HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_CPA_staff_rpt_2
2006 COMPREHENSIVE P2006 COMPREHENSIVE P2006 COMPREHENSIVE P2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLANLANLANLAN
AMENDMENT DOCKETAMENDMENT DOCKETAMENDMENT DOCKETAMENDMENT DOCKET
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITY DEVELOPMENT ITY DEVELOPMENT ITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT AND SEPSTAFF REPORT AND SEPSTAFF REPORT AND SEPSTAFF REPORT AND SEPA ADDENDUMA ADDENDUMA ADDENDUMA ADDENDUM
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WAJEFFERSON COUNTY, WAJEFFERSON COUNTY, WAJEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTONSHINGTONSHINGTONSHINGTON
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
with Environmental Analysis
for the Adoption of Amendments
to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
JULY 19JULY 19JULY 19JULY 19, 2006, 2006, 2006, 2006
INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT
Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action:
Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents
Principal Contributors/AuthorsPrincipal Contributors/AuthorsPrincipal Contributors/AuthorsPrincipal Contributors/Authors
Department ofDepartment ofDepartment ofDepartment of Community DevelopmentCommunity DevelopmentCommunity DevelopmentCommunity Development
LongLongLongLong----Range PlanningRange PlanningRange PlanningRange Planning
Al Scalf, Director of Community Development
Josh D. Peters, AICP, Senior Planner
Rachel McHugh, Assistant Planner
Brent Butler, Assistant Planner
Technical ContributorsTechnical ContributorsTechnical ContributorsTechnical Contributors
Department of Central ServicesDepartment of Central ServicesDepartment of Central ServicesDepartment of Central Services
Doug Noltemeier, GIS Analyst
Logistical ContributorsLogistical ContributorsLogistical ContributorsLogistical Contributors
Department of Community DevelopmentDepartment of Community DevelopmentDepartment of Community DevelopmentDepartment of Community Development
Cheryl Halvorson, Planning Commission Secretary and GMA Archivist
Rose Ann Carroll, Office Administrator
ii
Table of Contents
Page
1 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet ........................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Fact Sheet .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Environmental Summary ............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.2.1 Introduction and Process ...................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents ............................................................ 1-4
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference ...................................................................... 1-4
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement ...................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.2 Major Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 1-7
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................... 1-7
1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations ........................... 1-8
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................................... 1-10
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty............................................................. 1-10
1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved ........................................................................................................ 1-11
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made .............................................................................. 1-11
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 1-11
1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action .......................................... 1-13
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 .................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (2) ........................................................ 2-5
2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA06-01 (Bell) ............................................................................. 2-6
2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA06-74 (Austin) ......................................................................... 2-8
2.3.1.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential Density ............................ 2-11
2.3.2 Request for Change from AEPF to Rural Residential ........................................................ 2-11
2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA06-85 (Port of Port Townsend) ............................................. 2-11
2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Airport Essential Public Facilities to
Rural Residential ........................................................................................................................... 2-14
2.3.3 Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial ............... 2-14
2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA06-77 (Brown & DCD) ......................................................... 2-16
2.3.3.2 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural
Commercial ................................................................................................................................... 2-18
iii
3 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials .................................................................................. 3-1
4 Distribution List ................................................................................................................................. 4-1
5 Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Item 1: Legal Notice (July 17, 2006) ........................................................................................... 5-2
5.2 Item 2: MLA06-01 Bell ............................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 Item 3: MLA06-74 Austin ........................................................................................................... 5-6
5.4 Item 4: MLA06-77 Brown and dcd ............................................................................................. 5-7
5.5 Item 5: MLA06-85 Port of Port Townsend .................................................................................. 5-8
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 five (5)
individual amendment proposals to the 1998 Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. Five site-specific amendment
proposals, one of which is a Master Plan Resort (MPR)
proposal, compose the 2006 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 four of
the five site-specific proposed amendments. The fifth
proposed amendment, the MPR, will be analyzed in an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) anticipated for
release in August. The objective is to analyze the proposed
amendments individually and cumulatively with regard to
Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in
Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45 and potential
environmental impacts under SEPA. Adoption of
Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action
under SEPA and is not intended to satisfy individual project
action SEPA requirements (i.e., the environmental review
needed for future land use or building permit applications).
