HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Reports & Ordinances
Staff Reports/_CPA08_Staff_Rpt_FullDoc_web.pdf 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
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 nonproject 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 001064-002);
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 801091-010, 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, 821-311001, 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 801-102004 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 nonproject 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 nonproject 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 nonproject 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 decisionmaking (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 sitespecific, 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 801-091010, application under number 801091-002); 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 001191-002);
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 901-132002);
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 901-121001); 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, 821311-001, 821-291-002, and 821-302-001); CF 1:80 to Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO). Yes.
SEPA Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (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 MLA08389); 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 433 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 upzones,
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 801-091010,
application under number 801091-002); 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 001191-002); 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 901-132002);
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 901-121001); 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, 821291-002, and 821302-001); 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 MLA08389); 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 nonproject 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 subcategories. 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 twentyyear
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 longterm 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
oversupply 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. 347), 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 UGAP 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 Inholding Forest (IF) This land is located
within Commercial Forest designation areas and it has poor soils for agriculture and is not suitable for agricultural designation. 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 (CF80) 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 nonfish 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 nonfish 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), threequarters 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 20year 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, CountyWide 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, ministorage, 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 IndustrialCommercial 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 IndustrialCommercial 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 ResourceBased 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 lowdensity 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 linein, line-out recommended edits of the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. 2.3.5.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from ResourceBased 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 Communitybased 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 Communitybased 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 lowdensity 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 CountyWide 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 (preGMA) 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 #801091-002 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 email 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]
Staff Reports/2005_CPA_staff_rpt_8-3-05.pdf Jefferson County BRINNON SUB AREA PLAN
2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Preliminary Staff Recommendation with Environmental Analysis for the Adoption of Amendments to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan AUGUST 3, 2005 INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action: Addendum
to Existing Environmental Documents Department of Community Development Staff Report and SEPA Addendum ii Principal Contributors/Authors Department of Community Development Long-Range
Planning Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Josh D. Peters, AICP, Senior Planner Kevin Russell, AICP, former Associate Planner Kyle Alm, Assistant Planner Consultants CASCADIA
Community Planning Services Eric R. Toews, Principal Technical Contributors Department of Central Services Jeff Miller, former GIS Analyst Logistical Contributors Department
of Community Development Cheryl Halvorson, Planning Commission Secretary and GMA Archivist Rose Ann Carroll, Office Administrator iii Table of Contents Page 1 Environmental Summary
and Fact Sheet.......................................................................................1-1 1.1 Fact Sheet...............................................................................
.....................................................1-1 1.2 Environmental Summary.............................................................................................................1-5
1.2.1 Introduction and Process.....................................................................................................1-5 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents...........
.................................................1-5 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference......................................................................1-5 1.2.1.3
Level of Environmental Analysis....................................................................................1-6 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement.........................................
.............................................1-6 1.2.2 Major Conclusions...............................................................................................................1-8
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................1-8 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations.............
...........1-13 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts....................................................................1-15 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty.........
...................................................1-15 1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved........................................................................................................1-17
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made..............................................................................1-17 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures...............................
............................................1-18 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action.........................................1-19 2 Concise Analysis of the
Proposals....................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Overview.........................................................................
............................................................2-1 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations.....................................2-1 2.1.2 Growth
Management Indicators..........................................................................................2-1 2.2 Final Docket...................................................................
.............................................................2-4 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary........................................................................................2-4
2.3 Staff Reports: Site-Specific Amendments...................................................................................2-8 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density
(4)........................................................2-8 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA05-39 (Nelson/Monroe)..........................................................2-9 2.3.1.2
Reference Number: MLA05-51 (Kirkpatrick)...............................................................2-12 2.3.1.3 Reference Number: MLA05-59 (Olympic Property Group)...............................
..........2-15 2.3.1.4 Reference Number: MLA05-60 (Olympic Property Group).........................................2-18 2.3.1.5 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential
Density...........................2-21 2.3.2 Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural Residential (2).................2-22 2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA05-38 (Hopkins/Barber
Family Associates, LP)...................2-26 2.3.2.2 Reference Number: MLA05-61 (Olympic Property Group).........................................2-29 2.3.2.3 Cumulative Analysis of
Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural Residential................................................................................................................................
.....2-32 iv 2.3.3 Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial..............2-33 2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA05-53 (Widell)..........................................
............................2-35 2.3.3.2 Reference Number: MLA05-70 (Pepper)......................................................................2-38 2.3.3.3 Cumulative Analysis of
Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial.....................................................................................................2-4
2 2.3.4 Requests for Change from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Commercial2-42 2.3.4.1 Reference Number: MLA05-06 (McDiehl LLC)........................................................
..2-42 2.4 Staff Report: Suggested Amendment........................................................................................2-46 2.4.1 Comprehensive Plan Housekeeping.........................
.........................................................2-46 2.4.1.1 Reference Number: MLA05-66 (Jefferson County)......................................................2-46 3 Supporting
Record, Analyses, and Materials.................................................................................3-1 4 Distribution List...............................................................
.................................................................4-1 5 Appendices......................................................................................................................
...................5-1 5.1 Item 1: Legal Notice (August 3, 2005)........................................................................................5-2 5.2 Item 2: MLA05-39 Nelson/Monroe.........
...................................................................................5-5 5.3 Item 3: MLA05-51 Kirkpatrick................................................................................
...................5-6 5.4 Item 4: MLA05-59 Olympic Property Group..............................................................................5-7 5.5 Item 5: MLA05-60 Olympic Property
Group..............................................................................5-8 5.6 Item 6: MLA05-38 Barber....................................................................................
.......................5-9 5.7 Item 7: MLA05-61 Olympic Property Group............................................................................5-10 5.8 Item 8: MLA05-53 Widell.....................
....................................................................................5-11 5.9 Item 9: MLA05-70 Pepper...................................................................................
.....................5-12 5.10 Item 10: MLA05-06 McDIEHL LLC........................................................................................5-13 5.11 Item 11: MLA05-66 Oil City...............
......................................................................................5-14 5.12 Item 12: MLA05-66 Parcel #712161000....................................................................
..............5-15 5.13 Item 13: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #501032024.....................................5-16 5.14 Item 14: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel
#901254007.....................................5-17 5.15 Item 15: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #921324028.....................................5-18 5.16 Item 16: MLA05-66
Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #802363023.....................................5-19 5.17 Item 17: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #802363023.....................................5-20
5.18 Item 18: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #901112040.....................................5-21 5.19 Item 19: MLA05-66 Local Agriculture Zoning -- Parcel #901034003....................
.................5-22 5.20 Item 20: MLA05-66 Parcels without Zoning Parcel #603143001............................................5-23 5.21 Item 21: MLA05-66 Parcels without Zoning Olympic
National Park (Quinault).....................5-24 5.22 Item 22: MLA05-66 Parcels without Zoning Rat Island; Parcels# 921000000 & 021180000.5-25 5.23 Item 23: MLA05-66 East Beach County
Park...........................................................................5-26 5.24 Item 24: MLA05-66 Dosewallips State Park Parcel #502021001.............................................5-27
1-1 1 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet 1.1 FACT SHEET Title and Description of Proposed Action Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) is considering adoption of 10 individual amendment proposals to the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Nine (9) site-specific amendment
proposals and one (1) suggested amendment proposal comprise the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which is the “Final Docket” for this year’s annual amendment cycle.1 This
document is a combined Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for the 10 proposed amendments. The objective is to analyze the proposed amendments individually
and cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in UDC §9 and potential environmental impacts under SEPA. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is
a non-project action under SEPA and is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the environmental review needed for future land use or building permit
applications). The following briefly describes each of the 10 proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (note: each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for
ease of reference): Site-Specific Amendments: 1. MLA05-06 - McDiehl LLC; Port Ludlow; proposed upzone within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) from MPR Residential to MPR
Village Commercial Center; Agent: David Goldsmith; 2. MLA05-38 - Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP; Quilcene; proposed upzone from Commercial Forest (CF) 1:80 to Rural Residential
(RR) 1:20; Agent: Jim Lindsay; 3. MLA05-39 - Nelson/Monroe; Quilcene; proposed upzone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5; 4. MLA05-51 - Kirkpatrick; Quilcene; proposed upzone from RR 1:20 to RR
1:5; Agent: Linda Skurdal; 5. MLA05-53; Widell; Port Townsend (adjacent to the Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive 1
The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on April 18, 2005 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing
11 items. 1-2 Rural Development (LAMIRD)); proposed upzone from RR 1:5 to Rural Light Industrial Commercial; 6. MLA05-59 - Olympic Property Group (OPG); Shine; proposed upzone from
RR 1:10 to RR 1:5; 7. MLA05-60 - OPG; Port Ludlow; proposed upzone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5; 8. MLA05-61 - OPG; Shine; proposed upzone from CF 1:80 to RR 1:10 and RR 1:5; and 9. MLA05-70
- Pepper; Port Townsend (Four Corners/SR 20); proposed upzone from RR 1:10 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads); Agent: Kelly DeLaat-Maher. Suggested Amendments: 10. MLA05-66
- Comprehensive Plan housekeeping involving map anomalies and text and table corrections only, and not for the purpose of amending policy or narrative description. Proponent The
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for the nine site-specific amendment proposals and the Department of Community Development for Comprehensive
Plan housekeeping under file number MLA05-66. Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) Long-Range Planning 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official: Stacie Hoskins, Development Services Manager DCD Development Review Division (360) 379-4493 Contact Person: Josh D. Peters, AICP, Senior Planner DCD Long-Range
Planning (360) 379-4466 Authors and Principal Contributors Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long-Range Planning Date of Staff Report & SEPA Addendum Issuance
August 3, 2005 Date Comments are Due Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 PM, Wednesday, August 17, 2005, at the WSU Community Learning Center
in Hadlock. Written comments are accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission until 4:30 PM, Wednesday, August 24, 2005. 1-3 Past Related Actions and Future Anticipated
Actions The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:30 PM, Wednesday, August 17, 2005, at the WSU Community Learning Center in Hadlock. By the end of September, DCD expects
to transmit to the BoCC a final DCD Staff Recommendation together with the Planning Commission Recommendation for all proposals on the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Tentative
Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the 10 Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under consideration is expected sometime prior to the end of the second week
in December 2005. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to this Docket are available on a Jefferson County website dedicated to the 2005
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This website can be accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. Appeal Information Issues relating
to the adequacy of a SEPA Addendum and other procedural issues may not be appealed under the administrative appeal provisions of UDC 8.10.12. Appeals of GMA actions (i.e., a legislative
decision by the BoCC) are heard first by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Location of Background Material and Documents Incorporated by Reference Background
material and documents used to support development of the Addendum are available for inspection from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, at the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368, (360) 3794450. Appointments are welcome. Relation to Other Documents A series of documents have been prepared
by or on behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations (i.e., the Unified Development Code (UDC)), including
amendments to both the Plan and UDC. These documents, listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background information and
offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. They are incorporated herein by this reference. The reader is encouraged to refer to these documents in conjunction with this
document for a broader understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed. In this document, descriptions of and references to the contents of the proposed amendments have been provided
to the greatest extent possible, but do not include all information from the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. For a more complete understanding of the discussion presented
within this document, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted. 1-4 Cost to the Public Copies of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, or selected pages thereof, are available at cost from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD). The text and selected
appendices are also available for download on the DCD website dedicated to the 2005 annual amendment cycle, which can be accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
Copies of this document are available for inspection at DCD and the Jefferson County Public Library at Port Hadlock. 1-5 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 1.2.1 Introduction and Process
Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) on August 28, 1998 and substantively updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. The Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that guides growth and future land use decisions in Jefferson County. In each successive year since initial adoption, the County has
conducted a Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle as allowed under the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.130). The process for amending the Comprehensive Plan is outlined in §9 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) (i.e., the development regulations adopted in December 2000 to implement the Comprehensive Plan). The 2005 “Preliminary Docket” included eleven (11) proposed amendments.
Consistent with UDC §9, the nine (9) site-specific amendments (formal applications submitted in conjunction with a fee) automatically qualified for the “Final Docket.” The Jefferson
County Planning Commission heard testimony on the two (2) suggested amendments on the Preliminary Docket, as introduced by the Department of Community Development (DCD) on behalf of
individual County Commissioners, and formulated a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) regarding the composition of the Final Docket. The BoCC then established
the Final Docket, accepting a limited version of the Comprehensive Plan “housekeeping” proposal and establishing as ten (10) the total number of amendment proposals on the Final Docket.
This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum. The objective is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with
regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in UDC §9 and potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for a
future land use or building permit application). This is an integrated GMA/SEPA document that combines environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering a recommended action on each
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Guidance for preparing integrated SEPA/GMA documents is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235. The analysis in this document
supplements the existing adopted environmental documents incorporated herein by reference. 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents The following existing environmental
documents have been adopted through legal notice published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on August 3, 2005 (Appendix Item 1): • Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS, dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively,
examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. • The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the
2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 22, 2004. The analysis concerning Agricultural Lands of Local Importance is
pertinent to an element of file number MLA05-66. 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference The ten Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including all supplemental
information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, all Appendix Items to this report,
and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are incorporated herein by this reference, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 635. The documents listed in part 3 of
this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. The reader is encouraged
to 1-6 use existing documents in conjunction with this document for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed. Moreover, to the greatest extent possible
this document includes descriptions of, and references to, the content of the ten individual proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the information from each Comprehensive
Plan amendment application. For a more thorough understanding of the discussion presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted to supplement
the information in this document. 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis This document provides both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts as appropriate
to the general nature of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals. The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments is classified under SEPA as a non-project (i.e., programmatic)
action. A non-project action, such as decisions on policies, plans or programs, is defined as an action that is broader than permit review for a single site-specific project. Environmental
analysis for a non-project proposal does not require the same level of sitespecific analysis required in conjunction with a permit application; instead, a document such as an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEPA Addendum discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC
197-11-442). The analysis in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit
application). SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are ready for decision, and to exclude from consideration issues already decided or not
yet ready for decision-making (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Phased review is appropriate when the sequence of a proposal is from a programmatic document, such as an integrated GMA/SEPA document
addressing comprehensive plan amendments, to other documents that are narrower in scope, such as site-specific, project-level analyses (i.e., “project actions” under SEPA). Jefferson
County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum will be used to
review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Additional environmental review of development proposals will occur
as specific projects are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications). This will result in an additional incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions
require a more detailed evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future project action environmental review for development applications that are not categorically
exempt from SEPA could occur in the form of a supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement Following
is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. This 2005
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum is available to agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEPA rules. Comments on the merits of the
proposals shall be accepted as outlined below under “Public Comment Period.” 1.2.1.4.1 Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketing Process The public process for compiling the final docket
has followed the public involvement requirements of the GMA and the specific procedures established in UDC §§ 9.5 through 9.8. DCD staff compiled the preliminary docket following the
February 1, 2005 deadline for applications set forth in UDC §9.4.2. On March 2, 2005, and after timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held an open record public
hearing to solicit comments 1-7 on the proposed amendment docket. On March 10, 2005, the Planning Commission and BoCC held a joint workshop to review the DCD preliminary docketing
recommendations and to gather information regarding the items on the preliminary docket and the DCD report and recommendations. On March 30, 2005, Planning Commission transmitted
its final docketing report and recommendations to the BoCC. On April 18, 2005, the BoCC adopted the final docket for review during the 2005 amendment process. 1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final
Docket - Planning Commission Public Hearing - Public Comment Period The Jefferson County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold at least one public hearing to take testimony on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (2005 Docket). A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, August 17, 2005, 6:30
PM at the WSU Community Learning Center in Port Hadlock, pertaining to all items on the 2005 Docket. The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, August 3, 2005,
initiates a public comment period that remains open through Wednesday, August 24, 2005. Oral comment may be provided to the Planning Commission at the August 17, 2005 public hearing
previously referenced. Written comment may be submitted to the Planning Commission via DCD through 4:30 PM on August 24, 2005. Please submit written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan
Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Comments submitted prior to the close of the comment period will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
for consideration during that advisory body’s deliberations. Please note that the Planning Commission may elect at its discretion to schedule an additional date and time for oral comments,
and/or extend the period in which written comments may be accepted. Written public comments submitted after close of the Planning Commission comment period will be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative decision. The BoCC may hold a public hearing before taking final legislative action on the Final Docket (formal
notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the BoCC hearing). 1.2.1.4.3 Availability of Documents For more information or to
inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed amendments, the adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact DCD Long-Range
Planning at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where as many relevant documents and maps as
possible are available in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage can be accessed through the County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us.
