HomeMy WebLinkAbout_CPA08_Staff_Rpt_FullDoc_web
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT DOCKET
STAFF REPORT AND SEPA ADDENDUM
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
with Environmental Analysis
for the Adoption of Amendments
to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and Unified Development Code
September 3, 2008
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
Al Scalf, Director
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner
Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner
Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner
Ryan Hunter, Assistant Planner
Technical Contributors
Department of Central Services
Doug Noltemeier, Senior GIS Analyst
Logistical Contributors
Department of Community Development
Rose Ann Carroll, Office Coordinator
Jeanie Orr, Planning Clerk – Long Range Planning
Table of Contents
Page
1 Environmental Summary & Fact Sheet....................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Fact Sheet ..........................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Environmental Summary....................................................................................1-5
1.2.1 Introduction & Process .......................................................................... 1-5
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents ..................... 1-5
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference............................... 1-6
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis .............................................. 1-6
1.2.1.4 Process & Public Involvement.................................................. 1-7
1.2.2 Major Conclusions................................................................................. 1-9
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts & Mitigation Measures................. 1-9
1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current & Proposed Land Use Designations 1-12
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................. 1-14
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty .................................. 1-14
1.2.4 Issues to be Resolved.........................................................................1-18
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to be Made ....................................... 1-18
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures ..................................... 1-18
1.2.4.3 Main Options to be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action... 1-19
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals ............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Overview.............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Individual & Cumulative Impact Analysis, & Staff Recommendations .. 2-1
2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators............................................................2-1
2.2 Final Docket ....................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary ........................................................ 2-5
2.3 Staff Reports: Site-Specific Amendments ........................................................ 2-6
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (3) ......................... 2-7
2.3.1.1 MLA08-32 (D. Holland)............................................................. 2-9
2.3.1.2 MLA08-69 (George)............................................................... 2-14
2.3.1.3 MLA08-84 (Broders) ..............................................................2-19
2.3.1.4 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Rural
Residential Density ................................................................. 2-25
2.3.2 Request for Change from Commercial Forest Resource Land
Designation to combination of Rural Forest, Agriculture of Local
Significance, or Rural Residential Densities (1).................................. 2-25
2.3.2.1 MLA08-56 (Brown/Goldsmith)................................................ 2-32
i
2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change of Forest Resource
Land Designation to combination of Rural Forest, Agriculture of
Local Significance, and Rural Residential.............................. 2-26
2.3.3 Request for Change from Commercial Forest Land Designation to Rural
Residential (1) ....................................................................................2-37
2.3.3.1 MLA08-73 (Jackson).............................................................. 2-38
2.3.3.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Forest
Resource Land Designation to Rural Residential .................. 2-42
2.3.4 Request for Application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay to an
Underlying Commercial Forest Land Designation............................... 2-42
2.3.4.1 MLA08-93 (Pope Resources)................................................. 2-48
2.3.4.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Application of the Mineral
Resource Land Overlay Designation to an Underlying Forest
Resource Land Designation................................................... 2-54
2.3.5 Request for Change from Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
Designation to Light Industrial (1)....................................................... 2-54
2.3.5.1 MLA08-101 (Hendy)............................................................... 2-59
2.3.5.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from
Resource-Based Industrial Zone RBIZ) to Light Industrial..... 2-62
2.3.6 Request for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural
Commercial (1) ................................................................................... 2-62
2.3.6.1 MLA08-96 (M. Holland) .......................................................... 2-66
2.3.6.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Rural
Residential Designation to Rural Commercial........................ 2-69
3 Supporting Record, Analysis, & Materials.................................................................. 3-1
4 Distribution List ............................................................................................................4-1
5 Appendices ............................................................................................................... 5-1
A. Location Maps of Proposed Amendments ....................................................A-1
A-1 MLA 08-32 (D. Holland) – Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone ................A-2
A-2 MLA 08-56 (Brown/Goldsmith) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone.......A-3
(MLA08-59 (Guise) was withdrawn on August 27, 2008)
A-4 MLA08-69 (George) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone.......................A-4
A-5 MLA08-73 (Jackson) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone......................A-5
A-6 MLA08-84 (Broders) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone.......................A-6
A-7 MLA08-93 (Pope Resources) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone ........A-7
A-7a MLA08-93 (Burnett/Pope Resources) – Viewshed Map ....................................A-8
A-8 MLA08-96 (M. Holland) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone..................A-9
A-9 MLA08-101 (Hendy) – Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone....................A-10
B. Legal Notice published September 3, 2008 ...................................................B-1
ii
C. MLA08-101 (Hendy) – Comprehensive Plan Line-in/Line-out Changes......C-1
D. MLA08-389 - Unified Development Code Line-in/Line-out Changes...........D-1
E. Jefferson County Resolution No. 55-03, September 22, 2003 .....................E-1
iii
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 eight (8) individual amendment proposals
to the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and one (1) amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC). All eight (8) are site-specific amendment
proposals (one of which is for a Mineral Resource
Land Overlay (MRLO), that comprise the 2008
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
eight (8) 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 eight (8)
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
and one (1) UDC amendment 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. MLA08-32; Dave Holland/Davos Capital LLC;
corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue,
Port Townsend, WA; 14.02 acres (APN 001-
064-002); RR 1:10 to 1:5.
1 The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) on July 7, 2008 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing thirteen
(13) items.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-2
2. MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown
Trust (David Goldsmith, agent); one mile west
of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center
Roads, Chimacum, WA; 116 acres (APN 801-
091-010, application under number
801091002); for 80 acres, request is CF 1:80
to RF 1:40; and for 36 acres, request is CF
1:80 to RR 1:20 or AL 1:20.
3. MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472
South Edwards Road, Port Townsend, WA; 20
acres (APN 001-191-002); RR 1:20 to 1:10.
4. MLA08-73; James Jackson/Chimacum
Heights LLC; near Chimacum, WA; 120 acres
(APN 901-132-002); CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
5. MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR
Partnership; 0.3 miles down Cleveland Street,
off Oak Bay Road near Port Hadlock, WA; 38
acres (APN 901-121-001); RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
6. MLA08-93; James Burnett/Pope Resources);
three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge
immediately north of Highway 104, and
adjacent to the Shine Quarry, Port Ludlow,
WA; 142 acres (APNs 821-324-002, 821-311-
001, 821-291-002, and 821-302-001); CF 1:80
to Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO).
7. MLA08-96; Michael Holland/Blue Moon
Investments; intersection of Shine Road and
Highway 104; 0.50 acres (APN 821-333-001);
RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood
Visitor Crossroads (NC)).
8. MLA08-101; Catherine Hendy/Gerard
Company; 5411 Center Road, Chimacum,
WA; 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres (APNs 801-102-
004 and 801-102-002 respectively); request is
to rezone less than 4 acres on the first parcel
from Resource Based Industrial (RBIZ) to
Light Industrial.
Suggested UDC Amendment:
1. MLA08-389: Removing specific identification of
locations from Industrial zoning references and
changes reflecting the re-designation of the
Center Valley Resource Based Industrial Zone
to Light Industrial.
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for
the eight (8) 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:
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-3
Stacie Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager
(360) 379-4463
Contact Person(s):
Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4482
or
Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4472
or
Ryan Hunter, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4464
Authors and Principal
Contributors
Jefferson County Department of Community
Development Long-Range Planning
Date of Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
September 3, 2008
Date Comments are Due For all eight amendment proposals:
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning
Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at the
Washington State University (WSU) Extension
Office, Spruce Room, Port Hadlock, WA.
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30
p.m. on Friday, October 3, 2008. 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 17, 2008, at the
WSU Extension Office, Spruce Room, Port Hadlock,
WA. In mid-November, DCD expects to transmit to
the BoCC a final DCD Staff Recommendation together
with the Planning Commission Recommendation for
all proposals on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket and the one related UDC
amendment.
Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the
eight (8) Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals
and the one UDC amendment under consideration is
expected sometime prior to the end of the second
week in December 2008. 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 2008
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-4
process. This web page can be accessed from the
Jefferson County website:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
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 4:30 PM, Monday through
Friday, at the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port
Townsend WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Appointments
are welcome.
Relation to Other Documents A series of documents have been prepared by or on
behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations (i.e., the Unified
Development Code (UDC) codified 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 Copies of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum, or selected pages thereof, are available at
no cost from the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development (DCD) and are also
available for free on Compact Disk. The documents
can be downloaded in PDF format from the DCD web
page dedicated to the 2008 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
1-5
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
1.2.1 Introduction and Process
Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA)
on August 28, 1998 and updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. The Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that guides growth and future land use decisions in
Jefferson County. In each successive year since initial adoption, the County has conducted a
Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle as provided by the GMA. JCC 18.45 contains the set of
development regulations adopted in December 2000 to guide the process for amending the
Comprehensive Plan. The 2008 “Preliminary Docket” included thirteen (13) proposed
amendments (ten (10) site-specific amendments and three (3) suggested amendments.)
Consistent with JCC §18.45, all site-specific amendments (formal applications submitted in
conjunction with a fee) automatically qualified for the “Final Docket.” Two site-specific
amendment applications, MLA08-87 and MLA08-59, were withdrawn in writing by the applicants.
MLA08-87 was withdrawn on May 9, 2008, and MLA08-59 was withdrawn on August 27, 2008
(leaving eight (8) site-specific amendments). The Jefferson County Planning Commission heard
testimony on three (3) suggested amendments on the Preliminary Docket and formulated a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) regarding the composition of the
Final Docket. The BoCC then established the Final Docket, declining to docket the three (3)
suggested amendments and establishing the eight (8) site-specific amendments as the total
number of amendment proposals on the Final Docket. One (1) UDC amendment is also
associated with this amendment process as it amends the Development Regulations relating to
one of the proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals.
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 incorporated 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 3, 2008
(Appendix A):
• Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in
anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS, dated
February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, examined the potential cumulative
environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan;
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-6
• 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.
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The eight (8) Comprehensive Plan amendment applications and one (1) UDC amendment
application, 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 eight (8) 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 2008 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 programmatic document, such as an integrated GMA/SEPA document addressing
comprehensive plan amendments, to other documents that are narrower in scope, such as site-
specific, project-level analyses (i.e., “project actions” under SEPA).
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-7
Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth
management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum will be
used to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan 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
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, related UDC amendment, and associated Staff
Report and SEPA Addendum.
This 2008 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. DCD staff compiled the preliminary Comprehensive Plan amendment docket
following the March 1, 2008 deadline for applications set forth in JCC 18.45.040 (2) (a).
On April 9, 2008, the Planning Commission and BoCC held a joint workshop to gather information
and review both site-specific and suggested preliminary docketing recommendations.
The site-specific proposals were docketed automatically. After timely and effective public notice,
the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing on April 16, 2008, to receive public
comment on the suggested amendments of the preliminary docket.
On April 16, 2008, the Planning Commission transmitted its final docketing report and
recommendations to the BoCC.
On June 9, 2008, after timely and effective public notice, the BoCC held an open-record public
hearing on the three suggested amendments on the preliminary docket.
On July 7, 2008, the BoCC adopted the 2008 Final Docket of eight (8) 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 2008
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (2008 Docket) and the associated UDC amendment.
Formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County
Leader, prior to the public hearings.
The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, September 3, 2008,
initiates a public comment period. For the eight (8) site-specific amendment proposals
comprising the final docket and the associated one (1) UDC amendment:
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at WSU Extension Office, Spruce Room, Port Hadlock.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-8
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through
4:30 p.m. on Friday, October 3, 2008.
Please submit any written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or
via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Comments submitted prior to the close of the
comment period will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration during that
advisory body’s deliberations. Please note that the Planning Commission may elect at its
discretion to schedule an additional date and time for oral comments, and/or extend the period in
which written comments may be accepted.
Written public comments submitted after close of the Planning Commission comment period will
be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative
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 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where many relevant documents
and maps are available in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 2008 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 17, and may
continue deliberating on the proposed amendments during its regularly scheduled meetings of
October 15, 2008, and November 1, 2008. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will
forward a recommendation and transmittal document to the BoCC on all proposed amendments
by Wednesday, November 19, 2008.
The Planning Commission generally meets the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at
the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock. It is
possible that the Planning Commission will hold one or more special meetings outside of the
meeting schedule outlined above. Additional meetings will be properly noticed in the legal section
of the Leader. Following the completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the
2008 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 2008.
In making a final legislative decision on the 2008 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
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-9
in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing any
BoCC public hearings on the 2008 Docket.
A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals
under consideration is expected prior to the end of the second week in December 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
encouraged. Generally, information presented elsewhere is not reprinted here.
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for
mitigation measures and conditions are within the individual staff 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).
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
1
MLA08-32; Dave
Holland/Davos
Capital LLC; corner
of Arabian Lane and
Hastings Avenue,
Port Townsend, WA;
14.02 acres (APN
001-064-002); RR
1:10 to 1:5.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-10
2
MLA08-56; Gloria
Brown, Trustee, BG
Brown Trust (David
Goldsmith, agent);
one mile west of the
intersection of
Eaglemount and
Center Roads,
Chimacum, WA; 116
acres (APN 801-091-
010, application
under number 801-
091-002); for 80
acres, request is CF
1:80 to RF 1:40; and
for 36 acres, request
is CF 1:80 to RR 1:20
or AL 1:20.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Deny.
3
MLA08-69; Jeffrey
and Tamara
George; 472 South
Edwards Road, Port
Townsend, WA; 20
acres (APN 001-
191-002); RR 1:20
to 1:10.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Deny.
4
MLA08-73; James
Jackson/Chimacum
Heights LLC; near
Chimacum, WA; 120
acres (APN 901-132-
002); CF 1:80 to RR
1:10.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Deny.
5
MLA08-84; Richard
Broders/CMR
Partnership; 0.3 miles
down Cleveland
Street, off Oak Bay
Road near Port
Hadlock, WA; 38
acres (APN 901-121-
001); RR 1:20 to RR
1:5.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Deny.
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
APPLICATION NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-11
6
MLA08-93; James
Burnett/Pope
Resources); three
miles west of the Hood
Canal Bridge
immediately north of
Highway 104, and
adjacent to the Shine
Quarry, Port Ludlow,
WA; 142 acres (APNs
821-324-002, 821-
311-001, 821-291-002,
and 821-302-001); CF
1:80 to Mineral
Resource Land
Overlay (MRLO).
Yes. SEPA Mitigated
Determination of Non-
Significance (MDNS). The
Mineral Resource Land
Overlay (MRLO) is a
zoning/planning tool with full
expectation that mining may
occur within the overlay zone,
within the standards and
guidelines in Jefferson
County Code and applicable
state and federal laws.
Approval of the MRLO would
increase the likelihood of
wetland impacts, water
quantity & quality concerns,
noise, light, glare, dust and
traffic impacts. Complying
with Conditions for approval
can mitigate these impacts.
Approve with with modifications and
mitigating measures as conditions of
approval.
The following reports would need to
be prepared:
Visual impact analysis;
Habitat Management Plan;
Stormwater Pollution Plan;
Report on existing noise levels and
Supplemental Noise Report for Iron
Mountain Quarry (IMQ) mine
operation;
Mine site illumination report: light and
glare analysis;
Transportation report with
Transportation Impacts Analysis;
Hydro-geological report: groundwater
supply and water quality of recharge;
Wetland Inventory
7
MLA08-96; Michael
Holland/Blue Moon
Investments;
intersection of Shine
Road and Highway
104; 0.50 acres (APN
821-333-001); RR 1:5
to Rural Commercial
(Neighborhood/Visitor
Crossroad (NC)).
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve with modification.
8
MLA08-101 (and
associated UDC
amendment MLA08-
389); Catherine
Hendy/Gerard
Company; 5411
Center Road,
Chimacum, WA; 9.5
acres and 1.2 acres
(APNs 801-102-004
and 801-102-002
respectively); request
is to rezone less than
4 acres on the first
parcel from Resource
Based Industrial
(RBIZ) to Light
Industrial.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve with modification.
The property has been identified as
potentially needing environmental
remediation as part of any new
development.
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
APPLICATION NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-12
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 with “+” 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 ground. They are, however, the best approximation available
at this time. The purpose of the table is to set a context for the legislative decision before the
Board of County Commissioners for this year’s amendment cycle.
All acreage figures in the following table are in gross acres, including road rights-of-way and
some water features. The net developable acreage would be lower.
Table 2. Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District
Designations
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2007 Plan)
Potential Future
Gross Acreage
Under Applicant
Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation
Rural Residential
RR 1:5 29,244 29,295.5
(+ 51.5 approx.)
29,257.5
(+ 13.5 approx.)
RR 1:10 9,689 9,815
(+ 126 approx.)
9,675
(-14 approx.)
RR 1:20 51,3412
51,283
(- 58 approx.)
No change
Incorporated UGA
Port Townsend UGA 4,466 No change No change
LAMIRDs
Rural Village Centers
(Hadlock, Brinnon,
Quilcene)
242 No change No change
General Crossroads 96 No change No change
Convenience
Crossroads
11 No change 11.5
(+ .5)
Neighborhood
Crossroads
122 122.5
(+ .5)
No change
Master Planned Resort
MPR - Village
Commercial Center
43 3
No change No change
MPR - Resort
Complex 10:1
57 No change No change
MPR - Multiple Family
10:1
75 No change No change
MPR - Single Family 1,431 No change No change
2 MLA08-56: applicant requests that 36 acres be rezoned either Agriculture of Local Significance (AL 1:20),
or Rural Residential (RR) 1:20. Here the assumption is that the AL 1:20 designation is used; however,
approval could result in a 36-acre increase in RR 1:20, and a corresponding 36-acre decrease in AL 1:20, as
represented in this table.
