HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_CPA_Staff_Rpt_1-4
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT DOCKET
STAFF REPORT AND SEP A ADDENDUM
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
with Environmental Analysis
for the Adoption of Amendments
to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
September 4, 2013
INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT
Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action:
Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents
Principal Contributors/Authors
Department of Community Development
Long-Range Planning
Carl Smith, Director of Community Development
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner
Technical Contributors
Department of Central Services
Doug Noltemeier, Senior GIS Analyst
Logistical Contributors
Department of Community Development
Jodi Adams, Office Administrator
Kaycee Hathaway, Planning Clerk
i
Table of Contents
Page
1 Environmental Summary & Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Environmental Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-4
1.2.1 Introduction & Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-5
1.2.1.4 Process & Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-6
1.2.2 Major Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts & Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . 1-8
1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current & Proposed Land Use Designations . 1-9
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-10
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
1.2.4 Issues to be Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-12
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13
1.2.4.3 Main Options to be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action . 1-14
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1
2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Impact Analysis & 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4
2.3.1 MLA12-00274 (McLuen) . . . . . . . . . . ……………………... . . . . . . . . ..2-4
2.3.2 MLA13-00045 (Boulton) . . . . . . . . . . …………………….... . . . . . . . . 2-10
3 Supporting Record, Analysis, & M aterials . . . . . . . . . . . ….. ….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
4 Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
5 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
A.1 Location Map of Proposed Amendments …………………………………………5-3
A.2 MLA12-00274 (McLuen) – Map of Existing Land Use. . . . ………….. . . . . . . . 5-5
A.3 MLA12-00274 (McLuen) – Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . . . . . . 5-7
A.4 MLA13-00045 (Boulton) – Map of Existing Land Use. . . . ………….. . . . . . . . 5-9
A.5 MLA13-00045 (Boulton) – Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . . . . . . 5-11
B. Jefferson County Resolution No. 55-03, September 22, 2003………. . . . . . . 5-13
C. Legal Notice published September 4, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . ………….. . . . . . .5 -17
D. Soils information for MLA13-00045: Boulton. . . . . . . . . . . ………….. . . . . . . 5-19
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
1-1
1 Environmental Summary & Fact Sheet
1.1 FACT SHEET
Title and Description
of Proposed Action
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA), the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) is considering adoption of two (2) individual amendment
proposals to the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Both proposals are site-specific amendment proposals that
comprise the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket,
which is the “Final Docket” for this year’s annual amendment
cycle.1
This document is a combined Staff Report and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for the two (2) site-
specific proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and one
(1) UDC amendment. The objective of this document is to
analyze the proposed amendments individually and
cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment
criteria outlined in Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45 and
potential environmental impacts under SEPA. Adoption of
Comprehensive Plan and UDC 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).
Jefferson County Code 18.45.080 (1)(d) specifies that
recommendations from the Planning Department and Planning
Commission, and subsequent decision by the Board of County
Commissioners on these proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment proposals will come forward as deny, approve or
approve with modifications.
Following are brief descriptions of each of the two (2) 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:
Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1. MLA12-00274; Gary McLuen (William Marlow, agent);
APN 901-054-003; Located at mile post 5 of SR 20 on
the east side of SR 20, approximately 1.5 miles south of
the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/SR 210 intersection.
Proposal requests a rezone of approximately 37 acres
of land designated Rural Residential 1:20 (RR 1:20) to
Rural Residential 1:10 (RR 1:10);
2. MLA13-00045: John Boulton (Doug Mason, agent);
APN 802-141-005; Located at 780 Boulton Rd,
Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately 0.7 miles south
west of the northern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection
and 0.4 miles northwest of the southern Boulton Rd/US
1 The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) on June 3, 2013 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing two (2) items.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-2
101 intersection. Proposal requests a rezone of 12.7
acres of land designated Rural Forest 1:40 (RF 1:40) to
become Prime Agricultural 1:20 (AP 1:20).
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
on behalf of the applicants for the two (2) site-specific
amendment proposals.
Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community Development
(DCD)
Long-Range Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official:
Stacie Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager
(360) 379-4463
Authors and
Principal
Contributors
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Long-Range Planning
Date of Staff Report
& SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
Date Comments are
Due
For the two amendment proposals:
Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission
public hearing, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 18,
2013, at Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd,
Chimacum, WA 98325.
Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the
Planning Commission through 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
September 18, 2013. Send to: Department of Community
Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA
98368
Past Related Actions
and
Future Anticipated
Actions
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:30 PM,
Wednesday, September 18, 2013, at Tri-Area Community
Center, 10 W Valley Rd, Chimacum, WA 98325. In October,
DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final DCD Staff
Recommendation together with the Planning Commission
Recommendation for all proposals on the 2013 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket.
Tentative Adoption
Date
A legislative decision from the BoCC on both of the two (2)
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under
consideration is expected sometime prior to the end of the
second week in December 2013. The meeting schedules and
agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to
this Docket are available on a Jefferson County web page
dedicated to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment
cycle process. This web page can be accessed from the
Jefferson County website:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2013cycle.htm
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
1-3
Appeal Information Issues relating to the adequacy of this 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 noon and 1:00 PM to 4:30 PM, Monday through
Thursday, at the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368,
(360) 379-4450. Appointments are welcome.
Relation to Other
Documents
A series of documents have been prepared by or on behalf of
Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations (i.e.,
the Unified Development Code (UDC) codified as Title 18 JCC),
including amendments to both the Plan and UDC. These
documents, listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting
Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial
background information and offer previous environmental
descriptions and analyses. They are incorporated herein by this
reference. The reader is encouraged to refer to these
documents in conjunction with this document for a broader
understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed.