1.2.1.4.4 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Deliberation Following the public hearing(s) on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission will
deliberate on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and formulate a recommendation on each proposal for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). It
is anticipated that the Planning Commission will deliberate on the proposed suggested amendments during regularly scheduled meetings on September 7 and September 21, 2005, or until
such time that it formulates a recommendation for transmittal to the BoCC. The Planning Commission generally meets the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at the WSU Community
Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock. It is possible that the Planning Commission will hold one or more special meetings outside of the regular meeting
schedule. The most likely dates for these meetings would be August 24 and/or August 31, 2005. Following the completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the 2005 Docket,
DCD will formally transmit the Planning Commission recommendation to the BoCC along with the DCD final staff recommendations, any comments submitted during the public comment period,
and the record of the Planning Commission deliberations. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission and DCD recommendations will be presented to the BoCC in the month of October
2005. In making a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning Commission recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to
the Planning Commission, the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation,
legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, 1-8 and any written or oral comments provided to the BoCC before or during a BoCC public hearing on the Docket (should one be
held). If the BoCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for
agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A legal notice would appear in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing
any BoCC public hearings on the 2005 Docket. A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under consideration is expected prior to the
end of the second week in December 2005. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2005 Docket are available on a Jefferson County webpage
dedicated to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This webpage can be accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. 1.2.2 Major
Conclusions The summary conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in Part 2 of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum are presented here for the reader’s convenience. A reading
of the analysis in Part 2 in addition to any supporting material referenced in the text, including Appendix Items, is encouraged. Generally, information presented elsewhere is not
reprinted here. 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for mitigation measures
and conditions are within the individual staff reports for each of the proposed amendments found in part 2 of this document, “Concise Analysis of the Proposals,” or among the Appendix
Items, as appropriate. Summary statements presented in the Summary Matrix are, in some cases, considerably abbreviated from the full discussion in part 2 and lack explanations of terminology.
Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues of interest in part 2, and to consult the Appendix Items, the amendment applications themselves, and other
supporting materials listed in part 3, in order to formulate the most accurate impression of impacts associated with the proposals and staff recommendations. “Significant” as used
in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula
or quantifiable text (WAC 197-11-794). # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS
1 MLA05-06 - McDiehl LLC; Port Ludlow MPR; upzone from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Village Commercial Center. None identified. Adopt the proposal as proposed
by the applicant. 1-9 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 2 MLA05-38 -
Hopkins /Barber Family Associates, LLP; Quilcene; upzone from Commercial Forest (CF) 1:80 to Rural Residential (RR) 1:20. Yes. Approval of the proposal would be likely to result
in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert Commercial Forest Resource Lands to higher intensity rural use;
this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Recommendation - Deny the proposed rezone. Alternatively - Approve the rezone with modifications,
including the following: • Downzone parcel numbers 601224003 and 601228 (adjacent to subject) from RR 1:5 to RR 1:20; • Require future subdivision development to conform to the residential
cluster provisions of the UDC; and • Commit to developing and adopting clearer policy guidance governing Commercial Forestry upzone proposals during the 2006 CP amendment cycle to prevent
an erosion of the purpose and effect of the 1998 CP. 3 MLA05-39 - Nelson/ Monroe; Quilcene; upzone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. If left unmitigated, yes. Approval of the proposal
would be likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher rural residential
densities; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Recommendation - Deny the proposed rezone. The subject parcel is surrounded
on more than 50% of its perimeter by parcels larger than 10 acres in size that are zoned for lower density rural, agricultural and forestry uses (i.e., RR 1:20; AP 1:20; and RF: 1:40).
Thus, an "established pattern" of 5-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). Because RR 1:20 zoning is currently applied to adjacent
parcels, application of the RR 1:10 land use designation to "transition" between areas of varying densities would also appear inappropriate. 1-10 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 4 MLA05-51 - Kirkpatrick; Quilcene; upzone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. If left
unmitigated, yes. Approval of the proposal would be likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to
upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher rural residential densities; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Recommendation - Deny the proposed
rezone. Though adjoining parcels to the north and east are generally 5 acres in size or smaller and zoned RR 1:5, at least 50% of the perimeter (i.e., the south and east) of the subject
parcel is comprised of parcels of 40 acres or larger (i.e., an "established pattern" of 5 or 10-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site) (see LNPs
3.3.1(a) and 3.3.2(a)). Alternatively - Approve the rezone as modified by staff, with the following conditions: • Rezone the parcel from RR 1:20 to RR 1:10 to provide a density transition
between adjacent CF and RR 1:5 areas; • Require future subdivision development to conform to the residential cluster provisions of the UDC; and • Develop and adopt clearer policy guidance
governing Rural Residential upzone proposals during the 2006 CP amendment cycle. 5 MLA05-53 - Widell; Port Townsend (adjacent to Glen Cove); upzone from RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial
within/adjacent to Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). None identified. Deny the proposed rezone. Jefferson County's LAMIRD boundaries are the
result of exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB. Though rational arguments have been advanced for this proposed rezone, staff recommends
against revisiting this LAMIRD boundary. 1-11 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS
6 MLA05-59 - Olympic Property Group (OPG); Shine; upzone from RR 1:10 to RR 1:5. None identified. Recommendation - Approve the proposed rezone. Though the parcel is some 40 acres
in size, it is surrounded on three sides (east, south and west) by an established pattern of parcels of 5 acres or smaller which are designated RR 1:5. Consequently, approval of the
rezone is appropriate and consistent with LNP 3.3.1(a). That said, the development and adoption of clearer policy guidance governing Rural Residential upzones during the 2006 CP amendment
cycle would help to guide future decisions on proposals of this type, and help to prevent an erosion of the purpose and effect of the 1998 CP. 7 MLA05-60 - OPG; Port Ludlow; upzone
from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. If left unmitigated, yes. Approval of the proposal would be likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in
the form of increased pressure to upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher rural residential densities; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP).
Recommendation - Deny the proposed rezone. LNP 3.3.1 and the topography of the proposed rezone area warrant continued application of the RR 1:20 designation. Six of the seven lots
involved are bounded on 50% or more of their perimeters by large lots designated RR 1:20. Alternatively - Approve the proposed rezone with modifications, including the following: •
Rezone the most northerly lot from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 recognizing that this one lot is bounded on more than 50% of its perimeter by smaller parcels designated RR 1:5, but is heavily
constrained due to topography; • Require future subdivision development to conform to the residential cluster provisions of the UDC; and • Commit to developing and adopting clearer
policy guidance governing Rural Residential upzone proposals to prevent an erosion of the 1998 CP. 1-12 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 8 MLA05-61 - OPG; Shine; upzone CF 1:80 to RR 1:10 and RR 1:5. Yes. Approval of the proposal would be likely to
result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert Commercial Forest Resource Lands to higher intensity rural
use; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Deny the proposed rezone. Alternatively, partially approve the proposed rezone request,
with modifications, including the following: • Rezone those portions of the subject site lying within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area from CF 1:80 to RR 1:20; • Require future subdivision
development to conform to the residential cluster provisions of the UDC; and • Commit to developing and adopting clearer policy guidance governing Commercial Forest and Rural Residential
upzone proposals as noted above. 9 MLA05-70 - Pepper; Port Townsend (Four Corners); upzone from RR 1:10 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads). Yes. Approval of the proposal
would be likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to upzone rural commercial areas in a manner contrary
to the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70.070(d) and (e) and the adopted policies of Jefferson Country; this would likely have the effect of eroding the overall purpose and effect of
the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Deny the proposed rezone. Upzoning the parcel is inconsistent with the criteria for LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Jefferson County's
current LAMIRD boundaries are the result of exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB. 10 MLA05-66; Comprehensive Plan housekeeping involving
map anomalies and text and table corrections. None identified. Approve the amendments as proposed by staff. 1-13 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District
Designations The following table displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use district (from the Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information System
database, and other sources), and the proposed change in the number of acres under each district under the proposals. The reader should understand that these numbers are approximations
for planning purposes only, and all figures have been rounded. They do not necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the ground. They are, however, the best approximation
available at this time. The purpose of the table is to set a context for the legislative decision before the Board of County Commissioners for this year’s amendment cycle. All acreage
figures are in gross acres, including road rights-of-way and some water features. The net developable acreage would be lower. Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District
Designations Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current Gross Acreage (2004 Plan) Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Staff
Recommendation (including MLA 05-66 Corrections) Rural Residential RR 1:5 29,168 29,568 (+ 400 approx.) 29,227 (+59 approx., including +19 under MLAO566) RR 1:10 9,886 9,914 (+28 approx.)
9,945 (-50 approx., including -10 under MLA05-66) RR 1:20 51,475 51,280 (-195 approx.) 51,466 (-9 under MLA05-66) Incorporated UGA Port Townsend UGA 4,466 No change No change LAMIRDs
Rural Village Centers (Hadlock, Brinnon, Quilcene) 242 No change No change General Crossroads 96 No change No change Convenience Crossroads 10 No change No change Neighborhood Crossroads
122 132 (+11) 122 (no change) Unincorporated UGA UGA - Commercial 262 No change 262 (+0.09 MLA05-66) UGA - Visitor Oriented Commercial 14 No change No change UGA - Light Industrial
25 No change No change UGA - High Density Residential 14-24 50 No change No change UGA - Medium Density Residential 7-14 66 No change No change UGA - Low Density Residential 4-6 802
No change No change UGA - Public 72 No change No change 1-14 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations, continued Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current
Gross Acreage (2004 Plan) Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Staff Recommendation (including MLA 05-66 Corrections) Master
Planned Resort MPR - Village Commercial Center 43 44 (+1) 44 (+1) MPR - Resort Complex 10:1 57 No change No change MPR - Multiple Family 10:1 75 No change No change MPR - Single Family
4:1 1,431 No change No change MPR - Single Family Tracts 1:2.5 114 No change No change MPR - Recreation Area 259 No change No change MPR - Open Space Reserve 356 No change No change
Parks & National Forest Parks, Preserves, Recreation - Not MPR 2,859 No change 2,860 (+1 approx., under MLA05-66) Olympic National Forest 57,299 No change No change Olympic National
Park 139,463 No change 140,449 (+986 approx., under MLA05-66) Forestlands Rural Forest 8,645 No change No change Commercial Forest 310,327 310,078 (-249 approx.) 310,627 (+300 approx.,
under MLA05-66) Inholding Forest 7,228 No change No change Resource Based Industrial Zone 152 No change No change Agricultural Commercial Agriculture 4,296 No change No change Agricultural
Lands of Local Significance 3,220 No change 3,239 (+19 approx., under MLA05-66) Industrial Heavy Industry (Mill) 278 No change No change Light Industrial (Glen Cove) 72 78 (+6) 72 (no
change Light Industrial/ Manufacturing (Quilcene, Eastview) 56 No change No change Light Industrial/ Commercial (Glen Cove) 90 No change No change 1-15 Comparison of Current and Proposed
Land Use District Designations, continued Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current Gross Acreage (2004 Plan) Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals Potential
Future Gross Acreage Under Staff Recommendation (including MLA 05-66 Corrections) Essential Public Facilities Airport EPF 289 No change No change Military Reservation 3,452 No change
3,460 (+8 approx., under MLA05-66) Waste Management EPF 241 No change No change 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered
significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found in the Summary Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan future development proposals in
a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how mitigation measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none
of the potential impacts of the future development scenarios evaluated in this document would meet all of the parameters (significant and unavoidable and adverse). The staff recommendation
includes recommended mitigation measures that go beyond the regulatory framework currently in place. For more information on the relationship of plan and policymaking to future review
of development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures below at §1.2.4.2. 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty Following
is a table summarizing key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers: # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 1 MLA05-06; McDiehl
LLC; Port Ludlow; Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Village Commercial Center. The subject parcel is currently separated from Osprey Ridge Drive by a sliver of land designated
as part of the "protected area" or "reserve area" of the adjoining plat. Access to the parcel appears to be via Oak Bay Road only. With 89 vehicle trips per day anticipated with a
2,500 s.f. commercial building, obtaining access on two sides of the subject parcel would be advantageous for both commercial access and fire safety. 1-16 # APPLICATION NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 2 MLA05-38; Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP; Quilcene; Commercial Forest (CF) 1:80 to Rural Residential (RR) 1:20. The subject
parcel encompasses soil types, geology, topography and environmentally sensitive areas similar to many other parcels designated CF 1:80 in Jefferson County. The Department of Natural
Resources has indicated that the parcel is well suited to commercial forestry use; moreover the majority of the parcel has been in timber tax classification since the 1970s, indicating
its suitability for timber production. Redesignation and rezoning of the property to RR 1:20 could create a precedent with far reaching implications, including over time, incremental
erosion of the Comprehensive Plan's overall forest land designation approach. Both the GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan discourage redesignation of forestland. 3 MLA05-39;
Nelson/Monroe; Quilcene; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. What constitutes "an established pattern of same or similar sized parcels" (LNPs 3.3.1 through 3.3.3) is unclear. A reasonable interpretation
of these policies would suggest that in instances where 50% or more of the perimeter of a parcel abuts areas both designated and divided into parcels of equal or lower density, that
the existing zoning should be retained. Application of this interpretation indicates that an established pattern of 5-acre parcels does not exist in this instance. 4 MLA05-51; Kirkpatrick;
Quilcene; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The above discussion relative to MLA05-39 also applies here. Fifty percent (50%) of the boundary of this 20-acre parcel abuts designations and actual
densities of RR 1:20 and CF 1:80. Moreover, upzoning lands immediately abutting commercial forestland designations would appear to be inconsistent with LNP 3.3.3(g), and increase the
potential for conflicts between rural residential uses and forestry uses, as well as increasing the pressure to convert forestlands to rural residential uses in future. 5 MLA05-53;
Widell; Port Townsend (adjacent to Glen Cove); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial. As noted previously, Jefferson County's LAMIRD boundaries are the result of exhaustive review and deliberation,
and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB. The proposal raises the question whether LAMIRD boundaries, once designated, appealed, and upheld, may properly be reconsidered in
light of information not available or undiscovered at the time of initial LAMIRD zoning, absent manifest errors in application of the designation criteria. 6 MLA05-59; Property
Group (OPG); Shine; RR 1:10 to RR 1:5. As is the case with the other proposed rural residential upzones, this proposal raises an issue of interpretation of adopted County policy (i.e.,
LNP 3.3.1(a)). Specifically, under what circumstances is it appropriate to redesignate and rezone lower density rural residential parcels for higher density rural residential use?