Following are brief descriptions of each of the four (4)
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are
the subject of this notice. Each case has a Master Land Use
Application (MLA) file number for reference: 2
Site-Specific Amendments:
1. MLA06-01; Bell; Discovery Rd.; 12:5 acres; RR
1:10 to 1:5.
2. MLA06-74; Austin; S. Jacob Miller Rd.; 30 acres;
RR 1:20 to 1:5.
3. MLA06-77; Brown & DCD: Irondale Rd.; 0.72
acres; RR to Convenience Crossroads.
4. MLA06-85; Port or Port Townsend; Airport; 2.5
acres; AEPF to RR.
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for the four site-specific
1 The 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on May
22, 2006 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing 7 items.
2The fifth proposed amendment MLA06-87; Statesman & Black Point Properties; Brinnon; 252.64 acres; MPR will be
analyzed be a separate EIS.
1-2
amendment proposals.
Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community Development
(DCD)
Long-Range Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official:
Stacie Hoskins, Development Services Manager
DCD Development Review Division
(360) 379-4463
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
July 19, 2006
Date Comments are Due Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission
public hearing, 6:30 PM, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at the
WSU Community Learning Center in Hadlock. Written
comments are accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning
Commission through the close of a public hearing on
Wednesday, August 2, 2006.
Past Related Actions and
Future Anticipated Actions
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:30
PM, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at the WSU Community
Learning Center in Hadlock. The Planning Commission is
scheduled to hold a public hearing on MLA06-87, the
proposed MPR, at 6:30 PM, Wednesday, September, 20,
2006 at the Brinnon Community Center. In early
November, DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final
DCD Staff Recommendation together with the Planning
Commission Recommendation for all proposals on the 2006
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket.
Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the 4
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under
consideration is expected sometime prior to the end of the
second week in December 2006. 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 2006 Comprehensive Plan annual
amendment cycle process. This website can be accessed
from the Jefferson County homepage:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
1-3
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 JCC 18.40.330.
Appeals of GMA actions (i.e., a legislative decision by the
BoCC) are heard first by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board.
Location of Background
Material and Documents
Incorporated by Reference
Background material and documents used to support
development of the Addendum 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.
Cost to the Public Copies of the 2006 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 2006
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.
1-4
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
1.2.1 Introduction and Process
Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) on August 28,
1998 and substantively updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is a
policy document that guides growth and future land use decisions in Jefferson County. In each successive year since
initial adoption, the County has conducted a Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle as provided by the GMA. JCC
§18.45 is the set of development regulations adopted in December 2000 for amending the Comprehensive Plan. The
2006 “Preliminary Docket” included 7 (seven) proposed amendments. Per JCC §18.45, 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 two (2) suggested amendments on the Preliminary
Docket and formulated a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) regarding the composition
of the Final Docket. The BoCC then established the Final Docket, declining to docket the suggested amendments
and establishing five as 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 JCC §18.45 and potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The
adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented
in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for 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 July 19, 2006 (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.
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The five Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including all supplemental information submitted
with or associated with the applications, all supporting record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this
document, all Appendix Items to this report, and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are
incorporated herein by this reference, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 635.
The documents listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial
background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. The reader is encouraged to
use existing documents in conjunction with this document for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and
impacts analyzed.
Moreover, to the greatest extent possible this document includes descriptions of, and references to, the content of the
ten individual proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the information from each Comprehensive Plan
1-5
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 2006 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 2006 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum.
This 2006 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 JCC 18.45.060 through 18.45.080. DCD staff compiled the preliminary
docket following the March 1, 2006 deadline for applications set forth in JCC 18.45.040 (2) (a). On April 5, 2006,
and after timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing to solicit
comments on the proposed amendment docket. On March 15, 2006, 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 May 22, 2006, Planning
Commission transmitted its final docketing report and recommendations to the BoCC. On May 22, 2006, the BoCC
adopted the final docket for review during the 2006 amendment process.
1-6
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 two public hearings to take testimony on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (2006
Docket). A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, August 2, 2005, 6:30 PM at the WSU Community
Learning Center in Port Hadlock, pertaining to all items on the 2006 Docket except the proposed MPR. A public
hearing is currently scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 6:30 PM at the Brinnon Community Center
in Brinnon, pertaining to the proposed MPR amendment. Formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the public hearings.