In this document, descriptions of and references to the contents
of the proposed amendments have been 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 Hard copies of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, or
selected pages thereof, are available at $0.15 per page from the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
(DCD) and are also available on Compact Disk at $1.10. The
documents can be downloaded in PDF format from the DCD
web page dedicated to the 2013 annual amendment cycle
(http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us). Copies of this document are
also available for inspection at DCD and the Jefferson County
Public Library at Port Hadlock.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-4
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
1.2.1 Introduction and Process
Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GM A) on
August 28, 1998 and 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 allowed for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
cycle as provided by the GMA. JCC 18.45 contains the set of development regulations adopted in
December 2000 to guide the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan.
Pursuant to Chapter 18.45.060(4)(b) of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18 of the Jefferson
County Code (JCC), a preliminary docket was not required this year as Jefferson County received only
two site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments. A suggested amendment for increasing dens ity
allowances in Jefferson County’s West End was initiated by the Planning Commission and subsequently
unanimously decided to be put on hold to allow for an action plan in advance of consideration in 2014.
The Planning Commission further approved a motion with a vote of 4-2-0 to, “Collect information from the
residents of the West End sufficient for us to develop MLA13 -00042, collected by the end of 2013 and
discussed by the Planning Commission.” In subsequent discussions with the Planning Commission, the
plan has been revised to incorporate this West End outreach and public involvement into the Periodic
Assessment. We intend to conduct a series of meetings throughout the county in 2014 that will identify
the concerns and high priority items for consideration in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle
in anticipation of the 2016 deadline. No other suggested amendments were submitted to the Departm ent
of Community Development by the March 1, 2013 deadline.
The Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved the Final 2013 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket on June 3, 2013 consisting of two (2) proposed site-specific amendments:
1. MLA12-00274, by Gary McLuen, a Site Specific Proposal to rezone land designated RR 1:20 to
all RR 1:10.
2. MLA13-00045, by John Boulton, a Site Specific Proposal to rezone land designated RF 1:40 to
Prime Agricultural (AP1:20).
This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum. The
object of this document is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with regard
to goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as amendment criteria outlined in JCC §18.45,
and potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The adoption of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented in this
document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed
for future land use or building permit applications). This is an integrated GMA/SEPA document that
combines environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering a recommended action on each proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment and the UDC amendment. Guidance for preparing integrated
GMA/SEPA documents is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235. The analysis in
this document supplements the existing adopted environmental documents incor porated herein by
reference. Jefferson County Code 18.45.080 (1)(d) specifies that recommendations from the Planning
Department and Planning Commission, and subsequent decision by the Board of County Commissioners
on these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals will come forward as deny, approve or
approve with modifications.
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents
The following existing environmental documents have been adopted through legal notice published in the
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on September 4, 2013 (Appendix C):
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;
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
1-5
The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2004 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 22,
2004;
The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on August 3, 2005;
The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on July 19, 2006;
The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 5, 2007.
The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 200 8 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 3, 2008.
The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 200 9 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 2, 2009.
The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2010 Compr ehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 1, 2010.
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The two (2) Comprehensive Plan amendment applications 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 two (2) individual proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the information from
each Comprehensive Plan amendment application. For a more thorough understanding of the discussion
presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted to
supplement the information in this document.
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis
This document provides both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts as
appropriate to the general nature of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals and
associated UDC amendment proposal. The adoption of comprehensive plan and UDC 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 progr ammatic
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 C ounty
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-6
Comprehensive Plan and UDC. Additional environmental review of development proposals will occur as
specific projects are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications). This will result in an
additional incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions require a more detailed
evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future project action environmental review
for development applications that are not categorically exempt from SEPA could occur in the form of a
supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement
The following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2013
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, related UDC amendment, and associated Staff Report and
SEPA Addendum.
This 2013 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 §18.45.090. The Planning
Commission submitted a suggested amendment prior to the March 1, 2013 deadline as follows:
1. MLA13-42 proposed by Jefferson County Planning Commission, requesting the following:
Rezone lands designated Rural Residential in Jefferson County’s West End (RR 1:10 and RR
1:20) to RR 1:5. Approximately 1,907 acres of land are zoned RR 1:10 and 23, 983 acres are
zoned RR 1:20.
No other suggested amendments were submitted to the Department of Community Development by the
March 1, 2013 deadline.
The Administrator prepared an Administrator’s Report on the Suggested Amendment for the 2013
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle, issued March 12, 2013 recommending the suggested
amendment not be included in the final docket. Upon consideration of the Administrator’s Report, the
Planning Commission deliberated and subsequently unanimously decided to put the suggested
amendment on hold to allow for an action plan in advance of consideration in 2014. With effective
withdrawal of the suggested amendment for 2013, only two (2) site-specific amendment proposals
remained for consideration.
Pursuant to Chapter 18.45.060(4)(b) of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18 of the Jefferson
County Code (JCC), a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission on the
preliminary docket was not required this year as the remaining two site-specific Comprehensive Plan
Amendments are to be automatically included in the final docket.
On June 3, 2013, the DCD Staff presented to the BoCC the Administrator’s Report, Planning Commission
discussion on their own initiated and withdrawn suggested amendment and a recommendation for th e
final docket to the BoCC. At that meeting, the BoCC unanimously adopted the 2013 Final Docket of two
(2) proposals for review.
1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Planning Commission Public Hearing - Public Comment
Period
The Jefferson County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold at least one (1) public hearing to take
testimony on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2013 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket (2013 Docket). Formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port
Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the public hearings.
The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, initiates a
public comment period. For the two (2) site-specific amendment proposals comprising the final docket:
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
1-7
Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday,
September 18, 2013, at Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd, Chimacum, WA 98325.
Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30 p.m.
on Wednesday, September 18, 2013. Send to: Department of Community Development, 621
Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Please submit any written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via
email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Comments submitted prior to the close of the comment period will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration during that advisory body’s deliberati ons.