In this instance, because the parcel is bounded on approximately 75% of its perimeter by an established pattern of parcels of 5 acres or smaller which are designated RR 1:5, approval
is recommended. However, clearer policies should be developed to guide decisions on rezones of this nature in the future; doing so would assist in ensuring rational decision-making
that does not erode the purpose and effect of the Comprehensive Plan's rural residential land use scheme. 1-17 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
7 MLA05-60; OPG; Port Ludlow; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Areas along both the eastern, northwestern, and western perimeters of the subject site are constrained due to steep slopes - this
is particularly the case along the western and northwestern perimeter of the site. The site is comprised of seven separate Assessor's parcel tags; only one of the seven, the northernmost,
has more than 50% of its perimeter bounded by parcels and zoning of higher density. Lower parcel densities and designations bound all remaining parcels within the subject site on more
than 50% of their perimeters. This proposal, as is the case with the other proposed rural residential upzones, raises the issue: under what circumstances is it appropriate to redesignate
and rezone lower density rural residential parcels for higher density rural residential use? 8 MLA05-61; OPG; Shine; CF 1:80 to RR 1:10 and RR 1:5. The sequence of procedural events
surrounding the establishment of both the initial CF 1:80 zoning, as well as the water service area boundary, remains somewhat unclear (please refer to the analysis of the proposal,
below). That said, CF 1:80 zoning was clearly applied to the subject site under interim forest land regulations that pre-date both the establishment of the water service area boundary
and the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that less than 1/2 of the subject site lies within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area, indicating that, regardless of the timing and
sequence of zoning and water service area boundary designation, the parcel has been appropriately zoned CF 1:80. Both the GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan discourage
the redesignation of forest lands. 9 MLA05-70; Pepper; Port Townsend (Four Corners); RR 1:10 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads). Jefferson Transit recently selected
the subject site as the location for its new principal operations and maintenance facility and transfer station. Transit is presently in the midst of the appraisal process, a necessary
precedent to purchase/acquisition negotiations with Ms. Pepper. The present RR 1:5 zoning of the property would appear to permit Transit's desired use and development of the property
via a conditional use permit process. The parcel has previously been the subject of site-specific rezone proposals identical to the current proposal that have been denied as inconsistent
with the LAMIRD boundary criteria of the GMA and Comprehensive Plan. 10 MLA05-66; Comprehensive Plan housekeeping involving map anomalies and text and table corrections. None
identified. 1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved 1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made The Comprehensive Plan states that, “a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of
its citizens” and further provides four essential components for environmental protection: 1-18 • Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy; • Regulatory Strategy for
Consolidated Environmental Review; • Critical Area Protection Strategy; and • Public Education and Involvement Strategy. Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact
environmental quality. Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations in the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC was developed such that
protective measures are incorporated into permit decisions. (For more discussion on how this process functions, refer to 1.2.4.2 below.) The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals
on this year’s Docket may have the potential, if adopted, to affect the environment. For this reason, each proposal must be carefully analyzed for potential impacts, both as an individual
proposal and with respect to cumulative impacts when associated with the other proposals on the 2005 Docket, and if necessary, denied, conditioned, or modified appropriately. 1.2.4.2
Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures The legislative adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A project action
would be a decision on a land use or building permit reviewed under the general policy framework offered by the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations. SEPA review is
required for project actions, unless those actions are categorically exempt from SEPA review when the proposal is compared to the list of exemption thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental
review such as the analysis contained in this document is useful and essential at the non-project level in order to set up a regulatory framework that protects the environment. Mitigation
for non-project actions in this sense is essentially the extent to which the established regulatory framework is effective when applied to future development proposals. Generally,
mitigation measures would not be required for the programmatic action of adopting a Comprehensive Plan or development regulation amendment, but may be useful and appropriate to address
probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified at the project level. It is often the case that project action environmental review is where specific mitigation measures
can be applied to condition a proposal such that the approval and execution of the proposal does not present a significant adverse environmental impact. With regard to environmental
review of this year’s Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle docket, it should be understood that Jefferson County has in place a regulatory framework that follows the guidance established
in Washington State laws, such as SEPA, the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December
2000 (effective January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive
Plan was implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses
within the various districts set forth upon the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures Ordinances outlined the development permit review process and related administrative
matters. The UDC replaced these and other previously existing ordinances. Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for what are now called
“environmentally sensitive areas” are contained at UDC §3.6.4, et seq. Environmentally sensitive areas are protected through the application of overlay districts. Examples of such
overlay districts include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (UDC 3.6.5), Frequently Flooded Areas (UDC 3.6.6), Geologically Hazardous Areas (UDC 3.6.7), Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas
(UDC 3.6.8), and Wetlands (3.6.9). The County maintains data to assist in identifying these areas from a variety of sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal
government, in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create maps depicting the approximate location and extent of environmentally sensitive areas overlay
districts. Development Review Division planners use available GIS information when reviewing land use and building permit applications and apply the protective measures accordingly.
Frequently an applicant is required to submit a Special 1-19 Report, such as an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan,
Habitat Management Plan, or Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are governed by UDC §3.6.10. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition
land use and building permit approval, but whenever possible to augment existing data for the County GIS database on environmentally sensitive areas. Sometimes the existing regulations
are insufficient to effectively protect the environment when examined in the context of a particular project. Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation
measures above and beyond the protections provided by the established development regulations may be needed to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions
may employ their “SEPA substantive authority” to further condition approval of a development application. These mitigation measures are generally developed through project action SEPA
review and established as permit conditions through an EIS or a threshold Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS). Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with
adoption of any one of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year’s cycle is not as clear as placing a condition on a permit. The legislative decision to adopt a modified
version of the original Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal can be considered a form of mitigation, for example. The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) may be effectively mitigating
the potential environmental impact of adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified proposal or even deciding not to adopt the proposal based on environmental considerations.
For formal site-specific amendment applications, the BoCC could apply a mitigation measure that affects future use of the land in question. In any of these cases, mitigation as applied
to a non-project action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct from mitigation as applied to a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action
review that established protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas and other development standards are applied to proposals for on-the-ground development. Judging the
effectiveness of mitigation measures in this context requires on-going attention. 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action The nine (9) site-specific proposals
and one (1) proposal to undertake housekeeping revisions under review in this amendment cycle are relatively minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction
from implementation of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan. That said, some of the proposals, if approved, pose farreaching policy implications that could, over time, create pressure
to significantly change the County's rural and forest land designations. In deciding when it is appropriate to upzone lower density rural residential parcels to higher density rural
residential designations, or when it is appropriate to upzone commercial forest land to rural residential designations, the County will establish precedents with far-reaching implications
that will be used to judge the appropriateness of similar rezone proposals in years hence. In consequence, determinations that appear to have little direct environmental impact when
viewed in isolation in 2005 may have significant indirect and cumulative environmental impacts if employed as justification for a substantial number of similar rezones in future Comprehensive
Plan amendment cycles. Choosing not to approve certain rezone proposals that would increase pressures to convert commercial forest land and/or rural lands to higher intensity land
use designations will likely reduce present and future environmental impacts, prevent sprawl, and preserve future planning options Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and
development under the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan will result in some adverse impacts which are impossible to avoid. The County's adopted Plan is designed to accommodate the
Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections for the year 2024. Under any of the action alternatives reviewed in this document, continued growth and
development under the adopted Plan is likely to result in increased urbanization of certain areas of the County, cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, increased demands upon
transportation facilities and transit, and increased demand for public infrastructure and facilities. The County will continue to plan for distribution of growth that will result in
the lowest levels of environmental impacts, focus on infill, and balance capital investments. 2-1 2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals 2.1 OVERVIEW Pursuant to §9 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC), Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA” at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management
Act (“GMA” at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and UDC §9, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of all proposals to identify the potential for cumulative
impacts. In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2) categories: Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property
owners requesting a change in either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density. Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that that broadly apply to the narrative,
goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure adequate review of potential environmental impacts, any suggested amendments that could
result in a need to re-designate groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria employed for formal site-specific amendments (i.e., UDC 9.8.1.b and c). This document addresses
the nine (9) site-specific amendments and the one (1) suggested amendment on the Final Docket. This document further divides the amendments into sub-categories. 2.1.1 Staff Reports,
Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in §9 of the UDC and, in turn, evaluates the potential for significant adverse
environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. Each amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made based
on those criteria. Tables are for summary information only; please refer to the staff report for each proposal for greater detail. 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators Pursuant to UDC
§9.8.1.b, all recommendations regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must include an inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at UDC §9.5.4.b. These
growth management indicators address the following: • Growth and development rates; • Ability to provide services; • Availability of urban land; • Community-wide attitudes towards land
use; and • Consistency with state law and local agreements. These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of Jefferson County’s
status during this 2005 amendment cycle. This section will serve to promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators and is intended to be a starting
point for broader community consideration before the Planning Commission and the BoCC. While this review of the growth management indicators provides some basic analysis related to
County demographics, it is not intended to measure progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that task is reserved for the State-mandated Comprehensive Plan update
scheduled for completion in 2011. 2-2 Unified Development Code (UDC) §9.5.4.b – growth management indicators Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in §9.5.4.b
of the UDC. (1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize. Discussion: The
Office of Financial Management (OFM) is the State agency responsible for compiling population projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2005 OFM Population Estimate
for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues, shows a 2005 population of 27,600. The 1996 “base year” population estimate used in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan
(see page 3-3) was identified as 25,754 residents. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan predicted a population of 28,482 in 2000, 2,529 less than the 2000 census. The County has passed Resolution
#55-03 which adopted the intermediate population projection from OFM for 2000-2024. The population projection predicts a population of 40,139 in 2024, an annual growth rate of 1.78%.
The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson County, and the population projections that were reflective of the unusual amount of growth at that time. The growth rate
of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth rate of approximately 2%. That being said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington state and its counties have tended
to exhibit growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even decline. For example, the “rural rebound” growth trend experienced by most western states in
the early 1990s – at the time of GMA adoption – was the result of an exodus by nearly two million people leaving California during a severe regional economic recession. Rural and non-metropolitan
growth in Washington, and Jefferson County, during the 1990s was far greater than anticipated but slowed as California’s economy recovered in the mid-1990s (“Washington State County
Population Projections For Growth Management,” Office of Financial Management, March 2002). YEAR 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2005 County Population 8300
6420 8346 8918 11618 9639 10661 15965 20406 27600 Port Townsend 4181 2847 3970 4683 6888 5074 5241 6067 7001 8745 Percent in Port Townsend 50% 44% 47% 53% 59%
53% 49% 38% 34% 32% Jefferson County Population 1910-2005 Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management As reference to the table above indicates,
an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the percentage of residents living in the city of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of residents living
in the city has dropped from 59% to 32%, with County residential units accounting for nearly 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this shift towards residence
in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services outside of Port Townsend. Resolution #55-03 allocates 36% of the growth over the 20-year planning period to
the City of Port Townsend, 17% each to Port Ludlow MPR and Irondale/Hadlock UGA, and 30% to the rural areas of Jefferson County. (2) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate
services has diminished or increased. Discussion: The number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the County, with the exception of policy decisions made as a result
of economic conditions, continues to be equipped to provide the same levels of service available at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. The County is in the process of adopting
GMA 2-3 compliant plans to provide the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) with urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater management. (3) Whether
sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. Discussion: As a part of the planning process for the unincorporated Port Hadlock UGA, an analysis
of vacant lands within the proposed UGA and a buildout analysis were completed. These studies evaluated the ability to accommodate the allocated population. The Port Hadlock UGA (partially
invalidated by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (see WWGMHB Case No. 04-2-0022, Irondale Community Action Neighbors and Nancy Dorgan v. Jefferson, Final Decision
and Order (May 31, 2005)) was sized to accommodate 118% of the growth allocated by resolution #55-03. With a theoretical carrying capacity of over 30,000, the City of Port Townsend
UGA also appears to be adequately sized to accommodate anticipated future urban growth. (4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer found to
be valid. Discussion: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, the majority of assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments to GMA and other
laws made by the State Legislature and precedentsetting decisions made by the Growth Management Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA. (5) Whether changes
in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. Discussion: The most effective
way to judge whether changes in countywide attitudes have occurred, aside from reference to local election results, is through statistically significant public opinion surveys. The
last such survey in Jefferson County took place in 1991 through the “Jefferson 2000 Public Opinion Survey” conducted by Elway Research. Many of the opinions expressed through this
survey are reflected in the policy assumptions that form the basis for the Comprehensive Plan. That said, the opinions expressed through the Jefferson 2000 survey were not intended
to predict the future and an updated survey would be the most effective way to gauge whether changes in countywide attitudes have actually manifested. (6) Whether changes in circumstances
dictate a need for amendments. Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption in August of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective, these changing
circumstances include: issues surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered Species Act, County adoption of final development regulations which
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act, Growth Management Hearings Boards clarifications through case law related to specific provisions of the GMA,
the adoption of Unified Development Code amendments establishing a process for locating Major Industrial Development, the completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study, designation
of Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial area, and the designation, and then appeal and partial invalidation, of Irondale/Hadlock as a UGA. Many of these changes in circumstances were
addressed during the 2004 Update to the Comprehensive Plan. (7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan
and the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policy.
In 2004, Jefferson County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth
Management Act. This review was completed in 2004. 2-4 2.2 FINAL DOCKET Following are brief descriptions of each of the ten (10) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference. Site-Specific Amendments: 1. MLA05-06; McDiehl LLC; Port Ludlow; Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential
to MPR Village Commercial Center; Agent: David Goldsmith 2. MLA05-38; Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP; Quilcene; Commercial Forest (CF) 1:80 to Rural Residential (RR) 1:20; Agent:
Jim Lindsay 3. MLA05-39; Nelson/Monroe; Quilcene; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 4. MLA05-51; Kirkpatrick; Quilcene; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5; Agent: Linda Skurdal 5. MLA05-53; Widell; Port Townsend (adjacent
to Glen Cove); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial 6. MLA05-59; Property Group (OPG); Shine; RR 1:10 to RR 1:5 7. MLA05-60; OPG; Port Ludlow; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 8. MLA05-61; OPG; Shine; CF 1:80
to RR 1:10 and RR 1:5 9. MLA05-70; Pepper; Port Townsend (Four Corners); RR 1:10 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads); Agent: Kelly DeLaat-Maher Suggested Amendments: 10.