The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, initiates a public comment
period that remains open through Wednesday, August 2, 2006 for the four site-specific proposed amendments
excluding MLA-06-87. Oral comment may be provided to the Planning Commission at the August 2 public hearing.
Written comment may be submitted to the Planning Commission via DCD through the close of the public hearing on
August 2. A separate period will be established for MLA06-87 the proposed MPR. 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 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle
webpage, where as many relevant documents and maps as possible are available in Portable Document Format
(PDF). The 2006 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 amendments during its regularly scheduled meeting on August 16, 2006, or until such
time that it formulates a recommendation for transmittal to the BoCC. It is anticipated the Planning Commission will
deliberate on the proposed MPR amendment during at a later date. 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. Following the completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on
the 2006 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 November 2006.
In making a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning Commission
recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission, the
minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff recommendation
that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office,
and any written or oral comments provided to the BoCC before or during a BoCC public hearing on the Docket
1-7
(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 2006 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 2006. The meeting schedules and agendas for the
Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2006 Docket are available on a Jefferson County webpage
dedicated to the 2006 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
MLA06-01; Bell;
Discovery Rd.; 12.5
acres; upzone from RR
1:10 to 1:5.
None identified.
Recommendation - Approval. The parcel
meets both the criteria for RR 1:10 and
RR 1:5 designation.
1-8
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
2
MLA06-74; Austin; S.
Jacob Miller Rd.; 30
acres; upzone from RR
1:20 to 1:5.
The proposal could increase
pressure to up-zone parcels in the
immediate vicinity. However, it
would not likely detract from the
overall intention of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation - Approval. The most
appropriate designation is RR 1:20;
however, the parcel meets both the criteria
for RR 1:20 and RR 1:5.
3
MLA06-77; Brown &
DCD; Irondale Rd.; 0.72
acres; upzone from RR
to Convenience
Crossroads.
The proposal is consistent with
the criteria for LAMIRDs, set
forth at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
It would not likely detract from
the overall intention of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation - Approval. The parcel
clearly meets the July 1, 1990 “built
environment’ LAMIRD criteria.
4
MLA06-85; Port of Port
Townsend; Airport; 2.5
acres; rezone from
AEPF to RR.
None identified.
Recommendation - Approval and
designation of parcel as RR 1:5. . The
parcel is surrounded on by an established
pattern of parcels of five acres or smaller
which are designated RR 1:5.
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 in the following table are in gross acres, including road rights-of-way and some water features.
The net developable acreage would be lower.
1-9
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2005 Plan)
Potential Future
Gross Acreage
Under Applicant
Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation
Rural Residential
RR 1:5 29,168 29,212 (+44 approx.)3 29,212 (+ 44 approx.)
RR 1:10 9,886 9,874 (-12.5 approx.) 9,874 (-12.5 approx.)
RR 1:20 51,474 51, 444 (-30 approx.) 51,444 (-30 approx.)
Incorporated UGA
Port Townsend UGA 4,466 No change No change
LAMIRDs
Rural Village Centers
(Hadlock, Brinnon,
Quilcene)
242 No change No change
General Crossroads 96 No change No change
Convenience
Crossroads
10 11 (+.72 approx.) 11 (+.72 approx.)
Neighborhood
Crossroads
122 No change No change
Master Planned Resort
MPR - Village
Commercial Center
43 No change4 No change
MPR - Resort Complex
10:1
57 No change No change
MPR - Multiple Family
10:1
75 No change No change
MPR - Single Family
4:1
1,431 No change No change
MPR - Single Family
Tracts 1:2.5
114 No change No change
MPR - Recreation Area 259 No change No change
MPR - Open Space
Reserve
356 No change No change
Parks & National Forest
Parks, Preserves,
Recreation - Not MPR
2,859 No change No change
Olympic National Forest 57,299 No change No change
Olympic National Park 139,463 No change No change
Forestlands
Rural Forest 8,645 No change No change
Commercial Forest 310,327 No change No change
Inholding Forest 7,228 No change No change
Resource Based
Industrial Zone
152 No change No change
Agricultural
Commercial Agriculture 4,296 No change No change
Agricultural Lands of
Local Significance
3,220 No change No change
3 MLA06-87 a proposed MPR would potential change the future gross acreage RR by ± 253 acres.
4 Potential Gross Acreage under applicant proposal with MLA06-87 increase for MPR categories by 253 acres (approx.).
1-10
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations, continued
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2005 Plan)
Potential Future
Gross Acreage Under
Applicant Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation
Industrial
Heavy Industry (Mill) 278 No change No change
Light Industrial (Glen
Cove)
72 No change No change
Light Industrial/
Manufacturing
(Quilcene, Eastview)
56 No change No change
Light Industrial/
Commercial (Glen
Cove)
90 No change No change
Essential Public Facilities
Airport EPF 289 287 (-2.5 approx.) 287 (-2.5 approx.)