3 Gross Acreage under proposal MLA06-87, addressed through a separate EIS and approved in January
2008, increased overall MPR areas by 256 acres (approx.) however, zoning within the MPR has not as of
this writing been allocated.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-13
Table 2. Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District
Designations
Land Use
Designation/Zoning
District
Current Gross
Acreage
(2007 Plan)
Potential Future
Gross Acreage
Under Applicant
Proposals
Potential Future Gross
Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation
Rural Residential
4:1
MPR - Single Family
Tracts 1:2.5
114 No change No change
MPR - Recreation
Area
259 No change No change
MPR - Open Space
Reserve
356 No change No change
Parks & National Forest
Parks, Preserves,
Recreation - Not MPR
2,859 No change No change
Olympic National
Forest
57,299 No change No change
Olympic National Park 139,463 No change No change
Forestlands
Rural Forest 8,645 8,725
(+ 80 approx.)
No change
Commercial Forest 310,327 310,091
(- 236 approx.)
No change
Forestlands, continued
Inholding Forest 7,228 No change No change
Resource Based
Industrial Zone
152 148
(- 4 approx.)
148
(- 4 approx.)
Agricultural
Commercial
Agriculture
4,296 No change No change
Agricultural Lands of
Local Significance
3,220 3,256
(+ 36 approx.)
No change
Industrial
Heavy Industry (Mill) 278 No change No change
Light Industrial 72 76
(+ 4 approx.)
76
(+ 4 approx.)
Light Industrial/
Manufacturing
(Quilcene, Eastview)
56 No change No change
Light Industrial/
Commercial (Glen
Cove)
90 No change No change
Essential Public Facilities
Airport EPF 287 No change No change
Military Reservation 3,452 No change No change
Waste Management
EPF
241 No change No change
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-14
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
1
MLA08-32; Dave
Holland/Davos
Capital LLC; corner
of Arabian Lane and
Hastings Avenue,
Port Townsend, WA;
14.02 acres (APN
001-064-002); RR
1:10 to 1:5.
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?
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. Changing the zoning
of the rural residential 1:10 parcel would not directly 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
1-15
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
2
MLA08-56; Gloria
Brown, Trustee, BG
Brown Trust (David
Goldsmith, agent);
one mile west of the
intersection of
Eaglemount and
Center Roads,
Chimacum, WA; 116
acres (APN 801-091-
010, application
under number 801-
091-002); for 80
acres, request is CF
1:80 to RF 1:40; and
for 36 acres, request
is CF 1:80 to RR 1:20
or AL 1:20.
The application states the property is misclassified as Commercial
Forest land, and the property is not part of a Forest Land Block of at
least 320 acres. However, forest land is located south of the property.
When one incorporates the Rural Forest land and the forest land
extending south of highway 104, the property is part of an uninterrupted
zoned forest land block in excess of 320 acres.
The application states that a portion of the zoned forest land is pasture
land and has been pasture land for some time. While pasture land does
exist within the zoned forest land, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits
the County from rezoning the zoned forest land to agricultural land. The
appropriate time for protesting the designation of the pasture land as
forest land would have been during the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan in 1998 or 2004. Since the plan was not appealed on this issue at
that time, the zoning is presumed valid and any subsequent
amendments must comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
3
MLA08-69; Jeffrey and
Tamara George; 472
South Edwards Road,
Port Townsend, WA;
20 acres (APN 001-
191-002); RR 1:20 to
1:10.
In the past, the primary approach to assessing rural residential rezone
applications has been the application of LNP 3.3 of the comprehensive
plan, especially with regards to the “an established pattern of same or
similar sized parcels” language. The general approach to applying the
‘established pattern’ language has been use of at least 50% of the
parcel being bordered by greater residential density, in which a
property is determined to be part of an established pattern of greater
density. However, application of the established pattern in this way is
somewhat arbitrary and applying this ‘established pattern’ criterion in
isolation of consideration of the rest of the comprehensive plan is
problematic.
The application of the 50%-bounded established pattern could lead to
unintended long-term, cumulative consequences, including:
• creating a ‘domino effect’ in which rezones often
trigger the potential for up-zoning adjacent properties
to higher density
• drawing population growth away from urban areas
• undermining the goals of the GMA and
Comprehensive Plan by creating new opportunities for
subdivisions which may create rural residential lots
without consideration of the overall projected 20-year
future population growth and its allocation to rural
areas
• reducing the variety of rural densities that is called for
in the GMA and Comprehensive Plan
• reducing the overall rural character, open space, and
native vegetation the County is called to retain in the
Comprehensive Plan without an adequate level of
visioning, planning, and cumulative effects analysis
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-16
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
4
MLA08-73; James
Jackson/Chimacum
Heights LLC; near
Chimacum, WA; 120
acres (APN 901-132-
002); CF 1:80 to RR
1:10.
The application refers to the “Guidelines for Classification of Forest
Resource Lands in Jefferson County” in arguing for the rezoning of
this property. However, these guidelines cannot be considered in
isolation of the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, which calls on the
County to classify and designate natural resource lands. The
Comprehensive Plan establishes a number of Natural Resources
Goals (NRG 1 through 5) which encourage conservation of forest
resources, sustainability of forest resources, environmental
compatibility, minimization of land use conflicts and encouraging
the continuation of forestry on commercial lands as well as lands
which are not designated as commercial forest resource lands.
The application states the property has been poorly managed in the
past and it will not provide a primary income for the applicant. Poor
management in the past, as unfortunate as that is, cannot be a
consideration in the County’s analysis; to do so could inadvertently
create an incentive for other forest land owners to poorly manage
their land in order to justify a rezone to residential use. Also, the
property’s Forest Management Plan states that this property can be
expected to produce high quality timber and that the Douglas firs
and red cedars are growing at an ideal level for the given
conditions. Large scale commercial harvest needs to consider a
typical rotation cycle for commercial forest land of 40-60 years to
assess financial viability. It should be noted that the applicant
purchased this property in July of 2007, subsequent to the alleged
poor management.
5
MLA08-84; Richard
Broders/CMR
Partnership; 0.3 miles
down Cleveland
Street, off Oak Bay
Road near Port
Hadlock, WA; 38
acres (APN 901-121-
001); RR 1:20 to RR
1:5.
The 38-acre parcel, zoned RR 1:20, is situated in the middle of the
local promontory or ness. It is immediately surrounded by land
zoned rural residential 1:5. A broader view of the area reveals
other RR 1:20 parcels in the immediate vicinity.
The application suggests an error on part of Jefferson County for
not zoning the entire area as RR 1:5 in the 2004 Comprehensive
Plan. However, the zoning of RR1:20 is consistent and reflective of
the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the
Land Use and Rural, Open Space, and Environment elements.
Further, the parcel conforms to the definition and purpose of
RR1:20 in JCC 18.15.015 (1)(c).
The application provides supporting argument for the rezone
request utilizing the aforementioned 50%-bounded established
pattern, noting the surrounding RR1:5 parcels and relating it to the
established pattern criterion. As discussed above in MLA08-69,
this criterion used to establish zoning districts should not be used in
isolation of other considerations including lot supply, variety of rural
densities, critical areas on the parcel, maintaining rural character,
avoiding rural sprawl and the parcel’s proximity to the proposed
Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-17
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
6
MLA08-93; James
Burnett/Pope
Resources); three
miles west of the
Hood Canal Bridge
immediately north of
Highway 104, and
adjacent to the Shine
Quarry, Port Ludlow,
WA; 142 acres
(APNs 821-324-002,
821-311-001, 821-
291-002, and 821-
302-001); CF 1:80 to
Mineral Resource
Land Overlay
(MRLO).
This proposal raises the issue as to how JCC 18.15.170(6) should
be applied to individual requests for application of the MRL Overlay
designation. Many of the County’s most productive resource lands
contain significant fish and wildlife habitat resources. Should the
criterion identified in JCC 18.15.170 (6) be interpreted as precluding
application of the overlay to areas containing designated and
mapped fish and wildlife habitat areas?
If significant adverse impacts are probable in the project-level
analysis as demonstrated in the application, the question arises as
to what level of mitigation should be prescribed in an MRLO.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort community is located in
close proximity to this proposal and has expressed concern about
potential impacts from the proposed mining activity. GMA gives
preference to natural resources when planning land use. Iron
Mountain Quarry maintains they have existing use rights to mine in
this area and do not need a MRLO. How should these conflicting
land uses be balanced?
7
MLA08-96; Michael
Holland/Blue Moon
Investments;
intersection of Shine
Road and Highway
104; .50 acres (APN
821-333-001); RR 1:5
to Rural Commercial
(Neighborhood/Visitor
Crossroad (NC)).
In recent years, proposals of this type have raised questions
regarding reconsideration of Local Area of More Intense Rural
Development or “LAMIRD” boundaries. In this case, the
designation criteria have been met. The proposal is consistent with
the criteria for LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). It
would not likely detract from the overall intention of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan.
Subject property qualifies as a limited area of more intensive
development (LAMIRD) with a Convenience Crossroads (CC)
designation, not a designation of Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads
(NC), as requested in the application.
8 MLA08-101 (and
associated UDC
amendment MLA08-
389); Catherine
Hendy/Gerard
Company; 5411
Center Road,
Chimacum, WA; 9.5
acres and 1.2 acres
(APNs 801-102-004
and 801-102-002
respectively); request
is to rezone less than
4 acres on the first
parcel from Resource
Based Industrial
(RBIZ) to Light
Industrial.
This proposal raises the question as to whether a future light
industrial use will be compatible with the surrounding rural land
uses when compared with the previous use for a sawmill. Because
there is a high level of uncertainty as to what the likely future land
use will be within the limits of the Light Industrial zoning, this
consideration was not a significant factor in this analysis.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-18
1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made
The Comprehensive Plan states that, “a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life
of its citizens” and further provides four essential components for environmental protection:
• Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy;
• Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review;
• Critical Area Protection Strategy; and
• Public Education and Involvement Strategy.
Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact environmental quality.
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations in
the Unified Development Code (UDC) (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 this 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 and related UDC amendment 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 Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations. SEPA review is required
for project actions, unless those actions are categorically exempt from SEPA review when the
proposal is compared to the list of exemption thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental
review, such as the analysis contained in this document, is 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 review is where specific mitigation measures can be applied to
condition a proposal such that the approval and execution of the proposal does not present a
significant adverse environmental impact. With regard to environmental review of this year’s
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle docket and related UDC amendment, it should be
understood that Jefferson County has in place a regulatory framework that follows the guidance
established in Washington State laws, such as SEPA, the Growth Management Act (GMA), and
the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).
Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective
January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive
Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive Plan was
implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place prior to the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses within the various
districts set forth upon the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures
Ordinances outlined the development permit review process and related administrative matters.
The UDC replaced these and other previously existing ordinances. It has now been codified at
Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC).
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-19
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 identifying
these areas from a variety of sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal
government, in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create
maps depicting the approximate location and extent of environmentally sensitive areas.
Development Review Division planners 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 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
development regulations may be needed to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. In
these cases, jurisdictions may employ their “SEPA substantive authority” to further condition
approval of a development application. These mitigation measures are generally developed
through project action SEPA review and established as permit conditions through an
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 eight (8) 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. The County has identified several areas of probable significant adverse impacts
from the proposed Iron Mountain Quarry mining proposal, and has determined that these can be
mitigated. This proposal by Burnett/Pope Resources (MLA08-93) has been assigned a threshold
of mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS).
In deciding when it is appropriate to up-zone lower density rural residential parcels to higher
density rural residential designations, or when it is appropriate to up-zone commercial forest land
to rural residential designations, the County will establish precedents with far-reaching
implications that will be used to judge the appropriateness of similar rezone proposals in years to
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1-20
come. Therefore, determinations that appear to have little direct environmental impact when
viewed in isolation in 2008 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 growth and development in certain areas of the County, cumulative impacts to fish and
wildlife habitat, increased demands upon transportation facilities and transit, and increased
demand for public infrastructure and facilities. The County will continue to plan for distribution of
growth that will result in the lowest levels of environmental impacts, focus on infill, and balance
capital investment.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-1
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals
2.1 OVERVIEW
Pursuant to JCC 18.45, Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan and
associated Unified Development Code (UDC) 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. One of the proposals in
this year’s Final Docket requires a concurrent UDC amendment.
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, 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 eight (8) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments on the Final
Docket and the one (1) related UDC amendment; there are no suggested Comprehensive Plan
amendments on the 2008 Final Docket. This document further divides the amendments into sub-
categories.
2.1.1 Individual & Cumulative Analysis, and Staff
Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in JCC §18.45 and, in turn, evaluates
the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. Each
amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff
recommendation is made based on those criteria. Tables are for summary information only; please
refer to the staff report for each proposal for greater detail.
2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators
Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080(1)(b), all proposals 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;
• Whether assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid;
• Community-wide attitudes towards land use;
• Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendment; and
• Consistency between state law and the Comprehensive Plan, or the Comprehensive Plan
and local agreements.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-2
These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a
snapshot of Jefferson County’s status during this 2008 amendment cycle. This section will serve to
promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators (GMIs) and is
intended to be a starting point for broader community consideration before the Planning
Commission and the BoCC. While this review of the GMIs 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) – GMIs
Each of the GMIs is discussed in the order listed in JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b).
(1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is
occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize.
Discussion: The Office of Financial Management (OFM) is the State agency responsible for
compiling population projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2008
OFM Population Estimate for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues,
shows a 2008 population of 28,800. 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 that adopted the intermediate population projection from
OFM for the period 2000-2024. The population projection anticipates a population of 46,960 in
2024, an annual growth rate of 1.78%. The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson
County, and the population projections that were reflective of the unusual amount of growth at that
time. The growth rate of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth rate of approximately 2%.
That being said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington State and its counties have
tended to exhibit growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even
decline. For example, the “rural rebound” growth trend experienced by most western states in the
early 1990s – at the time of GMA adoption – was the result of an exodus by nearly two million
people leaving California during a severe regional economic recession. Rural and non-metropolitan
growth in Washington, including 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).
Table 4. Population Trend for Jefferson County
YEAR
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2005
2006
2007
2008
County
Population
8300
6420
8346
8918
11618
9639
10661
15965
20406
27600
28200
28600
28800
Port
Townsend
4181
2847
3970
4683
6888
5074
5241
6067
7001
8745
8820
8865
8925
Percent in
Port
Townsend
50%
44%
47%
53%
59%
53%
49%
38%
34%
32%
31%
31%
31%
Jefferson County Population 1910-2008
Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management
As Table 4 above indicates, an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the
percentage of residents living in the City of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of
residents living in the City has dropped from 59% to 31%, with County residential units accounting
for over 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this shift towards
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-3
residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services outside of Port
Townsend.
The Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #55-03 in 2003. This requires the
allocation of growth over a 24 year planning period (2000-2024) as follows:
• 36% to the City of Port Townsend,
• 17% to Port Ludlow MPR,
• 17% to 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 has adopted GMA compliant plans to provide the Irondale/Hadlock Urban
Growth Area (UGA) with urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater
management.
(3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand
and need.
Discussion: As a part of the planning process for the unincorporated Irondale/Port Hadlock
UGA, an analysis of vacant lands within the proposed UGA and a build-out analysis were
completed. These studies evaluated the ability to accommodate the allocated population. The
2024 planning horizon scenario accommodated the allocated projected growth of 4,906 people.
With a theoretical carrying capacity of over 30,000 people, 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. However, county population growth is
occurring more slowly than projected in 1998. Moreover, amendments to GMA and other laws
made by the State Legislature and precedent-setting decisions made by the Growth Management
Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA.
(5) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of
the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement.
Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect, to the extent possible, countywide
attitudes about the future growth and management of the county. The Comprehensive Plan was
originally adopted in 1998 and revised in 2004. Updating the Comprehensive Plan in 2011 will likely
include an opportunity to reassess countywide attitudes. Between Comprehensive Plan updates,
countywide attitudes can best be inferred through local election results, perspectives expressed by
public representatives such as the Planning Commission, and comments received during public
comment periods. That said, an updated public opinion survey would also be an effective way to
gauge countywide attitudes.
(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
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-4
surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered Species
Act, climate change issues, significantly increased fuel costs, 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 non-compliance decision of the Irondale/Port Hadlock area as a UGA. Many of these changes
in circumstances were addressed during the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 updates or amendments
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 with regard to rural land use districts and resource overlays. Portions
of the Comprehensive Plan found to be “non-compliant” by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board are not relevant to these proposed amendments. In 2004, Jefferson
County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan
and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management Act.
2.2 FINAL DOCKET
Following are brief descriptions of each of the eight (8) proposed site-specific amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and the one (1) related UDC amendment. 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. MLA08-32; Dave Holland/Davos Capital LLC; corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings
Avenue, Port Townsend, WA; 14.02 acres (APN 001-064-002); RR 1:10 to 1:5.
2. MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown Trust (David Goldsmith, agent); one mile
west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center Roads, Chimacum, WA; 116 acres (APN
801-091-010 – application under number 801-091-002); for 80 acres, request is CF 1:80 to
RF 1:40; and for 36 acres, request is CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 or AL 1:20.
3. MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472 South Edwards Road, Port Townsend, WA;
20 acres (APN 001-191-002); RR 1:20 to 1:10.
4. MLA08-73; James Jackson/Chimacum Heights LLC; near Chimacum, WA; 120 acres (APN
901-132-002); CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
5. MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR Partnership; 0.3 miles down Cleveland Street, off Oak
Bay Road near Port Hadlock, WA; 38 acres (APN 901-121-001); RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
6. MLA08-93; James Burnett/Pope Resources); three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge
immediately north of Highway 104, and adjacent to the Shine Quarry, Port Ludlow, WA;
142 acres (APNs 821-324-002, 821-311-001, 821-291-002, and 821-302-001); CF 1:80 to
Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO).