MLA05-66; Comprehensive Plan housekeeping involving map anomalies and text and table corrections only, and not for the purpose of amending policy or narrative description. The Board
of County Commissioners (BoCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each amendment as proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version, or deny adoption. The ten proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan constitute, for the purposes of the integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, five (5) individual proposed action components (i.e., rural residential
rezones; forest land rezones; rural industrial/commercial rezones; MPR commercial rezones; and Plan housekeeping amendments). The environmental review-based alternatives to each proposed
action component are as follows: • No Action - Continue application of the Comprehensive Plan without any or all of the proposed amendments; or • Adopt with mitigating conditions (e.g.,
as recommended by staff). 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary Staff recommendations for each proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each individual proposal in part 2.3.
The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. In transmitting the Planning Commission to the BoCC later this year, staff will have the opportunity
to adjust these preliminary recommendations. The preliminary staff recommendations, including modifications and mitigation measures, are summarized in the following table: 2-5 2005
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations # APPLICATIO N NUMBER APPLICANT/PARCE L NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 MLA05-06
McDiehl LLC Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 821117005 Rezone a 0.89-acre site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Osprey Ridge and Oak Bay roads in Port Ludlow
from MPR Residential to MPR Village Commercial Center. Approve the proposed redesignation/rezone. 2 MLA05-38 Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP APN 601224001 Rezone an approximately
90-acre site on the Coyle Peninsula from Commercial Forest (CF) 1:80 to Rural Residential (RR) 1:20. Deny the proposed redesignation/rezone: the subject site is as productive as any
forest land in east Jefferson County; no persuasive argument has been presented that the property was incorrectly designated as CF 1:80. 3 MLA05-39 Elizabeth K. Nelson & Claudia
Monroe APN 801213014 Rezone an approximately 16.47-acre parcel in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 to permit division into two parcels and development of an
additional building site. Deny the proposed redesignation/rezone: The subject parcel is surrounded on more than 50% of its perimeter by larger parcels; an "established pattern" of
5-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). 2-6 # APPLICATIO N NUMBER APPLICANT/PARCE L NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 4 MLA05-51 Steven G. Kirkpatrick & Linda J. Skurdal APN 601031007 Rezone an approximately 20-acre parcel on the west side of the Coyle Peninsula from RR
1:20 to RR 1:5. Deny the proposed redesignation/rezone: at least 50% of the perimeter (i.e., the south and east) of the subject parcel is comprised of parcels of 40 acres or larger
(i.e., an "established pattern" of 5 or 10-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site) (see LNPs 3.3.1(a) and 3.3.2(a)). 5 MLA05-53 Kevin Widell
APN 001212001 Rezone an approximately 6.10-acre site on the west side of SR 19 adjacent to the Glen Cove LAMIRD from RR 1:5 to Light Industrial/Commercial. Deny the proposed redesignation/rezone
: Jefferson County's LAMIRD boundaries are the result of exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB. Though rational arguments have been advanced
for this proposed rezone, staff recommends against revisiting the LAMIRD boundary designation. 6 MLA05-59 Olympic Property Group (OPG) APN 821343005 Rezone an approximately 40-acre
parcel near Shine on the north side of SR 104 from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Approve the proposed redesignation/rezone: The parcel is surrounded on three sides by an established pattern
of parcels of 5 acres or smaller which are designated RR 1:5. Consequently, approval of the rezone is appropriate and consistent with LNP 3.3.1(a). 2-7 # APPLICATIO N NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCE L NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 7 MLA05-60 Olympic Property Group (OPG) APN 821152001 – divided into seven (7) individual parcels
as follows: Gov Lot 1(less ptn platted & ptn Tax 25); Gov Lot 2(less ptn Tax 2 &3); Gov Lot 4(W30AC); Gov Lot 5(W22.32AC); Gov Lot 6(W22.32AC); SE NW; and W1/2 SW. Rezone an approximately
251-acre area just east of Port Ludlow, which is divided into seven separate parcels, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Deny the proposed redesingation/rezone: LNP 3.3.1 and the topography
of the parcel warrant continued application of the RR 1:20 designation. Six of the seven lots involved are bounded on 50% or more of their perimeters by large lots designated RR 1:20.
8 MLA05-61 Olympic Property Group (OPG) APN 821332001 APN 821331005 APN 821331001 Rezone three (3) parcels comprising approximately 158 acres near Shine on the north side of
SR 104 from CF 1:80 to a combination of RR 1:10 and RR 1:5 (i.e., approximately 79 acres in each designation). Deny the proposed redesignation/rezone: The subject site is productive
forest land. Moreover, less than 50% of the parcels involved lie within the limits of the Bywater Bay Water Service Area, which appears also to post-date the original CF 1:80 zoning
applied to the parcel under both the IFRL Ordinance and the IGSO; no persuasive arguments have been presented to suggest that the property was incorrectly designated as CF 1:80. 9
MLA05-70 Pamela Pepper APN 001332009 Rezone an 11-acre parcel at the northeast intersection of Four Corners Road and SR 20 from RR 1:10 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood Crossroads).
Deny the proposed rezone. Upzoning the parcel is inconsistent with the criteria for LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Current LAMIRD boundaries are the result of exhaustive
review and deliberation. 2-8 # APPLICATIO N NUMBER APPLICANT/PARCE L NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 10 MLA05-66 Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan housekeeping involving map anomalies and text and table corrections. Approve the amendments as proposed by staff. 2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS The nine site-specific
amendment proposals are grouped together below according to category: • Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (e.g., RR 1:20 to RR 1:5) • Requests for Change from Forest
Lands Designation to Rural Residential (e.g., CF 1:80 to RR 1:10) • Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial (e.g., RR 1:5 to RVC) • Requests for Change
from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Commercial (e.g., MPR SF to MPR Village Commercial) 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (4) Requests for changes
in Rural Residential density are subject to criteria contained at Land Use Policy 3.3 (page 367) in the Comprehensive Plan. These criteria attribute one of three residential densities
to all residential parcels in Jefferson County: one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5), one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10), or one dwelling unit per twenty acres (1:20), subject
to the following criteria: POLICIES: LNP 3.3.1 A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County
with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing
smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed “suburban” platted
subdivisions. LNP 3.3.2 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established
pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a “transition” adjacent to Urban Growth Areas;
and, d. critical area land parcels. LNP 3.3.3 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acres (RR 1:20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the
County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 20 acres) or larger; b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; 2-9 c. areas serving as
a “transition” to Urban Growth Areas or the [Port Ludlow] Master Planned Resort; d. critical land area parcels; e. agriculture resource designated parcels; f. publicly owned forest
lands; and g. lands adjacent to forest resource land. The Unified Development Code defines the term “buildable lot” and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in size or greater will typically
be adequate to meet health standards related on-site wastewater disposal (i.e. septics) and individual water systems (i.e. well) [UDC page 2-12]. Since 1996, the maximum density that
can be achieved through subdivision in Jefferson County is one dwelling unit per five acres. In January 2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code which includes provisions
for innovative and environmentally sound sitedesign through residential “clustering.” These provisions are contained at UDC §3.6.13 (Planned Rural Residential Developments). The
three proposals for residential density changes will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for each proposal
is provided below. 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA05-39 (Nelson/Monroe) Applicant: Nelson/Monroe Assessor Parcel Number(s): 801213014 Location: Quilcene/Dabob Road 2.3.1.1.1 General
Description and Environmental Information The proposed amendment would re-designate one 16.47-acre parcel from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per twenty acres (RR 1:20) to Rural
Residential one dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1:5). The request would potentially allow the applicants to create two additional parcels. The parcel currently contains a mobile
home, barn, shop and garage. All structures are clustered in the southwest corner of the parcel. Access to serve the parcel is off of Dabob Road. The lot gradually slopes from the
southwest to the eastern portion of the parcel. The southwest portion of the parcel contains the structures and is not heavily vegetated. The remainder of the parcel is heavily vegetated
with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. Some clearing would be required to establish the additional home-site(s). 2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b,
the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative
Impact Analysis - MLA05-39: Nelson/Monroe UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially
changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Dabob Valley
is characterized by parcels of land larger than 20 acres and resource lands for both forestry and agriculture. 2-10 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-39: Nelson/Monroe, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered
during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain
valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson County will become
more evident during the public process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities. The proposed site-specific
amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment is not consistent with Land
Use Policy 3.3 and Natural Resource Policy 10.9 in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts
to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing
or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks,
or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject parcel
is suitable for residential use. Access to the property would likely cross a stream that is shown on the critical area map. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a
pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a
whole It is likely that the approval of this amendment would create pressure to change the land use designation of other similarly situated parcels, resulting in an overall erosion
of the original purpose and effect of the 1998 Plan land use designations. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections
that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed does not materially affect the land use and population projections. 2-11 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-39: Nelson/Monroe,
continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment is not consistent
with the GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land and Goal 8 to protect natural resource industries from incompatible uses. Following is environmental analysis
presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be
likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would likely result
in the construction of an additional dwelling unit, it is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2: How
would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development
that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would
the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy
conservation standards. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental
protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The
critical area map shows the presence of a Type IV stream and associated wetland. Any future development will be required to meet the minimum buffer requirements. Question #5: How
would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of
the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. 2-12 Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal
is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is inconsistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. The
parcel was originally designated Rural Residential 1:20, most likely because of the adjacent Forest Resource lands. There is a pattern of lots smaller than 5 acres to the north of
the parcel, there are 9 lots smaller than 5 acres that total approximately 21 acres. 2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposal. Although there are smaller
lots present in the vicinity of the subject parcel, their presence at the time of adoption seems to indicate that the parcel was zoned RR 1:20 because of the proximity of agricultural
and forest resource lands. Additionally, the subject parcel is surrounded on more than 50% of its perimeter by parcels larger than 10 acres in size that are zoned for lower density
rural, agricultural and forestry uses (i.e., RR 1:20; AP 1:20; and RF: 1:40). Thus, an "established pattern" of 5-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject
site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). 2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA05-51 (Kirkpatrick) Reference Number: MLA05-51 Applicant: Steven Kirkpatrick and Linda Skurdal Assessor Parcel Number(s):
601031007 Location: Coyle-Toandos 2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information The subject property is located on the eastern shore facing west on Dabob Bay off of
Coyle Road. The property is approximately 20 acres bordered on the west and north by rural residential lots that are approximately five acres in size and are zoned RR 1:5. The parcel
to the east is a rural residential parcel zoned RR 1:20 that is approximately 40 acres. The parcel to the south is 80 acres of zoned commercial forest (CF 1:80). The area is typified
by steep slopes and is designated a slight to moderate landslide hazard, the vast majority of the parcel, including where the proposed home-sites are located, is designated a moderate
landslide hazard. There is also a seasonal stream that runs through a portion of the parcel. Deer Creek Road provides access to properties along the shoreline from Coyle Road and
runs through the middle of the property. 2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings
and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. 2-13 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-51: Kirkpatrick UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances
related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The vicinity of the subject site remains characterized by a mix of RR 1:5, RR 1:20, RF
1:40 and CF 1:80. Approximately 50% of the perimeter of the parcel abuts the RR 1:5 land use designation and parcels of 5 acres or less in size; 50% of the perimeter also abuts CF
1:80 and RR 1:20. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the
adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. There
has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles. Whether the
proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson County will become more evident
during the public process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards
for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities. The proposed site-specific amendment
is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment is not consistent with Land Use Policy
3.3 in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network,
capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The
proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. In the case
of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including
but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject parcel is suitable for residential use. 2-14 Cumulative
Impact Analysis - MLA05-51: Kirkpatrick, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole It is likely that the approval of this
amendment would create pressure to change the land use designation of other similarly situated parcels, resulting in an overall erosion of the original purpose and effect of the 1998
Plan rural land use designations. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive
Plan The proposed does not materially affect the land use and population projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws The proposed amendment is not consistent with the GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land and Goal 8 to protect natural resource industries from incompatible
uses. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise? The proposal would likely result in the construction of three (3) additional dwelling units, it is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water
withdrawal or discharge. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals,
fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals,
fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources. All
subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. 2-15 Question #4: How would the proposal
be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The critical area map shows the presence of a Type IV stream and associated
wetland. Any future development will be required to meet the minimum buffer requirements. Slight to Moderate landslide hazards are found throughout the entire parcel, most of the
parcel is shown as Moderate landslide hazard. Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land
or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands
on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible,
whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is inconsistent
with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel was originally designated Rural Residential 1:20, most likely because of the adjacent Forest Resource lands
and the 40-acre parcel zoned RR 1:20 to the east. There is a pattern of 5-acre and small lots smaller to the west and north of the parcel. 2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends
denial of the proposal. Although there are smaller lots present to the west and north of the subject parcel, their presence at the time of adoption seems to indicate that the subject
parcel was zoned RR 1:20 because of the proximity of forest resource lands and the 40-acre rural residential parcel lying to the east. Because at least 50% of the perimeter of the
subject parcel is comprised of parcels of 40 acres or larger, an "established pattern" of 5 or 10-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site (see LNPs
3.3.1(a) and 3.3.2(a)). 2.3.1.3 Reference Number: MLA05-59 (Olympic Property Group) Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821343005 Location: Shine 2.3.1.3.1
General Description and Environmental Information The subject property is located approximately one mile west of the Hood Canal Bridge on the north side of State Route (SR) 104. The
Parcel is approximately 40 acres in size and encircles a one-acre parcel that contains the PUD well. The parcel is designated forest land and is in the Timber (Open Space) Tax program.
2.3.1.3.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider
specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. 2-16 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-59: Olympic Property Group UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances
related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have
not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information
is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process
or any of the annual amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count The widely held view of the residents
of Jefferson County will become more evident during the public process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely
affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the levels of service for public facilities.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment
is consistent with Land Use Goal 3.0 and Policy 3.3.1 for lands designated Rural Residential 1:5. The property is bordered on three sides by Rural Residential 1:5. The proposed
site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features
that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse
impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject
parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject parcel is suitable for residential use and would be served by public water. The proposed site-specific amendment will
not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the
county as a whole Because the proposal is consistent with LNP 3.3, and because 75% of the perimeter of the subject site borders upon areas zoned RR 1:5 with parcel sizes of 5 acres
and smaller, it can be distinguished from other proposals for rural residential upzoning. Consequently, it is unlikely that the approval of this amendment will create pressure to change
the land use designations of other low-density rural properties. 2-17 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-59: Olympic Property Group, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The
proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed does not materially
affect the land use and population projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability
of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment is consistent
with the Growth Management Act and applicable local codes. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental
Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section
D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic
or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would likely result in the construction of six (6) additional dwelling units; because the proposal is located within the
limits of a public water system operated by Jefferson County PUD #1, it is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3:
How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific development
proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic
or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The critical area map shows a seasonal stream and a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and wellhead protection area. Question
#5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? 2-18
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state,
or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive
Plan (see LNP 3.3). There is a pattern of 5-acre and smaller lots and zoning on 75% of the perimeter of the subject site. 2.3.1.3.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of
the proposal. Although the parcel is some 40 acres in size, it is bordered on 75% of its perimeter with 5-acre lots and zoning that date back to the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption
in 1998. The proposal is consistent with LNP 3.3; because surrounding parcel sizes and land use designations of higher density border a majority of the parcel perimeter, this proposed
amendment is distinguished from other proposals for rural residential upzoning. 2.3.1.4 Reference Number: MLA05-60 (Olympic Property Group) Applicant: Olympic Property Group (OPG)
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821152001 Location: Port Ludlow 2.3.1.4.1 General Description and Environmental Information Olympic Property Group has requested a designation of RR 1:5 from
RR 1:20 for approximately 250.75 acres adjacent to the east of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. The subject property has a single parcel number, but is comprised of seven lots.