Military Reservation 3,452 No change No change
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
MLA06-01; Bell;
Discovery Rd.; 12.5
acres; upzone from RR
1:10 to 1:5.
This rural residential upzone raises questions of appropriate circumstances for re-
designation. However, in this case RR 1:5 is consistent with zoning in the
immediate vicinity. That stated, clarification of policy for Rural Residential up-
zones would help to direct future decisions on proposals of this type, and help to
uphold the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
1-11
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
2
MLA06-74; Austin; S.
Jacob Miller Rd.; 30
acres; upzone from RR
1:20 to 1:5.
As discussed regarding MLA06-01, this upzone raises questions of appropriate
circumstances for re-designation. The current designation for this parcel is most
appropriate. It also meets criteria for RR 1:5. Clarification of policy for Rural
Residential upzones would help to direct future decisions on proposals of this
type and help to uphold the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
3
MLA06-77; Brown &
DCD; Irondale Rd.; 0.72
acres; up-zone from RR
to Convenience
Crossroads.
The proposal raises the question of reconsideration of LAMIRD boundaries. In
this case the designation criteria have been clearly met. No significant
controversies have been identified.
4
MLA06-85;
Port of Port Townsend;
Airport; 2.5 acres;
rezone from AEPF to
RR.
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:
• 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 2006 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
1-12
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 JCC §18.15 Article VI-D, et seq. Environmentally sensitive areas
are protected through the application of overlay districts. Examples of such overlay districts include Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, and
Wetlands (JCC Articles VI E-I). The County maintains data to assist in identifying these areas from a variety of
sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal government, in a Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create maps depicting the approximate location and extent of
environmentally sensitive areas 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
Report, such as an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report,
Grading Plan, Habitat Management Plan, or Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are
governed by JCC §18.45 Article VI-J. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and
building permit approval, but 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
1-13
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 four (4) site-specific proposals under review in this document are relatively minor in that they do not
collectively represent a distinct change in direction from implementation of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
In deciding when it is appropriate to up-zone lower density rural residential parcels to higher density rural residential
designations, or when it is appropriate to up-zone commercial forest land to rural residential designations, the County
will establish precedents with far-reaching implications that will be used to judge the appropriateness of similar
rezone proposals in years hence. In consequence, determinations that appear to have little direct environmental
impact when viewed in isolation in 2006 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 JCC §18.45, Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA” at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act
(“GMA” at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and JCC §18.45, this amendment process
involves concurrent analysis of all proposals to identify the potential for cumulative impacts.
In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2) categories:
Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting a change in either
Comprehensive plan land use designation or density.
Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that 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 five (5) site-specific amendments on the Final Docket. This document further divides
the amendments into sub-categories. Note: A separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for
MLA06-87 the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon.
2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in JCC §18.45 and, in turn, evaluates the potential for
significant adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. Each amendment proposal is described
below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made based on those criteria. Tables
are for summary information only; please refer to the staff report for each proposal for greater detail.
2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), all recommendations regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must
include an inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b). These
growth management indicators address the following:
• Growth and development rates;
• Ability to provide services;
• Availability of urban land;
• Community-wide attitudes towards land use; and
• Consistency with state law and local agreements.
These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of Jefferson
County’s status during this 2006 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
Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45.050 (4) (b) – growth management indicators
Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b).
(1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower
than anticipated, or is failing to materialize.
Discussion: The Office of Financial Management (OFM) is the State agency responsible for compiling population
projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2006 OFM Population Estimate for Jefferson
County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues, shows a 2006 population of 28,200. 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 46,960 in 2024, an annual growth rate of 1.78%.
The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson County, and the population projections that were reflective
of the unusual amount of growth at that time. The growth rate of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth
rate of approximately 2%.