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
2013 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where many relevan t documents and maps are
available in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 20 13 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 and UDC Amendments, the
Planning Commission will deliberate on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and
formulate a recommendation on each proposal for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC). It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate its deliberations for the proposals
following the close of oral testimony on September 18, and may continue deliberating on the proposed
amendments as needed during its regularly scheduled meetings on October 2, 2013 and November 6,
2013. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation and transmittal
document to the BoCC on all proposed amendments no later than Wednesday, November 18, 2013.
The Planning Commission generally meets the first Wednesday of any given month at the Board of
County Commissioner Chambers in the basement of the Jefferson County Cour thouse. It is possible that
the Planning Commission will hold one or more special meetings outside of the meeting schedule outlined
above. Additional meetings will be properly noticed in the legal section of the Leader. Following the
completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the 2013 Docket, DCD will formally transmit
the Planning Commission recommendation to the BoCC along with the DCD final staff recommendations,
any comments submitted during the public comment period, and the record of the Planning Commission
deliberations. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission and DCD recommendations will be
presented to the BoCC in late November 2013.
In making a final legislative decision on the 2013 Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning Commission
recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission,
the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff
recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the
Prosecuting Attorney’s office, and any written or oral comments provided to the BoCC before or during a
BoCC public hearing on the Docket (should one be held). If the BoCC elects to schedule one or more
public hearings on the Docket following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there
would be another opportunity for agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A
legal notice would appear in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record,
announcing any BoCC public hearings on the 2013 Docket.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-8
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 Decembe r 2008 (Monday, December 8th
has been tentatively identified as a likely adoption date). The meeting schedules and agendas for the
Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2008 Docket are available on a Jefferson County
webpage dedicated to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This webpage
can be accessed from the Jefferson County website: 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 encoura ged.
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 evaluations 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 Table 1 below consist of the final recommendations and
do not include discussion or explanations. Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive
discussion of issues later in this chapter under “Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty,” and also found in
the “Concise Analysis” 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).
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
1-9
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
#
APPLICATION NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED
MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
1
MLA12-00274; Gary McLuen
(William Marlow, agent); APN
901-054-003; Located at Mile
post 5 of SR 20 on the east
side of SR 20, approximately
1.5 miles south of the Four
Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/SR
210 intersection. Proposal
requests a rezone of land
designated both Rural
Residential 1:10 and 1:20 (RR
1:10 and RR 1:20) to become
all Rural Residential 1:10 (RR
1:10);
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve.
2
MLA13-00045: John Boulton
(Doug Mason, agent); APN
802-141-005; Located at 780
Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA
98376, approximately 0.7
miles south west of the
northern Boulton Rd/US 101
intersection and 0.4 miles
northwest of the southern
Boulton Rd/US 101
intersection. Proposal
requests a rezone of 11.8
acres of land designated
Rural Forest 1:40 (RF 1:40) to
become Prime Agricultural
1:20 (AP 1:20).
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve.
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 approximate number of acres under each district under the proposals. Increases
in gross acreage are indicated as a positive number and decreases are indicated with “-“. The reader
should understand that these numbers are approximations for planning purposes only, and most figures
have been rounded. They do not necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the gr ound. 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, excluding some road rights-of-way and
including some water features. The net developable acreage would be lower.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-10
Table 2. Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
Land Use Designation/Zoning District
Current
Gross
Acreage
Potential
Future
Gross
Acreage
Under
Applicant
Proposals
% Change
Potential Future
Acreage under
Staff
Recommendation
Agriculture
AL-20 Local Agriculture 3,086 No
change
No
change No change
AP-20 Commercial Agriculture 4,182 4,195 0.312% 4,194
Total Agriculture Lands 7,268 7,281 0.180% 7,280
Forestry
RF-40 Rural Forest 12,217 12,204 -0.105% 12,205
CF-80 Commercial Forest 309,332 No
change
No
change No change
CF-80/MRLO Commercial Forest
Mineral Resource Land Overlay 161 No
change
No
change No change
Total Forest Lands 321,710 321,697 -0.004% 321,698
Residential
RR-10 Rural Residential 9,107 9,144 0.409% 9,144
RR-20 Rural Residential 50,338 50,301 -0.074% 50,301
RR-5 Rural Residential 26,893 No
change
No
change No change
Totals
Combined Total Forest & Agriculture
Resource Lands 328,978 No
change
No
change No change
Total Rural Residential Lands 86,337 No
change
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 (Table 1, Section 1.2.2.1). 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). 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 & Uncertainty
Table 3 summarizes the key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers:
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
1-11
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
1
MLA12-00274; Gary
McLuen (William
Marlow, agent);
APN 901-054-003;
Located at Mile post
5 of SR 20 on the
east side of SR 20,
approximately 1.5
miles south of the
Four Corners
Rd/Discovery Rd/SR
210 intersection.
Proposal requests a
rezone of land
(approx 37 acres)
designated 1:20 (RR
1:20) to become
Rural Residential
1:10 (RR 1:10);
As has been the case since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
1998, that which constitutes “an established pattern of same or
similar sized parcels” (LNPs 3.3.1 through 3.3.3) is somewhat
unclear. In the past, this criterion has been applied in instances
where if more than 50% of the perimeter of a parcel abuts areas
designated and/or divided into parcels of higher density, to permit
up-zoning. Application of the established pattern criteria may be
useful in making decisions about the allocation of future population
growth, but in isolation of population growth allocation
considerations, the established pattern criteria may have limited
purpose and unintended cumulative consequences.
This proposal, as is the case with the other proposed rural up-
zones, raises the issue: under what circumstances is it appropriate
to re-designate and rezone lower density rural residential parcels
for higher density rural use? Should one year’s worth of proposals
be considered “cumulative analysis,” or is a longer time frame
optimal in terms of achieving the goals contained in the GMA and
the Comprehensive Plan?
The applicant created the split-zone parcel upon consolidation of
two parcels in 2004. Is it appropriate to now up-zone a portion of
the parcel? It may be appropriate to consider if the original parcel
that was zoned RR 1:20 would be appropriate for rezone if it were
still in the configuration at time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in
1998.