The parcel is enrolled in the Timber Tax program. 2.3.1.4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-60: Olympic Property Group
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 2-19 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-60: Olympic Property
Group, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which
was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the annual
amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson County will
become more evident during the public process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of
service standards for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities. The proposed site-specific
amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment is not consistent with Land
Use Policy 3.3 and Natural Resource Goal 4.0 in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts
to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing
or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks,
or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject parcel
is suitable for residential use, though the presence of steep slopes would require project level mitigation. Access to the property would be provided by an existing road. The proposed
site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term
best interests of the county as a whole It is likely that the approval of this amendment would create pressure to change the land use designation of other similarly situated parcels,
resulting in an overall erosion of the original purpose and effect of the 1998 Plan land use designations. 2-20 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-60: Olympic Property Group, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed does not materially affect the land use and population projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not
affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws The proposed amendment is not consistent with the GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land and Goal 8 to protect natural resource industries from incompatible
uses. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise? The proposal would likely result in the construction of up to thirty-seven (37) additional dwelling units; future development under the proposed higher density RR 1:5 designation
and zoning is not likely to significantly increase discharges to water, emissions to air, releases of toxic or hazardous substances, or noise. Any future subdivision and development
of the subject site would be mitigated through application of implementing regulations (e.g., critical areas; stormwater; etc.) and project level SEPA review. Question #2: How would
the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development
that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would
the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific development proposals
will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas
or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. 2-21 The critical area map reveals steep and unstable slopes, particularly along the eastern and northern perimeter of the
subject site. Additionally, County critical area maps indicate the presence of Bald Eagle breeding habitat and a Coastal Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone. Question #5: How would
the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? If approved, the proposal
would quadruple permissible rural residential densities on the subject site from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5, including certain areas lying within the shoreline jurisdiction. To the extent that
approval of the proposal may conflict with LNP 3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be said to allow or encourage land uses incompatible with the County's rural residential land use
methodology. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable
additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection
of the environment. As noted in the response to Question #5, above, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3).
Only one (1) of the seven (7) parcels included within the proposed rezone area abuts five (5) acre parcels and designations on more than 50% of its perimeter. Thus, the proposed rezone
area is not within an area where an established pattern of 5-acre parcels and densities currently exist. 2.3.1.4.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone.
LNP 3.3.1 and the topography of the parcel warrant continued application of the RR 1:20 designation. Six of the seven lots involved are bounded on 50% or more of their perimeters
by large lots designated RR 1:20. Approval of the proposal would be likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased
pressure to upzone RR 1:20 areas to higher rural residential densities; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). 2.3.1.5 Cumulative
Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential Density The four proposals for change of rural residential density combined involve four discrete parcels amounting to approximately 327
acres. Approval of these four amendments, as proposed by the applicants, would have the practical result of creating the potential for forty-seven (47) additional rural dwelling units
over baseline conditions (i.e., from 18 currently, to 65 if approved). All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to utilize clustering provisions, would be subject to review
pursuant to the UDC at time of application. Based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would preclude the use of these sites for
residential purposes. Additionally, the fact that the requests are located in geographically separated areas (Dabob Valley, Coyle Peninsula, Shine and Port Ludlow) minimizes the potential
for negative cumulative environmental and capital facility impacts. It should be noted that certain of the proposals appear likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant
adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert low density rural residential areas (e.g., RR 1:20) to higher intensity rural use (i.e., RR 1:5); this
would appear likely make other similar upzones more likely in the future, eroding the overall purpose and effect of the rural residential land use scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan (CP). 2-22 2.3.2 Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural Residential (2) Requests for changes from Forest Lands to Rural Residential density must be considered
against the classification and designation criteria set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-1 through 4-5; and NRG 3.0 and
NRPs 3.1 through 3.5 and NRG 4.0 and NRPs 4.1 through 4.8). Relevant excerpts from this Plan narrative and goal and policy language include the following: Forest Lands Classification
and Designation of Forest Lands Jefferson County’s Forest Lands Designation and Conservation strategy was developed based on an analysis of local conditions and the following guidelines
provided by the Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED): Table 4-1 Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource Lands in Jefferson County Indicator
Comments 1. Availability of public services and facilities conducive to the conversion of forest lands. Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are intended to be served by public
facilities and services within a twenty-year period, forest lands of longterm commercial significance should be located outside of UGA boundaries. 2. Proximity of forest land to urban
and suburban areas and rural settlements. To protect forest lands of long-term commercial significance from encroachment by incompatible uses, they should be located outside the urban
and suburban areas and rural settlements. 3. Size of the parcels. Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should consist of predominantly large parcels. 4. Compatibility
and intensity of neighboring land uses and settlement patterns with forest lands of long-term significance. Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be adjacent to large
parcels to allow for adequate buffering and setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settlement patterns. 5. Property tax classification. Forest lands of long-term commercial
significance should be eligible for assessment as open space or forest land pursuant to RCW 84.33 or 84.34. 6. History of land development permits nearby. Forest lands of long-term
commercial significance should not be designated in areas under development pressure that are likely to convert to higher intensity land uses. In order to conserve the forest resource
land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry industry while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, it was determined that Forest Lands would consist of three classes:
• Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80); • Rural Forest Lands (RF-40); and • Inholding Forest Lands (IF) for parcels entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural Forest Lands unless the parcel
is less than twenty (20) acres in size or if the a development application for the parcel is vested. The landowner must submit a written request to have the parcel removed from Forest
Resource Inholding designation. Any parcel that meets the following criteria will be classified as Forest Land and designated as Forest Land of Long-Term Commercial Significance:
• The land should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one (1) through four (4) as mapped by the Department of Natural Resources. 2-23 • Minimum parcel size should be a minimum
of nominally eighty (80) acres for Commercial Forest Lands forty (40) acres for Rural Forest Land, with parcels smaller than the minimum included when the acres of at least the minimum
size are contiguously owned and the land is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status. • The parcel should be part of a Forest Land Block at least three hundred twenty (320) acres in
size that meets the designation criteria. The Forest Land Blocks will continue to exist even though individual parcels may be removed in the future because they no longer meet the established
designation criteria. The Forest Land Block shall apply if the amount of designated Forest Land in the block falls below three hundred twenty (320) acres, but not if the acreage of
the block falls to zero (0). • No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Urban Growth Area or within one half (1/2) mile of the three designated Rural Village Centers
or within approximately one half (1/2) mile of the urbanized boundary of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. • The parcel is currently in a deferred forest tax status pursuant to
RCW 84.33 or RCW 84.34 or classified or designated Timber Tax land, or State or Federal land outside the National Forest Service boundary; and • A majority of the parcel should be located
outside any community water system service area. The Regulatory Framework for Forest Lands Jefferson County is currently regulating forest lands under the 1997 Interim Forest Lands
Ordinance, #01- 0121-97. The interim ordinance was developed through a mediation process between the County, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Washington Environmental
Council, and the Olympic Environmental Council to resolve issues raised in litigation. The Memorandum of Understanding of December, 1996 signed by the above parties included a provision
requiring the County to readopt the interim ordinance as part of the comprehensive Plan and the implementing development regulations of the Comprehensive Plan. A discussion of the history
of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance is located in Appendix E of Background Information. In order to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the interim ordinance
will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, prior to adoption as a permanent Forest Lands Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish criteria for the
classification, designation, conservation, and regulation of Forest Lands. The ordinance also includes permitted and conditional uses in designated Forest Lands. Final development
regulations will be adopted based on the Interim Forest Land Ordinance that recognize the diversity of forest land uses and allows compatible, non-forestry uses while protecting forest
lands from conflicting uses. Criteria will be developed to assess the compatibility of non-forest uses on Forest Lands, which should include, but not be limited to: • Creation of fire
or safety hazards on adjacent Forest Lands; • Removal of a significant portion of a parcel from productive forest use; • Imposition of significant financial hardships to adjacent forest
landowners; and, • Potential for land use conflicts with adjacent forest landowners. In order to protect the property rights of forest landowners and maintain the forestry industry,
a Right to Practice Forestry provision in the interim ordinance will be adopted in the final ordinance. These protections apply to all designated forest land that complies with best
forestry management practices as described in the ordinance. The best opportunity to manage forest land uses occurs at the state and local permitting stages. Landowners must apply
for a Forest Practices Permit when conducting forest practices that have the potential for adverse impacts on public resources as described in WAC 222-16-050. Landowners choosing to
maintain their land in forestry uses must state their intent to do so on the Forest Practice Application. Since the adoption of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance in January, 1997,
the County has heard from both timber owners and adjacent landowners regarding conflicts over forest lands activities adjacent to residential lots that were previously platted in sizes
too small to provide an adequate buffer from effects of activities such as noise and the spraying of herbicides. In 2002, a Forest Transition Overlay district was established to address
potential conflict 2-24 between forest resource lands and pre-platted high density residential parcels of one acre or less in size. However, this Forest Transition Overlay was limited
in scope and does not preclude the necessity of convening a task force to explore potential incompatibility issues. These issues regarding limited and distinct areas raised in the public
planning process will be addressed by reconvening the parties that negotiated the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance, including timber owners, environmental groups, landowners, and other
interested parties to discuss measures to mitigate these effects. This public process is intended to result in recommendations that may include mitigative measures the timber owners
can implement, as well as site-specific solutions. Any change in the Forest Lands Ordinance or Forest Lands designations would require full public review and should be based on agreement
of the parties involved. Policy NRP 4.8 provides for convening the group of parties to initiate discussions. All forest practices in Jefferson County must comply with the Washington
State Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09), administered by the Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, forest practices in designated Shoreline Environments must comply with the
requirements of Jefferson County’s Shoreline Management Master Program. These laws are designed to protect water quality, shorelines, fish and wildlife habitat and the public’s opportunity
to enjoy these resources. Regulations will also be developed and applied to incorporate the recommendations of agreed-upon watershed and salmon recovery plans related to land and resource
management, which is further discussed in the Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Landowners choosing to convert their land to non-forest uses also must state their intent
on the Forest Practices Application. As provided in the Forest Practices Act, these landowners must conduct their forest practices in accordance with applicable local government regulations,
which may include, but are not limited to, the Critical Areas Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act. Forest lands being converted to non-forest uses should be managed to
guide the manner and extent of alteration and to minimize adverse environmental impacts. The 1997 State Legislature enacted Substitute Senate Bill 5714, requiring local governments
to issue forest practice permits for harvest sites which will be converted to non-forestry purposes (Class IV – General). The bill also mandates that local governments develop a public
process for lifting the six-year moratorium on conversion required when the landowner does not state an intent to convert or when a harvest project occurs without obtaining the appropriate
Forest Practice application. This law expands the County’s regulatory role in forest practices, and will require closer coordination with the State Department of Natural Resources.
The County will revise the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance to address these new requirements and, where necessary, will establish standards which meet or exceed current Forest Practice
requirements based on the goals and policies of this plan. In addition, a County clearing and grading ordinance with more comprehensive standards than those that apply under the Forest
Practices Act will be developed to protect surface and ground water quality and quantity, control storm water runoff, and minimize damage to fish and wildlife habitat. More information
on the clearing and grading ordinance is provided in the Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan. FOREST LANDS GOAL: NRG 3.0 Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for
long-term economic use. POLICIES: NRP 3.1 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying
and designating Forest Lands for long-term commercial significance based on the quality of the forest environment, the size of the parcel, the tax status, current use, and distance
from populated areas. NRP 3.2 Encourage the continued diversity of forestry by designating classes of long-term commercially significant forest land that allow the continued existence
of a range of approaches to forest management. 2-25 NRP 3.3 Parcels designated as Forest Land in common ownership separated by a public right-of-way shall be considered as a single
parcel. NRP 3.4 Allow commercial forest management and harvest, mineral extraction, sand and gravel operations and those land uses which maintain, enhance, or have no impact on the
long term management of designated commercial forest lands. NRP 3.5 Support and facilitate the improvement of state and local environmental regulations affecting the forest products
industry in order to improve operational predictability, minimize regulatory costs to forest land owners, and encourage protection of the forest environment and surrounding watersheds.
GOAL: NRG 4.0 Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands. POLICIES: NRP 4.1 Prohibit
the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Allow one dwelling unit on each legal lot
of record in accordance with State law. NRP 4.2 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the interim ordinance for conditional
uses in Forest Lands. NRP 4.3 Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing site and design requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated forest land.
NRP 4.4 Minimize dangers from natural disasters such as fire, through siting and design criteria for structures on designated Forest Lands. NRP 4.5 Minimize conflict between primary
and secondary forest production facilities and related developments and forest management activities through siting and design requirements. NRP 4.6 Prohibit the extension of service
areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Forest Lands except for lands that have been designated as
Forest Transition Overlay. NRP 4.7 Address community concerns and land use conflicts which may arise as a result of forest practices in cooperation with the Washington State Department
of Natural Resources, forest landowners, and the general public. NRP 4.8 Facilitate a cooperative process bringing together timber company representatives, environmental groups, landowners,
and other interested parties to address concerns related to incompatible land uses between parcels existing adjacent to forest lands at the time of adoption of Ordinance #010121-97,
the interim Forest Lands Ordinance. 2-26 2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA05-38 (Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP) Applicant: Hopkins/Barber Family Associates, LP Applicant/Agent:
James Lindsay Assessor Parcel Number(s): 601224001 Location: Quilcene/ Toandos Peninsula 2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information The proposed amendment
would re-designate one 90-acre parcel from Commercial Forest one dwelling unit per eighty acres to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per 20 acres. The proposed request would allow
the parcel to be subdivided into four separate lots. If this request is approved, the applicant is proposing to consolidate this parcel with two adjacent parcels (601224003 & 601224008)
located to the north. The parcels are five and ten acres respectively, and are designated Rural Residential one in dwelling unit per five acres. The proposed parcel is adjacent to
the shoreline and contains varying topography from relatively flat to steep slopes ranging up to 50 percent. The property contains a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The parcel
is currently vacant, with an access road. The property has been in the Timber Tax program since the 1970s, although an exact date when the property was enrolled in the program is not
known. According to Forest Practices Application (FPA) 02-15306, dated March 6, 1995 and expiring April 1997, approximately 730,000 board feet (BF) of timber was harvested from 40
acres on-site, an average of 18,250 BF per acre. According to DNR, the average volume per acre falls within the average productivity of land on the Toandos Peninsula. 2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative
Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria.
Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-38: Hopkins/Barber UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially
since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which
was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted remain valid. Although some new information concerning the purported unsuitability of the subject site for commercial forestry has been presented that was not considered
in 1998, none of the information presented is likely to have altered the original decision to include the property within the CF 1:80 land use designation. Whether the proposed amendment
reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson County will become more evident during the public process.
The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities
and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities. 2-27 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-38: Hopkins/Barber, continued
UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive
Plan The proposal is not consistent with Natural Resource Goal 3.0 in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse
impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon
existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The parcel is
characterized by steep slopes ranging from 25% to 50% on approximately 35% of the property. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole Approval of the proposal
would be likely to increase pressure to convert Commercial Forest Resource Lands to higher intensity rural use; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan (CP). The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed does
not materially affect the land use and population projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy
or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A), the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed
amendment is not consistent with the GMA Goal 2 to reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land and Goal 8 to encourage the protection of productive forest lands. The DNR reports
that these lands are as productive as other forest lands on the Toandos Peninsula. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental
Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions
set forth in SEPA Rules: 2-28 Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would potentially allow the development of four additional home-sites with the
associated impervious surfaces and runoff. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not likely affect plants,
animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants,
animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is not likely to deplete energy or natural resources;
all subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4: How would the proposal be
likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The subject parcel contains moderate to slight landslide hazards and
a coastal Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone. Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or
shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The property is within the Shoreline jurisdiction it is not clear whether or not any future development proposals would be incompatible
with any existing plans. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate
any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is inconsistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. The record clearly shows
that the subject property has been a productive forest for several decades. 2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposal. The Comprehensive Plan and Growth
Management Act are very clear that productive resource lands are to be protected from inappropriate conversion to other uses. The subject parcel encompasses soil types, geology, topography
and environmentally sensitive areas similar to many other parcels designated CF 1:80 in Jefferson County. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated that the parcel is well
suited to commercial forestry use, similar to other forest lands on the Toandos Peninsula; moreover the majority of the parcel has been in timber tax classification since the 1970s,
indicating its suitability for timber production. Redesignation and rezoning of the property to RR 1:20 could create a precedent with far reaching implications, including over time,
incremental erosion of the Comprehensive Plan's overall forest land designation approach. 2-29 2.3.2.2 Reference Number: MLA05-61 (Olympic Property Group) Applicant: Olympic Property
Group (OPG) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821332001; 821331005; and 821331001 Location: Shine 2.3.2.2.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information The above-mentioned
parcels are north of State Route 104 in Shine near Teal Lake Road. Parcel has portions within a wellhead protection area and critical aquifer recharge area as well as slight to moderate
landslide hazards. The parcels in question total approximately 158 acres. The Bywater Bay Water Service area includes somewhat less than one-half of the three parcels in question.2
2.3.2.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider
specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-61: Olympic Property Group UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances
related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have
not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The CF 1:80 pre-dates adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Although the parcels appeared to lie wholly within
a “future water service area” depicted in earlier planning documents, the parcels actually lie only partially within the limits of the water service area approved by the Department
of Health (see footnote below). Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered
during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain
valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles.
Please also see the footnote below. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count The widely held view of the residents of
Jefferson County will become more evident during the public process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely
affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities.
2 A discrepancy exists between the information submitted by the applicant, which depicts the entirety of the parcels proposed
for rezone within the Bywater Bay Water Service Area, and the official map of the area as depicted in Figure 1.1 of Volume 2 of the Water System Plan for Public Utility District No.
1 of Jefferson County, February 2004. The PUD Water Service Plan was approved by the State Department of Health on February 18, 2005. The adopted and approved Bywater Bay Water Service
Area includes within its limits a little more than approximately onethird of the proposed rezone area. Information submitted by the applicant was apparently drawn from a “future water
service area” proposed in earlier planning documents, but not adopted. 2-30 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-61: Olympic Property Group, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The current zoning appears
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies for designation of commercial forest land. Moreover, a majority of the parcels involved lie outside the limits of the Bywater
Bay Water Service Area, which was formally created after the original CF 1:80 zoning was applied to the parcel under both the IFRL Ordinance and the IGSO; no persuasive arguments have
been presented to suggest that the property was incorrectly designated as CF 1:80. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to
the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing
or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks,
or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The parcels in question
are suitable for use as residential land. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole Approval of the proposal would be likely to increase pressure to convert Commercial
Forest Resource Lands to higher intensity rural use; this would likely erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). The proposed site-specific amendment
does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed does not materially affect the land use and population
projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services
to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan polices and designation criteria governing commercial forest lands and runs contrary to Plan and GMA provisions which disfavor conversion of productive commercial forest lands
to higher intensity uses. 2-31 Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed
by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental
Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous
substances; or production of noise? The proposal would likely result in the construction of twenty-two (22) additional dwelling units; because a portion of the subject site is located
within the limits of a public water system operated by Jefferson County PUD #1, it would appear unlikely to that the proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal
or discharge. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or
marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish,
and marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent
project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or
affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or
endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The critical area map shows the presence of a seasonal streams and a Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area for Wellhead Protection. Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline
uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. To the extent that approval of the proposed rezone appears appropriately zoned
as commercial forest land use the County's designation criteria and policies, rezoning the property to higher density rural residential use would appear to encourage use that is inconsistent
with the County's adopted Plan, and encourage similar rezones that are inconsistent with County policy. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation
or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.3 Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal
may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment appears to be inconsistent with Comprehensive
Plan narrative, designation criteria and policies governing commercial forest lands (see Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources
3 The Department of Health raises concerns about the availability of water resources for the Bywater Bay Water System during the 2004 review process of proposed PUD water service
area amendments in a letter dated August 9, 2004. 2-32 Element, pp. 4-2 through 4-5 and NRGs 1.0 and 3.0 and the policies thereunder). The proposal would also appear to clearly conflict
with the natural resource industry goal of the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.040(8)). 2.3.2.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone. The subject site is productive
forest land. Moreover, less than 50% of the area of each of the three parcels involved lies within the limits of the Bywater Bay Water Service Area, which also appears to post-date
the original CF 1:80 zoning applied to the parcel under both the IFRL Ordinance and the IGSO; no persuasive arguments have been presented to suggest that the property was incorrectly
designated as CF 1:80. It should be noted that the Jefferson County Interim Forest Resource Lands Ordinance (#01-0121-97) initially designated and zoned the property CF 1:80 on July
5, 1994, applying forest land designation criteria nearly identical to those in the current Plan (i.e., including the water service area criterion). On August 8, 1995 the Jefferson
County Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) and Jefferson County PUD No. 1 filed an interlocal agreement regarding the water service area boundary. In November of 1995, Pope
Resources transferred their private water system to Jefferson County PUD #1. On February 14, 1996, the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (#05-0214-96) replaced the IFRL, but retained
the CF 1:80 zoning for the subject site, again applying designation criteria nearly identical to those used under the IFRL, including the water service area criterion. On May 21, 1997,
the owner/applicant petitioned Jefferson County to have the subject parcel removed from forest resource land designation. The Jefferson County Hearing Examiner recommended denial of
the petition because, among other reasons, the CF 1:80 zoning predated the establishment of the water service area boundary. The BoCC adopted the Examiner's recommendation and denied
the petition (see File No. ZON97-0015). On August 28, 1998, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was adopted, again ratifying the CF 1:80 designation. The owner/applicant failed
to appeal either the BoCC petition denial or the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property. In March 2004, the PUD, through the WUCC, submitted a set of proposed water service
area plans and maps to the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) for approval. Among the water service areas in question was the Bywater Bay Water Service Area. DOH returned
an approval letter dated February 18, 2005, approving the boundary as depicted in Figure 1.1 of Volume 2 of the PUD Water Service Plan, February 2004. (Figure 1.1 is dated January
2004.) The approved boundary includes only some—less than 50%—of the area proposed for rezone 2.3.2.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Forest Lands Designation to Rural
Residential The two (2) proposals for removal of commercial forest land designation involve four (4) discrete parcels amounting to approximately 248 acres. Approval of these two amendments,
as proposed by the applicants, would have the practical result of creating the potential for twenty-six (26) additional rural dwelling units over baseline conditions (i.e., from 3 currently
under CF 1:80, to 29 under a combination of RR 1:10 and RR 1:5) if approved. All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to utilize clustering provisions, would be subject to
review pursuant to the UDC at time of application. Based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would preclude the use of these sites
for residential purposes. Additionally, the fact that the requests are located in geographically separated areas (Coyle Peninsula and Shine) minimizes the potential for negative cumulative
environmental and capital facility impacts. It should be noted that certain of the proposals appear likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment
in the form of increased pressure to convert commercial forest lands to higher density rural residential use (i.e., RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20); this would appear likely make other
similar upzones more likely in the future, eroding the overall purpose and effect of the commercial forest land designation scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). 2-33 2.3.3
Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial Requests for changes for a rural residential land use designation to a rural industrial or rural commercial
designation are subject to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG) 5.0 on page 3-70. GOAL: LNG 5.0 Establish and maintain the location and size of the
County’s Rural Crossroads to provide access to a limited range of non-residential uses. POLICIES: LNP 5.1 All rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the provisions of
the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). LNP 5.2 Designate the following historic crossroads as Convenience Crossroads (CC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Nordland, Beaver Valley, and
Wawa Point. LNP 5.2.1 Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act and the following additional criteria: a. Consists of a single commercial property; and
b . Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling public with basic consumer goods and services. LNP 5.2.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary
of each of the Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic consumer goods and services. LNP 5.3 Designate the following historic crossroads as Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads
(NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay, Four Corners, Gardiner, and Mats Mats. LNP 5.3.1 Designation is based on the criteria of the Growth Management Act and the
following additional criteria: a. Multiple commercial properties; and b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services; and c. Serves the local rural population and the
commuting/traveling public. LNP 5.3.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of each of the designated Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads to those involving basic
consumer staples with a limited range of goods and services and/or serving the commuting/traveling public. LNP 5.3.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily
housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior housing, and assisted living facilities, and manufactured/mobile home parks. LNP 5.4 Designate the following crossroads
as General Commercial Crossroads (GC) as shown on the Land Use Map: SR 19/20 Intersection. LNP 5.4.1 Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act and the following
additional criteria: 2-34 a. Location at a major highway intersection near high density population in the Tri-Area; and b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and multiple
community levels of service. LNP 5.4.2 Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the designated General Commercial crossroads to those involving an expanded range of commercial
goods and services. LNP 5.4.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior housing, assisted
living facilities, and manufactured/mobile home parks. LNP 5.5 Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads commercial infill development with the
surrounding rural area through the creation and implementation of community based design and development standards. Uses within Rural Crossroads shall be scaled and sized to protect
the rural character of the natural neighborhood. GOAL: LNG 11.0 Recognize and contain the following areas and uses of more intensive industrial development within boundaries
that may allow for limited areas of infill development: POLICIES: LNP 11.1 Designate the Port Townsend Paper Mill property as Heavy Industrial. LNP 11.2 Designate the Glen Cove
area boundary as Light Industrial and Light Industrial/Commercial, consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). LNP 11.3 Designate the Quilcene industrial area
as Light Industrial/Manufacturing. LNP 11.4 Designate the Eastview Industrial Plat as Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M). Growth Management Act Criteria In addition to these
Comprehensive Plan criteria, specific provisions of the Growth Management Act guide the designation of “limited areas of more intensive rural development” (LAMIRDs) outside of Urban
Growth Areas. Pursuant to the GMA [see RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)] Jefferson County must adopt measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within LAMIRDs and those areas
shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of LAMIRDs. While LAMIRDs must be delineated predominantly by the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment they may also include
undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The GMA sets out four issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition to respecting the
predominance of the 1990 built environment: • The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities; • Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets
and highways, and landforms and contours; • The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and • The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not
permit low-density sprawl. The three proposals for rural commercial and industrial changes will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general description, criteria review,
and staff recommendation for each proposal is given below: 2-35 2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA05-53 (Widell) Reference Number: MLA05-53 Applicant: Kevin Widell Assessor Parcel Number(s):
001212001 Location: Glen Cove 2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The subject parcel is adjacent to the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial LAMIRD on the
SW corner of Seton Rd and SR 20. The property is within a wellhead protection area, as is most of Glen Cove. The property is served by a commercial access road shared by Pacific Environmental.
The road access was permitted in 1981 to serve Lundgren Distributing. The road was in existence on July 1, 1990 and currently serves Pacific Environmental. 2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact
Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those
criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-53: Widell UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or
the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to Glen Cove have not changed substantially since
the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the annual amendment
cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson County will become
more evident during the public process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities. The proposed site-specific amendment
is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Policy 11.2 specifies that Glen Cove should be contained within a logical outer boundary based on the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). 2-36 Cumulative Impact Analysis
- MLA05-53: Widell, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation
network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities
The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. In the
case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development,
including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject property is suitable for light industrial use.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties
is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole It is likely that the approval of this amendment would create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary decisions that have
already been exhaustively reviewed and later upheld by the WWGMHB. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that
are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed does not materially affect the land use and population projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the
proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements,
and any other local, state or federal laws Though cogent arguments can be advanced that the subject site might have been included within the Glen Cove LAMIRD boundary in 1998 without
violating the GMA (RCW 36.70A.070(d) and (e)), the proposal is inconsistent with the adopted settlement agreement between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County regarding the
boundary for the Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial area. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental
Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules:
2-37 Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The applicant has indicated his intention to move his rental business to Glen Cove if this proposal is approved.