That being said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington state and its counties have tended to exhibit
growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even decline. For example, the “rural
rebound” growth trend experienced by most western states in the early 1990s – at the time of GMA adoption – was
the result of an exodus by nearly two million people leaving California during a severe regional economic
recession. Rural and non-metropolitan growth in Washington, and Jefferson County, during the 1990s was far
greater than anticipated but slowed as California’s economy recovered in the mid-1990s (“Washington State
County Population Projections For Growth Management,” Office of Financial Management, March 2002).
YEAR
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2005
2006
County
Population
8300
6420
8346
8918
11618
9639
10661
15965
20406
27600
28200
Port
Townsend
4181
2847
3970
4683
6888
5074
5241
6067
7001
8745
8820
Percent in Port
Townsend
50%
44%
47%
53%
59%
53%
49%
38%
34%
32%
31%
Jefferson County Population 1910-200
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 Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County.
Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide
Planning Policy. In 2004, Jefferson County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, conducted a review of the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management
Act. This review was completed in 2004.
2-4
2.2 FINAL DOCKET
Following are brief descriptions of each of the five (5) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Each case
has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference.
Site-Specific Amendments:
1. MLA06-01; Bell; Discovery Rd.; 12.5 acres; RR 1:10 to 1:5.
2. MLA06-74; Austin; S. Jacob Miller Rd.; 30 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5.
3. MLA06-77; Brown & DCD; Irondale Rd.; 0.72 acres; RR to Convenience Crossroads.
4. MLA06-85; Port of Port Townsend; Airport; 2.5 acres; AEPF to RR.
5. MLA06-87; Statesmen & Black Point Properties; Brinnon; 252.64 acres; MPR.
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 four proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan constitute address in this document, for the purposes of
the integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, three (3) individual proposed action components (i.e., rural
residential rezones; rural industrial/commercial rezones; and Airport EPF rezones to RR). 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:
2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL
NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
1
MLA06-01
Bell; 001201004
12.5 acres; RR 1:10 to 1:5
Approval.
2
MLA06-74
Austin; 001081002
30 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5
Approval.
3
MLA06-77
Brown & DCD;
961803402
0.72 acres; RR to
Convenience Crossroads
Approval.
2-5
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL
NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
4
MLA06-85
Port of Port Townsend;
Airport; 001331011
2.5 acres; AEPF to RR
Approval and
designation as 1:5.
2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
The five 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 AEPF to Rural Residential (e.g., AEPF to RR)
• Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Convenience Crossroads (e.g., RR 1:5 to CC)
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (2)
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;
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
2-6
g. lands adjacent to forest resource land.
The Jefferson County Code defines the term “buildable lot” and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in size or greater
will typically be adequate to meet health standards related on-site wastewater disposal (i.e. septics) and individual
water systems (i.e. well) [JCC §18.10]. Since 1996, the maximum density that can be achieved through subdivision
in Jefferson County is one dwelling unit per five acres. In January 2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified
Development Code (JCC Title 18) which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site-design
through residential “clustering.” These provisions are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-M (Planned Rural
Residential Developments).
The three proposals for residential density changes will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general
description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for each proposal is provided below.
2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA06-01 (Bell)
Applicant: Bell
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001201004
Location: Discovery Road
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would re-designate 12.5 acres from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres
(1:10) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5). The subject parcel is located at 1530 Discovery
Road, Port Townsend. The area around the proposed site includes parcels designated RR 1:5 with partially cleared
land, an opened gravel pit mine to the North-west and (1) 1:20 acre wood-lot, containing a paddock, horses and a
residence. The proposed twelve and one half acre parcel was once part of s larger piece of land that was logged off
in the late nineteen sixties. In the north and west boundaries, some seed trees were left to re-forest the wood-lot.
These trees will remain to include a fifty to seventy foot deep green-space along the western and northern
boundaries, providing some forest habitat and wind protection to the adjacent parcels. The northern five acres would
eventually be developed into a rural single residence, and the remaining acreage will remain developed as is.
2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must develop
findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-01: Bell
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
County residents
The proposed amendment reflects the currently held
values of Jefferson County.