The original parcel had RR1:5 zoning to the south and west of the
parcel. RR 1:10 to the north and Commercial Forest to the east. It
does not fall distinctly or obviously into one zoning district. At over
20 acres in size and with forest lands to the east, it could qualify for
RR 1:20. Given the pattern of development of parcel 5 acres in
size and zoned RR 1:5 to the east and south of the original parcel,
the applicant contends this parcel could qualify as RR 1:5. DCD
staff disagrees given the large parcel size, RR 1:10 zoning and
pattern of development and the adjacent forest resource land.
Parcels north of this property were zoned RR 1:10, and DCD staff
can accept that this parcel could also qualify for RR 1:10 given
there is not a pattern of development of 20 acre parcels near this
parcel.
Does this action set precedence for others to consolidate parcels,
creating a split zoned parcel and then use it as justification for an
up-zone? Not if we consider whether a property would have been
viable for up-zone at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in
the parcel’s original configuration.
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. Changing the zoning
of the rural residential 1:20 portion of the parcel to rural residential
1:10 would not create pressure to up-zone parcels immediately
adjacent to the property and it does not contain significant critical
areas. The issues concerning established pattern criteria and
precedence to up-zone similar parcels in the county remain
controversial.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-12
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
2
MLA13-00045: John
Boulton (Doug
Mason, agent); APN
802-141-005;
Located at 780
Boulton Rd,
Quilcene, WA 98376,
approximately 0.7
miles south west of
the northern Boulton
Rd/US 101
intersection and 0.4
miles northwest of
the southern Boulton
Rd/US 101
intersection.
Proposal requests a
rezone of 12.7 acres
of land designated
Rural Forest 1:40 (RF
1:40) to become
Prime Agricultural
1:20 (AP 1:20).
The application requests rezone of land designated as Rural Forest
and used historically for agricultural use to a land use designation of
Prime Agriculture Land.
The property owner is working with the Conservation Land Trust to
place a conservation easement on this land in an effort to maintain
the viability of the farm in the future. Mr. Boulton also has an
interest in selling the farmland and home to a farmer that is
currently leasing the property. The home is located on land zoned
Rural Forest while the farmland is primarily zoned agriculture. In
order to sell the house with the farmland and not with the larger
timber land, Mr. Boulton would need to obtain a boundary line
adjustment (BLA) to align the conservation easement with the
parcel boundaries. Currently, a BLA is not allowed across zoning
districts and would be denied if proposed.
It is of utmost importance that Jefferson County preserve a nd
protect its resource lands from conversion to incompatible uses.
Does it undermine the Growth Management Act or the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan to allow conversion of lands
designated for Forest Lands to Agricultural Lands? Does this set a
precedence for future erosion of Forest Land acreage to another
resource land use? As always, it is important to consider the scope
and scale of each proposal before us not only individually but for
potential cumulative effects.
Following the designation criteria will maintain the integrity of our
decisions.
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. This farm is historical,
continuously productive, and owned by the same landowner as the
adjacent forest lands. Given the common ownership, Mr. Boulton
has been able to manage the lands jointly. While historically
beneficial, the applicant proposes it is not financially viable for a
new farmer to purchase both the farm and large forest land tracts.
It is common practice for farmers to live on the land they farm. It is
not always typical for foresters to live on the land they manage for
timber. This historical benefit should not preclude the future
division of the forest land from the home and farm. Further, the
unique nature of this farm ensures this action is not likely to set a
precedence for future rezones of portions of forest land adjacent to
agriculture.
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 Strateg y for Consolidated Environmental Review;
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
1-13
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) (codified as Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). The UDC was developed such
that protective measures are incorporated into permit decisions. For more discussion on t his process,
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 2008 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). In contrast, a project action would be a decision on a land use or
building permit reviewed under the general policy framework offered by the C omprehensive 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 essential at the non-project level in order to set up a regulatory framework that protects the
environment. 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 re view 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. These development regulations were codified as Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code.
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 critical areas
are contained at JCC §18.22, et seq. Critical 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 Conservation Areas, and Wetlands. The
County maintains data to assist in identifyi ng 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 environmen tally
sensitive areas.
Development Review Division planners conduct site visits, use historical information and use available
GIS information when reviewing land use and building permit applications . Protective measures are
applied accordingly. If needed, an applicant may be 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
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-14
and building permit approval, but can augment existing data for the County GIS database on critical
areas.
Sometimes the existing regulations may not adequately 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 develop ment 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 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a threshold Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance (MDNS).
Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of any one of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year’s cycle is not always as clear as placing a condition on a
permit. For example, the legislative decision to adopt a modified version of the original Comprehensive
Plan amendment proposal may also be considered a form of mitigation. The Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) may be effectively mitigating the potential environmental impact of adopting a
Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified proposal or even deciding not to adopt the
proposal based on environmental considerations. For formal site -specific amendment applications, the
BoCC could apply a mitigation measure that affects future use of the land in question. In any of these
cases, mitigation as applied to a non-project action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct
from mitigation as applied to a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action
review that established protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas and other development
standards are applied to proposals for on-the-ground development. Judging the effectiveness of
mitigation measures in this context requires on-going attention.
1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action
The two (2) of the site-specific proposals and the UDC amendment proposal reviewed in this document
are relatively minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction from
implementation of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan or subsequent 2004 periodic review.
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 re-zone commercial forest land to agricultural land
designations, the County will establish precedents with far -reaching implications that will be used to judge
the appropriateness of similar rezone proposals in years to come. Therefore, determinations that appear
to have little direct environmental impact when viewed in isolation in 2013 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. Denying certain rezone proposals that would
increase pressures to convert commercial forest land and/or rural lands to higher intensity land use
designations will likely maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan by reducing present and future
environmental impacts, preventing sprawl, and preserving future planning options.
Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and development under the County's adopted
Comprehensive Plan will result in some unavoidable adverse impacts. 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 growt h and development
in certain areas of the County, cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, increased demands upon
transportation facilities and transit, and increased demand for public infrastructure and facilities. The
County will continue to plan for distribution of growth that will result in the lowest levels of environmental
impacts, focus on infill, and balance capital investment.
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
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 broadly apply to the narrative,
goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure
adequate review of potential environmental impacts, any suggested amendments that could result in
a need to re-designate groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria employed for formal
site-specific amendments (i.e., JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)).
This document addresses the two (2) site-specific amendments on the Final Docket.
2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, & Staff Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in JCC §18.45 and, in turn, evaluates the
potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. Each amendment
proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is
made based on those criteria. Tables are for summary information only; please refer to the staff report for
each proposal for greater detail.
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 2013 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 t his
review of the growth management indicators provides some basic analysis related to County
demographics, it is not intended to measure progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan;
that task is reserved for the State-mandated Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for completion in
2011.
Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45.050 (4) (b) – growth management indicators
Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b).
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-2
(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, 2013 OFM Population
Estimate for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues, shows a 2013 population of
30,275. The 1996 “base year” population estimate used in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (see page 3-3)
was identified as 25,754 residents. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan anticipated a population of 28,482 in
2000, 2,529 less than the 2000 census.
The County passed Resolution #55-03 which adopted the intermediate population projection from OFM
for the period 2000-2024. The population projection anticipates a population of 46,960 in 2024, an annual
growth rate of 1.78%. The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson County, and the
population projections that were reflective of the unusual amo unt 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). The Great Recession saw slowed economic and population growth
in recent years.
Table 3 Population Trend for Jefferson County
YEAR 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2005 2008 2010
4/1/2013
OFM
ESTIMATE
County
Population 8300 6420 8346 8918 11618 9639 10661 15965 20406 27600 28800 29872 30275
Port
Townsend 4181 2847 3970 4683 6888 5074 5241 6067 7001 8745 8925 9113 9225
Percent in
Port
Townsend
50% 44% 47% 53% 59% 53% 49% 38% 34% 32% 31% 30.5% 30.47%
Jefferson County Population 1910-2007
Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management
As the table above indicates, an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the
percentage of residents living in the City of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of residents
living in the City has dropped from 59% to 30.5% per the 2010 Census, with County residential units
accounting for approximately 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 implementing provisions for the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) to have
urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater management.
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-3
(3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and
need.
Discussion: Based upon a 2004 population of 2,553 persons and the projected 20-year growth of an
additional 2,353 persons in the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA, said area will accommodate the adopted
population target of 4,906 for 2024. The holding capacity of the UGA is 5,065, some 159 persons over
the 4,906 target.
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. Aerial photography and Lidar data is available today that
wasn’t available at time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. Such information allows study and analysis
context that may provide substantiation for more refined land use designation boundaries.
(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: Changes in countywide attitudes have not been revealed that necessitate any sweeping
changes to the Plan, nor the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement.
(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 Endangere d 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 subsequent Updates to the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson
County.
Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the
Countywide Planning Policy. In 2004, Jefferson County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act,
conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those
documents and the Growth Management Act. The next periodic review is slated for the 2015
Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle in order to be complete by the June 30, 2016 deadline
established by the State of Washington.
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-4
2.2 FINAL DOCKET
Following are brief descriptions of each of the t wo (2) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference.
1. MLA12-00274, by Gary McLuen, a Site Specific Proposal to rezone land designated RR 1:10 and
RR 1:20 to all RR 1:10.
2. MLA13-00045, by John Boulton, a Site Specific Proposal to rezone land designated RF 1:40 to
Prime Agricultural (AP1:20).
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 two (2) site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are addressed in this Integrated
Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. The environmental review-based alternatives to each proposed
action component are as follows:
No Action - Continue application of the Comprehensive Plan without any or all of the proposed
amendments;
Adopt with or without modifications and/or mitigating conditions as appropriate; or
Defer for consideration during the 2015 Plan and Code Update process.
2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary
Staff recommendations for each proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each individual
proposal in part 2.3. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for
consideration. In transmitting the Planning Commission to t he 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:
2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL
NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
1 MLA12-00274 Gary McLuen;
APN 901-054-003
37.2 acres;
RR 1:20 to 1:10 Approve
2 MLA13-00045 John Boulton;
APN 802-141-005
12.7 acres;
RF 1:40 to AP 1:20 Approve
2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
Two (2) site-specific amendment proposals are evaluated in this document:
One (1) request to rezone land designated RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to all RR 1:10.
One (1) request to rezone land designated RF 1:40 to Prime Agricultural (AP 1:20).
2.3.1 Request for Change of Rural Residential Density:
MLA12-00274, McLuen
Requests for changes in Rural Residential density are subject to criteria contained at Land Use Policy 3.3
(page 3-48) 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:
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-5
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
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 proposal for residential density changes will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general
description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for this proposal is provided below.
2.3.1.1 MLA12-00274 (McLuen)
Applicant: Gary McLuen (Bill Marlow, representative)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 901054003
Location: 4932 Highway 20 Port Townsend, WA Located at mile post 5 of SR 20 on the east side of SR
20, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/SR 210 intersection.
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would redesignate approximately thirty-seven (37) acres of an approximately
58 acre parcel from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per twenty acres (RR 1:20) to Rural Residential
one dwelling unit per ten acres (RR 1:10). The subject parcel is located along the eastern portion of
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-6
Discovery Bay, uphill of SR 20 in unincorporated Jefferson County. Existing development on the site
includes a single family residence with an attached shop and a detached outbuilding.
Three zoning designations overlay the parcel. Refer to the existing land use map , Appendix A.2, page 5-
5. The northern portion is Rural Residential 1:10, the southern portion proposed for rezone under this
application is Rural Residential 1:20, and a triangular shape at the southeastern portion of the parcel is
Commercial Forest 1:80. The parcels adjacent and to the south and southwest of the parcel are zoned
RR 1:5. Parcels north and northwest of the subject site are designated RR 1:10. Lands east of the
property are Commercial Forest CF1:80.