It is likely that the runoff associated with impervious surfaces of the site will increase. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life? Wildlife habitat is unlikely to decrease as a result of this proposal. The site is located adjacent to a sizable light industrial area that has been developed for some time.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to substantially deplete energy or natural resources. Question #4:
How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The parcel is located within a Wellhead Protection
Area. There are provisions in the code to protect the aquifer from high impact uses, such as operations that use chemical manufacturing or waster treatment. Question #5: How would
the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? If approved, the proposal
would be likely to create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary decisions that have already been exhaustively reviewed and later upheld by the WWGMHB. No portion of the site lies
within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely
to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements
for the protection of the environment. The GMA states that LAMIRDs must be contained within a logical outer boundary delineated by the July 1, 1990 built environment. At the time
of designation the logical outer boundary used was SR 20. Jefferson County was ordered by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board to remove language from its Comprehensive
Plan stating that the County would continuously identify land for inclusion in the LAMIRD. Hearings Board decisions regarding LAMIRDs may conflict with the proposal. OEC v Jefferson
County stated that expansion of the logical outer boundary to include undeveloped property constitutes “outfill” rather than “infill” under the GMA. A case regarding Lewis County allows
minor adjustment to the logical outer boundary to include undeveloped property consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv) A, B, C, and D, but does not allow large
undeveloped properties outside of the areas existing as of July 1, 1990. It seems likely that any amendment to Glen Cove would be appealed by either the City of Port Townsend or
any number of citizen or activist groups. Given the case history specific to Jefferson County and how recently this process resolved itself, it seems likely that the Hearings Board
would closely scrutinize any redesignation of this type. It should also be noted that the current RR 1:5 designation of the site would appear to be consistent with 2-38 Comprehensive
Plan policy LNP 3.3. There is a pattern of 5-acre and smaller lots and zoning on 75% of the perimeter of the subject site. 2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of
the proposed rezone. Jefferson County's LAMIRD boundaries are the result of exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB. Though rational arguments
have been advanced for this proposed rezone, staff recommends against revisiting the LAMIRD boundary designation. 2.3.3.2 Reference Number: MLA05-70 (Pepper) Applicant: Pamela Pepper
Applicant/Agent: Kelly DeLaat-Maher Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001332009 Location: Port Townsend (Four Corners) 2.3.3.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information The proposed
amendment would re-designate one parcel totaling 10.63 acres from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres to Rural Commercial Neighborhood /Visitor Crossroad. The proposed
commercial designation would allow an expanded range of uses on the subject property. The parcel is located on the northeast corner of State Route 20 and Four Corners Road. The Four
Corners Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads is located southwest of this proposal. The parcel currently contains a septic tank and trailer pad which are located on the southern portion
of the parcel. The lot is flat with limited evergreen and deciduous trees. 2.3.3.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-70:
Pepper UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to subject site have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The property has undergone a boundary
line adjustment since the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is
available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the
annual amendment cycles. 2-39 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-70: Pepper, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held
values of the residents of Jefferson Count The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson County will become more evident during the public process. The proposed site-specific
amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment
is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies
of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Policy 11.2 specifies LAMIRDS should be contained within a
logical outer boundary based on the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental
features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated
land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject property is physically
suitable for commercial use. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation
for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole It is likely that the approval of this amendment would create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary
decisions that have already been exhaustively reviewed and later upheld by the WWGMHB. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed does not materially affect the land use and population projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth
area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable.
2-40 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-70: Pepper, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws No persuasive arguments
have been advanced that the subject site was incorrectly excluded from the LAMIRD boundary in 1998. The proposal would appear to violate the GMA (RCW 36.70A.070(d) and (e)) as well
as Comprehensive Plan provisions governing the designation of neighborhood commercial crossroads. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project
Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according
to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Any development of the site would increase the impervious surfaces on the property,
and further development would presumably use more water and discharge more wastewater than the current use of the property. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect
plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal is unlikely to impact plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources? The concepts of energy and natural resource conservation and protection for Jefferson County’s future is integrated in its Comprehensive Plan to reduce the effects
of development now and in the future. These built-in protections in the Plan include planning for future populations by promoting centralized residential areas with nearby commercial
centers, along with planning efficient transportation systems. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,
floodplains, or prime farmlands. The site is within a seismic hazard zone and a Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area. The requirements of the Unified Development Code provide for protection
of the aquifer. Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible
with existing plans? If approved, the proposal would be likely to create pressure to revisit other LAMIRD boundary decisions that have already been exhaustively reviewed and later
upheld by the WWGMHB. No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. 2-41 Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal
may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The GMA states that LAMIRDs must be contained within a logical outer boundary
delineated by the July 1, 1990 built environment. At the time of designation the logical outer boundary excluded areas not developed for commercial use lying north of Four Corners
Road and east of SR 20. The proposed rezone site was vacant on July 1, 1990, as it is now. The parcel underwent a Boundary Line Adjustment in 2004 that significantly increased the
acreage within parcel 001332009. Nothing in the record indicates that the parcel in question meets the criteria for inclusion in the Neighborhood Crossroads (NC) designation. It should
also be noted that the WWGMHB has also stated that jurisdictions may not continuously identify land for inclusion within LAMIRDs. The WWGMHB has further held that expansion of logical
outer boundaries to include undeveloped properties constitutes “outfill” rather than “infill” under the GMA. A case regarding Lewis County allows minor adjustment to the logical outer
boundary to include undeveloped property consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv) A, B, C, and D, but does not allow large undeveloped properties outside of the
areas existing as of July 1, 1990. It seems likely that the proposed amendment, if approved, would likely be appealed by any number of citizen or activist groups. Given the case
history specific to Jefferson County and how recently the County's LAMIRD boundaries have been settled, it seems likely that the Hearings Board would view a redesignation of this type
as inconsistent with the GMA and adopted County policy. It should also be noted that the current RR 1:10 designation of the site would appear to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policy LNP 3.3. 2.3.3.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezone. Upzoning the parcel is inconsistent with the criteria for LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d). Moreover Jefferson County's current LAMIRD boundaries are the result of exhaustive review and deliberation, and have been reviewed and upheld by the WWGMHB. 2-42
2.3.3.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial The two (2) proposals for change from rural residential
to rural commercial or industrial would allow for the addition of approximately 17.10 acres to existing LAMIRD boundaries (i.e., 11 acres within NC, increasing the total to 133 acres
from the current 122; and 6.10 acres within the Glen Cove Light Industrial zone, from the current 72 acres to 78). Any subsequent subdivision and development would be subject to review
pursuant to the UDC at time of application. Based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would preclude the use of these sites for
commercial or light industrial purposes. Additionally, the fact that the requests are located in geographically separated areas (i.e., Glen Cove and Four Corners) minimizes the potential
for negative cumulative environmental and capital facility impacts. If approved, the two (2) proposals for modifying LAMIRD boundaries appear likely to result in indirect and cumulative
significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert rural residential areas to more intensive commercial and light industrial use within expanded
LAMIRD boundaries; this would appear likely make other similar upzones more likely in the future, eroding the overall purpose and effect of the LAMIRD boundary designation scheme within
the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP), in violation of both the Plan and the GMA (RCW 36.70A.050(d) and (e)). 2.3.4 Requests for Change from Master Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR
Commercial 2.3.4.1 Reference Number: MLA05-06 (McDiehl LLC) Reference Number: MLA05-06 Applicant: McDiehl LLC – Bryan Diehl; Agent David Goldsmith Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821171005
Location: Port Ludlow Village Center 2.3.4.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information Subject property is located on the intersection of Oak Bay Rd and Paradise
Bay Road/Osprey Ridge Drive. The subject property is currently the only non-commercial use at the intersection. Applicant wishes to rezone the property for commercial use, although
he has no specific intended use listed on the rezone application. Property is the only residential use on the intersection and is isolated from other residential properties by open
space reserve tracts to the north and to the west. The subject parcel is 0.89 acres in size. The current use of the parcel is as a residence the future use would be limited to the
uses specified in the Master Planned Resort (MPR) Village Center zone adopted in Ordinance 10-1214-98. The MPR-Village Center zone allows for a variety of retail and service oriented
commercial uses as well as residential use. The parcel is within a susceptible aquifer recharge area. 2.3.4.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b and 9.8.1.c, the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. 2-43
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-06: McDiehl LLC UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have
substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to the Port Ludlow MPR have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Port Ludlow
MPR Ordinance supplemental to the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available
which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive
Plan was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the
annual amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count The widely held view of the residents of Jefferson
County will become more evident during the public process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted
level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposed amendment is not likely to adversely affect the level of service for public facilities. The proposed
site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is not inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. LNG 25 and LNPs 25.1 through 25.8 are silent on the issue of expanding village commercial boundaries lying within the limits of the Port Ludlow MPR. Therefore,
expansion of the existing designation and zone would appear to be a matter of legislative discretion. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse
impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon
existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject property
is physically suitable for commercial use. 2-44 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-06: McDiehl LLC UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not create
a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as
a whole It is unlikely that the approval of this amendment would create significant pressure to otherwise modify the boundaries of the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. The proposed
site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed does not materially affect the
land use and population projections. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Not applicable. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposal is consistent the Growth
Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan narrative and policies governing the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the
Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each
change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to
water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would likely result in the construction of approximately
2,500 square feet of additional commercial space within the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center. Under the allowable uses set forth for this district within the Jefferson County
UDC, it would appear unlikely that uses within a future commercial development upon the site would increase discharges to water, emissions to air, or production or release of hazardous
substances. Future uses upon the subject site, if included within the MPR Village Commercial zone, would be likely to result in noise impacts exceeding existing baseline conditions.
However, no impacts beyond those typically associated with commercial development are anticipated, nor are noise impacts that rise to a level of environmental significance. Question
#2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. 2-45 Question
#3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific development
proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic
or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The critical area map shows the presence of Susceptible Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. Question #5: How would the proposal
be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal is unlikely to affect
land and shoreline use beyond that of expanding the permissible commercial retail and service uses on the subject parcel. No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional
demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is not inconsistent with the narrative, goal and policy guidance established in the Comprehensive Plan for Master Planned Resorts (see LNG
25 and LNPs 25.1 through 25.8). 2.3.4.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposal and requests that the property be governed by the development agreement and
any applicable Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions governing the Master Planned Resort. Staff notes that future development of the parcel would likely benefit by securing dedicated
access to Osprey Ridge Road to ensure adequate access to the parcel for fire and EMS, as well as future commercial uses. 2.3.4.1.4 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Master
Planned Resort (MPR) Residential to MPR Commercial The one (1) proposal to change from MPR Residential MPR Village Commercial Center would allow for the addition of approximately one
(1) acre to the existing commercial designation (i.e., from 43 to 44 total acres). Any subsequent development of the parcel would be subject to review pursuant to the UDC at time of
application. Based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would preclude the use of this site for commercial purposes. Moreover, commercial
development of the parcel would appear unlikely to result in any cumulative environmental or capital facility impacts. 2-46 2.4 STAFF REPORT: SUGGESTED AMENDMENT 2.4.1 Comprehensive
Plan Housekeeping 2.4.1.1 Reference Number: MLA05-66 (Jefferson County) Applicant: Jefferson County Assessor Parcel Number(s): N/A Location: N/A (Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments)
2.4.1.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information Comprehensive Land Use Map amendments under MLA 05-66 are wholly nonsubstantive and ministerial in nature,
and are limited to the correction of errors and omissions. The proposed amendments are described more fully below. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments: There are a
few inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Land Use map designations that require correction. Specifically, a few parcels were never zoned when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in
1998 or updated in 2004. The criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan have been applied to these properties to appropriately assign land use designations and zoning. There are also
a few instances where the zoning does not follow the legal boundaries of ownership. Although it has been common practice to split-zone parcels when there are critical areas present
or when the designation is based on the July 1, 1990 built environment, this does not appear to be the case for the parcels in question. During the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment
cycle, the County accepted petitions for rezones to Agricultural Lands of Local Importance designation. Staff has identified a small number of anomalies associated with this parcels.
Some of the parcels were already designated for Agricultural zoning or a small portion of a parcel included within the UGA boundary. In other cases not all of the requested parcels
were rezoned or the wrong parcel was mistakenly zoned. The following amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map are proposed: West End: • Oil City is an
old plat near the coast along the Hoh River. The parcels were zoned based on ownership, parcels that were privately owned were zoned rural residential and those owned by the National
Park Service were shown as Olympic National Park. There are instances of private ownership within the Park. All parcels, private and public, are proposed to be designated according
to the boundary of the Olympic National Park. • Parcel 712161000 in the West End has a railroad right of way that was zoned RR 1:20 going through the middle of a Commercial Forest
parcel. Typical practice is to designate the right of way to the centerline with the same zoning that borders the right of way. The right of way is proposed to be designated as Commercial
Forest. 2-47 Local Agriculture: • Last year, Local Agricultural zoning was requested for parcels #501032024 (4.97 acres) and 501032025 (5.04 acres). The application listed two
parcel numbers but only one was included in the matrix. Parcel 501032024 was erroneously excluded, and therefore was not rezoned. It is proposed that parcel 501032024 be zoned Local
Agriculture, as was intended in last year's amendments. • The application for parcel #901254007 (9.68 acres) was erroneously stapled together with another application under the same
name last year. However, only the parcel number from the other application made it into the matrix. The application for this parcel indicates that the Agricultural Lands Committee
of the Planning Commission discussed the matter, and recommended inclusion of the parcel within the Local Agricultural zoning district. • The application for parcel #921324028 (5.12
acres) was stapled together with the application for parcel #921324022, but never made it to the matrix last year. The subject parcel is adjacent to parcel #921324022, which was rezoned
to Local Agriculture. It is recommended that parcel #921324028 also be zoned Local Agriculture. • Parcel #802363023 (6.77 acres) was an incorrect parcel number included on the matrix
for approval. Parcel #802363022 (5.63 acres) was the parcel that was actually subject to the requested rezone. Parcel #802363022 was mistakenly omitted from Local Agricultural zoning,
while parcel #802363023 was mistakenly included; parcel #802363023 belongs to a landowner who did not request Local Agricultural zoning during last year's process. It is likely that
the owner of parcel #802363023 is entirely unaware that the rezone has taken place. The applicant for #802363022 has since died. It is recommended that this zoning error simply be
acknowledged and corrected. • A portion of parcel #901112040 remains designated Rural Residential 1:5, the parcel should be zoned Local Agriculture in its entirety adding 0.27 additional
acres. • The UGA boundary intersects a large parcel, #901034003, “Sunfield Farm.” The small portion of that parcel that lies inside the UGA boundary was inadvertently rezoned AL.
It was never the intention to rezone anything inside the UGA. It is recommended that this error be corrected, though the portion of this rather large parcel that is in question is
quite small (0.09 acres). In essence, this is a ministerial/mapping error that should be corrected. Parcels lacking any zoning designation: • The parcel #603143001 approximately
38 acres in size, which is currently depicted as two parcels split by a right of way, and is enrolled in the Timber Program. Parcels in private ownership are zoned Rural Residential
1:20. • Parcel #503360001 is a DNR owned parcel split into pieces of 190 and 110 acres respectively. It is recommended that the parcel be designated CF 1:80. • There is a grouping
of parcels comprising approximately 980 acres along the North Bank of the Quinault River that were not zoned when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. The parcels are within
the boundary of the Olympic National Park (ONP) and are proposed to be designated as such on the Comprehensive Land Use map. • An island off the tip of Indian Island consisting of
portions of these parcels: 921000000 (Indian Island) and 021180000 (Fort Flagler) was never zoned. Zoning for each portion should be consistent with the rest of the parcel. 2-48
"Small" zones: There are 21 zones in east Jefferson County smaller than one acre. Staff has developed an Excel spreadsheet showing about 50 parcels that intersect these 21 zones.