2-7
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-01: Bell, continued
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation. The proposed amendment should not
adversely impact the level of county services.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent
with the goals, policies, and implementation
strategies of the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan
There are no inconsistencies with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The 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 proposal is physically suitable for the requested
land use designation. It is similar to the surrounding
properties and their access to utilities and land uses.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the
long-term best interests of the county as a whole
The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to
change the land use designation of other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive
Plan
The site specific proposal does not affect the land use
and population growth projections that are the basis
of the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use
will be consistent with surrounding land uses.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and the
overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment meets the requirements of
GMA. The character of the rural area will not be
affected by redesignating this property.
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).
2-8
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?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a
result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and
marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy
conservation standards.
Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and
scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or
prime farmlands.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). A critical areas aquifer recharge area (SARPA) is identified on part of the
parcel. Any issues would have to be resolved in the land division process.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would
allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment is does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is
unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment. A pattern of RR 1:5 or smaller parcels exist in
the vicinity of the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA06-74 (Austin)
Reference Number: MLA06-74
Applicant: Cleo Austin
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001081002
2-9
Location: South Jacob Miller Rd.
2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject property is located on south Jacob Miller Road. The request would change the land use designation of
001-081-002, a 30-acre parcel located at 841 S. Jacob Miller Road in Port Townsend, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop
findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-74: Austin
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 County
residents
The proposed amendment reflects the currently held
values of Jefferson County.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and does
not adversely affect adopted level of service standards
for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with
the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals,
policies and implementation strategies of the various
elements of 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 subject parcel is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation.
2-10
Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA06-74: Austin, 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
The proposal could create a pressure to change the land
use designation of other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive
Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA),
the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the
adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services
to the immediate area and the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an area
that is currently under review for UGA designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other
applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements,
and any other local, state or federal laws
The proposed amendment meets the requirements of
GMA and County planning policies.
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?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a
result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and
marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy
conservation standards.
Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and
2-11
scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or
prime farmlands.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the
Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). A critical areas aquifer recharge area (SUSC) is identified on part of the parcel.
Any issues would have to be resolved in the land division process.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would
allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment is does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is
unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment.
2.3.1.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential Density
It should be noted that certain of the proposals appear likely to result in indirect 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). However, the change of rural density proposed amendments in this report are unlikely to
undermine the overall purpose of the rural residential land use scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.2 Request for Change from AEPF to Rural Residential
Requests for changes for Airport Essential Public Facilities (AEPF) land use designation to rural residential land use
designation are subject to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG).
2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA06-85 (Port of Port Townsend)
Applicant: Port of Port Townsend
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001331011
Location: Jefferson County Airport
2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information
The request would change the current land use designation a 2.5-acre section of parcel 001331011 located east of the
Airport cutoff adjacent to the Jefferson County International Airport in Port Townsend, from AEPF to RR. The
2-12
requested change would rezone the parcel from AEPF to rural residential. The Assessor’s Office has assigned the
new parcel number for this section of the parcel as: 001331013.
2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop
findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-85: Port of Port Townsend
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.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County
residents
The proposed amendment supports current widely held
values of Jefferson County residents.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and does
not adversely affect adopted level of service standards
for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with
the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals,
policies and implementation strategies of the various
elements of 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 significant
adverse impacts 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
Not applicable.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-85: Port of Port Townsend, continued
2-13
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
The proposal will not create a pressure to change the
land use designation of other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive
Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the
comprehensive plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA),
the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the
adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services
to the immediate area and the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an area
that is currently under review for UGA designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the 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 meets the requirements GMA
and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
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 not likely increase discharge to water, emissions to air or production of noise.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal would not be likely to 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 proposal is not likely to affect environmentally sensitive areas. A critical areas aquifer recharge area
(SARPA+SUSC) is identified on part of the parcel. Any issues would have to be resolved in the land division
process.
2-14
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 not likely to affect shoreline.
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.
No conflict should be apparent. The proposal will be used for buffer.
2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment.
2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Airport Essential Public
Facilities to Rural Residential
The proposed AEPF to RR amendment in this report will not undermine the overall purpose of the rural residential
land use scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
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.
2-15
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:
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.
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;
2-16
• 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:
2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA06-77 (Brown & DCD)
Reference Number: MLA06-77
Applicant: Eugene Brown & DCD
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 961803402
Location: Irondale Rd.
