areas (UDC 3.6.7),
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (UDC 3.6.8), and Wetlands (3.6.9). The County maintains data to assist in
identifying these areas from a variety of sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal
government, in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create maps depicting the
approximate location and extent of environmentally sensitive areas overlay districts.
Development Review Division planners use available GIS information when reviewing land use and building permit
applications and apply the protective measures accordingly. Frequently an applicant is required to submit a Special
1-19
Report, such as an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report,
Grading Plan, Habitat Management Plan, or Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are
governed by UDC §3.6.10. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and building permit
approval, but whenever possible to augment existing data for the County GIS database on environmentally sensitive
areas.
Sometimes the existing regulations are insufficient to effectively protect the environment when examined in the
context of a particular project. Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation measures
above and beyond the protections provided by the established development regulations may be needed to avoid
significant adverse environmental impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions may employ their “SEPA substantive
authority” to further condition approval of a development application. These mitigation measures are generally
developed through project action SEPA review and established as permit conditions through an EIS or a threshold
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS).
Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of any one of the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments in this year’s cycle is not as clear as placing a condition on a permit. The legislative decision to
adopt a modified version of the original Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal can be considered a form of
mitigation, for example. The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) may be effectively mitigating the potential
environmental impact of adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified proposal or even
deciding not to adopt the proposal based on environmental considerations. For formal site-specific amendment
applications, the BoCC could apply a mitigation measure that affects future use of the land in question. In any of
these cases, mitigation as applied to a non-project action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct from
mitigation as applied to a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action review that
established protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas and other development standards are applied to
proposals for on-the-ground development. Judging the effectiveness of mitigation measures in this context requires
on-going attention.
1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action
The nine (9) site-specific proposals and one (1) proposal to undertake housekeeping revisions under review in this
amendment cycle are relatively minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction from
implementation of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan. That said, some of the proposals, if approved, pose far-
reaching policy implications that could, over time, create pressure to significantly change the County's rural and
forest land designations.
In deciding when it is appropriate to upzone lower density rural residential parcels to higher density rural residential
designations, or when it is appropriate to upzone commercial forest land to rural residential designations, the County
will establish precedents with far-reaching implications that will be used to judge the appropriateness of similar
rezone proposals in years hence. In consequence, determinations that appear to have little direct environmental
impact when viewed in isolation in 2005 may have significant indirect and cumulative environmental impacts if
employed as justification for a substantial number of similar rezones in future Comprehensive Plan amendment
cycles. Choosing not to approve certain rezone proposals that would increase pressures to convert commercial
forest land and/or rural lands to higher intensity land use designations will likely reduce present and future
environmental impacts, prevent sprawl, and preserve future planning options
Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and development under the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan
will result in some adverse impacts which are impossible to avoid. The County's adopted Plan is designed to
accommodate the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections for the year
2024. Under any of the action alternatives reviewed in this document, continued growth and development under the
adopted Plan is likely to result in increased urbanization of certain areas of the County, cumulative impacts to fish
and wildlife habitat, increased demands upon transportation facilities and transit, and increased demand for public
infrastructure and facilities. The County will continue to plan for distribution of growth that will result in the lowest
levels of environmental impacts, focus on infill, and balance capital investments.
2-1
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals
2.1 OVERVIEW
Pursuant to §9 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), 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 UDC §9, 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 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., UDC 9.8.1.b
and c).
This document addresses the nine (9) site-specific amendments and the one (1) suggested amendment on the Final
Docket. This document further divides the amendments into sub-categories.
2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in §9 of the UDC 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.
2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b, all recommendations regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must include an
inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at UDC §9.5.4.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 2005 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 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.
2-2
Unified Development Code (UDC) §9.5.4.b – growth management indicators
Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in §9.5.4.b of the UDC.
(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, 2005 OFM Population Estimate for Jefferson
County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues, shows a 2005 population of 27,600. 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 predicted 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
2000-2024. The population projection predicts a population of 40,139 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
County
Population
8300
6420
8346
8918
11618
9639
10661
15965
20406 27600
Port
Townsend
4181
2847
3970
4683
6888
5074
5241
6067
7001 8745
Percent in
Port
Townsend
50%
44%
47%
53%
59%
53%
49%
38%
34% 32%
Jefferson County Population 1910-2005
Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management
As reference to 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 32%, with County residential units accounting for nearly 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.
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
2-3
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 buildout 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 actually manifested.
(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 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 Update to the Comprehensive
Plan.
(7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act or the
Comprehensive Plan and the County-Wide 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. This review was completed in 2004.
2-4
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. MLA05-06; McDiehl LLC; Port Ludlow; Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Village
Commercial Center; Agent: David Goldsmith
2. MLA05-38; Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP; Quilcene; Commercial Forest (CF) 1:80 to Rural
Residential (RR) 1:20; Agent: Jim Lindsay
3. MLA05-39; Nelson/Monroe; Quilcene; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5
4. MLA05-51; Kirkpatrick; Quilcene; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5; Agent: Linda Skurdal
5. MLA05-53; Widell; Port Townsend (adjacent to Glen Cove); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial
6. MLA05-59; Property Group (OPG); Shine; RR 1:10 to RR 1:5
7. MLA05-60; OPG; Port Ludlow; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5
8. MLA05-61; OPG; Shine; CF 1:80 to RR 1:10 and RR 1:5
9. MLA05-70; Pepper; Port Townsend (Four Corners); RR 1:10 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood
Crossroads); Agent: Kelly DeLaat-Maher
Suggested Amendments:
10. MLA05-66; Comprehensive Plan housekeeping involving map anomalies and text and table corrections
only, and not for the purpose of amending policy or narrative description.
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 ten proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan constitute, for the purposes of the integrated Staff Report
and SEPA Addendum, five (5) individual proposed action components (i.e., rural residential rezones; forest land
rezones; rural industrial/commercial rezones; MPR commercial rezones; and Plan housekeeping amendments). 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; or
• Adopt with mitigating conditions (e.g., as recommended by staff).
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:
2-5
2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations
#
APPLICATIO
N NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCE
L NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
1
MLA05-06
McDiehl LLC
Assessor's Parcel
Number (APN)
821117005
Rezone a 0.89-acre site
located at the northeast
corner of the intersection
of Osprey Ridge and Oak
Bay roads in Port Ludlow
from MPR Residential to
MPR Village Commercial
Center.
Approve the proposed
redesignation/rezone.
2
MLA05-38
Hopkins/Barber Family
Associates, LP
APN 601224001
Rezone an approximately
90-acre site on the Coyle
Peninsula from
Commercial Forest (CF)
1:80 to Rural Residential
(RR) 1:20.
Deny the proposed
redesignation/rezone:
the subject site is as
productive as any forest
land in east Jefferson
County; no persuasive
argument has been
presented that the
property was incorrectly
designated as CF 1:80.
3
MLA05-39
Elizabeth K. Nelson &
Claudia Monroe
APN 801213014
Rezone an approximately
16.47-acre parcel in the
Dabob Valley near
Quilcene from RR 1:20 to
RR 1:5 to permit division
into two parcels and
development of an
additional building site.
Deny the proposed
redesignation/rezone:
The subject parcel is
surrounded on more than
50% of its perimeter by
larger parcels; an
"established pattern" of
5-acre or smaller parcels
does not exist in the
vicinity of the subject
site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
2-6
#
APPLICATIO
N NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCE
L NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
4
MLA05-51
Steven G. Kirkpatrick &
Linda J. Skurdal
APN 601031007
Rezone an approximately
20-acre parcel on the west
side of the Coyle Peninsula
from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
Deny the proposed
redesignation/rezone: at
least 50% of the
perimeter (i.e., the south
and east) of the subject
parcel is comprised of
parcels of 40 acres or
larger (i.e., an
"established pattern" of 5
or 10-acre or smaller
parcels does not exist in
the vicinity of the subject
site) (see LNPs 3.3.1(a)
and 3.3.2(a)).