7. MLA08-96; Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments; intersection of Shine Road and
Highway 104; 0.50 acres (APN 821-333-001); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial
(Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad (NC)).
8. MLA08-101; Catherine Hendy/Gerard Company; 5411 Center Road, Chimacum, WA; 9.5
acres and 1.2 acres (APN 801-102-004 and 801-102-002 respectively); request is to
rezone less than 4 acres on the first parcel from Resource Based Industrial (RBIZ) to Light
Industrial.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-5
UDC Amendment:
1. MLA08-389: Removing specific identification of locations from Industrial zoning references
and changes reflecting the re-designation of the Center Valley Resource Based Industrial
Zone to Light Industrial.
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each amendment
as proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version, or deny adoption.
The eight (8) site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the one (1) related UDC
amendment that are addressed in this Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum are grouped
into six (6) types of proposed actions:
• Rural Residential Rezones (3 proposals)
• Commercial Forest to Rural Residential Rezone (1 proposal)
• Commercial Forest to combination of Rural Forest and Agriculture of Local Significance or
Rural Residential Rezone (1 proposal)
• Resource Based Industrial to Light Industrial Rezone (1 proposal)
• Rural Residential to Commercial Rezone (1 proposal)
• Mineral Resource Land Overlay Designation (1 proposal)
This grouping of proposed actions and detailed discussion is located in Section 2.3 of this report.
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 next 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 recommendation to the
BoCC later this year, staff will have the opportunity to append a supplemental evaluation to these
preliminary recommendations. The preliminary staff recommendations, including modifications and
mitigation measures, are summarized in the following table:
Table 5. 2008 Comprehensive Plan (and related UDC) Amendment Docket:
Summary of Staff Recommendations
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL
NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
1
MLA08-32
Holland; 001064002
14 acres: RR 1:10 to 1:5
Approve.
2
MLA08-56
Brown; 801091010
(application under #
801091002)
116 acres total:
80 acres: CF 1:80 to RF
1:40;
36 acres: CF 1:80 to RR
1:20 or AL 1:20.
Deny.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-6
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL
NUMBER
GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
3
MLA08-69
George; 001191002
20 acres: RR 1:20 to RR
1:10
Deny.
4
MLA08-73
Jackson; 901132002
120 acres: CF 1:80 to
RR 1:10
Deny.
5
MLA08-84
Broders; 901121001
38 acres: RR 1:20 to RR
1:5
Deny.
6
MLA08-93
Burnett/Pope
Resources;
821324002;
821311001;
821291002; and
821302001
142 acres: apply MRL
Overlay to CF 1:80
Approve with
modification and
conditions.
7
MLA08-96
M. Holland;
821333001
.50 acres: RR 1:5 to
Rural Commercial
Neighborhood/Visitor
Crossroad
Approve with
modification.
8
MLA07-101
(and related
UDC
amendment
MLA08-389)
Hendy; 801102004
and 801102002
9.5 acres and 1.2 acres
respectively: request is
to rezone a portion of
801102004 from
Resource-Based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ) to
Light Industrial
Approve with
modification.
2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
Each of the eight (8) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals and the one (1)
related UDC amendment proposal evaluated in this document are grouped together below
according to category:
• Three (3) requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (e.g., RR 1:20 to RR 1:5);
• One (1) request for Change from Commercial Forest Land Designation to combination of
Rural Forest and Agriculture of Local Significance Densities (e.g., CF 1:80 to RF 1:40, or
CF 1:80 to AL 1:20);), or Rural Residential (e.g., CF 1:80 to RR 1:20);
• One (1) request for Change from Commercial Forest Land Designation to Rural Residential
Designation (e.g., CF 1:80 to RR 1:10);
• One (1) request for Application of an Overlay Designation (e.g., MRL Overlay on CF 1:80).
• One (1) request for Change from Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ) Designation to
Light Industrial with necessary concurrent UDC amendment;
• One (1) request for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial (e.g.,
RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial NC); and
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-7
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (3)
The three (3) requests for changes in Rural Residential density are subject to the goals, policies,
and implementation strategies contained in the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning
Policies, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and applicable
clarifications from the Growth Management Hearings Board. Of most relevance is Chapter 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan with particular focus given to pages 3-3 to 3-6 and Land Use Policies (LNP)
3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. These Land Use Policies are copied below.
POLICIES:
LNP 3.1 Identify and encourage diverse rural land uses and densities which
preserve rural character and rural community identity.
LNP 3.2 Establish rural residential land use densities for all lands located outside of
designated Urban Growth Areas. Proposed rural residential densities shall allow for
an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land based upon the County’s rural
population projections and needs while maintaining rural character and rural
community identity, preserving rural resource-based uses, and avoiding sprawl.
LNP 3.3 Rural residential densities shown on the Land Use Map shall be
designated by three (3) residential land use densities: one dwelling unit per five (5)
acres, one dwelling unit per ten (10) acres, or one dwelling unit per twenty (20)
acres in size and subject to the following
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
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-8
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 to 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 or PRRDs).
Also, a density exemption provision was introduced in the UDC. The special circumstances to
which it applies is explained in LNP 3.7 and put into effect by JCC 18.30.050(4).
The legal regulatory requirements for lot subdivision are articulated in Chapter 18.35 JCC, Land
Divisions, implementing the State Subdivision Act (RCW 58.17). A “lot of record” is an
undeveloped lot, tract or parcel of land shown on an officially recorded short plat or long plat or a
parcel of land officially recorded or registered as a unit of property and described by platted lot
number or by metes and bounds and lawfully established for conveyance purposes on the date of
recording of the instrument first referencing the lot (JCC 18.10.120). However, this does not mean
that the lot was established to conform with County Code or RCW 58.17. Some of the old “paper
plats” have been in existence since the late 1800’s and many can still be developed irrespective of
current zoning standards so long as development standards can be met.
A related issue which may influence overall rural housing density is that of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU). An ADU is “accessory” to the primary residence and provides a complete,
independent living facility. Each parcel zoned rural residential is eligible to create an ADU.
The issues of zoned rural residential density, developable lots of record, density exemptions and
ADUs, combined with the lot supply discussion in the Growth Management Indicators in 2.1.2 and
again in staff evaluations below, account for the total potential development capacity of the rural
zones in Jefferson County. The Comprehensive Plan gives guidance on how that development
capacity may be shaped to prevent low-density sprawl.
When considering the County’s goal of increasing development density in Urban Growth Areas and
maintaining rural character outside of UGAs, much attention is given to what “rural character” is.
We shape this definition from the Comprehensive Plan, the Jefferson County Code and
clarifications from the Growth Management Hearings Board.
In Achen v. Clark County 95-2-0067 (Compliance Order, 2-5-98), the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board stated “While rural lands may be the leftover meatloaf in the GMA
refrigerator, they have very necessary and important functions both as a planning mechanism and
as applied on the ground.”
The WWGMHB continued, “A secondary aspect of proper rural area planning involves the
preservation of a rural lifestyle. A ‘rural sprawl’ has the same devastating effects on proper land
uses and efficient use of tax payer dollars as urban sprawl. Uncoordinated development of rural
areas often involves greater economic burdens than in urban areas. Infrastructure costs for rural
development are, by definition, more inefficient than for urban.”
The Comprehensive Plan delves into ‘rural lifestyle’ within Land Use and Rural Element Goals &
Policies 18, 19, 20, and 21, and stresses a long-term perspective toward decisions affecting
environmental quality, rural development intensities and long-term habitability of Jefferson County.
Another planning mechanism to preserve rural character is by ensuring there is a variety of rural
densities (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b)). Rural character is a pattern of use and development in which
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-9
open space, natural landscape and vegetation predominate over the built environment. A county
must assure that the “natural landscape” predominates and fosters traditional rural lifestyles, rural
based economies and opportunities (Durland v. San Juan County 00-2-0062c, Final decision and
order 5-7-01 and Butler v. Lewis County 99-2-0027c, Final Decision and Order, 6-30-00).
The three proposals for residential density changes will be reviewed consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and other relevant laws and regulations. A general description, required
findings and conclusions, and staff recommendation for each proposal is provided below.
2.3.1.1 MLA08-32 (D. Holland)
Applicant: David Holland/Davos Capital LLC
Assessor Parcel Number: 001064002
Location: Corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue near Port Townsend
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would redesignate approximately fourteen (14) acres from Rural
Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres (RR 1:10) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five
acres (RR 1:5). The subject parcel is located at the corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue
approximately two miles from the City of Port Townsend in unincorporated Jefferson County. The
parcels adjacent to the east and west of the subject site are designated RR 1:10; the parcel to the
east, while zoned RR 1:10, is five acres in size; and the parcel to the north is designated AL 1:20.
Adjacent to the south lies property zoned RR 1:5.
The subject site is completely forested and is comprised of moderate slopes (i.e., less than 15%).
The entire parcel is located in an area considered to be a susceptible aquifer recharge area;
however, development may occur in these areas compliant with protection standards in the UDC.
Re-designation and rezoning of the property would create one (1) additional parcel, and permit up
to two (2) primary dwelling units to be constructed on-site. The applicant has expressed a desire to
purchase an additional acre of land in order to create the possibility of three primary dwelling units
on-site.
2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(1)(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendations follow.
Table 6. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-32: D. Holland
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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.
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
Population growth is occurring slower than
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional
guidance regarding rural densities and
preservation of rural character have come from
GMHB decisions as discussed above.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-10
Table 6. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-32: D. Holland
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect,
to the extent possible, countywide attitudes
about the future growth and management of the
county. The Comprehensive Plan was originally
adopted in 1998 and revised in 2004. Updating
the Comprehensive Plan in 2011 will likely
include an opportunity to reassess countywide
attitudes. Between Comprehensive Plan
updates, countywide attitudes can best be
inferred through local election results,
perspectives expressed by public
representatives such as the Planning
Commission, and comments received during
public comment periods. Whether the proposal
reflects current widely held values will be
determined by the extent to which it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and by
the comments and decision made during the
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
The Comprehensive Plan states that “the
allocation of future population must be
considered when analyzing the overall need for
the creation of additional residential lots and
determining where those lots should be located
to accommodate future growth”
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-6). LNP 3.2 echoes
this point in stating that “proposed rural
residential densities shall allow for an adequate
supply of appropriately zoned land based upon
the County’s rural population projections and
needs while maintaining rural character and
rural community identity, preserving rural
resource-based uses, and avoiding sprawl.”
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47). This raises the
question as to the ratio of rural residential lot
supply to the 20-year projected population
growth and its allocation to rural areas. Is the
county in need of additional rural residential
parcels at this time to accommodate future rural
growth? By allowing the creation of additional
rural residential lots, could the County weaken
its ability to direct growth to urban areas, as
called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resolution no. 55-03? Moreover, what
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-11
Table 6. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-32: D. Holland
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
cumulative impact does annual rural residential
rezones - without the comprehensive long range
planning associated with Comprehensive Plan
updates - have on reducing the variety of rural
residential densities, open space, native
vegetation, and rural character in the area? The
county is called on to preserve these
characteristics at LNP 3.1 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 3-47), LNG 18.0 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 3-61), LNP 20.1 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 3-63), OSG 1.0 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 6-14), and ENG 7.0 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 8-25).
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
probable significant adverse impacts to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the
land use map, that the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use
designation and the anticipated land use
development, including but not limited to
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land
uses
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
Adjacent parcels to the south are zoned at a
higher density, RR 1:5. Adjacent parcels to the
east and west, while currently zoned RR 1:10,
are 5-acre parcels (to the east), and a 1-acre
parcel (to the west). The parcel to the north,
while zoned AL 1:20, is just over 6 acres. It is
not anticipated that approval of this specific
request will lead to pressure to rezone
surrounding properties. The change in land use
designation could potentially create pressure to
rezone parcels under similar circumstances in
the county. In order to prevent cumulative
pressure to rezone at a County-wide level, staff
recommends that this analysis shall not be
utilized as justification to support future rezone
applications.
The proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment could cumulatively
affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more
rural residential parcels than is needed to
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-12
Table 6. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-32: D. Holland
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
accommodate the 20-year projected population
growth and its allocation to rural areas, then
additional rural residential lot creation may
weaken the county’s ability to direct growth to
urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of
County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03.
Approving the proposal could set a precedent
that could create pressure in subsequent years
to rezone parcels under similar circumstances,
thus cumulatively adding to the number of
available lots in rural areas of the county which
may exceed projected demand. In order to
prevent cumulative pressure to rezone at a
County-wide level, staff recommends that this
analysis shall not be utilized as justification to
support future rezone applications.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA
Although the property is just over a mile from
the Port Townsend UGA, the proposed
amendment is not located within an area that is
currently under review for UGA designation.
The proposed amendment is consistent with
the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A),
the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires
the County to “encourage development in urban
areas”; “reduce the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development”; and “retain open space” (RCW
36.70A.020(1, 2, & 9)). The GMA also requires
the County to contain or otherwise control rural
development (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(i)) and the
Comprehensive Plan “provide sufficient capacity
of land suitable for development…to
accommodate their allocated housing and
employment growth…and consistent with the
twenty-year population forecast...” (36.70A.115).
At what point is the conversion of undeveloped
land into low-density development considered
inappropriate? Under what circumstances might
rezoning rural residential properties affect the
county’s ability to encourage development in
urban areas? What does it mean to provide
sufficient capacity of land suitable for
development in ways consistent with the twenty-
year population forecast? Staff reviews of
existing 1998 data and provisional data to 2008
have not been conclusive enough to absolutely
determine the answers to these questions.
Given the analysis and in the absence of
definitive conclusions, it is presumed that the
proposal is consistent with the GMA and other
applicable laws and regulations.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-13
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).
Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to
air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or
discharge. All development shall comply with Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington, which requires stormwater to be addressed on site.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could affect native plants and
animals. It is not, however, likely to result in a significant impact. 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 may potentially contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased
residential energy use and some loss of forest resources, however, such impacts are not
considered significant. 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 proposal is not likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
Allowable land and shoreline uses are not affected by this amendment except for the intensity of
residential development due to the density change. 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.
It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-14
2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The Rural Residential 1:10 parcel meets the criteria of LNP 3.3.1 for the RR 1:5 designation, it does
not contain significant critical areas, and it will not create direct pressure to up-zone parcels
immediately adjacent to the property. While there remains concern about the number of rural
residential lots in relation to the 20-year projected population growth, its allocation to rural areas,
and the affect this has on encouraging growth in urban areas, staff determined that there is not
sufficient data at this time to factor it into the recommendation. Furthermore, while approval may set
a precedent which will increase pressure in subsequent years to up-zone parcels under similar
circumstances, the county shall analyze future amendment applications on a case by case basis.
2.3.1.2 MLA08-69 (George)
Reference Number: MLA08-69
Applicant: Jeffrey and Tamara George
Assessor Parcel Number: 001191002
Location: 472 South Edwards Road, Port Townsend
2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located at 472 South Edwards Road, approximately one and a half miles from
Port Townsend. The application proposes a change of land use designation and zoning of the
parcel, approximately 20 acres in size, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
The subject site is largely forested, and mapped as slight landslide hazard on the western portion of
the parcel. The entire parcel is mapped as critical aquifer recharge area; however, the site is
considered a legal lot of record by current standards and development may occur in these areas
compliant with protection measures in the UDC. Re-zoning of the property would create one (1)
additional parcel, and permit up to two (2) primary dwelling units to be constructed on-site.
2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management
indicators. Staff findings, conclusions, and recommendations follow.
Table 7. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-69: George
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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
An application for a map correction (MCR99-2) in
1999 to change the parcel zoning from RR1:20 to
RR1:5 was not approved because the Board of
County Commissioners determined that the
application should be submitted as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment rather than a map
correction. The circumstances related to the area
have otherwise not changed substantially since the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-15
Table 7. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-69: George
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or
whether new information is available which was not
considered during the adoption process or any annual
amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan
Population growth is occurring slower than was
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional
guidance regarding rural densities and preservation of
rural character have come from GMHB decisions as
discussed above.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect, to the
extent possible, countywide attitudes about the future
growth and management of the county. The
Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1998
and revised in 2004. Updating the Comprehensive
Plan in 2011 will likely include an opportunity to
reassess countywide attitudes. Between
Comprehensive Plan updates, countywide attitudes
can best be inferred through local election results,
perspectives expressed by public representatives such
as the Planning Commission, and comments received
during public comment periods. Whether the proposal
reflects current widely held values will be determined
by the extent to which it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and by the comments and
decision made during the 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
The Comprehensive Plan states that “the allocation of
future population must be considered when analyzing
the overall need for the creation of additional
residential lots and determining where those lots
should be located to accommodate future growth”
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-6). LNP 3.2 echoes this
point in stating that “proposed rural residential
densities shall allow for an adequate supply of
appropriately zoned land based upon the County’s
rural population projections and needs while
maintaining rural character and rural community
identity, preserving rural resource-based uses, and
avoiding sprawl.” (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47). This
raises the question as to the ratio of rural residential lot
supply to the 20-year projected population growth and
its allocation to rural areas. Is the county in need of
additional rural residential parcels at this time to
accommodate future rural growth? By allowing the
creation of additional rural residential lots, could the
County weaken its ability to direct growth to urban
areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resolution no. 55-03? Moreover, what cumulative
impact does annual rural residential rezones - without
the comprehensive long range planning associated
with Comprehensive Plan updates - have on reducing
the variety of rural residential densities, open space,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-16
Table 7. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-69: George
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
native vegetation, and rural character in the area? The
county is called on to preserve these characteristics at
LNP 3.1 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47), LNG 18.0
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-61), LNP 20.1
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-63), OSG 1.0
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 6-14), and ENG 7.0
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 8-25).