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The Irondale Store is a parcel approximately 0.70 acres in size with built environment from a gas
station/convenience store that had ceased operation in the mid-1980s. Public water is available to the site. The
parcel is currently zoned Rural Residential 1:5 and is within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. The
applicants applied for this rezone in 2002 and the amendment was included in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan docket
in lieu of UGA planning. Under the code all site-specific amendments are to be docketed. Currently the County is
developing a Capital Facility plan for sewer that will guide the urban land use designations that may change the
boundaries of the UGA. Designation as a rural commercial Neighborhood Crossroads is consistent with the Growth
Management Act RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (d) i as a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD).
The request would change the current land use designation for 961-803-402, a 0.72-acre parcel located at 731
Irondale Road in Port Hadlock, from RR to Convenience Crossroads, a rural commercial zone. This request was
originally filed by the landowners in 2001 under MLA01-224 and suspended at that time in the context of ongoing
Urban Growth Area planning.
2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop
findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-77: Brown & DCD
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 subject property is going to be evaluated for sewer
service during the ongoing Urban Growth Area (UGA)
planning. The property owners applied for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2001 that was not
docketed in lieu of UGA planning. Despite the
County’s commitment to establishing an Urban Growth
Area and planning for sewers, we cannot guarantee that
specific areas will be included until the planning is
complete.
The property meets all of the criteria under RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d)i for a Limited Area of More Intense
Rural Development (LAMIRD) and meets the criteria
listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Code for Convenience Crossroads.
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 assumptions are still valid, and the case law
involving the Growth Management Act is more mature
and more clearly defined than when the Comprehensive
Plan was originally adopted.
2-17
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-77: Brown &DCD, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count
This amendment reflects the values established in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. There will be
ample opportunity for the residents of Jefferson County
to submit comments regarding the proposed amendment.
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
This proposal meets concurrency requirements for the
transportation network.
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 consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation
of Convenience Crossroads.
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 proposal is consistent with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation
of Convenience Crossroads.
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 already developed. Access to the
transportation network already exists and has power and
public water serving the building.
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
There may be some pressure to designate other
Convenience Crossroads or other LAMIRD
designations. Jefferson County has established clear
criteria written into the Comprehensive Plan that guides
the designation of such properties that meets GMA.
There are limited properties that could potentially take
advantage of the LAMIRD criteria. Designating such
properties could allow for more goods and services to be
offered locally.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive
Plan
The proposal does not affect the population growth
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
The proposed redesignation is located within a proposed
UGA. The proposal would not affect the adequacy of
urban facilities and services to the proposed UGA.
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 meets the requirements of
RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (d) i for LAMIRDs and
Countywide Planning Policies in particular #8 Policy On
Rural Areas. The character of the rural area will not be
affected by redesignating this property.
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).
2-18
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 is not likely to increase discharge to water or produce other environmental impacts.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal would not likely affect wildlife or plants.
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. The proposal will use more electricity
to operate the store.
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.
Approximately 1/3 or the parcel indicates costal SIPZ. No high chloride wells are identified. Any issues would have
to be resolved in the land division process.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would
allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The subject property is not within shoreline.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
The proposed should relieve demands on public transportation by providing a walk able destination for the Ironedale
neighborhood.
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 meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (d) (i). The parcel clearly meets the July 1, 1990 “built
environment’ LAMIRD criteria.
2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Approve the proposed rezone. The proposed amendment meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (d) i for
LAMIRDs. The character of the rural area will not be affected by the redesignation of this property.
2.3.3.2 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation
to Rural Commercial
There may be some pressure to designate other Convenience Crossroads or other LAMIRD designations. However,
there are limited properties that could potentially take advantage of the LAMIRD criteria. The property meets
criteria under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)i for a (LAMIRD and meets the criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan and
Unified Development Code for Convenience Crossroads.
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
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
August 3, 2005 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
2005 Amendment Docket
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
5-1
5 Appendices
Item 1: Legal Notice published July 17, 2006
Item 2: MLA 06-01 (Bell)
Item 3: MLA 06-74 (Austin)
Item 4: MLA 06-77 (Brown & DCD)
Item 5: MLA06-85 (Port of Port Townsend)
5-2
5.1 ITEM 1: LEGAL NOTICE (JULY 17, 2006)
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND
NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND
AVAILABILITY OF SEPA ADDENDUM
AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION ON 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), Jefferson County is issuing an integrated GMA/SEPA document per WAC 197-11-210 through
197-11-235 in relation to four of the five (5) site-specific amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan that constitute all items on the final docket of the 2006 annual Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycle, except one, a proposed Master Planned Resort in Brinnon. That fifth and final item on
the docket will be reviewed separately at first, then integrated into the full docket later in the year.