5
MLA05-53
Kevin Widell
APN 001212001
Rezone an approximately
6.10-acre site on the west
side of SR 19 adjacent to
the Glen Cove LAMIRD
from RR 1:5 to Light
Industrial/Commercial.
Deny the proposed
redesignation/rezone:
Jefferson County's
LAMIRD boundaries are
the result of exhaustive
review and deliberation,
and have been reviewed
and upheld by the
WWGMHB. Though
rational arguments have
been advanced for this
proposed rezone, staff
recommends against
revisiting the LAMIRD
boundary designation.
6
MLA05-59
Olympic Property Group
(OPG)
APN 821343005
Rezone an approximately
40-acre parcel near Shine
on the north side of SR 104
from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
Approve the proposed
redesignation/rezone:
The parcel is surrounded
on three sides by an
established pattern of
parcels of 5 acres or
smaller which are
designated RR 1:5.
Consequently, approval
of the rezone is
appropriate and
consistent with LNP
3.3.1(a).
2-7
#
APPLICATIO
N NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCE
L NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
7
MLA05-60
Olympic Property Group
(OPG)
APN 821152001 –
divided into seven (7)
individual parcels as
follows: Gov Lot 1(less
ptn platted & ptn Tax 2-
5); Gov Lot 2(less ptn
Tax 2 &3); Gov Lot
4(W30AC); Gov Lot
5(W22.32AC); Gov Lot
6(W22.32AC); SE NW;
and W1/2 SW.
Rezone an approximately
251-acre area just east of
Port Ludlow, which is
divided into seven separate
parcels, from RR 1:20 to
RR 1:5.
Deny the proposed
redesingation/rezone:
LNP 3.3.1 and the
topography of the parcel
warrant continued
application of the RR
1:20 designation. Six of
the seven lots involved
are bounded on 50% or
more of their perimeters
by large lots designated
RR 1:20.
8
MLA05-61
Olympic Property Group
(OPG)
APN 821332001
APN 821331005
APN 821331001
Rezone three (3) parcels
comprising approximately
158 acres near Shine on the
north side of SR 104 from
CF 1:80 to a combination
of RR 1:10 and RR 1:5
(i.e., approximately 79
acres in each designation).
Deny the proposed
redesignation/rezone:
The subject site is
productive forest land.
Moreover, less than 50%
of the parcels involved
lie within the limits of
the Bywater Bay Water
Service Area, which
appears also to post-date
the original CF 1:80
zoning applied to the
parcel under both the
IFRL Ordinance and the
IGSO; no persuasive
arguments have been
presented to suggest that
the property was
incorrectly designated as
CF 1:80.
9
MLA05-70
Pamela Pepper
APN 001332009
Rezone an 11-acre parcel at
the northeast intersection
of Four Corners Road and
SR 20 from RR 1:10 to
Rural Commercial
(Neighborhood
Crossroads).
Deny the proposed
rezone. Upzoning the
parcel is inconsistent
with the criteria for
LAMIRDs, set forth at
RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
Current LAMIRD
boundaries are the result
of exhaustive review and
deliberation.
2-8
#
APPLICATIO
N NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCE
L NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
10
MLA05-66
Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
housekeeping involving
map anomalies and text
and table corrections.
Approve the
amendments as proposed
by staff.
2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
The nine site-specific amendment proposals are grouped together below according to category:
• Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (e.g., RR 1:20 to RR 1:5)
• Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural Residential (e.g., CF 1:80 to RR 1:10)
• Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial (e.g., RR 1:5 to RVC)
• Requests for Change from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Commercial (e.g., MPR SF
to MPR Village Commercial)
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:
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;
2-9
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 Unified Development 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) [UDC page 2-12]. 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 which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site-
design through residential “clustering.” These provisions are contained at UDC §3.6.13 (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 Reference Number: MLA05-39 (Nelson/Monroe)
Applicant: Nelson/Monroe
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 801213014
Location: Quilcene/Dabob Road
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would re-designate one 16.47-acre parcel 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 request would
potentially allow the applicants to create two additional parcels. The parcel currently contains a mobile home, barn,
shop and garage. All structures are clustered in the southwest corner of the parcel. Access to serve the parcel is off
of Dabob Road. The lot gradually slopes from the southwest to the eastern portion of the parcel. The southwest
portion of the parcel contains the structures and is not heavily vegetated. The remainder of the parcel is heavily
vegetated with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. Some clearing would be required to establish the additional
home-site(s).
2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.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 - MLA05-39: Nelson/Monroe
UDC 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. The Dabob Valley is characterized by parcels of
land larger than 20 acres and resource lands for both
forestry and agriculture.
2-10
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-39: Nelson/Monroe, continued
UDC 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.
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 widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
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 is not consistent with Land
Use Policy 3.3 and Natural Resource Policy 10.9 in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
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
The subject parcel is suitable for residential use. Access
to the property would likely cross a stream that is shown
on the critical area map.
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
It is likely that the approval of this amendment would
create pressure to change the land use designation of
other similarly situated parcels, resulting in an overall
erosion of the original purpose and effect of the 1998
Plan land use designations.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
2-11
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-39: Nelson/Monroe, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
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
GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land and Goal 8 to protect natural resource
industries from incompatible uses.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
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 likely result in the construction of an additional dwelling unit, 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 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?
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 critical area map shows the presence of a Type IV stream and associated wetland. Any future development will
be required to meet the minimum buffer requirements.
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.
2-12
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 is inconsistent with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan. The parcel was originally designated Rural Residential 1:20, most likely because of the
adjacent Forest Resource lands. There is a pattern of lots smaller than 5 acres to the north of the parcel, there are 9
lots smaller than 5 acres that total approximately 21 acres.
2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposal. Although there are smaller lots present in the vicinity of the subject
parcel, their presence at the time of adoption seems to indicate that the parcel was zoned RR 1:20 because of the
proximity of agricultural and forest resource lands. Additionally, the subject parcel is surrounded on more than
50% of its perimeter by parcels larger than 10 acres in size that are zoned for lower density rural, agricultural and
forestry uses (i.e., RR 1:20; AP 1:20; and RF: 1:40). Thus, an "established pattern" of 5-acre or smaller parcels
does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA05-51 (Kirkpatrick)
Reference Number: MLA05-51
Applicant: Steven Kirkpatrick and Linda Skurdal
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 601031007
Location: Coyle-Toandos
2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject property is located on the eastern shore facing west on Dabob Bay off of Coyle Road. The property is
approximately 20 acres bordered on the west and north by rural residential lots that are approximately five acres in
size and are zoned RR 1:5. The parcel to the east is a rural residential parcel zoned RR 1:20 that is approximately
40 acres. The parcel to the south is 80 acres of zoned commercial forest (CF 1:80).
The area is typified by steep slopes and is designated a slight to moderate landslide hazard, the vast majority of the
parcel, including where the proposed home-sites are located, is designated a moderate landslide hazard. There is
also a seasonal stream that runs through a portion of the parcel.
Deer Creek Road provides access to properties along the shoreline from Coyle Road and runs through the middle of
the property.
2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
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.
2-13
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-51: Kirkpatrick
UDC 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. The vicinity of the subject site remains
characterized by a mix of RR 1:5, RR 1:20, RF 1:40 and
CF 1:80. Approximately 50% of the perimeter of the
parcel abuts the RR 1:5 land use designation and parcels
of 5 acres or less in size; 50% of the perimeter also abuts
CF 1:80 and RR 1:20.