This property is taxed as residential (Assessor’s code 1100) and obtained three forest practice permits for
timber harvest. One harvest included ten acres and was obtained in 2006 (FPA2608103), and two 20-
acre timber harvest approvals were approved in 2011 (FPA2611456 and FPA2611026). The forest
practice applications indicated the owner did not plan to convert the land from forestry use within ten
years after approval of the application. As such, the parcel is subject to a “Mandatory six year
development moratorium. For six years after the date of the application the county sh all deny any and all
applications for permits and approvals, including building permits and subdivision approvals, relating to or
for non forestry uses of land subject to the application,” per JCC 18.20.160(5)(b). The moratorium
expires October 19, 2017.
Staff determined a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a rezone is not a land use approval subject to
the moratorium. The applicant responded to staff request for comment on the change in intention to
convert the land from forestry use as follows:
It is quite simple actually at the time the FPA was filed the Mcluens had no intention of sub-
division...It was about a year later...Mr. Mcluens health situation had been declining and they
wanting an ability at some point in the future to be able to sell parts of the 60 acres that they own
in case of emergency financial issues...So they started talking about how they may move
forward...We are aware that the subdivision could not take place until the moratorium has been
lifted...In spite of that fact and time line the Mcluens felt that they would be right to spend the
investment now in preparation for the end of the moratorium and eventual subdivision...And, like
you, I didn't see where it would preclude a CPA anywhere in the rules so we moved forward...
Thanks I hope this sheds a little light on our motives and end goals... (Bill Marlow, 8/27/2013)
Moratoria may be released subject to JCC 18.20.160(5)(c). In order to obtain a full release of the
moratorium, an affirmative finding must be made that the person requesting the release did not attempt to
avoid the county review or restrictions of a conversion forest practices application, as evidenced by a
transfer of property. This process also involves a Type III process whereby a public hearing i s held before
the hearing examiner who makes the final determination.
Under current regulations, the existing owner of the property would not be able to submit an application to
subdivide the property until the moratorium expires in 2017.
The property was originally two properties and underwent a Boundary Line Adjustment (MLA04 -00473) to
consolidate the two parcels into one parcel. Critical areas noted onsite include proximity to an eagle nest,
slight landslide hazard area, some unstable soils, susceptible aquifer recharge area, and coastal
seawater intrusion protection zone. Rezoning of the property would create the potential for one additional
parcel with associated single family residential development.
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.
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-7
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA12-00274 (McLuen)
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have substantially changed since the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
The applicant states circumstances related to
area have changed since Comprehensive Plan
adoption because a boundary line adjustment
consolidation created a split zoned parcel. Staff
maintains the actions of this property owner
should not be used as substantiation for a
rezone as it may circumvent our community’s
long range planning effort. As such staff
reviewed this proposed rezone as if it were a
separate parcel in the configuration at time of
Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1998.
Circumstances have not changed substantially
since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
valid, or whether new information is available
which was not considered during the adoption
process or any annual amendments to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
However, the applicant has requested County
reconsideration of the appropriate zoning for
this parcel. Since Comprehensive plan adoption
in 1998, the County has established an informal
policy of considering “pattern of development”
using a 50% threshold. Where properties are
bordered by properties of a smaller size on 50%
of their perimeter, the Planning Commission and
Board have agreed such a “pattern of
development” of smaller density may be
supported. This 50% threshold within the larger
context of the residential density designation
criteria was not specifically considered during
the adoption process or any of the annual
amendment cycles for this parcel.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to
be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson
County residents; these views may be made
more evident through the Plan amendment
process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation
and does not adversely affect adopted level of
service standards for other public facilities and
services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements
for transportation. The proposed amendment
should not adversely impact the level of county
services.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
There are no inconsistencies with the
Comprehensive Plan. The parcel meets the
criteria for the RR 1:10 designation, and is
surrounded on two sides by zoned or platted
densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater and
one side by zoned densities of 1 d.u. per 10
acres.
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-8
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA12-00274 (McLuen)
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts
to the county’s transportation network, capital
facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental
features that cannot be mitigated, and will not
place uncompensated burdens upon existing or
planned service capabilities
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the
land use map, that the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use
designation and the anticipated land use
development, including but not limited to
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land
uses
The proposal is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation. It is similar to
the surrounding properties and their access to
utilities and land uses.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the
change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of
the county as a whole
The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to
change the land use designation of other
properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan
The site-specific proposal does not affect the
land use and population growth projections that
are the basis of the comprehensive plan. The
proposed land use will be consistent with
surrounding land uses.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within
an area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with
the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A),
the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable interjurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws
The proposed amendment meets the
requirements of GMA. The character of the
rural area will not be affected by redesignating
this property.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non -Project Action Supplemental
Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge t o water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-9
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). Any critical areas are protected per the protection standards in JCC
18.22.
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 federa l
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive
Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition that future
development be set back from the CF 1:80 zoned land located immediately adjacent and to the east as
consistent with JCC18.15.150(3)(a). The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:10 designation, and is
surrounded on two sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater and one side by
zoned densities of 1 d.u. per 10 acres.
2.3.2 Request for Change from Rural Forest to
Agricultural Resource Land Designation:
MLA13-00045, Boulton
Requests for changes from Forest Resource Lands to Agricultural Resource Lands must be considered
against Agricultural Resource designation criteria with consideration of the Forest Resource classification
and set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Relevant sections of the
Comprehensive Plan are included below and in the section 2.3.3.1.1 General Description and
Environmental Information below.
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-10
Agricultural Lands
Classification and Designation of Agricultural Land
It is Jefferson County’s intent to protect and foster opportunites for the successful practice of agriculture.