Jefferson County has determined that it is the appropriate SEPA lead agency for the proposal. Adoption
of any Comprehensive Plan amendment on the 2006 docket would be a non-project action under SEPA,
Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Following are brief descriptions of each of the four (4) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
that are the subject of this notice. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number and
Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) for reference:
1. MLA06-01 proposed by Arthur D. Bell, on behalf of Jeanne M. Bell and Raymond Anibas,
requesting the following: 1) Change the current land use designation of Parcel Number 001-201-
004, a 12.5-acre parcel located at 1530 Discovery Road, Port Townsend, from Rural Residential
(RR) one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10) to RR 1:5.
2. MLA06-74 proposed by Drew Austin, on behalf of Cleo Austin, requesting the following: 1)
Change the land use designation of 001-081-002, a 30-acre parcel located at 841 S. Jacob Miller
Road in Port Townsend, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
3. MLA06-77 proposed by Eugene Brown and DCD requesting the following: 1) Change the
current land use designation for 961-803-402, a 0.72-acre parcel located at 731 Irondale Road in
Port Hadlock, from RR to Convenience Crossroads, a rural commercial zone. This request was
originally filed by the landowners in 2001 under MLA01-224 and suspended at that time in the
context of ongoing Urban Growth Area planning.
4. MLA06-85 proposed by Port of Port Townsend requesting the following: 1) Change the current
land use designation of 001-331-011, a 2.5-acre parcel located adjacent to the Jefferson County
International Airport at the southwest corner of State Route 19 and Woodland Drive in Port
Townsend, from Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) to RR.
GMA Notice: This document serves as the 60-day notice of intent to amend the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and is being circulated per WAC 365-195-620 to State agencies on the list provided by
the Washington State Office of Community Development of agency representatives responsible for
reviewing proposed amendments to comprehensive plans.
5-3
Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents and Notice of Availability of SEPA Addendum: The
document also serves as a notice of adoption of existing environmental documents and notice of availability
of a formal SEPA document, an Addendum, pursuant to SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC). After review
of the docket and existing environmental documents, the SEPA Responsible Official at the Department
of Community Development (DCD) has determined that existing environmental documents, augmented
by the integrated SEPA Addendum, provide adequate environmental review to satisfy the requirements of
WAC 197-11-600 with regard to consideration of four of the five amendment proposals on the 2006
Docket. [The fifth proposal, a Master Planned Resort in Brinnon, will require an Environmental Impact
Statement.] A Staff Report offering recommended action on these four Comprehensive Plan amendments
has been integrated with a SEPA Addendum per WAC 197-11-235. In accordance with WAC 197-11-
630, there is no new SEPA-specific public comment period in conjunction with this adoption notice.
However, DCD and the Planning Commission are accepting general comments on the merits of these
suggested amendments as detailed below.
The following existing environmental documents are being adopted:
• 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 are dated
February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential cumulative
environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community Development
Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued September 22, 2004.
Other relevant documents have been incorporated by reference in the combined Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum.
Planning Commission Public Hearing: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to take oral comment on these four Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The public hearing will occur on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 beginning at 6:30 PM at
the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W Patison, Port Hadlock. A public
hearing on the Brinnon Master Planned Resort proposal will be held later in the year, most likely in
September.
Public Comment Period: The Planning Commission and DCD will accept written comments on the
merits of these suggested amendments through close of the public hearing, August 2. Any written
comments on these suggested amendments submitted after the close of the public hearing 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 action on the final docket. (Formal notice would
appear in the newspaper of record.) Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to DCD at 621
Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original
applications for the proposed amendments, the Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, 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 2006 Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycle webpage, where documents and notices are posted in Portable Document Format. The
2006 Docket webpage can be accessed through the Jefferson County homepage:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
5-4
5-5
5.2 ITEM 2: MLA06-01 BELL
5-6
5.3 ITEM 3: MLA06-74 AUSTIN
5-7
5.4 ITEM 4: MLA06-77 BROWN AND DCD
5-8
5.5 ITEM 5: MLA06-85 PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND
5-9