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 widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
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 is not consistent with Land
Use Policy 3.3 in the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan.
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
The subject parcel is suitable for residential use.
2-14
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-51: Kirkpatrick, continued
UDC 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
It is likely that the approval of this amendment would
create pressure to change the land use designation of
other similarly situated parcels, resulting in an overall
erosion of the original purpose and effect of the 1998
Plan rural land use designations.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
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
GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land and Goal 8 to protect natural resource
industries from incompatible uses.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
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 likely result in the construction of three (3) additional dwelling units, 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 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.
2-15
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 critical area map shows the presence of a Type IV stream and associated wetland. Any future development will
be required to meet the minimum buffer requirements. Slight to Moderate landslide hazards are found throughout
the entire parcel, most of the parcel is shown as Moderate landslide hazard.
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 Comprehensive Plan amendment is inconsistent with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan. The parcel was originally designated Rural Residential 1:20, most likely because of the
adjacent Forest Resource lands and the 40-acre parcel zoned RR 1:20 to the east. There is a pattern of 5-acre and
small lots smaller to the west and north of the parcel.
2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposal. Although there are smaller lots present to the west and north of the
subject parcel, their presence at the time of adoption seems to indicate that the subject parcel was zoned RR 1:20
because of the proximity of forest resource lands and the 40-acre rural residential parcel lying to the east. Because
at least 50% of the perimeter of the subject parcel is comprised of parcels of 40 acres or larger, an "established
pattern" of 5 or 10-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site (see LNPs 3.3.1(a) and
3.3.2(a)).
2.3.1.3 Reference Number: MLA05-59 (Olympic Property Group)
Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821343005
Location: Shine
2.3.1.3.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject property is located approximately one mile west of the Hood Canal Bridge on the north side of State
Route (SR) 104. The Parcel is approximately 40 acres in size and encircles a one-acre parcel that contains the PUD
well. The parcel is designated forest land and is in the Timber (Open Space) Tax program.
2.3.1.3.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop
findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
2-16
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-59: Olympic Property Group
UDC 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 Count
The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the levels of service for public facilities.
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 is consistent with Land Use
Goal 3.0 and Policy 3.3.1 for lands designated Rural
Residential 1:5. The property is bordered on three sides
by Rural Residential 1:5.
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
The subject parcel is suitable for residential use and
would be served by public water.
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
Because the proposal is consistent with LNP 3.3, and
because 75% of the perimeter of the subject site borders
upon areas zoned RR 1:5 with parcel sizes of 5 acres
and smaller, it can be distinguished from other proposals
for rural residential upzoning. Consequently, it is
unlikely that the approval of this amendment will create
pressure to change the land use designations of other
low-density rural properties.
2-17
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-59: Olympic Property Group, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other
applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and
any other local, state or federal laws
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act and applicable local codes.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
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 likely result in the construction of six (6) additional dwelling units; because the proposal is
located within the limits of a public water system operated by Jefferson County PUD #1, 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 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 critical area map shows a seasonal stream and a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and wellhead protection area.
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?
2-18
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 Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). There is a pattern of 5-acre and smaller lots and zoning on 75% of the
perimeter of the subject site.
2.3.1.3.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposal. Although the parcel is some 40 acres in size, it is bordered on 75% of
its perimeter with 5-acre lots and zoning that date back to the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1998. The
proposal is consistent with LNP 3.3; because surrounding parcel sizes and land use designations of higher density
border a majority of the parcel perimeter, this proposed amendment is distinguished from other proposals for rural
residential upzoning.
2.3.1.4 Reference Number: MLA05-60 (Olympic Property Group)
Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821152001
Location: Port Ludlow
2.3.1.4.1 General Description and Environmental Information
Olympic Property Group has requested a designation of RR 1:5 from RR 1:20 for approximately 250.75 acres
adjacent to the east of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The subject property has a single parcel number, but
is comprised of seven lots. The parcel is enrolled in the Timber Tax program.
2.3.1.4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, 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 - MLA05-60: Olympic Property Group
UDC 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.
2-19
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-60: Olympic Property Group, continued
UDC 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.
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 Count
The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
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 is not consistent with Land
Use Policy 3.3 and Natural Resource Goal 4.0 in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
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
The subject parcel is suitable for residential use, though
the presence of steep slopes would require project level
mitigation. Access to the property would be provided
by an existing road.
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
It is likely that the approval of this amendment would
create pressure to change the land use designation of
other similarly situated parcels, resulting in an overall
erosion of the original purpose and effect of the 1998
Plan land use designations.
2-20
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-60: Olympic Property Group, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
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
GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land and Goal 8 to protect natural resource
industries from incompatible uses.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
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 likely result in the construction of up to thirty-seven (37) additional dwelling units; future
development under the proposed higher density RR 1:5 designation and zoning is not likely to significantly increase
discharges to water, emissions to air, releases of toxic or hazardous substances, or noise. Any future subdivision
and development of the subject site would be mitigated through application of implementing regulations (e.g.,
critical areas; stormwater; etc.) and project level SEPA review.
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.
2-21
The critical area map reveals steep and unstable slopes, particularly along the eastern and northern perimeter of the
subject site. Additionally, County critical area maps indicate the presence of Bald Eagle breeding habitat and a
Coastal Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone.
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?
If approved, the proposal would quadruple permissible rural residential densities on the subject site from RR 1:20 to
RR 1:5, including certain areas lying within the shoreline jurisdiction. To the extent that approval of the proposal
may conflict with LNP 3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be said to allow or encourage land uses incompatible
with the County's rural residential land use methodology.
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 is inconsistent with the zoning criteria
established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). Only one (1) of the seven (7) parcels included within the
proposed rezone area abuts five (5) acre parcels and designations on more than 50% of its perimeter. Thus, the
proposed rezone area is not within an area where an established pattern of 5-acre parcels and densities currently
exist.
2.3.1.4.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone. LNP 3.3.1 and the topography of the parcel warrant continued
application of the RR 1:20 designation. Six of the seven lots involved are bounded on 50% or more of their
perimeters by large lots designated RR 1:20. Approval of the proposal would be likely to result in indirect and
cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to upzone RR 1:20
areas to higher rural residential densities; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
2.3.1.5 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential Density
The four proposals for change of rural residential density combined involve four discrete parcels amounting to
approximately 327 acres. Approval of these four amendments, as proposed by the applicants, would have the
practical result of creating the potential for forty-seven (47) additional rural dwelling units over baseline conditions
(i.e., from 18 currently, to 65 if approved). All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to utilize clustering
provisions, would be subject to review pursuant to the UDC 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 (Dabob
Valley, Coyle Peninsula, Shine and Port Ludlow) minimizes the potential for negative cumulative environmental
and capital facility impacts.
It should be noted that certain of the proposals appear likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse
impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert low density rural residential areas (e.g., RR
1:20) to higher intensity rural use (i.e., RR 1:5); this would appear likely make other similar upzones more likely in
the future, eroding the overall purpose and effect of the rural residential land use scheme within the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (CP).
2-22
2.3.2 Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural
Residential (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 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):
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 the 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.
2-23
• 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.
• 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 under the 1997 Interim Forest Lands Ordinance, #01-
0121-97. The interim ordinance was developed through a mediation process between the County, the
Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Washington Environmental Council, and the Olympic
Environmental Council to resolve issues raised in litigation. The Memorandum of Understanding of
December, 1996 signed by the above parties included a provision requiring the County to readopt the
interim ordinance as part of the comprehensive Plan and the implementing development regulations of the
Comprehensive Plan. A discussion of the history of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance is located in
Appendix E of Background Information.