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 would not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features. The proposal may,
however, result in increased pressure to upgrade
the dirt access road.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but
not limited to access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
The subject parcels are physically suitable for the
requested land use designation and anticipated
development.
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 may increase pressure to up-zone an
adjacent parcel to the north (#001-191-002) which is
zoned RR 1:20, and other rural residential
properties under similar circumstances.
Cumulatively, this is may result in a loss of open
space and native vegetation and divert growth away
from urban areas, and therefore is not in the long-
term best interest of the county as a whole.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment could cumulatively affect
the land use and population growth projections that
are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If there
are currently more rural residential parcels than is
needed to accommodate the 20-year projected
population growth and its allocation to rural areas,
then additional rural residential lot creation may
weaken the county’s ability to direct growth to urban
areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resolution no. 55-03. Approving the proposal could
create pressure to rezone the adjacent parcel to the
north and set a precedent that could create
pressure in subsequent years to rezone parcels
under similar circumstances, thus cumulatively
adding to the number of available lots in rural areas
of the county which may exceed projected demand.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-17
Table 7. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-69: George
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
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 inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the
County to “encourage development in urban
areas”; “reduce the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development”; and “retain open space”
(36.70A.020(1, 2, & 9)). The GMA also requires the
County to contain or otherwise control rural
development (36.70A.070(5)(c)(i)) and that the
Comprehensive Plan “provide sufficient capacity of
land suitable for development…to accommodate
their allocated housing and employment
growth…and consistent with the twenty-year
population forecast...” (36.70A.115). Furthermore,
Jefferson County Code 18.15.015(1)(c) states that
Rural Residential 1:20 zoning “…protects land from
premature conversion to higher residential
densities prior to an established need.” At what
point is the conversion of undeveloped low-density
land into higher-density development considered
inappropriate? Under what circumstances might
rezoning rural residential properties affect the
county’s ability to encourage development in urban
areas? What does it mean to provide sufficient
capacity of land suitable for development in ways
consistent with the twenty-year population
forecast? While staff have not been able to
conclusively determine the answers to these
questions, staff has determined that the applicant
has not demonstrated an established need for
conversion of RR 1:20 to higher residential
densities as called for in JCC 18.15.015(1)(c).
Furthermore, the GMA and the County Wide
Planning Policies require a variety of rural
residential land use densities and this amendment
would reduce variety of rural densities in this area
(GMARCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) and CWPP 8.1, 8.4).
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).
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-18
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?
This proposal is not likely to significantly increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could potentially affect native plants
and animals. It is not, however, likely to result in significant impacts. 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 may potentially contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased
residential energy use and some loss of forest resources, however, such impacts are not
considered significant. 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 proposal is not likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection, with the exception of the presence of a slight landslide hazard area in the
western portion of the parcel. All development shall comply with the protection standards in the
UDC.
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?
Allowable land and shoreline uses are not affected by this amendment except for the intensity of
residential development due to the density change. 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 significant 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 proposal is not expected to conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-19
2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The applicant has not demonstrated an established need for conversion of RR 1:20 to higher
residential densities as called for in JCC 18.15.015(1)(c). Moreover, approving this proposal could
create direct pressure to up-zone the adjacent parcel to the north, potentially resulting in the
reduction of the variety of rural residential densities, open space, native vegetation, and rural
character in the area. There is additional concern about the number of rural residential lots in
relation to the 20-year projected population growth, its allocation to rural areas, and the affect this
has on encouraging growth in urban areas. Staff has determined, however, that there is not
sufficient data at this time to factor the latter issue into the recommendation.
2.3.1.3 MLA08-84 (Broders)
Reference Number: MLA08-84
Applicant: Richard Broders/CMR Partnership
Assessor Parcel Number: 901121001
Location: Cleveland Street off Oak Bay Road near Port Hadlock
2.3.1.3.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located 0.3 miles down Cleveland Street off Oak Bay Road, about 650 feet
from the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. The request would change the land
use designation and zoning of this thirty-eight (38) acre-parcel from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The
properties surrounding the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:5.
A review of Jefferson County environmentally sensitive area maps reveals the presence of a
wetland in the central and eastern portions of the parcel. Re-designation and rezoning of the
property would theoretically permit up to six (6) dwelling units to be constructed on-site, quadrupling
the current permissible dwelling unit density.
2.3.1.3.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management
indicators. Staff findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Table 8. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-84: Broders
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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
Circumstances related to the proposed amendment
or the area in which it is located have not
substantially changed since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 2004.
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
Population growth is occurring slower than
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Lot over-
supply is an issue that must be considered (see
analysis of MLA08-69). Additional guidance
regarding rural densities and preservation of rural
character have come from GMHB decisions as
discussed above.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-20
Table 8. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-84: Broders
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect, to the
extent possible, countywide attitudes about the future
growth and management of the county. The
Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1998
and revised in 2004. Updating the Comprehensive
Plan in 2011 will likely include an opportunity to
reassess countywide attitudes. Between
Comprehensive Plan updates, countywide attitudes
can best be inferred through local election results,
perspectives expressed by public representatives
such as the Planning Commission, and comments
received during public comment periods. Whether the
proposal reflects current widely held values will be
determined by the extent to which it is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and by the comments and
decision made during the 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 proposed amendment would not likely have a
significant impact on transportation levels of service.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent
with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies
of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan states that “the allocation of
future population must be considered when analyzing the
overall need for the creation of additional residential lots
and determining where those lots should be located to
accommodate future growth” (Comprehensive Plan, pg.
3-6). LNP 3.2 echoes this point in stating that “proposed
rural residential densities shall allow for an adequate
supply of appropriately zoned land based upon the
County’s rural population projections and needs while
maintaining rural character and rural community identity,
preserving rural resource-based uses, and avoiding
sprawl.” (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47). This raises the
question as to the ratio of rural residential lot supply to
the 20-year projected population growth and its allocation
to rural areas. Is the county in need of additional rural
residential parcels at this time to accommodate future
rural growth? By allowing the creation of additional rural
residential lots, could the County weaken its ability to
direct growth to urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County
Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03? Moreover, what
cumulative impact does annual rural residential rezones -
without the comprehensive long range planning
associated with Comprehensive Plan updates - have on
reducing the variety of rural residential densities, open
space, native vegetation, natural beauty, rural character,
and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas in the
area? The county is called on to preserve these
characteristics at LNP 3.1 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-
47), LNG 18.0 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-61), LNP
19.0 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-62), LNP 20.1
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-63), LNP 21.0
(Comprehensive Plan, 3-63) OSG 1.0 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 6-14), and ENG 7.0 (Comprehensive Plan, pg.
8-25).
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-21
Table 8. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-84: Broders
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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 rezone will have an estimated impact
to onsite and off-site environmental features, is in
close proximity to a proposed Urban Growth Area,
and will remove the variety in rural densities, thus
changing the character of the area.
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 Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel as
RR 1.20 which is an appropriate residential density.
The request to increase residential density to R1:5
to match surrounding densities would not achieve
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands
and other environmental amenities, particularly as
headwater to a fish-bearing stream, are a concern
at this site.
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 site-specific amendment would not create
pressure to change land use designation of other
properties in the immediate area. The change in
land use designation could, however, potentially
create pressure to rezone parcels under similar
circumstances in the county.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed change in zoning would potentially
add up to six (6) additional residential 1:5 parcels to
this zoning category and affect land use
characteristics provided by a variety of rural
densities. The proposed amendment could also
cumulatively affect the land use and population
growth projections if there are currently more rural
residential parcels than is needed to accommodate
the 20-year projected population growth and its
allocation to rural areas. Additional rural residential
lot creation may weaken the county’s ability to
direct growth to urban areas, as called for in UGA-
P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of
County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03.
Approving the proposal could set a precedent that
could create pressure in subsequent years to
rezone parcels under similar circumstances, thus
cumulatively adding to the number of available lots
in rural areas of the county which may exceed
projected demand.
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 subject property is not within a UGA, though in
close proximity.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-22
Table 8. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-84: Broders
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the
County to “encourage development in urban
areas”; “reduce the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development”; and “retain open space”
(36.70A.020(1, 2, & 9)). The GMA also requires the
County to contain or otherwise control rural
development (36.70A.070(5)(c)(i)) and that the
Comprehensive Plan “provide sufficient capacity of
land suitable for development…to accommodate
their allocated housing and employment
growth…and consistent with the twenty-year
population forecast...” (36.70A.115). Furthermore,
Jefferson County Code 18.15.015(1)(c) states that
Rural Residential 1:20 zoning “…protects land from
premature conversion to higher residential
densities prior to an established need.” At what
point is the conversion of undeveloped low-density
land into higher-density development considered
inappropriate? Under what circumstances might
rezoning rural residential properties affect the
county’s ability to encourage development in urban
areas? What does it mean to provide sufficient
capacity of land suitable for development in ways
consistent with the twenty-year population
forecast? While staff have not been able to
conclusively determine the answers to these
questions, staff has determined that the applicant
has not demonstrated an established need for
conversion of RR 1:20 to higher residential
densities as called for in JCC
18.15.015(1)(c).Furthermore, the GMA and the
County Wide Planning Policies require a variety of
rural residential land use densities and this
amendment would eliminate variety of rural
densities in this area (GMARCW 36.70A.070(5)(b)
and CWPP 8.1, 8.4).
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).
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 proposed re-zone could allow additional impervious surface and result in increased land
clearing, potentially affecting discharge to water. All development shall comply with the Washington
State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington for
stormwater control.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-23
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The parcel has a non-fish bearing stream and wetlands which flow into a fish-bearing segment of
the same creek and to Port Townsend Bay. Residential development could potentially change
characteristics such as nutrients, woody debris and water temperature. Rezoning and subsequent
development at RR 1:5 density could directly impact habitat functions and values.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal may contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased residential
energy use and some loss of forest resources, however, such impacts are not considered
significant. 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 property is a wooded keystone of the immediate area in that it’s a large undivided parcel within
an area of smaller lots. It is midpoint between wetlands and shorelines on either side of the ness or
point where it is situated. One side is a State Park. Residential development at R1:5 densities
would remove the property’s significance in this area. Moreover, the parcel has a non-fish bearing
stream and wetlands which flow into a fish-bearing segment of the same creek. Residential
development could potentially change characteristics such as nutrients, woody debris and water
temperature.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
The rezone would allow further densification and intensity of existing land uses. The proposal
removes the variety of rural densities of the area.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The rezone would not have any likely impact on transportation facilities. Public services and utilities
are already in the vicinity.
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 rezone would not likely conflict with laws or requirements for wetland protection, but application
of these laws would depend upon additional information such as the kind of natural resources on
site, wetland type and buffering requirements.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-24
2.3.1.3.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The County’s past analyses and past Growth Management Hearings Board decisions have worked
around the edges of the issue of low-density sprawl. There is no single vision. The issue of re-zones
and density changes is often viewed from two perspectives: maintaining rural character and
accommodating population growth with higher densities.
The zoning density of one residence per five-acres has been accepted as the minimum for rural density
(WWGMHB). There are exceptions such as non-conforming lots of record, density exemptions and
accessory dwelling unit policy. However, GMA requires a variety of rural densities (36.70A.070 (5)(b)).
Further GMA guidance on land-use policy is provided by 36.70A.070 (5)(c)(ii) to ensure visual
compatibility, (iii) reduce low-density sprawl, and (iv) protect critical areas.
Site-specific conditions may well have been a criterion supporting the RR 1:20 designation in 1998 and
again in 2004. The 38-acre parcel is the “keystone” of the smaller parcels surrounding it. This acreage
is also the keystone between bays, wetlands and fish habitat. Following to the southwest, the parcel is
near other RR 1:20 parcels and continue into a variety of commercial forest parcels. The designation of
RR 1:20 fits the variety standard.
The analysis is not wholly a review of consideration of isolated, site-specific conditions. The planning
goals of GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, growth indicators, and Countywide Planning Policies compose
the body of information to consider when analyzing requests to change established zoning designations.
A common theme among these references is sought to answer the request, but more often a balance is
struck between various disparate goals.
Jefferson County actively participates in planning under the State Growth Management Act and engages
in active planning with its citizens. The future of the county is embodied in the community vision and
practical planning practices documented in the Comprehensive Plan.
Large-scale expansion of RR 1:5 zoning, and further increasing the same low-density zoning over a
broad area just outside of the Urban Growth Area will thwart the county’s efforts to shift growth from rural
sprawl to more cost-effective UGAs where services can be provided more efficiently.
The property is within WRIA 17, Quilcene/Snow watershed planning unit, in the 35 square mile
Chimacum Creek Sub-watershed. Rural residential zoning is found on approximately 8,528 acres (38%
of the sub-watershed). The predominant residential zoning density (4,112 acres) is one residence per 20
acres (Resolution No. 92-99).
The property is located within the Comprehensive Plan’s Tri-Area planning area #4. The parcel is
approximately 38 acres in size and zoned RR1:20, allowing for one dwelling and one Accessory Dwelling
Unit.
The parcel is 650 feet from the boundary of the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area and
less than one mile from the downtown core.
The parcel is adjacent to the small Bay View Estates lots platted in 1890.
The parcel area consists of about 20% wetlands. The amount of buffering required for these wetlands is
not yet determined. The parcel contains a type Np stream. Type Np streams are believed to provide
habitat necessary to support the long-term viability of water conditions that support salmonid species in
downstream Type F (fish-bearing) streams (Palmquist, 2005). Seasonal reaches are critically important
to the outcome of water conditions in perennial reaches. The stream is fish-bearing below Cedar
Avenue. Cedar Avenue has a culvert which creates a step barrier to fish passage toward the subject
property.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-25
2.3.1.4 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential
Density
The three (3) proposals for change of rural residential density involve a total of three (3) tax parcels
encompassing approximately seventy (70) acres. Approval of these three amendments, as
proposed by the applicants, would allow the potential for eight (8) additional rural dwelling units
over what is allowed under existing zoning (i.e., from three (3) currently, to eleven (11) if all are
approved). All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to use the clustering provisions of
county code, would be subject to review pursuant to the JCC at the time of application. With
respect to the Holland property, based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific
characteristics exist which would preclude the use of the site for higher density rural residential
purposes.
However, approving the proposals may create pressure to up-zone other parcels under similar
circumstances in subsequent years. Such up-zoning may cumulatively result in the diversion of
growth away from urban areas and a reduction in the variety of rural residential densities, open
space, native vegetation, and rural character in the county without the appropriate level of
comprehensive long range planning. The county will analyze future amendment applications on a
case by case basis.
2.3.2 Request for Change from Commercial Forest
Land Designation to combination of Rural
Forest and Agriculture of Local Significance or
Rural Residential (1)
A request for a change from Commercial Forest Land to Rural Forest and Agriculture of Local
Significance or Rural Residential are subject to the goals, policies, and implementation strategies
contained in the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning Policies, Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and applicable clarifications from the Growth
Management Hearings Board. Of greatest relevance are Chapters 3 and 4 of the Comprehensive
Plan. Of particular use for consideration of forest and agricultural lands are pages 4-1 to 4-4, pages
4-8 to 4-11, and Natural Resource Goals & Policies (NRG&P) 1.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 10.0. The most
relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan when considering Rural Residential zoning are
discussed under section 2.3.1 of this document, above, with the exception of LNG 22.0, which is of
particular importance to forest and agricultural lands. LNG 22.0 from Chapter 3 and relevant
excerpts from the Natural Resources Element narrative and goal and policy language are provided
below for convenience:
Chapter 3: Land Use and Rural Element
GOAL:
LNG 22.0 Foster sustainable natural resource-based industry in rural areas through the
conservation of forest lands, agricultural lands, mineral lands, and
aquaculture lands in order to provide economic and employment
opportunities that are consistent with rural character.
Chapter 4: Natural Resource Conservation Element
Forest Lands
Classification and Designation of Forest Lands
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-26
Jefferson County’s Forest Lands Designation and Conservation strategy was developed based on
an analysis of local conditions and the following guidelines provided by the Washington Department
of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED):
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-1
Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource Lands in Jefferson County
Indicator Comments
1. Availability of public
services and facilities
conducive to the conversion
of forest lands.
Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are intended to be
served by public facilities and services within a twenty-year period,
forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be located
outside of UGA boundaries.
2. Proximity of forest land
to urban and suburban
areas and rural settlements.
To protect forest lands of long-term commercial significance from
encroachment by incompatible uses, they should be located outside
the urban and suburban areas and rural settlements.
3. Size of the parcels. Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should consist of
predominantly large parcels.
4. Compatibility and
intensity of neighboring
land uses and settlement
patterns with forest lands of
long-term significance.
Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be
adjacent to large parcels to allow for adequate buffering and
setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settlement patterns.
5. Property tax
classification.
Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be eligible
for assessment as open space or forest land pursuant to RCW 84.33
or 84.34.
6. History of land
development permits
nearby.
Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should not be
designated in areas under development pressure that are likely to
convert to higher intensity land uses.
In order to conserve the forest resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry
industry while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, it was determined that Forest Lands
would consist of three classes:
• Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80);
• Rural Forest Lands (RF-40); and
• In-holding Forest Lands (IF) for parcels entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural Forest
Lands unless the parcel is less than twenty (20) acres in size or if a development
application for the parcel is vested. The landowner must submit a written request to have
the parcel removed from Forest Resource In-holding designation.
Any parcel that meets the following criteria will be classified as Forest Land and designated as
Forest Land of Long-Term Commercial Significance:
• The land should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one (1) through four (4) as
mapped by the Department of Natural Resources.