The land in Jefferson County was examined to assess the long-term commercial viability of parcels
considered for agriculture zoning. While undeveloped land with prime agricultural soils as identified in the
Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington, clearly must be
preserved, additional parcels also have long term commercial significance for agriculture at the local
level. Successful, commercial agriculture can be practiced on many types of soils, through a variety of
environmentally sound means on small parcels as well as large. Economically val uable agriculture does
not have to be the exclusive support of a family. Small ventures that simply augment family income are
valuable to the land owner and the community as a whole. The guidelines, listed below, taken as a whole
and interpreted on a parcel by parcel basis, direct which parcels of land are suitable for designation as
Agricultural Lands of Long Term Significance. No single guideline is considered essential for agricultural
designation nor is there a minimum lot size threshold.
NRG 1.0 Encourage the conservation of resource lands and the long -term sustainable use of
natural resource-based economic activities throughout Jefferson County.
NRP 1.6 Support cooperative resource management among natural resource landowners,
environmental groups, state, federal and tribal governments.
NRG 10.0 Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and its associated lifestyle.
NRP 10.3 Support the conservation of agricultural
NRP 10.9 Encourage the preservation of family owned farms by discouraging the conversion of these
lands to other uses.
2.3.3.1 MLA13-00045 (Boulton)
Reference Number: MLA13-00045
Applicant: John Boulton (Doug Mason, agent)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 802141005 and 802141006
Location: Located at 780 Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately 0.7 miles
south west of the northern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection and 0.4 miles northwest of
the southern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection.
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The request would change the current land use designation of an approximately 12.7 acre portion of
parcels 802141005 and 802141006 from Rural Forest one dwelling unit per forty acres (RF 1:40) to Prime
Agriculture one dwelling unit per twenty acres (AP:20).
The subject portions of these parcels span both sides of Boulton Rd. The north-south orientation and
location of the quarter section map likely influenced the location of the change from forest land
designation to agriculture land designation. Currently, both 802141005 and 802141006 are split zoned.
A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County reveals that the property encompasses
land mapped as susceptible aquifer recharge area, wetlands, seismic hazard, a Type F stream (Andrews
Creek), and a Type N stream.
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-11
Redesignation and rezoning of the property would not likely increase the permissible dwelling unit density
of the property. The land in question is less than 20 acres and could be absorbed into the existing
surrounding agriculture land owned by Mr. Boulton.
The land in question, encompasses Soils within the area proposed for rezone include:
Belfast fine sandy loam (Bf)
Belfast silt loam, wet variant (Bk)
Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (Cf D)
Cathcart gravelly silt loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes (ClE)
Wapato silty clay loams (Wa)
During review of the proposal, staff noted the treed area area at the southern portion of the property
proposed for rezone with soils mapped as Casolary sandy loam . Given it is currently treed; it did not
appear to be historically used for agriculture. Staff sought input from the representative about inclusion of
the treed area with this rezone application. The response follows:
Thank you for your inquiry about the Boulton Farm conservation easement and the relation to the
GMA amendment proposal. As you know, Jefferson Land Trust is working with John Boulton to
see that the agricultural values of the Boulton Farm are protected through a conservation
easement, and we anticipate purchase of the easement will take place in the next few months.
The boundaries of the conservation easement protected property are indicated on the attached
survey ( the most recent survey map - please disregard the map I sent you just a few minutes
ago.) The boundary of the conservation easement protected area will define the farm property
from the forest property. As you noted, the new surveyed boundary of parcel #3 on the attached
map, compared to the map that you were provided with the GMA application has been slightly
modified. This modification took place primarily to include an existing farm road that is in use for
agricultural operations within the proposed conservation easement area. This area also includes
some forested acreage within the farm boundaries, since a working forest component can provide
multiple benefits to the farm including wood products for agricultural buildings, firewood, and
shade for farm animals.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks - Sarah Spaeth 9/3/2013
Staff understands there are benefits Mr. Boulton may have enjoyed while farming and managing adjacent
forest jointly due to common ownership and proximity. For practical purposes, he used his land as
needed to accommodate both uses. The home intended for sale along with the farm is located on forest
land. The original home burned down and was rep laced in the same footprint in 2010. Further, the
representative explained that the treed areas are beneficial for a working farm.
This farm is historical, continuously productive, and owned by the same landowner as the adjacent forest
lands. While historically beneficial, the applicant proposes it is not financia lly viable for a new farmer to
purchase both the farm and large forest land tracts. It is common practice for farmers to live on the land
they farm. It is not always typical for foresters to live on the land they manage for timber. This historical
benefit should not preclude the future division of the forest land from the home and farm.
The Comprehensive Plan intends to maintain the uses of our resource lands for the future. It does not
mandate the continued joint ownership of differing land uses acr oss zoning districts. Further, the unique
nature of this farm ensures this action is not likely to set precedence for future rezones of portions of rural
forest land adjacent to agriculture unless the home for managing the farm historically (pre -GMA) is
located on the adjacent forest land.
2.3.3.1.2
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-12
Table 4-2
Guidelines for Classification of Agricultural Resource Lands in Jefferson County
MLA13-00045
Boulton
1. Presence of prime agricultural
soil as the Natural Resources
Conservation Service’s Soil
Survey of Jefferson County,
Washington on a significant
portion of the parcel.
A significant portion of prime agricultural soils
should be approximately one third or more of
the parcel.
Met
2. Historic usage for agriculture. Land which has been used for agriculture for
a number of years or can be converted back
to active agriculture, even if it is currently
lying fallow, should be given high priority for
agricultural designation.
Met
3. Parcels of land 10 acres or
larger in size should be given
strong consideration however
smaller parcels may also be
highly suitable for agricultural
designation.
Some types of agriculture are best practiced
on parcels ten acres and larger and they
should be given high priority for agricultural
designation. Smaller parcels considered
suitable for agriculture designation, which are
adjacent to residentially designated land,
may be subject to increased regulatory
oversight for some types of agricultural
practices.