In order to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the interim ordinance will be
reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, prior to adoption as a permanent Forest Lands
Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish criteria for the classification, designation,
conservation, and regulation of Forest Lands. The ordinance also includes permitted and conditional
uses in designated Forest Lands.
Final development regulations will be adopted based on the Interim Forest Land Ordinance that recognize
the diversity of forest land uses and allows compatible, non-forestry uses while protecting forest lands
from conflicting uses. Criteria will be developed to assess the compatibility of non-forest uses on Forest
Lands, which should include, but not be limited to:
• Creation of fire or safety hazards on adjacent Forest Lands;
• Removal of a significant portion of a parcel from productive forest use;
• Imposition of significant financial hardships to adjacent forest landowners; and,
• Potential for land use conflicts with adjacent forest landowners.
In order to protect the property rights of forest landowners and maintain the forestry industry, a Right to Practice
Forestry provision in the interim ordinance will be adopted in the final ordinance. These protections apply to all
designated forest land that complies with best forestry management practices as described in the ordinance.
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
2-24
between forest resource lands and pre-platted high density residential parcels of one acre or less in size. However,
this Forest Transition Overlay was limited in scope and does not preclude the necessity of convening a task force to
explore potential incompatibility issues. These issues regarding limited and distinct areas raised in the public
planning process will be addressed by reconvening the parties that negotiated the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance,
including timber owners, environmental groups, landowners, and other interested parties to discuss measures to
mitigate these effects. This public process is intended to result in recommendations that may include mitigative
measures the timber owners can implement, as well as site-specific solutions. Any change in the Forest Lands
Ordinance or Forest Lands designations would require full public review and should be based on agreement of the
parties involved. Policy NRP 4.8 provides for convening the group of parties to initiate discussions.
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. Additionally, forest practices in designated Shoreline
Environments must comply with the requirements of Jefferson County’s Shoreline Management Master Program.
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. The County will revise the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance to address these new requirements and,
where necessary, will establish standards which meet or exceed current Forest Practice requirements based on the
goals and policies of this plan.
In addition, a County clearing and grading ordinance with more comprehensive standards than those that apply
under the Forest Practices Act will be developed to protect surface and ground water quality and quantity, control
storm water runoff, and minimize damage to fish and wildlife habitat. More information on the clearing and grading
ordinance is provided in the Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
FOREST LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 3.0 Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
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.
2-25
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.
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.
2-26
2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA05-38 (Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP)
Applicant: Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP
Applicant/Agent: James Lindsay
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 601224001
Location: Quilcene/ Toandos Peninsula
2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would re-designate one 90-acre parcel from Commercial Forest one dwelling unit per
eighty acres to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per 20 acres. The proposed request would allow the parcel to be
subdivided into four separate lots. If this request is approved, the applicant is proposing to consolidate this parcel
with two adjacent parcels (601224003 & 601224008) located to the north. The parcels are five and ten acres
respectively, and are designated Rural Residential one in dwelling unit per five acres. The proposed parcel is
adjacent to the shoreline and contains varying topography from relatively flat to steep slopes ranging up to 50
percent. The property contains a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The parcel is currently vacant, with an
access road. The property has been in the Timber Tax program since the 1970s, although an exact date when the
property was enrolled in the program is not known. According to Forest Practices Application (FPA) 02-15306,
dated March 6, 1995 and expiring April 1997, approximately 730,000 board feet (BF) of timber was harvested from
40 acres on-site, an average of 18,250 BF per acre. According to DNR, the average volume per acre falls within the
average productivity of land on the Toandos Peninsula.
2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, 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 - MLA05-38: Hopkins/Barber
UDC 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.
Although some new information concerning the
purported unsuitability of the subject site for commercial
forestry has been presented that was not considered in
1998, none of the information presented is likely to have
altered the original decision to include the property
within the CF 1:80 land use designation.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count
The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
2-27
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-38: Hopkins/Barber, continued
UDC 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
The proposal is not consistent with Natural Resource
Goal 3.0 in the Comprehensive Plan.
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
The parcel is characterized by steep slopes ranging from
25% to 50% on approximately 35% of the property.
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 Forest Resource Lands
to higher intensity rural use; this would likely erode 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 proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
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
GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land and Goal 8 to encourage the
protection of productive forest lands. The DNR reports
that these lands are as productive as other forest lands on
the Toandos Peninsula.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
2-28
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 potentially allow the development of four additional home-sites with the associated impervious
surfaces and runoff.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal would not likely 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 not 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 subject parcel contains moderate to slight landslide hazards and a coastal Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone.
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 property is within the Shoreline jurisdiction it is not clear whether or not any future development proposals
would be incompatible with any existing plans.
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 is inconsistent with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan. The record clearly shows that the subject property has been a productive forest for several
decades.
2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposal. The Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act are very clear
that productive resource lands are to be protected from inappropriate conversion to other uses. The subject parcel
encompasses soil types, geology, topography and environmentally sensitive areas similar to many other parcels
designated CF 1:80 in Jefferson County. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated that the parcel is well
suited to commercial forestry use, similar to other forest lands on the Toandos Peninsula; moreover the majority of
the parcel has been in timber tax classification since the 1970s, indicating its suitability for timber production.
Redesignation and rezoning of the property to RR 1:20 could create a precedent with far reaching implications,
including over time, incremental erosion of the Comprehensive Plan's overall forest land designation approach.
2-29
2.3.2.2 Reference Number: MLA05-61 (Olympic Property Group)
Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821332001; 821331005; and 821331001
Location: Shine
2.3.2.2.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information
The above-mentioned parcels are north of State Route 104 in Shine near Teal Lake Road. Parcel has portions
within a wellhead protection area and critical aquifer recharge area as well as slight to moderate landslide hazards.
The parcels in question total approximately 158 acres. The Bywater Bay Water Service area includes somewhat
less than one-half of the three parcels in question.2
2.3.2.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, 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 - MLA05-61: Olympic Property Group
UDC 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. The CF 1:80 pre-dates adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. Although the parcels appeared to
lie wholly within a “future water service area” depicted
in earlier planning documents, the parcels actually lie
only partially within the limits of the water service area
approved by the Department of Health (see footnote
below).
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. Please also see the footnote below.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count
The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
2 A discrepancy exists between the information submitted by the applicant, which depicts the entirety of the parcels proposed for rezone within
the Bywater Bay Water Service Area, and the official map of the area as depicted in Figure 1.1 of Volume 2 of the Water System Plan for Public
Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County, February 2004. The PUD Water Service Plan was approved by the State Department of Health on
February 18, 2005. The adopted and approved Bywater Bay Water Service Area includes within its limits a little more than approximately one-
third of the proposed rezone area. Information submitted by the applicant was apparently drawn from a “future water service area” proposed in
earlier planning documents, but not adopted.
2-30
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-61: Olympic Property Group, continued
UDC 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
The current zoning appears to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policies for designation of
commercial forest land. Moreover, a majority of the
parcels involved lie outside the limits of the Bywater
Bay Water Service Area, which was formally created
after the original CF 1:80 zoning was applied to the
parcel under both the IFRL Ordinance and the IGSO; no
persuasive arguments have been presented to suggest
that the property was incorrectly designated as CF 1:80.
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
The parcels in question are suitable for use as residential
land.
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 Forest Resource Lands
to higher intensity rural use; this would likely erode 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 proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
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 commercial forest lands and runs contrary to
Plan and GMA provisions which disfavor conversion of
productive commercial forest lands to higher intensity
uses.