• Minimum parcel size should be a minimum of nominally eighty (80) acres for Commercial
Forest Lands forty (40) acres for Rural Forest Land, with parcels smaller than the minimum
included when the acres of at least the minimum size are contiguously owned and the land
is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status.
• The parcel should be part of a Forest Land Block at least three hundred twenty (320) acres
in size that meets the designation criteria. The Forest Land Blocks will continue to exist
even though individual parcels may be removed in the future because they no longer meet
the established designation criteria. The Forest Land Block shall apply if the amount of
designated Forest Land in the block falls below three hundred twenty (320) acres, but not if
the acreage of the block falls to zero (0).
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-27
• No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Urban Growth Area or within one
half (1/2) mile of the three designated Rural Village Centers or within approximately one
half (1/2) mile of the urbanized boundary of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
• The parcel is currently in a deferred forest tax status pursuant to RCW 84.33 or RCW 84.34
or classified or designated Timber Tax land, or State or Federal land outside the National
Forest Service boundary; and
• A majority of the parcel should be located outside any community water system service
area.
Agricultural Lands
Classification and Designation of Agricultural Land
It is Jefferson County’s intent to protect and foster opportunities 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 valuable 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.
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-2
Guidelines for Classification of Agricultural Resource Lands in Jefferson County
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.
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
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.
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.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-28
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 reclassification to Agricultural designation.
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
12. Is not currently designated as In-
holding 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.
In order to conserve the agricultural resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the
farming industry while recognizing the diversity of agricultural land owners, Agricultural Lands of
Long-Term Commercial Significance consist of two designations:
• Prime Agricultural Lands (AP-20)
• Agricultural Lands of Local Importance (AL-20)
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-29
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-2a
Summary of Agricultural Land Designations
Land Use
Designation
Criteria for Designation Principal
Land Use
Prime
Agricultural
Land (AP-20)
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
• 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
• is not currently served by “urban governmental services”; and
• is in an area characterized by a substantial proportion of undeveloped
parcels of land 20 acres or greater in size; and
• is outside of any area designated as Master Planned Resort (MPR) or
Urban Growth Area (UGA); and
• 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
• 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 In-holding Forest (IF).
Agricultural
activities
and single
family
residential
Agricultural
Land of Local
Importance
(AL-20)
In order to preserve and stimulate agricultural diversity and to maintain an
undeveloped land base for future agricultural use, the owner of a parcel may
petition the County for designation as Agricultural Land of Local Importance.
When the owner of a parcel or an aggregate of parcels petitions successfully
for rezone to agriculture the land shall be considered an Agricultural Land of
Long Term Commercial Significance and as such, it shall be afforded the
rights and protections of natural resource land. Land designated as
Agricultural Land of Local Importance shall meet the following criteria:
• the owner of the parcel currently utilizes or intends to utilize the land
for long term commercial agricultural purposes; and
• the land is located away from existing land uses that would interfere
with agricultural practices; and
• the land is located outside of areas already served with “urban
governmental services” which are typically provided in cities; and
• the land is located outside of existing Master Planned Resort (PR)
or Urban Growth Area (UGA) land use designations; and
• the land is physically and topographically suitable for the practice of
commercial agriculture.
• if currently designated as Rural Forest (RF-40), the land is already
platted into 20 acre or smaller parcels; and
• the land is not currently designated as Commercial Forest (CF-80)
or In-holding Forest (IF).
Agricultural
uses and
single
family
residential
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-30
NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 1.0 Encourage the conservation of resource lands and the long-term sustainable
use of natural resource-based economic activities throughout Jefferson
County.
POLICIES:
NRP 1.1 Designate lands where the preferred and principal land uses are resource-based
economic activities as Natural Resource lands.
NRP 1.2 Require land use activities adjacent to resource lands to be sited and designed so
as to minimize conflicts with resource based economic activities.
NRP 1.3 Provide up-to-date and accurate information to the public concerning the location of
resource lands and the nature of land uses and activities to be expected within
such areas.
NRP 1.4 Protect resource industry activities that are performed in accordance with
applicable regulations from being subject to legal action as public nuisances.
NRP 1.5 Support resource-based economic activities that comply with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations.
NRP 1.6 Support cooperative resource management among natural resource landowners,
environmental groups, state, federal and tribal governments.
NRP 1.7 Consider incentive programs to support resource-based economic activities in rural
areas.
NRP 1.8 Locate natural resource-based economic activities throughout rural areas in close
proximity to designated agricultural, forest or mineral resource lands upon which
they are dependent.
FOREST LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 3.0 Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
POLICIES:
NRP 3.1 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth
Management Act and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying and
designating Forest Lands for long-term commercial significance based on the
quality of the forest environment, the size of the parcel, the tax status, current use,
and distance from populated areas.
NRP 3.2 Encourage the continued diversity of forestry by designating classes of long-term
commercially significant forest land that allow the continued existence of a range of
approaches to forest management.
NRP 3.3 Parcels designated as Forest Land in common ownership separated by a public
right-of-way shall be considered as a single parcel.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-31
NRP 3.4 Allow commercial forest management and harvest, mineral extraction, sand and
gravel operations and those land uses which maintain, enhance, or have no impact
on the long term management of designated commercial forest lands.
NRP 3.5 Support and facilitate the improvement of state and local environmental regulations
affecting the forest products industry in order to improve operational predictability,
minimize regulatory costs to forest land owners, and encourage protection of the
forest environment and surrounding watersheds.
GOAL:
NRG 4.0 Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land
use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands.
POLICIES:
NRP 4.1 Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes except
for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Allow one
dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law.
NRP 4.2 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth
Management Act and the interim ordinance for conditional uses in Forest Lands.
NRP 4.3 Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing site and design
requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated forest land.
NRP 4.4 Minimize dangers from natural disasters such as fire, through siting and design
criteria for structures on designated Forest Lands.
NRP 4.5 Minimize conflict between primary and secondary forest production facilities and
related developments and forest management activities through siting and design
requirements.
NRP 4.6 Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire
districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Forest Lands
except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay.
NRP 4.7 Address community concerns and land use conflicts which may arise as a result of
forest practices in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, forest landowners, and the general public.
NRP 4.8 Facilitate a cooperative process bringing together timber company representatives,
environmental groups, landowners, and other interested parties to address
concerns related to incompatible land uses between parcels existing adjacent to
forest lands at the time of adoption of Ordinance #01-0121-97, the interim Forest
Lands Ordinance.
AGRICULTURE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 10.0 Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and its associated economy
and lifestyle.
POLICIES:
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-32
NRP 10.1 Adopt a final Agricultural Lands Ordinance that includes the criteria from the Interim
Agricultural Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Agricultural Lands for
long-term commercial significance based on the class of agricultural land, the size
of the parcel, the tax status, current use, and distance from populated areas.
NRP 10.2 Minimize conflicts with agricultural activities by developing site and design
requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated agricultural land which
insure that the adjacent activities shall not interfere with the continued use, in the
accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these
designated agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural
products.
NRP 10.3 Support the conservation of agricultural land through tax incentive programs, the
purchase or transfer of development rights, and other methods developed in
cooperation with agricultural landowners and managers.
NRP 10.4 Coordinate with state and federal agencies to encourage conservation of
productive agricultural land through best management practices, including soil and
water conservation, drainage, and livestock waste management programs.
NRP 10.5 Support the continuation of farming as the primary use of Agricultural Lands by
allowing a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres.
NRP 10.6 Encourage clustering based upon the characteristics of various types of agricultural
areas and practices in the County, while preserving an overall base density on
Agricultural Lands that does not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres.
NRP 10.7 Discourage the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, or
sewer, or public utility districts into designated Agricultural Lands.
NRP 10.8 Support agricultural activities such as farmers' markets and roadside stands by
permitting these uses outright on designated Agricultural Lands.
NRP 10.9 Encourage the preservation of family owned farms by discouraging the conversion
of these lands to other uses.
NRP 10.10 Support the work of Washington State University Cooperative Extension for
technical and marketing assistance for small-scale commercial farmers.
2.3.2.1 MLA08-56 (Brown)
Reference Number: MLA08-56
Applicant: Gloria Brown/BG Brown Trust (David Goldsmith – agent)
Assessor Parcel Number: 801091010 (application under # 801091002)
Location: One mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center Roads near
Chimacum
2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located one mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount Road and Center
Road near Chimacum. The request would change the land use designation and zoning of the
parcel, approximately 116 acres in size, from CF 1:80 to a combination of RF 1:40 and AL 1:20, or
RF 1:40 and RR 1:20.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-33
Note: While the amendment application was for tax parcel number 801091002, subsequent
boundary line adjustments on adjoining property resulted in a change of the parcel number to
801091010.
2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.450.080(1)(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Table 8. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-56: Brown
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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.
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
Population growth is occurring slower than
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional
guidance regarding rural densities and preservation
of rural character have come from GMHB decisions
as discussed above. Information has been
presented that a portion of the subject property is
and has been used as pasture land and not forest
land. It is possible that this information was not
considered during the adoption or amendment
processes.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect, to
the extent possible, countywide attitudes about the
future growth and management of the county. The
Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in
1998 and revised in 2004. Updating the
Comprehensive Plan in 2011 will likely include an
opportunity to reassess countywide attitudes.
Between Comprehensive Plan updates, countywide
attitudes can best be inferred through local election
results, perspectives expressed by public
representatives such as the Planning Commission,
and comments received during public comment
periods.
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.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-34
Table 8. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-56: Brown
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The forested portion of the property consists of a
Forest Land Grade 3, is more than 80 acres in size,
is part of a Forest Land Block of at least 320 acres
in size, and meets the other Forest Land
classification criteria of the Comprehensive Plan
(Comprehensive Plan, pgs. 4-3 & 4-4). The
application does not sufficiently demonstrated why
this portion of the property should be reclassified as
Rural Forest Land (RF 1:40) since, even with
approval of this amendment, it will remain at least
80 acres in size. The remaining portion of the
property cannot be reclassified as Agricultural Land
of Local Importance (AL 1:20) because the
comprehensive plan prohibits the rezoning of
designated Commercial Forest land to Agricultural
Resource lands (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 4-11).
The comprehensive plan prohibits the subdivision
of designated forest lands for residential purposes
and clearly emphasizes the need to preserve and
protect natural resource lands. A rezone to RR 1:20
could circumvent this provision and undermine the
integrity of the County Comprehensive Plan
(Comprehensive Plan, LNG 22.0, NRG 1.0 & 3.0
and NRP 4.1, pgs. 3-64, 4-31, 4-32, and 4-33).
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 would not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features that cannot be
mitigated.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but
not limited to access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
New parcels that could result from approval may
require a new access road that crosses fish bearing
Chimacum Creek and associated wetlands.
Portions of the subject properties also include non-
fish bearing streams and wetlands, creating
potential development limitations.
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, if approved, would set a precedent
and create additional pressure for up-zoning
commercial forest land.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-35
Table 8. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-56: Brown
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment could cumulatively
affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more
rural residential parcels than is needed to
accommodate the 20-year projected population
growth and its allocation to rural areas, then
additional rural residential lot creation may weaken
the county’s ability to direct growth to urban areas,
as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resolution no. 55-03. Moreover, approving this
proposal would set a precedent and create further
pressure to up-zone forest lands, resulting in a
cumulative loss of the county’s forest land and thus
impacting the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases 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 inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
RCW 36.70A.020(8) and 36.70A.060(1)(a) require
that the County assure the conservation of natural
resource lands. Re-designating commercial forest
land for rural residential use would not be
consistent with the GMA.
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).
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?
Reconstruction of an access bridge over fish-bearing Chimacum Creek could affect discharge of to
the creek. All development shall comply with the Washington State Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and bridge construction requires a
Hydraulic Project Approval through Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-36
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could affect native plants and
animals. It is not, however, likely to result in significant impacts. Increased discharge of stormwater
resulting from the possible reconstruction of an access bridge over fish-bearing Chimacum Creek
may impact fish species, as well as downstream marine nearshore resources. 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 may contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased residential
energy use and some loss of forest resources, however, such impacts are not considered
significant. 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.
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could potentially affect fish and non-
fish bearing creeks and mapped wetlands. Project-specific development that may occur as a result
of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for critical areas.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
The proposal would result in the re-designation of commercial forest land to either agricultural land
of local significance or rural residential land, which is prohibited under the Comprehensive Plan. No
portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction, although the Type F stream feeds into the
lower reaches of Chimacum Creek that are Shorelines of the State.
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 significant 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.
New parcels that could result from approval may require a new access road that crosses fish
bearing Chimacum Creek and associated wetlands. Portions of the subject property also include
non-fish bearing streams and wetlands. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of
the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for critical areas.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-37
2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The forested portion of the property consists of a Forest Land Grade 3, is more than 80 acres in
size, is part of a Forest Land Block of at least 320 acres in size, and meets the other Forest Land
classification criteria of the comprehensive plan (Comprehensive Plan, pgs. 4-3 & 4-4). The
application does not sufficiently demonstrate why this portion of the property should be reclassified
as Rural Forest Land (RF 1:40) since, even under the proposal, it will remain at least 80 acres in
size. The remaining portion of the property cannot be reclassified as Agricultural Land of Local
Importance (AL 1:20) because the comprehensive plan prohibits the rezoning of designated
Commercial Forest land to Agricultural Resource lands (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 4-11). The
comprehensive plan prohibits the subdivision of designated forest lands for residential purposes
and emphasizes the need to preserve and protect natural resource lands (Comprehensive Plan,
LNG 22.0, NRG 1.0 & 3.0 and NRP 4.1, pgs. 3-64, 4-31, 4-32, and 4-33). Rezoning to Rural
Residential would in essence circumvent provision NRP 4.1 and be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
If the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners do choose to approve the rezoning
of the pasture land portion of this proposal, staff recommends that the split zoning occur at the
precise boundary of the pasture land and that a condition of approval be applied requiring the land
owner to obtain a boundary line adjustment which matches the approved split zoning.
2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change of Commercial
Forest Land Designation to combination of Rural Forest and
Agriculture of Local Significance or Rural Residential
The proposed amendment could cumulatively affect the land use and population growth projections
that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more rural residential parcels
than is needed to accommodate the 20-year projected population growth and its allocation to rural
areas, then additional rural residential lot creation may weaken the county’s ability to direct growth
to urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County
Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03. Moreover, approving this proposal would set a precedent and
create further pressure to up-zone forest lands, resulting in a cumulative loss of the county’s forest
land and thus impacting the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan.
New parcels that could result from approval may require a new access road that crosses fish
bearing Chimacum Creek and associated wetlands. Portions of the subject properties also include
non-fish bearing streams and wetlands. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of
the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for critical areas.
2.3.3. Request for Change from Commercial Forest
Land Designation to Rural Residential (1)
Requests for a change from Commercial Forest Land to Rural Residential are subject to the goals,
policies, and implementation strategies contained in the Growth Management Act, County-Wide
Planning Policies, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and applicable
clarifications from the Growth Management Hearings Board. Of greatest relevance are Chapters 3
and 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The most applicable citations for both forest land and rural
residential use are discussed above under sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this document and therefore
will not be repeated here.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-38
2.3.3.1 MLA08-73 (Jackson)
Reference Number: MLA08-73
Applicant: James Jackson/Chimacum Heights LLC
Assessor Parcel Number: 901132002
Location: near Chimacum
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located one-half mile from Oak Bay Road (via Kingfisher Place), three-
quarters of a mile from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, and one-half mile from Chimacum.
The request proposes to change the land use designation and zoning of this one hundred-twenty
(120) acre parcel from CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.450.080(1)(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Table 9. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-73: Jackson
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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 pre-platted Irondale Acre Tracts (Oak Hills
development) to the east of the property (but not
directly abutting the property) are beginning to be
developed at approximately 4 acre lots over 200
acres.
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
Population growth is occurring slower than was
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional
guidance regarding rural densities and preservation
of rural character have come from GMHB decisions
as discussed above.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
A widely held value of Jefferson County residents is
the preservation of the county’s forest lands, as
reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal
seeks to remove 120 acres from forest land
designation.
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 applicant has indicated an intention to seek an
expansion of the water service area to include the
property.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-39
Table 9. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-73: Jackson
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need to
preserve and protect natural resource lands
(Comprehensive Plan, LNG 22.0 and NRG 1.0 &
3.0, pgs. 3-64, 4-31, and 4-32). The property
meets the forest land classification criteria in that it
consists of Forest Land Grades 3 & 4, is more than
80 acres in size, is part of a Forest Land Block of at
least 320 acres in size, is located further than a
half-mile from the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock
Urban Growth Area (UGA), is currently in a
deferred forest tax status, and is located outside a
community water system service area. A
professional forester employed by the applicant
stated in a 2007 Forest Management Plan
submitted to the County Assessor’s office that the
property can produce some of the best quality
wood products available in the Puget Sound area
today and that the applicant was committed to a
concentrated effort to produce high quality wood
products through state of the art forest
management techniques. The Comprehensive
Plan’s Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and
Historic Preservation Policy 1.2(f) calls on the
county to evaluate proposed development projects
to preserve and protect open space areas,
including forested ridges and hilltops that can be
viewed from public areas and public roads. The
subject property is a forested ridge visible from
public areas in Chimacum, the development of
which will result in the loss of some open space
(Comprehensive Plan, OSP 1.2(f), pg. 6-14).