Met
4. Participation by parcel owner in
the Open Space Tax Program for
Agricultural Land.
Participation in the Open Space Tax
Program is not a
requirement for agricultural designation;
however, it is a good
indication of qualifying land.
Met
5. Located away from existing
land uses that would interfere with
agricultural practices.
Some existing land uses would interfere with
agricultural activities such as uses, which
pollute. Residential uses are not considered
uses, which would interfere with agricultural
practices. The possibility that agricultural
uses practiced according to Best
Management Practices, may interfere with
residential uses shall not be a reason to deny
agricultural designation of a parcel.
Met
6. Located outside of areas
already served with “urban
governmental services” which are
typically provided in cities.
Areas where the public has already made a
significant investment in services suited to
urban levels of development such as storm
and sanitary sewers, street cleaning
services, urban levels of fire and police
protection, etc. are no longer suitable to be
classified as a natural resource to be
protected from more intense development.
Met
7. Location outside of existing
Master Planned Resort (MPR) or
Urban Growth Area (UGA) land
use designations.
Undeveloped land with prime agricultural
soils was not included in Jefferson County’s
designated UGA or MPR areas, therefore
any additional undeveloped parcels in those
areas should be preserved for more intensive
development and not designated as
agricultural lands of long term commercial
significance.
Met
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-13
8. Currently in commercial
agricultural use.
Land currently being used for any type or
scale of commercial agriculture should be
given high priority for agricultural
designation.
Met
9. Physically and topographically
suitable for the practice of
commercial agriculture.
Some land which is excessively steep, wet,
unstable, prone to frequent flooding, primarily
rock cliffs, etc. is clearly not suitable for
designation as agricultural land of long term
commercial significance.
Met
10. If currently designated as
Rural Forest (RF-40) land has
already been platted into 20 acre
or smaller parcels.
A rezone from Rural Forest designation to
Agricultural designation must not result in
creating an increase in allowable residential
density. Therefore only those Rural Forest
parcels already platted in 20 acres or smaller
lot sizes may be considered for
eclassification to Agricultural designation.
Not met, but
as proposed
would meet
the intent by
only rezoning
a portion of
the property
thus not
allowing
additional
residential
density.
11. Is not currently designated as
Commercial Forest (CF-80).
Commercial Forest land has been
designated based on soil suitability for
forestry and should not be converted to
agricultural designation.
Met
12. Is not currently designated as
Inholding Forest (IF).
This land is located within Commercial
Forest designation areas and it has poor
soils for agriculture and is not suitable for
agricultural designation.
Met
Table 4-2a
Criteria for Agriculture Land Designation Prime
Agricultural Land (AP-20)
MLA13-00045
Boulton
Land designated as Prime Agricultural Land shall
meet
the following criteria:
• consist, in substantial proportion, of land with
prime agricultural soils as defined by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey of
Jefferson County, Washington; and
Met
• be in regions of the county where commercial
agriculture is the current and historically
predominant use including but not limited to the
following areas:
o Quimper Peninsula
o Beaver Valley
o Chimacum Valley
o Discovery Bay Valley
o Quilcene River Valley
o Tarboo Valley
o Dosewallips Valley
o West Jefferson County valleys; and
Met
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-14
• is not currently served by “urban governmental
services”; and
Met
• is in an area characterized by a substantial
proportion of undeveloped parcels of land 20 acres
or greater in size; and
Met
• is outside of any area designated as Master
Planned
Resort (MPR) or Urban Growth Area (UGA); and
Met
• is in an area where no existing land uses are
present, which will seriously interfere with the
successful long term practice of a range of
agricultural activities; and
Met
• does not include land currently designated Rural
Forest (RF-40) presently in a parcel size 40 acres
or larger, or Commercial Forest (CF-80) or
Inholding Forest (IF).
Met as proposed and
meets intent by only
rezoning a portion of
the property and thus
not allowing additional
residential density.
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 – MLA13-00045: Boulton
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to the area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1998, however, the owner
is aging and would like to provide arrangements for
continued use of the farm subsequent to his
ownership.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to be
inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County
residents.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal would appear to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The current RF 1:40
zoning and agriculture zoning are appropriate, the
applicant just wishes to demarcate the boundary to
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-15
accurately reflect management of the farm.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts to the
county’s transportation network, capital facilities,
utilities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities
The proposed amendment will not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but
not limited to access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable
for the requested land use designation.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the
long-term best interests of the county as a whole
Approval of the proposal would not likely increase
pressure to convert Rural Forest Resource Lands
to Agriculture, nor would it erode the overall
purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan (CP).
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect the land
use and population growth projections that are the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan polices and designation
criteria governing agricultural resource lands.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non -Project Action Supplemental
Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The proposal would not result in additional residential development. Potential plans for expansion of
accessory agricultural uses would be encouraged consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
2-16
development regulations. Any such project-specific development that may occur as a result of the
proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and
local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific
development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation
standards.
Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural
sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
Though the subject parcel contains wetland areas, and stream environment, ongoing protection of these
areas under the County’s critical areas regulations would help to prevent any adverse impacts of potential
future development.
Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive
Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition that the applicant
apply for a boundary line adjustment to align the parcel boundaries along the edge of the conservation
easement and new zoning boundary.
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2013
3-1
3 Supporting Record, Analyses, & Materials
The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and information utilized for
the development of this 2013 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
July 19, 2006 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2006 Amendment Docket
September 5, 2007 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2007 Amendment Docket
September 3, 2008 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2008Amendment Docket
September 2, 2009 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2009 Amendment Docket
September 1, 2010 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2010 Amendment Docket
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
3-2
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013
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
Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4 -
Brinnon
State Agencies:
Department of Fish & Wildlife (Jeff Davis)
Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic
Development: Growth Management Services
Department of Ecology (GMA Review)
Department of Ecology SEPA Unit Puget Sound Partnership
(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
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
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007
4-2
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]