2-31
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
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 likely result in the construction of twenty-two (22) additional dwelling units; because a portion
of the subject site is located within the limits of a public water system operated by Jefferson County PUD #1, it
would appear unlikely to that the 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 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 critical area map shows the presence of a seasonal streams and a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area for Wellhead
Protection.
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
appears appropriately zoned as commercial forest land use the County's designation criteria and policies, rezoning
the property to higher density rural residential use would appear to encourage use that is inconsistent with the
County's adopted Plan, and encourage similar rezones that are inconsistent with County policy.
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.3
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 (see Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources
3 The Department of Health raises concerns about the availability of water resources for the Bywater Bay Water System during the 2004 review
process of proposed PUD water service area amendments in a letter dated August 9, 2004.
2-32
Element, pp. 4-2 through 4-5 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)).
2.3.2.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone. The subject site is productive forest land. Moreover, less than
50% of the area of each of the three parcels involved lies within the limits of the Bywater Bay Water Service Area,
which also appears to post-date the original CF 1:80 zoning applied to the parcel under both the IFRL Ordinance
and the IGSO; no persuasive arguments have been presented to suggest that the property was incorrectly designated
as CF 1:80.
It should be noted that the Jefferson County Interim Forest Resource Lands Ordinance (#01-0121-97) initially
designated and zoned the property CF 1:80 on July 5, 1994, applying forest land designation criteria nearly identical
to those in the current Plan (i.e., including the water service area criterion). On August 8, 1995 the Jefferson
County Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) and Jefferson County PUD No. 1 filed an interlocal
agreement regarding the water service area boundary. In November of 1995, Pope Resources transferred their
private water system to Jefferson County PUD #1. On February 14, 1996, the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance
(#05-0214-96) replaced the IFRL, but retained the CF 1:80 zoning for the subject site, again applying designation
criteria nearly identical to those used under the IFRL, including the water service area criterion. On May 21, 1997,
the owner/applicant petitioned Jefferson County to have the subject parcel removed from forest resource land
designation. The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the petition because, among other
reasons, the CF 1:80 zoning predated the establishment of the water service area boundary. The BoCC adopted the
Examiner's recommendation and denied the petition (see File No. ZON97-0015). On August 28, 1998, the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was adopted, again ratifying the CF 1:80 designation. The owner/applicant
failed to appeal either the BoCC petition denial or the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property.
In March 2004, the PUD, through the WUCC, submitted a set of proposed water service area plans and maps to the
Washington State Department of Health (DOH) for approval. Among the water service areas in question was the
Bywater Bay Water Service Area. DOH returned an approval letter dated February 18, 2005, approving the
boundary as depicted in Figure 1.1 of Volume 2 of the PUD Water Service Plan, February 2004. (Figure 1.1 is
dated January 2004.) The approved boundary includes only some—less than 50%—of the area proposed for rezone
2.3.2.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to
Rural Residential
The two (2) proposals for removal of commercial forest land designation involve four (4) discrete parcels
amounting to approximately 248 acres. Approval of these two amendments, as proposed by the applicants, would
have the practical result of creating the potential for twenty-six (26) additional rural dwelling units over baseline
conditions (i.e., from 3 currently under CF 1:80, to 29 under a combination of RR 1:10 and RR 1:5) if approved.
All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to utilize clustering provisions, would be subject to review
pursuant to the UDC 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 (Coyle Peninsula and Shine) minimizes the potential for
negative cumulative environmental and capital facility impacts.
It should be noted that certain of the 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); this would appear likely 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).
2-33
2.3.3 Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural
Commercial
Requests for changes for a rural residential land use designation to a rural industrial or rural commercial designation
are subject to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG) 5.0 on page 3-70.
GOAL:
LNG 5.0 Establish and maintain the location and size of the County’s Rural Crossroads to
provide access to a limited range of non-residential uses.
POLICIES:
LNP 5.1 All rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the provisions of the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A).
LNP 5.2 Designate the following historic crossroads as Convenience Crossroads (CC) as shown on
the Land Use Map: Nordland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point.
LNP 5.2.1 Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act and the
following additional criteria:
a. Consists of a single commercial property; and
b. Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling public with basic consumer
goods and services.
LNP 5.2.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary of each of the
Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic consumer goods and services.
LNP 5.3 Designate the following historic crossroads as Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC) as
shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay, Four Corners, Gardiner, and Mats
Mats.
LNP 5.3.1 Designation is based on the criteria of the Growth Management Act and the
following additional criteria:
a. Multiple commercial properties; and
b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services; and
c. Serves the local rural population and the commuting/traveling public.
LNP 5.3.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of each of the
designated Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads to those involving basic consumer
staples with a limited range of goods and services and/or serving the
commuting/traveling public.
LNP 5.3.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily housing
opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior housing, and assisted
living facilities, and manufactured/mobile home parks.
LNP 5.4 Designate the following crossroads as General Commercial Crossroads (GC) as shown on
the Land Use Map: SR 19/20 Intersection.
LNP 5.4.1 Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act and the
following additional criteria:
2-34
a. Location at a major highway intersection near high density population in the
Tri-Area; and
b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and multiple community
levels of service.
LNP 5.4.2 Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the designated General
Commercial crossroads to those involving an expanded range of commercial
goods and services.
LNP 5.4.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily housing
opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior housing, assisted
living facilities, and manufactured/mobile home parks.
LNP 5.5 Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads commercial
infill development with the surrounding rural area through the creation and implementation of
community based design and development standards. Uses within Rural Crossroads shall be
scaled and sized to protect the rural character of the natural neighborhood.
GOAL:
LNG 11.0 Recognize and contain the following areas and uses of more intensive industrial
development within boundaries that may allow for limited areas of infill development:
POLICIES:
LNP 11.1 Designate the Port Townsend Paper Mill property as Heavy Industrial.
LNP 11.2 Designate the Glen Cove area boundary as Light Industrial and Light Industrial/Commercial,
consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
LNP 11.3 Designate the Quilcene industrial area as Light Industrial/Manufacturing.
LNP 11.4 Designate the Eastview Industrial Plat as Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M).
Growth Management Act Criteria
In addition to these Comprehensive Plan criteria, specific provisions of the Growth Management Act guide the
designation of “limited areas of more intensive rural development” (LAMIRDs) outside of Urban Growth Areas.
Pursuant to the GMA [see RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)] Jefferson County must adopt measures to minimize and
contain existing areas or uses within LAMIRDs and those areas shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary
(LOB) of LAMIRDs. While LAMIRDs must be delineated predominantly by the pre-July 1, 1990 built
environment they may also include undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The
GMA sets out four issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition to respecting the predominance
of the 1990 built environment:
• The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
• Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and contours;
• The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and
• The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl.
The three 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:
2-35
2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA05-53 (Widell)
Reference Number: MLA05-53
Applicant: Kevin Widell
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001212001
Location: Glen Cove
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is adjacent to the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial LAMIRD on the SW corner of Seton
Rd and SR 20. The property is within a wellhead protection area, as is most of Glen Cove. The property is served
by a commercial access road shared by Pacific Environmental. The road access was permitted in 1981 to serve
Lundgren Distributing. The road was in existence on July 1, 1990 and currently serves Pacific Environmental.
2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, 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 - MLA05-53: Widell
UDC 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 Glen Cove 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 Count
The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with
the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Land Use Policy 11.2 specifies that Glen Cove
should be contained within a logical outer boundary
based on the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
2-36
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-53: Widell, continued
UDC 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
The subject property is suitable for light industrial use.