Finally, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits the
subdivision of designated forest lands for
residential purposes (Comprehensive Plan, NRP
4.1, pg. 4-33). Therefore, this proposal is not
consistent with the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts to the
county’s transportation network, capital facilities,
utilities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities
The proposed amendment would not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but
not limited to access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
The subject parcel is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation and anticipated
development with regard to access, provision of
utilities and compatibility with existing and planned
surrounding land uses.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-40
Table 9. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-73: Jackson
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the
long-term best interests of the county as a whole
The proposed amendment could set a precedent
for rezoning commercial forest land to rural
residential, creating more pressure to rezone
commercial forest land. Cumulatively, this could
result in a significant loss of the county’s
commercial forest lands.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment could cumulatively
affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive
Plan. If there are currently more rural residential
parcels than is needed to accommodate the 20-
year projected population growth and its allocation
to rural areas, then additional rural residential lot
creation may weaken the county’s ability to direct
growth to urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of
County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03.
Moreover, approving this proposal could set a
precedent and create further pressure to rezone
forest lands, resulting in a cumulative loss of the
county’s forest land and thus impacting the land
use and population growth projections that are the
bases 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 inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
RCW 36.70A.020(8) and 36.70A.060(1)(a) require
that the County assure the conservation of natural
resource lands. Re-designating commercial forest
land for rural residential use would not be
consistent with the GMA.
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).
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?
This proposal is not likely to significantly increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-41
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could potentially affect native plants
and animals. It is not, however, likely to result in a significant impact. 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 may contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased residential
energy use and will result in the loss of 120 acres of forest 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 proposal is not likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection, with the exception of the presence of a slight landslide hazard area in the
western portion of the parcel. Should this amendment be approved, future land division and
development of the parcel shall comply with County critical area protection measures.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
The proposal would convert forest land to rural residential development, resulting in the loss of
forest resource lands. No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction, however, loss of
forest cover in watersheds affects ecosystem processes that support shoreline functions and
resources.
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 significant additional demand for public services. The
proponent, however, has indicated that he will seek an expansion of the water service area to
include the property.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal is not expected to conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment.
2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denying approval of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The Comprehensive Plan clearly emphasizes the need to preserve and protect natural resource
lands (Comprehensive Plan, LNG 22.0 and NRG 1.0 & 3.0, pgs. 3-64, 4-31, and 4-32). In addition,
the property meets the forest land classification criteria in that it consists of Forest Land Grades 3 &
4, is more than 80 acres in size, is part of a Forest Land Block of at least 320 acres in size, is
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-42
located further than a half-mile from the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA),
is currently in a deferred forest tax status, and is located outside a community water system service
area. A professional forester employed by the applicant stated in a 2007 Forest Management Plan
submitted to the County Assessor’s office that the property can produce some of the best quality
wood products available in the Puget Sound area today, and that the applicant was committed to a
concentrated effort to produce high quality wood products through state of the art forest
management techniques. The forested property is also located on a ridge visible from public areas,
which the Comprehensive Plan calls to preserve and protect (Comprehensive Plan, OSP 1.2(f), pg.
6-14). Finally, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits the subdivision of designated forest lands for
residential purposes (Comprehensive Plan, NRP 4.1, pg. 4-33). A rezone from Commercial Forest
to Rural Residential could circumvent this provision and undermine the integrity of the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this proposal is not consistent with the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.3.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Change from Forest
Resource Land to Rural Residential Designation
The proposed amendment could cumulatively impact the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more rural
residential parcels than is needed to accommodate the 20-year projected population growth and its
allocation to rural areas, then additional rural residential lot creation may weaken the county’s ability
to direct growth to urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and
Board of County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03. Moreover, approving this proposal could set
a precedent and create further pressure to rezone forest lands, resulting in a cumulative loss of the
county’s forest land and impacting the land use and population growth projections that are the
bases of the Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.4 Request for Application of the Mineral Resource
Land Overlay to an Underlying Commercial
Forest Land Designation (1)
Requests for application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay designation are subject to the
goals, policies, and implementation strategies contained in the Growth Management Act, County-
Wide Planning Policies, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and
applicable clarifications from the Growth Management Hearings Board. Applications must be
evaluated using Mineral Resource Land classification and designation criteria set forth within the
Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-6 and 4-7; and
NRGs 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0, and NRPs 6.1 through 9.2). Relevant excerpts from this Natural
Resources Element narrative and goal and policy language include the following:
Mineral Lands
Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands
Based upon the criteria provided by the Department of Natural Resources, there are three key
issues that
need to be addressed in the designation and conservation of mineral resource lands:
1. Classifying the types of mineral resources that are potentially significant in Jefferson County;
2. Defining the amount and long-term significance of aggregate that is needed to meet the
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-43
demand of
Jefferson County’s projected population; and,
3. Determining how to balance a variety of land uses within mineral resource areas.
Future mineral resource lands consist of areas identified with the potential for the existence of
mineral resources. These areas:
• appear to contain the resource, based upon the information supplied by Department of
Natural Resources;
• are not primarily within critical areas, for example, high quality wetland areas; and,
• are at least 80 acres in size, of which one forty (40) acre parcel or two twenty (20) acre
parcels are currently vacant.
The criteria used to classify mineral resource lands in Jefferson County were based on the
guidelines provided by the state and an analysis of local conditions. Limited geological information
is available to accurately identify, evaluate, and designate mineral resources of long-term
commercial significance. U.S. Geological Survey Maps and Department of Natural Resources
surface mining data were reviewed to determine current and potential mineral resource lands of
long-term commercial significance.
Based upon this evaluation, and in conjunction with the analysis and assessment of forest resource
lands, a high degree of overlap between lands devoted to growing timber and land potentially
containing commercial mineral deposits was identified. Because of the amount of forest cover and
geology of Jefferson County, most mineral resources are located in forest resource lands.
Therefore, the inclusion of mineral extraction and primary processing as a permitted use on
designated forest land will protect mineral resource lands from the encroachment of incompatible
development, conserve the mineral resource land base of Jefferson County, and allow for its future
utilization by the mining industry. In addition, the County has included in this approach an action
item (Item #8, p. 4-40, Comprehensive Plan) to perform an analysis to determine the 50-year
construction aggregate supply, so as to ensure that the lands to be protected will meet the 50-year
projected demand within an economically feasible distance to the market area or areas within
County jurisdiction. This satisfies the GMA requirements to not knowingly preclude opportunities
for future mining and, as the lands are identified, to inform nearby property owners of the potential
for future mining use of these areas in order to prevent or minimize potential conflicts.
The Natural Resource Lands Element and JCC Title 18 identify the extraction of sand, gravel, rock,
and minerals as a permitted use. The JCC provides development regulations for mining activities
such as size, clearing, stormwater controls and protection of critical areas.
The Land Use map of this Plan depicts the locations of existing mining operations which currently
operate under a Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Reclamation Permit, and
provides an underlying land use designation. The Mineral Lands map accompanying this element
depicts the parcels regulated under DNR permits at the time of the Comprehensive Plan adoption,
although it should be noted that the mining operations for a number of the sites do not occupy the
entire parcel.
The Regulatory Framework for Mineral Lands
Once identified, lands under consideration for commercial mineral extraction must also be
evaluated to assess land use compatibility, economic issues, and environmental impacts. A matrix
(Table 4-3) accompanying NRP 6.2 is provided as a reference point for both the County and
applicant to assess the feasibility of designating and protecting the mineral resource and should be
linked to future land use decisions. Specific areas of review will include, at a minimum, the
following: compatibility with neighboring land uses; noise; traffic; visual impacts; water resources,
including surface water, ground water, and wetlands; soil, including erosion, slopes, flooding, and
contamination; and fish and wildlife habitat.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-44
Eventually, as the mineral resource is depleted, mining sites are abandoned, or the operations
discontinued for long periods of time. Reclamation of abandoned, depleted, or discontinued mines
creates opportunities for new uses compatible with current, ongoing and reclaimed adjacent land
uses. Reclamation reduces the dangers associated with some types of abandoned mines,
improves the aesthetics of the site, and can create environmental amenities, such as lakes, ponds,
wetlands, and forests. Reclamation is not the restoration of the site to pre-mining topography.
Reclamation plans are required by the Department of Natural Resources and will be considered by
Jefferson County during environmental assessment of proposed mining operations. Policies in this
Plan encouraging reclamation plans will be addressed through SEPA review of mining operations
regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. The State Department of Natural Resources
regulates mining sites of three (3) acres in size or larger.
MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 6.0 Conserve and protect Mineral Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
POLICIES:
NRP 6.1 Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Interim Mineral
Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Mineral Resource Lands of
commercial significance based on physical and topographic characteristics, distance
from populated areas, and the quality of the resource.
NRP 6.2 Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes a process for reviewing mineral
lands designation petitions which assesses the feasibility of designating mineral
resource lands according to Table 4.3, and considers compatibility with adjacent land
uses, economic issues and environmental impacts.
NRP 6.3 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the interim ordinance
allowing mineral extraction and the primary processing of materials on designated
Forest Lands, provided that the extraction is conducted under a Washington State
Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Permit and/or other applicable
permit and is performed in accordance with the guidelines for best management
practices established by Jefferson County.
NRP 6.4 Mitigate conflicts with adjacent land uses by zoning and regulations including
operation, siting, buffering and design requirements which minimize conflicts between
mineral extraction/primary processing activities and land use activities located adjacent
to designated mineral lands.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-45
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-3
Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands
NOT
SUITABLE
FOR
DESIGNATION
CONSIDER
FOR
DESIGNATION
DESIGNATION
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
HIGHLY
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
CRITICAL
QUALITY OF
DEPOSIT
Low grade
deposit.
Variable but
located near use
area or
processing plant.
Deposit made
economical to
mine by
upgrading
material.
Grade meets the
requirements for
road construction
or can be
upgraded.
Concrete quality.
SIZE OF
DEPOSIT
Small deposit. Small deposit
(less than 2,000
tons)
Medium-size
deposit.
Large deposit
(7.5 million tons)
Very large
deposit (10
million tons).
ACCESS
DISTANCE
FROM
MARKET
More than 20
miles from use
area.
Distance from
use area is
minimized due to
access to
interstate.
Less than 10
miles from the
use area;
alternative
access route
available.
Large deposit
presently beyond
economical
hauling distance
to present use
areas. Near
highways: access
can be provided.
Within 5 miles of
uses area.
Adjacent to
highway with
access for trucks.
COMPATIBLE
WITH
NEARBY
AREAS
Adjacent land
use presently
incompatible with
mining
(appreciable
residential
development
within range of
excessive noise,
dust, blasting,
vibrations, etc.)
Scattered
development
within outer
range of impacts
of mining; owners
may not object to
mining.
Adjacent land
suitable for
development and
within commuting
distance of use
area.
Imminent
incompatible
development on
adjacent lands.
No incompatible
land uses
existing or likely
in the
foreseeable
future (adjacent
land in national
forest, operator’s
ownership,
agricultural land
use).
IMPACT OF
NOISE
Noise level in
adjacent
presently
developed areas
would clearly
exceed
standards if
mining occurred.
Noise level in
adjacent
undeveloped
areas would
exceed
standards for
likely use, but
use of these
areas can be
easily delayed or
economical
mitigation can be
provided by
barriers.
Noise at adjacent
residential areas
less than 50
dB(A) due to
distance or
topographical
barrier, berm can
be constructed
easily.
IMPACT OF
BLASTING
Too close to
existing
subdivision.
Blasting no
required;
permanent open
space between
quarry and other
uses;
topographical
barrier between
quarry and other
land uses; only
occasional light
blasting; blasting
compatible with
adjacent uses.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-46
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-3 continued
NOT
SUITABLE
FOR
DESIGNATION
CONSIDER
FOR
DESIGNATION
DESIGNATION
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
HIGHLY
DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
CRITICAL
IMPACT OF
TRUCK
TRAFFIC
Only access is
local road
through
residential area.
Slightly longer
alternative route
exists.
Alternative truck
route can be built
at reasonable
expense;
alternative
transportation
(conveyor, etc.,
can be used past
residential
streets).
Adjacent to
freeway with
access to site.
VISUAL
IMPACT
Mining would
destroy or create.
Mining activity
cannot be
screened and
would
permanently alter
landscape.
Some activity
visible from
residential areas,
but no permanent
deterioration of
landscape.
Mining activity
can be easily
screened by
berms and/or
vegetation.
Activity screened
by topography or
vegetation, or
appreciably
reduced by
distance.
SURFACE &
GROUND
WATER
IMPACTS
Potential adverse
impacts to water
resources on site.
Water resources
on site and can
be avoided.
Limited water
resources on site
and can be
mitigated.
No water
resources on site.
WETLANDS
IMPACT
High quality
wetlands
throughout the
site.
High quality
wetlands only on
a portion of site
and can be
avoided.
Lower quality
wetlands on site
and can be
mitigated.
Wetlands can be
avoided on site.
No or minimal
wetlands on site
and of low
quality.
SLOPES Site located in
active unstable
slope area.
Potential or
historical
unstable slopes.
Unstable slopes
on site can be
avoided.
Minimal slopes
throughout the
site.
Level grade
mining with
minimal slopes.
BIOLOGICAL
IMPACT
Rare and
threatened/
endangered
plants or animals
on site.
Site includes
priority wildlife
habitat that would
be permanently
moved by mining.
Species of
Special Concern
habitat located
on site.
Minor or
temporary loss of
fish and wildlife
habitat.
No significant
biological
resources;
rehabilitation of
site would
replace or create
habitat.
IMPACT OF
FLOODING
Mining would
cause erosion of
adjacent
property; could
be prevented
only at great
expense.
Mining would
create erosion
hazard for roads,
bridges, and
utility lines;
however, these
structures could
be strengthened
at reasonable
costs.
Mining would
create flood
control channel
and would not
damage adjacent
land.
GOAL:
NRG 7.0 Provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mining
extraction and processing operations.
POLICIES:
NRP 7.1 Require environmental review on all mineral lands designation requests and/or
conditional use permits.
NRP 7.2 Provide for the following factors in mineral resource land use decisions:
a. The range of environmental impacts, including short-term and long-term effects
arising over the lifetime of the proposal;
b. The ability of the site to confine or mitigate all operational impacts;
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-47
c. The compatibility of operations with adjacent land uses when mitigating
measures are applied;
d. The capacity of transportation facilities to handle safely the transport of products
from the site; and,
e. The adequacy of plans for reclamation of the site for appropriate future use.
NRP 7.3 Develop standards and guidelines to identify and address the impact of mining
operations on adjoining properties. Such conditioning should not have the intent of
rendering mining operations economically unfeasible.
NRP 7.4 Evaluate small mining operations to determine when the cumulative impact of small
operations becomes a significant adverse impact upon the land or upon adjacent
lands.
GOAL:
NRG 8.0 Ensure that County mineral resource lands are restored to safe and useful
condition with enhancement and mitigation of damage to the function and
aesthetics of the environment and subsequent land uses.
POLICIES:
NRP 8.1 Develop requirements for reclamation plans for mineral extraction activities. These
requirements may exceed minimum State requirements.
NRP 8.2 Ensure that reclamation plans preserve the safety, function and value of adjacent
lands including aesthetic and environmental and water resource values.
NRP 8.3 Encourage reclamation plans which provide enhanced public value such as parks,
play-grounds, open space, trails, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat.
NRP 8.4 Encourage reclamation that occurs on an ongoing basis as mineral deposits are
depleted.
NRP 8.5 Avoid the potential for aquifer contamination in importing material used for reclamation
backfill or storage and in approving subsequent land use activities on reclaimed mining
lands.
NRP 8.6 Establish standards for performance bonds unless otherwise required for reclamation
activities to be provided prior to the initiation of mineral resource extraction land use
activities.
GOAL:
NRG 9.0 Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral
extraction activities.
POLICIES:
NRP 9.1 Regulate mining operations to prevent adverse impacts to ground or surface water
quality.
NRP 9.2 Establish a preference for the protection of aquifers and recharge zones from the
effects of surface mining in the event that adverse impacts cannot be avoided through
best management practices.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-48
The proposal for application of the MRL Overlay designation will be reviewed consistent with this
narrative, goal and policy direction. A general description, criteria review, and staff
recommendation for the proposal is provided below.
2.3.4.1 MLA08-93 (Burnett/Pope Resources)
Reference Number: MLA08-93
Applicant: James Burnett/Pope Resources
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821324002; 821311001; 821291002; and
821302001
Location: Three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge immediately north of
Highway 104, and adjacent to Shine Quarry, Port Ludlow, WA
2.3.4.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would seek to apply the Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay
designation to approximately 142 acres of CF 1:80 designated and zoned land. Because the
proposal is to apply an overlay designation to the subject properties, it would not seek to change
the underlying CF 1:80 land use designation and zoning.
The entire proposed MRL Overlay area is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as
designated forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). Addition of the MRL Overlay would not
change the permissible dwelling unit densities on-site, which would continue to be restricted to one
dwelling per eighty acres consistent with the underlying CF 1:80 zoning. CF 1:80 would be the
subsequent use.
2.3.4.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(1)(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Table 10. Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA08-93: Burnett/Pope
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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 Port Ludlow Master Planned Community
has continued to develop within the MPR zoned
area to the north. The resident population is
greater 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 assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are presumed to
be valid.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The proposal reflects current widely held values
of the residents of Jefferson County residents
insofar as mineral extraction is conducted in the
county. However, it must be noted that other
values which are stated in the Comprehensive
Plan regarding avoidance of land-use conflicts
are also expressed by Jefferson County
residents.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-49
Table 10. Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA08-93: Burnett/Pope
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
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 does not affect any County roads.
The Washington Department of Transportation
recommends a Traffic Impact Analysis
regarding level of service and safety on SR104.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
goals, policies and implementation strategies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts
to the county’s transportation network, capital
facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental
features that cannot be mitigated, and will not
place uncompensated burdens upon existing or
planned service capabilities
Potential impacts from mining activity as a result
of the MRLO are possible. Those impacts can
be mitigated through a combination of SEPA
mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the
land use map, that the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use
designation and the anticipated land use
development, including but not limited to
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land
uses
The subject parcels are suitable for the MRLO
as they contain known mineral resources.