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
It is likely that the approval of this amendment would
create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary
decisions that have already been exhaustively reviewed
and later upheld by the WWGMHB.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other
applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and
any other local, state or federal laws
Though cogent arguments can be advanced that the
subject site might have been included within the Glen
Cove LAMIRD boundary in 1998 without violating the
GMA (RCW 36.70A.070(d) and (e)), the proposal is
inconsistent with the adopted settlement agreement
between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson
County regarding the boundary for the Glen Cove Light
Industrial/Commercial area.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
2-37
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 applicant has indicated his intention to move his rental business to Glen Cove if this proposal is approved. It is
likely that the runoff associated with impervious surfaces of the site will increase.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Wildlife habitat is unlikely to decrease as a result of this proposal. The site is located adjacent to a sizable light
industrial area that has been developed for some time.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is unlikely to substantially deplete energy or natural resources.
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 parcel is located within a Wellhead Protection Area. There are provisions in the code to protect the aquifer
from high impact uses, such as operations that use chemical manufacturing or waster treatment.
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?
If approved, the proposal would be likely to create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary decisions that have
already been exhaustively reviewed and later upheld by the WWGMHB. 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 GMA states that LAMIRDs must be contained within a logical outer boundary delineated by the July 1, 1990
built environment. At the time of designation the logical outer boundary used was SR 20. Jefferson County was
ordered by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board to remove language from its
Comprehensive Plan stating that the County would continuously identify land for inclusion in the LAMIRD.
Hearings Board decisions regarding LAMIRDs may conflict with the proposal. OEC v Jefferson County stated that
expansion of the logical outer boundary to include undeveloped property constitutes “outfill” rather than “infill”
under the GMA. A case regarding Lewis County allows minor adjustment to the logical outer boundary to include
undeveloped property consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv) A, B, C, and D, but does not
allow large undeveloped properties outside of the areas existing as of July 1, 1990.
It seems likely that any amendment to Glen Cove would be appealed by either the City of Port Townsend or any
number of citizen or activist groups. Given the case history specific to Jefferson County and how recently this
process resolved itself, it seems likely that the Hearings Board would closely scrutinize any redesignation of this
type. It should also be noted that the current RR 1:5 designation of the site would appear to be consistent with
2-38
Comprehensive Plan policy LNP 3.3. There is a pattern of 5-acre and smaller lots and zoning on 75% of the
perimeter of the subject site.
2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone. Jefferson County's LAMIRD boundaries are the result of
exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB. Though rational
arguments have been advanced for this proposed rezone, staff recommends against revisiting the LAMIRD
boundary designation.
2.3.3.2 Reference Number: MLA05-70 (Pepper)
Applicant: Pamela Pepper
Applicant/Agent: Kelly DeLaat-Maher
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001332009
Location: Port Townsend (Four Corners)
2.3.3.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would re-designate one parcel totaling 10.63 acres from Rural Residential one dwelling
unit per ten acres to Rural Commercial Neighborhood /Visitor Crossroad. The proposed commercial designation
would allow an expanded range of uses on the subject property. The parcel is located on the northeast corner of
State Route 20 and Four Corners Road. The Four Corners Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads is located southwest of
this proposal. The parcel currently contains a septic tank and trailer pad which are located on the southern portion
of the parcel. The lot is flat with limited evergreen and deciduous trees.
2.3.3.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, 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 - MLA05-70: Pepper
UDC 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 subject site have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The property has undergone a
boundary line adjustment since the time of
Comprehensive Plan adoption.
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.
2-39
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-70: Pepper, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count
The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with
the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Land Use Policy 11.2 specifies LAMIRDS should
be contained within a logical outer boundary based on
the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
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
The subject property is physically suitable for
commercial use.
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
It is likely that the approval of this amendment would
create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary
decisions that have already been exhaustively reviewed
and later upheld by the WWGMHB.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
2-40
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-70: Pepper, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other
applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and
any other local, state or federal laws
No persuasive arguments have been advanced that the
subject site was incorrectly excluded from the LAMIRD
boundary in 1998. The proposal would appear to violate
the GMA (RCW 36.70A.070(d) and (e)) as well as
Comprehensive Plan provisions governing the
designation of neighborhood commercial crossroads.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
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?
Any development of the site would increase the impervious surfaces on the property, and further development
would presumably use more water and discharge more wastewater than the current use of the property.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is unlikely to impact plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The concepts of energy and natural resource conservation and protection for Jefferson County’s future is integrated
in its Comprehensive Plan to reduce the effects of development now and in the future. These built-in protections in
the Plan include planning for future populations by promoting centralized residential areas with nearby commercial
centers, along with planning efficient transportation systems.
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 site is within a seismic hazard zone and a Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area. The requirements of the Unified
Development Code provide for protection of the aquifer.
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?
If approved, the proposal would be likely to create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary decisions that have
already been exhaustively reviewed and later upheld by the WWGMHB. No portion of the site lies within the
shoreline jurisdiction.
2-41
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 GMA states that LAMIRDs must be contained within a logical outer boundary delineated by the July 1, 1990
built environment. At the time of designation the logical outer boundary excluded areas not developed for
commercial use lying north of Four Corners Road and east of SR 20. The proposed rezone site was vacant on July
1, 1990, as it is now. The parcel underwent a Boundary Line Adjustment in 2004 that significantly increased the
acreage within parcel 001332009. Nothing in the record indicates that the parcel in question meets the criteria for
inclusion in the Neighborhood Crossroads (NC) designation.
It should also be noted that the WWGMHB has also stated that jurisdictions may not continuously identify land for
inclusion within LAMIRDs. The WWGMHB has further held that expansion of logical outer boundaries to include
undeveloped properties constitutes “outfill” rather than “infill” under the GMA. A case regarding Lewis County
allows minor adjustment to the logical outer boundary to include undeveloped property consistent with the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv) A, B, C, and D, but does not allow large undeveloped properties
outside of the areas existing as of July 1, 1990.
It seems likely that the proposed amendment, if approved, would likely be appealed by any number of citizen or
activist groups. Given the case history specific to Jefferson County and how recently the County's LAMIRD
boundaries have been settled, it seems likely that the Hearings Board would view a redesignation of this type as
inconsistent with the GMA and adopted County policy. It should also be noted that the current RR 1:10 designation
of the site would appear to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy LNP 3.3.
2.3.3.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone. Upzoning the parcel is inconsistent with the criteria for
LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Moreover Jefferson County's current LAMIRD boundaries are the
result of exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB.
2-42
2.3.3.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation
to Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial
The two (2) proposals for change from rural residential to rural commercial or industrial would allow for the
addition of approximately 17.10 acres to existing LAMIRD boundaries (i.e., 11 acres within NC, increasing the total
to 133 acres from the current 122; and 6.10 acres within the Glen Cove Light Industrial zone, from the current 72
acres to 78). Any subsequent subdivision and development would be subject to review pursuant to the UDC at time
of application. Based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would
preclude the use of these sites for commercial or light industrial purposes. Additionally, the fact that the requests
are located in geographically separated areas (i.e., Glen Cove and Four Corners) minimizes the potential for
negative cumulative environmental and capital facility impacts.
If approved, the two (2) proposals for modifying LAMIRD boundaries appear likely to result in indirect and
cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert rural
residential areas to more intensive commercial and light industrial use within expanded LAMIRD boundaries; this
would appear likely make other similar upzones more likely in the future, eroding the overall purpose and effect of
the LAMIRD boundary designation scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP), in violation of both the Plan
and the GMA (RCW 36.70A.050(d) and (e)).
2.3.4 Requests for Change from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to
MPR Commercial
2.3.4.1 Reference Number: MLA05-06 (McDiehl LLC)
Reference Number: MLA05-06
Applicant: McDiehl LLC – Bryan Diehl; Agent David Goldsmith
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821171005
Location: Port Ludlow Village Center
2.3.4.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information
Subject property is located on the intersection of Oak Bay Rd and Paradise Bay Road/Osprey Ridge Drive. The
subject property is currently the only non-commercial use at the intersection. Applicant wishes to rezone the
property for commercial use, although he has no specific intended use listed on the rezone application. Property is
the only residential use on the intersection and is isolated from other residential properties by open space reserve
tracts to the north and to the west. The subject parcel is 0.89 acres in size.
The current use of the parcel is as a residence the future use would be limited to the uses specified in the Master
Planned Resort (MPR) Village Center zone adopted in Ordinance 10-1214-98. The MPR-Village Center zone
allows for a variety of retail and service oriented commercial uses as well as residential use.
The parcel is within a susceptible aquifer recharge area.
2.3.4.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop
findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
2-43
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-06: McDiehl LLC
UDC 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 Port Ludlow MPR have
not changed substantially since the adoption of the Port
Ludlow MPR Ordinance supplemental to 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 Count
The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public
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 proposed amendment is not likely to adversely
affect the level of service for public facilities.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with
the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. LNG 25 and LNPs 25.1 through 25.8 are silent on
the issue of expanding village commercial boundaries
lying within the limits of the Port Ludlow MPR.
Therefore, expansion of the existing designation and
zone would appear to be a matter of legislative
discretion.
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
The subject property is physically suitable for
commercial use.
2-44
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-06: McDiehl LLC
UDC 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
It is unlikely that the approval of this amendment would
create significant pressure to otherwise modify the
boundaries of the Port Ludlow Village Commercial
Center.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and
population projections.
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
Not applicable.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other
applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and
any other local, state or federal laws
The proposal is consistent the Growth Management Act
and the Comprehensive Plan narrative and policies
governing the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
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 likely result in the construction of approximately 2,500 square feet of additional commercial
space within the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. Under the allowable uses set forth for this district within
the Jefferson County UDC, it would appear unlikely that uses within a future commercial development upon the site
would increase discharges to water, emissions to air, or production or release of hazardous substances. Future uses
upon the subject site, if included within the MPR Village Commercial zone, would be likely to result in noise
impacts exceeding existing baseline conditions. However, no impacts beyond those typically associated with
commercial development are anticipated, nor are noise impacts that rise to a level of environmental significance.
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.
2-45
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 critical area map shows the presence of Susceptible Critical Aquifer Recharge Area.
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 proposal is unlikely to affect land and shoreline use beyond that of expanding the permissible commercial retail
and service uses on the subject parcel. 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment is not inconsistent with the narrative, goal and policy guidance
established in the Comprehensive Plan for Master Planned Resorts (see LNG 25 and LNPs 25.1 through 25.8).
2.3.4.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposal and requests that the property be governed by the development
agreement and any applicable Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions governing the Master Planned Resort. Staff notes
that future development of the parcel would likely benefit by securing dedicated access to Osprey Ridge Road to
ensure adequate access to the parcel for fire and EMS, as well as future commercial uses.
2.3.4.1.4 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential
to MPR Commercial
The one (1) proposal to change from MPR Residential MPR Village Commercial Center would allow for the
addition of approximately one (1) acre to the existing commercial designation (i.e., from 43 to 44 total acres). Any
subsequent development of the parcel would be subject to review pursuant to the UDC at time of application.
Based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would preclude the
use of this site for commercial purposes. Moreover, commercial development of the parcel would appear unlikely
to result in any cumulative environmental or capital facility impacts.
2-46
2.4 STAFF REPORT: SUGGESTED AMENDMENT
2.4.1 Comprehensive Plan Housekeeping
2.4.1.1 Reference Number: MLA05-66 (Jefferson County)
Applicant: Jefferson County
Assessor Parcel Number(s): N/A
Location: N/A (Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments)
2.4.1.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information
Comprehensive Land Use Map amendments under MLA 05-66 are wholly nonsubstantive and ministerial in nature,
and are limited to the correction of errors and omissions. The proposed amendments are described more fully
below.
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments:
There are a few inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Land Use map designations that require correction.
Specifically, a few parcels were never zoned when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 or updated in
2004. The criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan have been applied to these properties to appropriately assign
land use designations and zoning.
There are also a few instances where the zoning does not follow the legal boundaries of ownership. Although it has
been common practice to split-zone parcels when there are critical areas present or when the designation is based on
the July 1, 1990 built environment, this does not appear to be the case for the parcels in question.
During the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, the County accepted petitions for rezones to Agricultural
Lands of Local Importance designation. Staff has identified a small number of anomalies associated with this
parcels. Some of the parcels were already designated for Agricultural zoning or a small portion of a parcel included
within the UGA boundary. In other cases not all of the requested parcels were rezoned or the wrong parcel was
mistakenly zoned.
The following amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map are proposed:
West End:
• Oil City is an old plat near the coast along the Hoh River. The parcels were zoned based on ownership,
parcels that were privately owned were zoned rural residential and those owned by the National Park
Service were shown as Olympic National Park. There are instances of private ownership within the Park.
All parcels, private and public, are proposed to be designated according to the boundary of the Olympic
National Park.
• Parcel 712161000 in the West End has a railroad right of way that was zoned RR 1:20 going through the
middle of a Commercial Forest parcel. Typical practice is to designate the right of way to the centerline
with the same zoning that borders the right of way. The right of way is proposed to be designated as
Commercial Forest.
2-47
Local Agriculture:
• Last year, Local Agricultural zoning was requested for parcels #501032024 (4.97 acres) and 501032025
(5.04 acres). The application listed two parcel numbers but only one was included in the matrix. Parcel
501032024 was erroneously excluded, and therefore was not rezoned. It is proposed that parcel
501032024 be zoned Local Agriculture, as was intended in last year's amendments.
• The application for parcel #901254007 (9.68 acres) was erroneously stapled together with another
application under the same name last year. However, only the parcel number from the other application
made it into the matrix. The application for this parcel indicates that the Agricultural Lands Committee of
the Planning Commission discussed the matter, and recommended inclusion of the parcel within the Local
Agricultural zoning district.
• The application for parcel #921324028 (5.12 acres) was stapled together with the application for parcel
#921324022, but never made it to the matrix last year. The subject parcel is adjacent to parcel
#921324022, which was rezoned to Local Agriculture. It is recommended that parcel #921324028 also be
zoned Local Agriculture.
• Parcel #802363023 (6.77 acres) was an incorrect parcel number included on the matrix for approval.
Parcel #802363022 (5.63 acres) was the parcel that was actually subject to the requested rezone. Parcel
#802363022 was mistakenly omitted from Local Agricultural zoning, while parcel #802363023 was
mistakenly included; parcel #802363023 belongs to a landowner who did not request Local Agricultural
zoning during last year's process. It is likely that the owner of parcel #802363023 is entirely unaware that
the rezone has taken place. The applicant for #802363022 has since died. It is recommended that this
zoning error simply be acknowledged and corrected.
• A portion of parcel #901112040 remains designated Rural Residential 1:5, the parcel should be zoned
Local Agriculture in its entirety adding 0.27 additional acres.
• The UGA boundary intersects a large parcel, #901034003, “Sunfield Farm.” The small portion of that
parcel that lies inside the UGA boundary was inadvertently rezoned AL. It was never the intention to re-
zone anything inside the UGA. It is recommended that this error be corrected, though the portion of this
rather large parcel that is in question is quite small (0.09 acres). In essence, this is a ministerial/mapping
error that should be corrected.
Parcels lacking any zoning designation:
• The parcel #603143001 approximately 38 acres in size, which is currently depicted as two parcels split by
a right of way, and is enrolled in the Timber Program. Parcels in private ownership are zoned Rural
Residential 1:20.