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 MRLO will not create pressure to place
mineral overlays on other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The MRLO designation is appropriate for the
underlying CF1:80 zoning. It may have an
effect on future use of the parcel for forestry.
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 proposal is not within a UGA.
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 proposal is consistent with GMA, CWPPs
and other applicable policies, agreements and
laws.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-50
In addition to the findings and conclusions required under JCC 18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners must also develop additional findings and
conclusions as set forth under JCC §18.15.170 that consider specific criteria relative to mineral
lands. Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial significance are those lands from which
the commercial extraction of minerals (i.e., sand, gravel, rock and other valuable aggregate or
metallic substances) can be anticipated within twenty (20) years, and which are characterized by
affirmative findings relative to all of the criteria set forth in the table below.
Table 11. Assessment of Long-Term Commercial Significance of
Mineral Resources –
MLA08-93: Burnett/Pope
UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC 18.15.170) Staff Evaluation
Has a known or potential extractable resource
in commercial quantities been verified by
submittal of a geologic and economic report
prepared by a qualified professional?
Yes. A geologic report has been submitted
verifying an extractable resource in commercial
quantities.
Is the parcel is a minimum of 10 acres in size?
Yes. As indicated previously, the proposed
overlay encompasses approximately 142 acres.
Is the subject property surrounded by parcels
no smaller than five acres in size on 100
percent of its perimeter?
The parcel is not surrounded by parcels smaller
than five acres on any side.
Does the current, or will the future, land use
designation have a residential density equal to,
or lower than, one (1) unit per five (5) acres?
Yes. The existing and future permissible
density of all areas within the proposed MRL
Overlay is one dwelling unit per eighty acres
(CF 1:80).
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside the
shoreline designation, an urban growth area or
rural village center, and more than one-half
mile of any established or potential urban
growth area or rural village center boundary, as
shown on the official maps of the
Comprehensive Plan?
Yes, though portions of the MRL Overlay are
less than one-half mile of the Port Ludlow MPR.
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside of
regulated wetland or fish and wildlife habitat
areas pursuant to Article VI-H and VI-I of
Chapter 18.15 JCC [Ord. 8-06 § 1]?
No. There are regulated wetlands on the
proposed MRLO.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-51
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).
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 impacts would be commensurate with hard-rock surface mining. Pre-project materials provided by
the applicant shows surface water and a sedimentation pond with a discharge. Removal of hills which
currently buffer Port Ludlow from noise dust and light could increase the effect of these hazards.
Potential impacts from light, noise, dust, diminished water quality are addressed with SEPA mitigation
measures.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Effects would be direct from removal of habitat and indirect from disturbance by mining activities and
discharge from the site. An initial inventory of plants, animals and natural communities of concern
would precede a Habitat Management Plan, as specified in the SEPA mitigation measures.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The natural resources would be depleted by their extraction, which is the purpose of the project.
Electricity, fossil fuels and water would be used for normal operation of the mine.
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.
Project materials provided by the applicant show base mining depth to be below the surface elevation
of existing wetlands. The potential effect of draining subsurface water from the wetlands or the buffers
could potentially be mitigated by not mining into the seasonal high water table. Along with SEPA
mitigation measures identified in Question #2, an initial inventory and rating of wetlands will provide
baseline conditions from which to apply conservation and mitigation plans.
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?
Surface water drains from the MRLO area into Squamish Harbor and Hood Canal. Water quality and
impacts to Shorelines of the State could be a concern.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The impacts from additional truck traffic on SR 104 would be analyzed in a Traffic Impact Analysis and
may require further mitigations such as road system improvements.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not appear to conflict with any law. Environmental protections will be achieved
through SEPA mitigation measures and through Conditions of Approval.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-52
2.3.4.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval with modifications and conditions of the proposed MRL Overlay
amendment. In general, the conservation of mineral resource lands occurs under the GMA, through
the natural resource lands designation process (RCW 36.70A.040 (3)(b) and 36.70A.170) and
through the adoption of development regulations to implement their conservation (RCW
36.70A.060(1)). GMA provides a measure of protection for natural resource activities, but there is
no requirement that rural lands be primarily devoted to these uses (ARD and Diehl v. Mason
County, WWGMHB Case No. 06-2-0005 (Final Decision and Order, 8-14-06). Rather, GMA
requires that land appropriate for mineral extraction activities is not inappropriately converted for
residential purposes.
In this instance, a Mineral Resource Overlay application is in close proximity to a Master Planned
Resort. Map A-7a characterizes the viewshed from anywhere along the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort. There are topographical features between the proposed mine site and the Resort
with the exception of the valley connecting on the east side of the area. This map also shows a
one-half mile buffer extending outward from the Resort. Planning decisions are guided by an effort
to balance two potentially conflicting land uses. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan provide a
general direction for both the conservation of Jefferson County’s natural resource lands and the
enhancement of resource based industries (Natural Resources Element, Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4).
It is the policy (NRP 1.4, Comprehensive Plan) of Jefferson County to protect resource industry
activities that are performed in accordance with applicable regulations from being subject to legal
action as public nuisances. However, Jefferson County’s strategy for maintaining compatibility
between activities on natural resource lands and adjacent land uses includes protection of those
nearby land uses from adverse impacts. Therefore, mitigating conflicts between mineral extraction
activities and other land use activities located adjacent to them may be accomplished by
requirements which minimize the conflict (NRP 6.4, Comprehensive Plan).
SEPA Mitigation Measures (18.40.760 (2)(b)(ii); 18.40.760 (4)(a)
SEPA mitigation measures are required to bring the probable impacts to a moderate level for the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS). These mitigations include conducting the
appropriate project analysis for the proposed mining activities:
A. Visual Impact Analysis
B. Species and Habitat Inventory and development of a Habitat Management Plan
C. Stormwater Pollution Plan
D. Report on existing noise levels and a Supplemental Noise Report for Iron Mountain
Quarry operation
E. Mine site Illumination Report: Light and Glare Analysis
F. Transportation Report with Transportation Impact Analysis
G. Hydro-geological report: Groundwater Supply and Water Quality of Recharge
H. Wetland Inventory and Mitigation Analysis
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-53
Jefferson County Conditions of Approval (18.45.080 (1)(d))
18.45.080 (1)(d) refers to the Planning Commission recommendation process. The findings and
conclusions shall include a recommendation to the Board that the project be denied, approved, or
approved with conditions or modifications.
Staff interprets JCC 18.20.240(g)(i)—increased off-site impacts resulting from alteration,
intensification, and expansion of existing gravel pits and surface mining operations—as providing
justification to consider JCC 18.40.530 for Conditional Use Permit criteria at the project level.
These criteria for review are not for the legislative action phase, however they will need to be
considered at the project level phase.
Staff Recommendations for Conditions of Approval and Modification:
1) The MRL Overlay amendment shall not extend any closer than one-half mile to the Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort boundary.
2) The proponent shall prepare and submit a habitat management plan with any formal
mining or stormwater application submitted to Jefferson County
3) Prior to approval and operation of a surface mine in the IMQ mineral resources overlay,
the proponent shall submit and satisfy all requirements of the Jefferson County Code
(JCC) Title 18 including, but not limited to:
a) Protection of critical areas per JCC 18.15.170 (6). Mining is prohibited
within regulated wetlands or their buffers. Mining is prohibited in Fish and Wildlife
Habitat areas or their buffers.
b) Submission of a drainage and erosion control plan, grading plan, and
aquifer recharge area report if applicable, which shall demonstrate that the
proposed activities will not cause degradation of groundwater or surface waters.
4) The proponent shall satisfy all requirements of JCC 18.l20.240 for mineral extraction,
mining, and reclamation including full compliance with the Washington State Surface
Mining Act (RCW 78.44).
5) The proponent shall satisfy all development standard requirements of JCC 18.30.
6) The proponent shall fulfill the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) found at RCW 43.21c and WAC 197-11.
7) All activities within the MRL overlay shall be subject to the standards of the latest
edition of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. Gravel mining operations shall, prior to approval and operation, obtain
from the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for process water, stormwater
and mine dewatering water discharges.
8) Mining shall be limited to a maximum depth of ten (10) feet above the seasonal high
water table as determined by the best available scientific data, and in concurrence with
Department of Ecology.
9) At the point of Development Permit application, the proponent shall meet the
requirements of JCC 18.20.240 (2)(c) by dedication of buffer zones and other
precautionary measures as appropriate to protect adjoining lands, wildlife habitat and
scenic resources from adverse impacts.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-54
2.3.4.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Application of the Mineral
Resource Land Overlay Designation to an Underlying Forest Resource Land
Designation
Iron Mountain Quarry is located in the Comprehensive Plan’s Shine, #8A planning unit. This area
has known mineral resource deposits and active quarries. The proposal would add an additional
142 acres (approximately) to the County MRL Overlay designation.
2.3.5 Request for Change from Resource-Based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ) Designation to Light
Industrial (1)
Requests for a change from Resource-Based Industrial Zone to a Light Industrial Zone are subject
to the goals, policies, and implementation strategies contained in the Growth Management Act,
County-Wide Planning Policies, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and
applicable clarifications from the Growth Management Hearings Board. Of greatest relevance is
Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Of particular use are pages 3-18 to 3-22, and LNG 10.0,
11.0, and 12.0, which are copied below for convenience.
INDUSTRIAL LANDS
Rural Industrial
Rural land designated as rural industrial land in this Plan is based on existing industrial uses in
areas previously zoned as industrial. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), counties may recognize
areas of more intensive industrial development and contain them within logical boundaries to limit
infill development. Designated under this Plan are the following industrial zones: Port Townsend
Paper Mill as Heavy Industrial (HI), Glen Cove as light industrial and associated commercial (LI/C),
Quilcene and Eastview Industrial Plat as light industrial (LI/M), and forest resource-based industrial
zones (RBIZ) at Gardiner, Center, and the West End. All areas meet the following minimum criteria
for designation of rural industrial land:
1. An area or use of more intensive industrial development in existence on July 1, 1990; and
3. An area that is not located on designated natural resource lands.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Heavy Industrial Area
The Port Townsend Paper Mill has provided employment for several generations of Jefferson
County residents. The mill property has been designated as heavy industrial (HI) for the mill and
for activities ancillary to the mill. The property includes a water treatment lagoon and a port facility
on Port Townsend Bay that are directly related to activities at the mill. The mill is recognized as a
heavy industrial activity because it is a large-scale and intensive industrial activity that must meet
extensive environmental permitting requirements under industrial standards for air quality, water
quality, and wastewater treatment.
Glen Cove Industrial Area
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-55
Uses for the Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C) designation at Glen Cove include commercial and
retail uses that are directly associated with the light industrial uses. Associated commercial and
retail uses may include commodities and products, mechanical or electrical supplies, warehousing
and storage, or may provide support services to those who work in the industries, such as a small
café. Allowing broader commercial uses at Glen Cove would require addressing concerns
regarding pedestrian and traffic safety, infrastructure, and incompatible uses both visually and in
terms of hazardous materials storage. Thus the commercial designation for Glen Cove is restricted
to uses which differ considerably from those in Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers.
Light industrial/commercial uses allowed at Glen Cove include but are not limited to: industrial
parks, light manufacturing, construction yards, engine repair, metal fabrication or machining,
plumbing shops and yards, printing and binding facilities (non-retail), research laboratories,
excavating contractors, furniture manufacturing, software development, lumber yards, vehicle repair
and restoration, warehousing and storage, boat building and repair, craft goods, blacksmith or
forge, commercial relay and transfer stations, boat storage, and associated commercial uses as
discussed above. Also permitted as conditional uses are those such as: amateur radio towers
greater than 65 feet in height, café, car wash, electronic goods repair, fitness center, kennels, mini-
storage, and nursery/landscape materials.
The Glen Cove industrial boundary for light industrial/commercial uses recognizes a contained
cluster of existing uses. When the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and
established the interim LI/C zone at Glen Cove, the GMA was still in its formative years and the
case law was not available for guidance. Jefferson County was among the first counties to
establish Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) allowed under GMA as
amended in 1997 by ESB 6094. There was intent to revisit the boundary after thorough analysis
was completed. An expanded Light Industrial (LI) zone was established at Glen Cove in December
2002. The Light Industrial district does not allow for the commercial uses that are allowed in the
LI/C zone.
Quilcene Industrial Area
The light industrial area at Quilcene was recognized in the final Plan based on criteria in 1997
amendments to the GMA allowing Counties to recognize and contain existing areas and uses of
more intensive industrial development (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)). The industries need not be limited
to those serving the local population. Other criteria and considerations used for this designation
include: a minority report from the Planning Commission recommending a light industrial area in
Quilcene, the need to provide local employment in an area of distressed economic conditions
located at a distance from the Urban Growth Area, and the desire to reduce commuter-related
traffic pressures on County roadways.
The existing industrial uses include a sawmill, a machine shop, and industrial storage. A vested
project for additional industrial storage is the basis for recognition of an adjacent parcel. Light
industrial uses allowed in the Quilcene Industrial Area include but are not limited to those described
above for Glen Cove, with the exception of the associated commercial and retail uses.
Transportation access is adequate, as the area is on Highway 101. New development will be
restricted until water supply issues related to adequate fire flow are addressed following the
community election for a Local Utility District in late 1998.
Eastview Light Industrial/Manufacturing Zone
The Eastview Industrial Plat borders the Paper Mill Heavy Industrial Zone on the north. Eastview
consists of six lots comprising about 8 acres that was platted in 1978. The current uses include
storage, boat yard, and repair services.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-56
Urban Industrial
Urban Industrial lands are not bound by the requirements for rural industrial lands in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d), and has the ability to expand beyond the July 1, 1990 built environment. There is
currently one example of Urban Industrial within the County, the Urban Light Industrial Zone within
the Irondale/Hadlock UGA.
Urban Light Industrial
There are approximately 25 acres of land zoned for Urban Light Industrial within the
Irondale/Hadlock UGA, most of which is currently used by a concrete batch plant and pre-existing
gravel pit.
Major Industrial Development
If there is insufficient industrial land available within an urban growth area (UGA) for a large
industrial operation or if a natural resource-based industrial operation needs to be sited adjacent to
natural resources, there is a process within the GMA that allows for the siting of a major industrial
development (MID) outside of a UGA. Additionally, GMA allows qualified counties to designate two
Industrial Land Banks (ILBs) before December 31, 2007 for specific purpose of siting MIDs. MIDs
sited in rural lands either through a permitting process (RCW 36.70A.365) or within a designated
ILB (RCW 36.70A.367) would be considered urban growth areas.
Forest Resource-Based Industrial Zones
Forest resource-based industries at Gardiner, Center Valley, and the West End have been
designated as Resource-Based Industrial Zones to recognize active sawmills and related activities
at those sites, based on 1997 GMA amendments codified as RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i) recognizing
existing industrial uses and allowing for their intensification. The Resource-Based Industrial Zones
are limited to forest resource-based industrial uses in order to prevent the establishment of a wider
range of industrial uses. It is also intended to support employment in a distressed economic sector
that, while it has seen a decline in employment, will continue to have long-term economic
importance for the County.
Forest resource-based industrial zone boundaries were determined based on criteria in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d) for determining logical boundaries. The reduction in acreage allows for limited
infill, and contains the industrial activity and associated uses to an area based on the developed
area on July 1, 1990.
Jefferson County recognizes that the cyclical nature of the forest industry will continue to result in
economic upturns and downturns as reforested areas become available for harvest. In order to
maintain facilities that continue to operate, the County recognizes that conversion of machinery and
facilities into forest-related production activities would help to support this industry from one cycle to
the next. The development code will include criteria for the permitting and regulation of conversion
and/or intensification of these areas for related uses that may involve adapting existing equipment
and facilities, recycling, or adding limited value to the forest resource products and byproducts (see
LNP 12.4).
The following table lists industrial areas, existing designations under 1994 zoning, current uses, and
designations under this Plan:
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-57
Comprehensive Plan Table 3-9
Industrial Land Designations
Industrial Area 1994 Designation and
Acreage Current Use
Comprehensive Plan
Designation and
Acreage
Port Townsend Paper
Mill
Heavy Industrial
292 acres
Pulp and paper mill
Heavy Industrial (HI)
283.8 acres
Glen Cove Industrial
Area
Light Industrial-
Commercial
295.9 acres
Multiple light industrial
and associated
commercial
Light
Industrial/Commercial
(LI/C)
71.58 acres
Light Industrial (LI)
54.93 acres
Quilcene Industrial
Area
Heavy Industrial
20.2 acres
Sawmill, machine shop,
industrial storage
Light
Industrial/Manufacturing
(LI/M)
22.3 acres
Eastview Industrial Plat --
Storage, Boat Yard
Light
Industrial/Manufacturing
8.06 acres
Center Valley
Heavy Industrial
12.6 acres
Sawmill and associated
activities
Forest Resource-Based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
3.84 acres
Gardiner Industrial
Area
Heavy Industrial
32.2 acres
Sawmill and associated
activities, gravel pit
Forest Resource-based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
24.9 acres
West End
Light Industrial-
Commercial
193 acres
Sawmill and associated
activities
Forest Resource-based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
122.5 acres
Irondale/Hadlock UGA -- Gravel Pit
Urban Light Industrial
(ULI)
25 acres
TOTAL 928.3 acres 616.9 acres
The industrial areas designated as shown above result in a reduction in industrial acreage of 1994
zoning designations from a total of 928.3 acres to 616.9 acres, an overall reduction of 34%. The
application of GMA criteria protects the economic viability of existing uses while restricting industrial
activities to existing areas.
INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
GOAL:
LNG 10.0 Identify and designate sufficient land area within the county for industrial uses
and economic development.
POLICIES:
LNP 10.1 Major industrial developments (MIDs) may be sited outside of Urban Growth Areas
consistent with the UDC and all the criteria in RCW 36.70A.365.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-58
LNP 10.2 Consistent with RCW 36.70A.367, consider the establishment of up to two
Industrial Land Banks for the siting of MIDs.
LNP 10.3 Designate sufficient land for light industrial uses within the Irondale/Hadlock UGA.
GOAL:
LNG 11.0 Recognize and contain the following areas and uses of more intensive
industrial development within boundaries that may allow for limited areas of
infill development:
POLICIES:
LNP 11.1 Designate the Port Townsend Paper Mill property as Heavy Industrial.
LNP 11.2 Designate the Glen Cove area boundary as Light Industrial and Light
Industrial/Commercial , consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
LNP 11.3 Designate the Quilcene industrial area as Light Industrial/Manufacturing .
LNP 11.4 Designate the Eastview Industrial Plat as Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M).
GOAL:
LNG 12.0 Locate new natural resource-based industries in rural lands and near the resource
upon which they are dependent, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.365.
POLICIES:
LNP 12.1 Encourage the establishment of sustainable natural resource-based industrial uses
in rural areas to provide employment opportunities.
LNP 12.2 Natural resource-based industries may be located near the agricultural, forest,
mineral, or aquaculture resource lands upon which they are dependent.
LNP 12.3 Recognize and designate existing pre-1990 forest resource-based industrial uses
and activities at Center, Gardiner, and the West-End as Resource-Based Industrial
Zones (RBIZ).
LNP 12.4 Existing forest resource based industrial uses and activities shall be recognized as
areas of more intensive rural development under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). These Resource-
Based Industrial Zones should be allowed to accommodate conversions and/or an intensification of
these uses and activities under the provisions contained in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii).
Growth Management Act Criteria
In addition to these Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, specific provisions of the Growth
Management Act guide the designation of “limited areas of more intensive rural development”
(LAMIRDs) outside of Urban Growth Areas. Pursuant to the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)
Jefferson County must adopt measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within
LAMIRDs, and those areas shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of LAMIRDs.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-59
While LAMIRDs must be delineated predominantly by the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment, they
may also include undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The
GMA sets forth four issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition to respecting
the predominance of the 1990 built environment:
• The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
• Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and
contours;
• The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and
• The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit low-
density sprawl.
The proposal for a change in designation from Resource Based Industrial Zone to Light Industrial is
reviewed below consistent with these criteria.
2.3.5.1 MLA08-101 (Hendy)
Reference Number: MLA08-101 (and related UDC amendment MLA08-389)
Applicant: Catherine Hendy
Assessor Parcel Number: 801102004 and 801102002
Location: 5411 Center Road, Chimacum
2.3.5.1.2 General Description and Environmental Information
The request proposes to change the current land use designation of a portion of less than four (4)
acres of parcel #801102004 (a 9.5-acre parcel) from Resource-Based Industrial (RBIZ) to Light
Industrial.
2.3.5.1.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and 1(c) and JCC 18.45.090(3) and (4), the Planning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific
growth management indicators. Staff findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Table 12. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-101 (and related MLA08-389):
Hendy
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators 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
Circumstances related to the proposed amendment
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan in that the property has
been unused for several years.
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
There is information available which was not
considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in
that the property has been unused for several
years.
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
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-60
Table 12. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-101 (and related MLA08-389):
Hendy
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services
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
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition to being consistent with the Land Use and
Rural element (Chapter 3), the proposed
amendment advances EDG 6.0 and related EDP
6.1, which calls on the County to encourage and
support economic development for rural and urban
lands (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 7-7).
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 would not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but
not limited to access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
The subject parcel may require environmental
remediation due to diesel contamination of the soil
in conjunction with permitting of new development
on the property. The subject parcel is otherwise
suitable for the requested land use designation.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the
long-term best interests of the county as a whole
The proposed amendment is not anticipated to
create pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment does not materially
affect land use and population growth projections.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
The subject property is not located within an UGA.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-61
Table 12. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-101 (and related MLA08-389):
Hendy
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
Commercial use of the subject property was in
existence before July 1, 1990. Approval would not
result in a changed boundary of the existing
industrial zoning of the subject property. Moreover,
the proposal promotes economic development. The
proposal is therefore consistent with RCW
36.70A.020(5) and 36.70A.070(1)(5)(d).
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).
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 amount of increase in emissions to air, use of hazardous substances, or production of noise
will depend on the type of industrial activity that occurs on the property, which is unknown at this
time. The subject parcel may, however, require environmental remediation due to diesel
contamination of the soil in conjunction with permitting of new development on the property. All
subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and
local regulations regarding air emissions, use of hazardous substance, or production of noise.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is not expected to significantly affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The degree to which the proposal depletes energy or natural resources depends on the specific
type of industrial activity that occurs on the property, which is unknown at this time, though it is not
anticipated to be significant regardless of type of activity. 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.
There are wetlands and a fish bearing stream on the subject property. However, they are largely
located outside the existing RBIZ zoning and the proposed Light Industrial zoning. Therefore the
proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on critical areas.
Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing
plans?
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-62
The proposed amendment is consistent with existing plans and does not lie within a shoreline
jurisdiction. The proposal will create additional Light Industrial zoned land within an existing
industrial zoning.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is not expected to generate any significant 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 proposal is not expected to conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment. The subject parcel may, however, require environmental remediation
before new development on the property is permitted to occur.
2.3.5.1.4 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval, with modifications, of the proposed site-specific amendment. The
proposal is modified to apply only to the 3.84 acres of the subject property which is currently zoned
Resource Based Industrial.
Commercial use of the subject property was in existence before July 1, 1990. Approval would not
result in a changed boundary of the existing industrial zoning of the subject property. Moreover, the
proposal promotes economic development. The proposal is therefore consistent with RCW
36.70A.020(5) and 36.70A.070(1)(5)(d). Recommended modifications to the application include
clarification that the amendment applies to only approximately 3.84 acres of parcel number
801102004 and that the amendment requires specific line-in, line-out text changes to both the
Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code (UDC). See Appendix C for specific line-
in, line-out recommended edits of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC.
2.3.5.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Resource-
Based Industrial (RBIZ) to Light Industrial Designation
The proposal will create an additional 3.84 acres of Light Industrial zoned land (for a total of 58.77
acres), but within an existing industrial zoning.
2.3.6 Request for Change from Rural Residential
Designation to Rural Commercial (1)
Requests for changes for a rural residential land use designation to a rural industrial or rural
commercial designation are subject to the goals, policies, and implementation strategies contained
in the Comprehensive Plan, with Chapter 3 being the most relevant. Of particular use are the
subject to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG) 5.0 on page
3-50.
GOAL:
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-63
LNG 5.0 Establish and maintain the location and size of the County’s Rural
Crossroads to provide access to a limited range of non-residential uses.
POLICIES:
LNP 5.1 All rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the provisions of the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A).
LNP 5.2 Designate the following historic crossroads as Convenience Crossroads (CC) as
shown on the Land Use Map: Nordland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point.
LNP 5.2.1 Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act
and the following additional criteria:
a. Consists of a single commercial property; and
b. Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling public
with basic consumer goods and services.
LNP 5.2.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary of each
of the Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic consumer
goods and services.
LNP 5.3 Designate the following historic crossroads as Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads
(NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay, Four Corners,
Gardiner, and Mats Mats.
LNP 5.3.1 Designation is based on the criteria of the Growth Management
Act and the following additional criteria:
a. Multiple commercial properties; and
b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services; and
c. Serves the local rural population and the commuting/traveling
public.
LNP 5.3.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of
each of the designated Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads to those
involving basic consumer staples with a limited range of goods and
services and/or serving the commuting/traveling public.
LNP 5.3.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily
housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior
housing, and assisted living facilities, and manufactured/mobile
home parks.
LNP 5.4 Designate the following crossroads as General Commercial Crossroads (GC) as
shown on the Land Use Map: SR 19/20 Intersection.
LNP 5.4.1 Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act
and the following additional criteria:
a. Location at a major highway intersection near high density
population in the Tri-Area; and
b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and multiple
community levels of service.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-64
LNP 5.4.2 Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the
designated General Commercial crossroads to those involving an
expanded range of commercial goods and services.
LNP 5.4.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily
housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior
housing, assisted living facilities, and manufactured/mobile home
parks.
LNP 5.5 Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads
commercial infill development with the surrounding rural area through the creation
and implementation of community based design and development standards. Uses
within Rural Crossroads shall be scaled and sized to protect the rural character of
the natural neighborhood.
Comprehensive Plan Table 3-2
Summary of Land Use and Zoning Designations
Land Use/Zoning
Designation
Criteria for designation Principal Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
Rural Residential
1 unit/5 acres
(RR 1:5)
Located in areas of similar development; areas with
smaller existing lots of record; along the coastal area;
adjacent to Rural Village Center and Rural Crossroad
designations; overlay designation for pre-existing platted
subdivisions.
Single family
residential
Rural Residential
1 unit/10 acres
(RR 1:10)
Located in an area with similar development patterns;
adjacent to Urban Growth Area, transition density
between RR 1:5 and RR 1:20; parcels in coastal areas
of similar size; includes land affected by critical areas.
Single family
residential
Rural Residential
1 unit/20 acres
(RR 1:20)
Located in an area with similar development patterns;
Adjacent to Urban Growth Area, Resource Production
Land or State/National Forest Land; parcels in coastal
areas of similar size; includes land affected by critical
areas; includes private timberlands; includes agricultural
lands.
Single family
residential
COMMERCIAL
Convenience
Crossroads
(CC)
Existing rural commercial uses which provide a limited
range of basic goods and services (basic foodstuffs,
gas, basic hardware, and basic medicinal needs);
generally located at the intersection of local arterials or
collectors; usually contain a convenience/general store
associated with gas pumps. May also serve the
traveling public.
Rural Commercial
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-65
COMMERCIAL
(continued)
Neighborhood/
Visitor
Crossroads
(NC)
Existing rural commercial uses which provide an
expanded range of basic goods and services for the
rural population and traveling public (grocery, hardware,
bakery, restaurant, tavern, auto repair, small
professional offices, public services, and medical
offices).
Rural Commercial
General
Crossroads
(GC)
Existing commercial uses that provide a mixture of local,
traveling public, and community uses, and may include
limited regional uses due to proximity to population
centers in the Tri-Area.
Rural Commercial
Rural Village
Centers
(RVC)
Existing rural commercial uses that provide for many of
the basic daily needs of the rural population; typically
supplies goods and day-to-day services; provides
limited public and social services. Residential uses
include single family, duplexes, triplexes, and assisted
living facilities.
Rural Community-
based Commercial
and Residential
Village Commercial
Center (VCC)
Commercial area identified in the 1993 EIS for Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Commercial uses will
provide many essential day-to-day goods and services
to residents and resort visitors.
Rural Community-
based Commercial
Growth Management Act Criteria
In addition to these Comprehensive Plan criteria, specific provisions of the Growth Management Act
guide the designation of “limited areas of more intensive rural development” (LAMIRDs) outside of
Urban Growth Areas. Pursuant to the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv) Jefferson County must
adopt measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within LAMIRDs, and those areas
shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of LAMIRDs. While LAMIRDs must be
delineated predominantly by the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment, they may also include
undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The GMA sets forth four
issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition to respecting the predominance
of the 1990 built environment:
• The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
• Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and
contours;
• The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and
• The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit low-
density sprawl.
The proposal for a change in designation from rural residential to rural commercial is reviewed
below consistent with these criteria.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-66
2.3.6.1 MLA08-96 (M. Holland)
Reference Number: MLA08-96
Applicant: Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments
Assessor Parcel Number: 821333001
Location: Intersection of Shine Road and Highway 104
2.3.6.1.2 General Description and Environmental Information
The request would change the current land use designation of an approximately half-acre (.50)
parcel from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1:5) to Rural Commercial
Neighborhood Crossroad (NC). For practical purposes the subject property has been developed for
commercial use since approximately 1977. It was not so designated in the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan because at that time the existing zoning of the property was residential, and it did not qualify
for a commercial designation.
2.3.6.1.3 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 growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Table 13. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-96: M. Holland
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to the area have
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The property was initially
zoned residential because it had a residential
designation at the time of the adoption of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan, and did not qualify for a
commercial designation because the
Comprehensive Plan criteria for commercial
designation required previous commercial zoning.
Since that time both state law and the
Comprehensive Plan have changed. Under current
standards the property meets all the criteria under
RCW 36.70A070(5)(d)(i) for a limited area of more
intense rural development (LAMIRD), and meets
the criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan and
Jefferson County Code for Convenience
Crossroads (see LNP 5.2.1)(a)(b).
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 and are relevant
to this proposal remain valid.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposal reflects the values established in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-67
Table 13. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA08-96: M. Holland
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
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 is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation of
Convenience Crossroads.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts to the
county’s transportation network, capital facilities,
utilities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation of
Convenience Crossroads.
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but
not limited to access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
The parcel is already developed. Access to the
transportation network already exists; power and
public water serve the existing building.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the
long-term best interests of the county as a whole
Jefferson County has established clear criteria, in
accordance with GMA guidelines, that are written
into the Comprehensive Plan guiding the
designation of such properties. There are limited
properties that could potentially take advantage of
the LAMIRD criteria. Designating such properties
could allow for more goods and services to be
offered locally.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The proposal does not materially affect land use
and population projections.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA
The proposed re-designation is not located within a
UGA.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment meets the requirements
of RCW 36.70A(5)(d)(i) for LAMIRDs and County-
Wide Planning Policies, specifically #8: Policy on
Rural Areas. The character of the rural area will
not be affected by re-designating this property.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-68
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).
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to
air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The proposal is unlikely to increase discharge to water or create other environmental impacts.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is unlikely to affect wildlife or plants.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources, although more electricity will be used
to operate an active facility.
Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic
or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The parcel is located in a high-risk Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ) area. Current
development on the parcel utilizes a private water system and is within the PUD’s Biwater Bay
service area. Approval of this amendment would not likely increase ground water withdrawal.
Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The subject property is not within shoreline. The proposal will affect land use as future development
shall comply with commercial standards. Without a land use change, changes and expansion of the
existing use would need to comply with JCC 18.20.260, legal non-conforming uses.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The Convenience Crossroads (CC) designation is recommended by staff because subject site
consists of a single commercial property, and can provide the local rural population and commuting
public with basic consumer goods and services (see LNP 5.2.1(a)(b)). The CC designation is
intended in part to ensure that the proposal will not substantially increase demands on
transportation, public services, and utilities; the parcel has featured a de facto commercial use since
approximately 1978.
Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). The parcel meets the July 1,
1990 “built environment” LAMIRD criteria.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2-69
2.3.6.1.4 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval with modification of the proposed site-specific amendment: the subject
property meets the requirements of the July 1, 1990 “built environment” LAMIRD criteria, and
qualifies for a designation of Convenience Crossroads, not Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads. The
subject property’s location, size, and proximity to the Hood Canal Bridge and to Highway 104 are
consistent with the creation of limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs) outside
of urban areas, as specified in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Recommendation includes a modification:
that the rezone result in a LAMIRD designated Convenience Crossroad (CC) rather than
Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad (NC), to lower intensity of possible uses (see JCC 18.15.040 –
Use Table) since subject property is surrounded by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres
or greater. Subject property does not qualify for the Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad (NC)
designation because it consists of only a single commercial property (see LNP 5.2.1(a)).
2.3.6.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Rural
Residential to Rural Commercial Designation
The proposal would create an additional 0.50 acre of Rural Commercial land and reduce Rural
Residential lands by the same amount.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
3 Supporting Record, Analyses, & Materials
The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and information
utilized for the development of this 2008 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
August 6, 1998 Washington Department of Natural
Resources Forest Practices Report #
2601814
Forest Practices report for parcel #801-
091-002
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
September 22, 2003 Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners Resolution No. 55-03
Population forecast for the period
2000-2024 and the urban/rural
allocation
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
3-1
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
July 19, 2006 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
2006 Amendment Docket
July 27, 2007 Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit for
parcel 901-132-002
Real Estate purchase information
August 20, 2007 Forest Management Plan for Chimacum
Heights LLC
Forest Management Plan
September 5, 2007 Integrated Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum
2007 Amendment Docket
August 4, 2008 E-mail correspondence from Ross
Goodwin to Ryan Hunter
Response to Mr. James Jackson’s e-
mail comments
February 14, 2005 Type N Stream Demarcation Study,
Phase I: Pilot Results, Robert
Palmquist, Principle, Np Technical
Group of the Upslope Process Scientific
Advisory Group, State of Washington
Forest Practices Board’s Adaptive
Management Program
Evaluation of Np stream influence on
fish-bearing stream segments.
3-2
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
3-3
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 (Hugo Flores &
SEPA Review)
Board of County Commissioners (3 persons) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEPA
Review)
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Department of Health (Kelly Cooper)
Department of Public Works
Department of Social & Health Services
(Elizabeth McNagny)
Department of Health & Human Services
Natural Resources Division
Department of Corrections (Eric Heinitz)
Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock
Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4 -
Brinnon
State Agencies:
Department of Fish & Wildlife (Jennifer Hayes)
Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic
Development: Growth Management Services
Department of Ecology (GMA Review)
Department of Ecology SEPA Unit Puget Sound Partnership
(Cullen Stephenson)
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
Department of Archeology and Historic
Preservation (Greg Griffith)
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
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 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
4-2
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]