• Parcel #503360001 is a DNR owned parcel split into pieces of 190 and 110 acres respectively. It is
recommended that the parcel be designated CF 1:80.
• There is a grouping of parcels comprising approximately 980 acres along the North Bank of the Quinault
River that were not zoned when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. The parcels are within the
boundary of the Olympic National Park (ONP) and are proposed to be designated as such on the
Comprehensive Land Use map.
• An island off the tip of Indian Island consisting of portions of these parcels: 921000000 (Indian Island) and
021180000 (Fort Flagler) was never zoned. Zoning for each portion should be consistent with the rest of
the parcel.
2-48
"Small" zones:
There are 21 zones in east Jefferson County smaller than one acre. Staff has developed an Excel spreadsheet
showing about 50 parcels that intersect these 21 zones. In looking over a few examples, some appear legitimate
(e.g., small portions of parcels separated from the principal zone by water, etc.), but some others look like
candidates for review and may be mapped so in error.
• Parcels #021332007 (0.05 acres) and #021332002 (0.18 acres) should be amended to follow property lines.
Parcel #021283022 (0.15 acres) should also be rezoned Parks, Preserves, and Recreation (PPR) to
accurately reflect its inclusion in East Beach Park.
• A portion of parcel #502021001 is zoned RR 1:20; the parcel is the Dosewallips State Park and vast
majority of the parcel is designated Parks, Preserves, and Recreation. The portion in question is within the
Shoreline. The zoning should be corrected to follow the parcel lines, applying the PPR designation to the
entirety of the parcel.
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Table and Text Amendments:
• The Population Projection Table, Table 3-1 on page 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan, contains an error. The
2000 population figure for Unincorporated Rural & Resource Areas, as indicated in BoCC Resolution 55-
03, was 13,972 rather than 18,972. When arranging for a mass printing of the 2005 Comp Plan, as revised
in 2004, we intend to include the correct figure. However, the figure should also be corrected through the
formal amendment process.
• Land Use and Rural Element (p. 3-70 /#6). The reference to designating two Industrial Land Banks (ILBs)
should be corrected to “...a bank with two master planned locations.”
2.4.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
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.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-066: Jefferson County
UDC 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 suggested amendment
have not changed since the time of Comprehensive Plan
adoption.
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.
2-49
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-066: Jefferson County
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count
Staff believes that most residents of Jefferson County
would favor correcting technical errors identified
following initial plan adoption.
Following is environmental analysis 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).
Discussion of the proposed amendments in relation to questions set forth in SEPA Rules, follows:
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?
As plan and code text amendments intended to correct technical errors, the proposed changes are unlikely to result
in any of the above listed impacts. Please also refer to the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements
(DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, particularly
those sections relating to Water, Air, Environmental Health and Noise.
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 within the modified land use designations and zoning adopted under the proposed land use map
amendments 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. Please also refer to
the section entitled “Energy and Natural Resources” within the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements
(DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998.
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 amendments are not likely to use or affect such areas; all of the proposed Plan amendments are
technical in nature and intended to rectify mapping oversights and wholly nonsubstantive amendments to the text
and tables of the Plan. Adoption of the amendments will further the County's compliance with the goals and
substantive requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Growth Management Act. Please also refer to the "Natural
Environment" section within the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda
prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998.
2-50
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 aspect of the proposal is likely to have such an affect. The land use map corrections are based upon adherence
to Plan narrative, goal and policy language, and would encourage land and shoreline uses that are compatible with
existing plans.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
The proposal is not likely to increase demand. The County will continue to review and condition project permit
applications to ensure transportation concurrency, and maintenance of adopted LOS standards for county owned
facilities as a condition of development approval. Please also refer to the "Built Environment" section within the
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan in 1998.
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 proposal would not conflict with local, state, or federal laws, or requirements for the protection of the
environment.
2.4.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan text, tables and land use map
as detailed in §2.4.1.1.1, above.
3-1
3 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials
The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and information utilized for
the development of this 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum. This report supplements information presented in prior environmental documents prepared for
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, other legislative actions, and other County decisions and activities.
DATE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT EVALUATED
September 27, 1978 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)
Proposed Comprehensive Plan (pre-
GMA)
January 2, 1979 Final EIS (FEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan
December 21, 1992 Countywide Planning Policies (Res.
No. 40-99)
February 14, 1994 DEIS Draft Implementing Ordinance for
1979 Comprehensive Plan
March 1, 1995 Existing Conditions Alternatives for establishing GMA
Comprehensive Plan
February 24, 1997 DEIS Comprehensive Plan - February 24,
1997 draft
May 27, 1998 FEIS Proposed Comprehensive Plan
August 3, 1998 Staff Responses to Questions Proposed Comprehensive Plan
January 26, 1999 Land Use Inventory Report Part of Special Study
January 26, 1999 Regional Economic Analysis / Forecast Part of Special Study
June 30, 1999 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments (Task III of Tri-
Area/Glen Cove Special Study)
August 18, 1999 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with
addenda
Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments (Task IV of Tri-
Area/Glen Cove Special Study)
June 11, 2001 Special Study Final Decision
Document
November 2001 Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities
Special Study
November 28, 2001 Tri Area & Glen Cove Special Study
Implementation Plan
August 21, 2002 Integrated Staff Report & DSEIS 2002 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket
November 25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket
December 2002 Final decisions, findings, ordinances,
and conditions
2002 Amendment Docket
February 13, 2003 Memorandum to Planning Commission Agricultural Lands policy and
regulation
April 28, 2003 Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 and all
documentation for MLA03-485
Amendments to UDC concerning
Agricultural Lands
August 6, 2003 Integrated Staff Reports & SEPA
Addenda
2003 Amendment Docket
February 2004 Water System Plan Vol. 2: Public
Utility District #1 of Jefferson County
Depicts Bywater Bay Water System
(Fig. 1.1) approved by DOH Feb.
2005
2004 Staff analysis and environmental
review for Urban Growth Area (UGA).
MLA04-29 & 30: UGA plans, goals,
policies, maps, and regulations.
September 22, 2004 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
2004 Amendment Docket, including
“2004 Update” required by GMA
3-2
4-1
4 Distribution List
Copies mailed or delivered to: Notification of availability emailed or mailed to:
Jefferson County:
State Agencies:
Planning Commission members (9 persons)
Department of Natural Resources (Anne Sharar &
SEPA Review)
Board of County Commissioners (3 persons) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEPA
Review)
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Department of Health (John Aden))
Department of Public Works
Department of Social & Health Services
(Elizabeth McNagny)
Department of Health & Human Services
Natural Resources Division
Department of Corrections (Rebecca Barney)
Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock
State Agencies:
Department of Fish & Wildlife (Steve Penland, Tim
Rymer, Jeff Davis & SEPA Review)
Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic
Development: Growth Management Services
Department of Ecology (GMA Review)
Department of Ecology SEPA Unit Puget Sound Action Team
(Harriet Beale and John Cambalik))
Notification of availability emailed or mailed to: Parks & Recreation Commission (Bill Koss)
Jefferson County: Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(Lorinda Anderson)
All other County departments not listed above
Local Agencies & Organizations:
City of Port Townsend
Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 Other Interested Parties:
Port of Port Townsend
Jefferson County Conservation District
Washington Environmental Council Washington Association of Realtors
Olympic Environmental Council
Wild Olympic Salmon
North Olympic Salmon Coalition
People for a Livable Community
Point-No-Point Treaty Council
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
Skokomish Tribe
Hoh Tribe
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader
Peninsula Daily News
Forks Forum
Vigilance