In looking over a few examples, some appear legitimate (e.g., small portions of parcels separated from the principal zone by water, etc.), but some others look like candidates for
review and may be mapped so in error. • Parcels #021332007 (0.05 acres) and #021332002 (0.18 acres) should be amended to follow property lines. Parcel #021283022 (0.15 acres) should
also be rezoned Parks, Preserves, and Recreation (PPR) to accurately reflect its inclusion in East Beach Park. • A portion of parcel #502021001 is zoned RR 1:20; the parcel is the
Dosewallips State Park and vast majority of the parcel is designated Parks, Preserves, and Recreation. The portion in question is within the Shoreline. The zoning should be corrected
to follow the parcel lines, applying the PPR designation to the entirety of the parcel. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Table and Text Amendments: • The Population Projection Table,
Table 3-1 on page 3-3 of the Comprehensive Plan, contains an error. The 2000 population figure for Unincorporated Rural & Resource Areas, as indicated in BoCC Resolution 5503, was
13,972 rather than 18,972. When arranging for a mass printing of the 2005 Comp Plan, as revised in 2004, we intend to include the correct figure. However, the figure should also be
corrected through the formal amendment process. • Land Use and Rural Element (p. 3-70 /#6). The reference to designating two Industrial Land Banks (ILBs) should be corrected to “...a
bank with two master planned locations.” 2.4.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC §9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings
and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-066: Jefferson County UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances
related to the suggested amendment have not changed since the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the
assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during
the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles. 2-49 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA05-066: Jefferson County UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether the proposed amendment
reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson Count Staff believes that most residents of Jefferson County would favor correcting technical errors identified following
initial plan adoption. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department
of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of the proposed amendments in relation to questions set forth in SEPA Rules, follows: Section D. Supplemental
Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous
substances; or production of noise? As plan and code text amendments intended to correct technical errors, the proposed changes are unlikely to result in any of the above listed impacts.
Please also refer to the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, particularly
those sections relating to Water, Air, Environmental Health and Noise. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal
would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur within the modified land use designations and zoning adopted under
the proposed land use map amendments would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal
be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject
to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Please also refer to the section entitled “Energy and Natural Resources” within the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed amendments are not likely to use or affect such areas; all of the proposed Plan amendments are technical
in nature and intended to rectify mapping oversights and wholly nonsubstantive amendments to the text and tables of the Plan. Adoption of the amendments will further the County's compliance
with the goals and substantive requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Growth Management Act. Please also refer to the "Natural Environment" section within the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. 2-50 Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land
and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No aspect of the proposal is likely to have such an affect.
The land use map corrections are based upon adherence to Plan narrative, goal and policy language, and would encourage land and shoreline uses that are compatible with existing plans.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is not likely to increase demand. The County
will continue to review and condition project permit applications to ensure transportation concurrency, and maintenance of adopted LOS standards for county owned facilities as a condition
of development approval. Please also refer to the "Built Environment" section within the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation
of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection
of the environment. The proposal would not conflict with local, state, or federal laws, or requirements for the protection of the environment. 2.4.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff
recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan text, tables and land use map as detailed in §2.4.1.1.1, above. 3-1 3 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials
The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and information utilized for the development of this 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report
and SEPA Addendum. This report supplements information presented in prior environmental documents prepared for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, other legislative actions, and other
County decisions and activities. DATE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT EVALUATED September 27, 1978 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan (preGMA) January 2, 1979
Final EIS (FEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan December 21, 1992 Countywide Planning Policies (Res. No. 40-99) February 14, 1994 DEIS Draft Implementing Ordinance for 1979 Comprehensive
Plan March 1, 1995 Existing Conditions Alternatives for establishing GMA Comprehensive Plan February 24, 1997 DEIS Comprehensive Plan - February 24, 1997 draft May 27, 1998 FEIS Proposed
Comprehensive Plan August 3, 1998 Staff Responses to Questions Proposed Comprehensive Plan January 26, 1999 Land Use Inventory Report Part of Special Study January 26, 1999 Regional
Economic Analysis / Forecast Part of Special Study June 30, 1999 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task III of TriArea/Glen Cove Special Study) August
18, 1999 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with addenda Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task IV of TriArea/Glen Cove Special Study) June 11, 2001 Special Study Final Decision Document
November 2001 Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Special Study November 28, 2001 Tri Area & Glen Cove Special Study Implementation Plan August 21, 2002 Integrated Staff Report & DSEIS
2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket November 25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket December 2002 Final decisions, findings, ordinances, and conditions 2002 Amendment
Docket February 13, 2003 Memorandum to Planning Commission Agricultural Lands policy and regulation April 28, 2003 Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 and all documentation for MLA03-485 Amendments
to UDC concerning Agricultural Lands August 6, 2003 Integrated Staff Reports & SEPA Addenda 2003 Amendment Docket February 2004 Water System Plan Vol. 2: Public Utility District #1
of Jefferson County Depicts Bywater Bay Water System (Fig. 1.1) approved by DOH Feb. 2005 2004 Staff analysis and environmental review for Urban Growth Area (UGA). MLA04-29 & 30: UGA
plans, goals, policies, maps, and regulations. September 22, 2004 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2004 Amendment Docket, including “2004 Update” required by GMA 3-2 4-1 4
Distribution List Copies mailed or delivered to: Notification of availability emailed or mailed to: Jefferson County: State Agencies: Planning Commission members (9 persons) Department
of Natural Resources (Anne Sharar & SEPA Review) Board of County Commissioners (3 persons) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEPA Review) Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Department
of Health (John Aden)) Department of Public Works Department of Social & Health Services (Elizabeth McNagny) Department of Health & Human Services Natural Resources Division Department
of Corrections (Rebecca Barney) Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock State Agencies: Department of Fish & Wildlife (Steve Penland, Tim Rymer, Jeff Davis & SEPA Review) Dept. of
Community, Trade and Economic Development: Growth Management Services Department of Ecology (GMA Review) Department of Ecology SEPA Unit Puget Sound Action Team (Harriet Beale and
John Cambalik)) Notification of availability emailed or mailed to: Parks & Recreation Commission (Bill Koss) Jefferson County: Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Lorinda
Anderson) All other County departments not listed above Local Agencies & Organizations: City of Port Townsend Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 Other Interested Parties:
Port of Port Townsend Jefferson County Conservation District Washington Environmental Council Washington Association of Realtors Olympic Environmental Council Wild Olympic Salmon
North Olympic Salmon Coalition People for a Livable Community Point-No-Point Treaty Council Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Skokomish Tribe Hoh Tribe Port
Townsend & Jefferson County Leader Peninsula Daily News Forks Forum Vigilance
Staff Reports/2006_CPA_staff_rpt_2.pdf Microsoft Word - 2006_CPA_staff_rpt_2.doc
2006 COMPREHENSIVE P 2006 COMPREHENSIVE P 2006 COMPREHENSIVE P 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAN LAN LAN AMENDMENT DOCKET AMENDMENT DOCKET AMENDMENT DOCKET AMENDMENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITY DEVELOPMENT ITY DEVELOPMENT ITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT AND SEP STAFF REPORT AND SEP
STAFF REPORT AND SEP STAFF REPORT AND SEPA ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM A ADDENDUM JEFFERSON COUNTY, WA JEFFERSON COUNTY, WA JEFFERSON COUNTY, WA JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SHINGTON SHINGTON SHINGTON Preliminary Staff Recommendation with Environmental Analysis for the Adoption of Amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan JULY 19 JULY
19 JULY 19 JULY 19, 2006 , 2006 , 2006 , 2006 INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action: Addendum to
Existing Environmental Documents Principal Contributors/Authors Principal Contributors/Authors Principal Contributors/Authors Principal Contributors/Authors Department of
Department of Department of Department of Community Development Community Development Community Development Community Development Long Long Long Long--Range Planning Range Planning
Range Planning Range Planning Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Josh D. Peters, AICP, Senior Planner Rachel McHugh, Assistant Planner Brent Butler, Assistant Planner
Technical Contributors Technical Contributors Technical Contributors Technical Contributors Department of Central Services Department of Central Services Department of Central
Services Department of Central Services Doug Noltemeier, GIS Analyst Logistical Contributors Logistical Contributors Logistical Contributors Logistical Contributors Department
of Community Development Department of Community Development Department of Community Development Department of Community Development Cheryl Halvorson, Planning Commission Secretary
and GMA Archivist Rose Ann Carroll, Office Administrator ii Table of Contents Page 1 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet .......................................................................
................. 1-1 1.1 Fact Sheet .................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Environmental
Summary ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.1 Introduction and Process .............................................
......................................................... 1-4 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents ............................................................ 1-4 1.2.1.2
Incorporation of Documents by Reference ...................................................................... 1-4 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis ...........................................
.......................................... 1-5 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.2
Major Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 1-7 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures .................................................... 1-7 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations ........................... 1-8 1.2.2.3 Significant
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................................... 1-10 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty.........................................
.................... 1-10 1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved ........................................................................................................ 1-11 1.2.4.1 Environmental
Choices to Be Made .............................................................................. 1-11 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures ..................................................
.......................... 1-11 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action .......................................... 1-13 2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals ..................
.................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................
.................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations ...................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators
........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Final Docket .....................................................................................
........................................... 2-4 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.3 Staff
Reports: Site-Specific Amendments .................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (2)
........................................................ 2-5 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA06-01 (Bell) .............................................................................
2-6 2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA06-74 (Austin) ......................................................................... 2-8 2.3.1.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential
Density ............................ 2-11 2.3.2 Request for Change from AEPF to Rural Residential ........................................................ 2-11 2.3.2.1 Reference Number:
MLA06-85 (Port of Port Townsend) ............................................. 2-11 2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Airport Essential Public Facilities to Rural
Residential ........................................................................................................................... 2-14 2.3.3 Requests for Change from Rural Residential
Designation to Rural Commercial ............... 2-14 2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA06-77 (Brown & DCD) ......................................................... 2-16 2.3.3.2 Cumulative
Analysis of Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial ...............................................................................................................
.................... 2-18 iii 3 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials .................................................................................. 3-1 4 Distribution List
................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 Appendices ...................................................
...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Item 1: Legal Notice (July 17, 2006) ...................................................................
........................ 5-2 5.2 Item 2: MLA06-01 Bell ............................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3 Item 3:
MLA06-74 Austin ........................................................................................................... 5-6 5.4 Item 4: MLA06-77 Brown and dcd ...................................
.......................................................... 5-7 5.5 Item 5: MLA06-85 Port of Port Townsend ..................................................................................
5-8 1-1 1 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet 1.1 FACT SHEET Title and Description of Proposed Action Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) is considering adoption of five (5) individual amendment proposals to the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Five site-specific amendment
proposals, one of which is a Master Plan Resort (MPR) proposal, compose the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which is the “Final Docket” for this year’s annual amendment cycle.1
This document is a combined Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for four of the five site-specific proposed amendments. The fifth proposed amendment, the
MPR, will be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) anticipated for release in August. The objective is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively
with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45 and potential environmental impacts under SEPA. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments
is a non-project action under SEPA and is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the environmental review needed for future land use or building
permit applications). Following are brief descriptions of each of the four (4) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are the subject of this notice. Each case has a Master
Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference: 2 Site-Specific Amendments: 1. MLA06-01; Bell; Discovery Rd.; 12:5 acres; RR 1:10 to 1:5. 2. MLA06-74; Austin; S. Jacob Miller
Rd.; 30 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5. 3. MLA06-77; Brown & DCD: Irondale Rd.; 0.72 acres; RR to Convenience Crossroads. 4. MLA06-85; Port or Port Townsend; Airport; 2.5 acres; AEPF to RR.
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for the four site-specific
1 The 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on May 22, 2006 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing
7 items. 2The fifth proposed amendment MLA06-87; Statesman & Black Point Properties; Brinnon; 252.64 acres; MPR will be analyzed be a separate EIS. 1-2 amendment proposals. Lead
Agency Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) Long-Range Planning 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 SEPA Responsible Official: Stacie Hoskins, Development
Services Manager DCD Development Review Division (360) 379-4463 Contact Person: Josh D. Peters, AICP, Senior Planner DCD Long-Range Planning (360) 379-4466 Authors and Principal
Contributors Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long-Range Planning Date of Staff Report & SEPA Addendum Issuance July 19, 2006 Date Comments are Due Oral comments
are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 PM, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at the WSU Community Learning Center in Hadlock. Written comments are accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through the close of a public hearing on Wednesday, August 2, 2006. Past Related Actions and Future Anticipated Actions The Planning Commission will
hold a public hearing at 6:30 PM, Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at the WSU Community Learning Center in Hadlock. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on MLA06-87,
the proposed MPR, at 6:30 PM, Wednesday, September, 20, 2006 at the Brinnon Community Center. In early November, DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final DCD Staff Recommendation
together with the Planning Commission Recommendation for all proposals on the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC
on each of the 4 Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under consideration is expected sometime prior to the end of the second week in December 2006. The meeting schedules and agendas
for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to this Docket are available on a Jefferson County website dedicated to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process.
This website can be accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. 1-3 Appeal Information Issues relating to the adequacy of a SEPA Addendum and other
procedural issues may not be appealed under the administrative appeal provisions of JCC 18.40.330. Appeals of GMA actions (i.e., a legislative decision by the BoCC) are heard first
by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Location of Background Material and Documents Incorporated by Reference Background material and documents used to support
development of the Addendum are available for inspection from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street,
Port Townsend WA 98368, (360) 3794450. Appointments are welcome. Relation to Other Documents A series of documents have been prepared by or on behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate
the impacts of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations (i.e., the Unified Development Code (UDC)), including amendments to both the Plan and UDC. These
documents, listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental descriptions
and analyses. They are incorporated herein by this reference. The reader is encouraged to refer to these documents in conjunction with this document for a broader understanding of
the issues and impacts analyzed. In this document, descriptions of and references to the contents of the proposed amendments have been provided to the greatest extent possible, but
do not include all information from the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. For a more complete understanding of the discussion presented within this document, the Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted. Cost to the Public Copies of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum,
or selected pages thereof, are available at cost from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD). The text and selected appendices are also available for download
on the DCD website dedicated to the 2006 annual amendment cycle, which can be accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. Copies of this document are
available for inspection at DCD and the Jefferson County Public Library at Port Hadlock. 1-4 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 1.2.1 Introduction and Process Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive
plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) on August 28, 1998 and substantively updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is a policy document
that guides growth and future land use decisions in Jefferson County. In each successive year since initial adoption, the County has conducted a Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle
as provided by the GMA. JCC §18.45 is the set of development regulations adopted in December 2000 for amending the Comprehensive Plan. The 2006 “Preliminary Docket” included 7 (seven)
proposed amendments. Per JCC §18.45, site-specific amendments (formal applications submitted in conjunction with a fee) automatically qualified for the “Final Docket.” The Jefferson
County Planning Commission heard testimony on two (2) suggested amendments on the Preliminary Docket and formulated a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) regarding
the composition of the Final Docket. The BoCC then established the Final Docket, declining to docket the suggested amendments and establishing five as the total number of amendment
proposals on the Final Docket. This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum. The objective is to analyze the proposed amendments
individually and cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in JCC §18.45 and potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The adoption of
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements
(i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). This is an integrated GMA/SEPA document that combines environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering
a recommended action on each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Guidance for preparing integrated SEPA/GMA documents is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235.
The analysis in this document supplements the existing adopted environmental documents incorporated herein by reference. 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents The following
existing environmental documents have been adopted through legal notice published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on July 19, 2006 (Appendix Item 1): • Draft
and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS, dated February 24, 1997
and May 27, 1998, respectively, examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. • The Integrated Staff Report and
SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 22, 2004. 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents
by Reference The five Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including all supplemental information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting
record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, all Appendix Items to this report, and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are incorporated
herein by this reference, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 635. The documents listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background
information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. The reader is encouraged to use existing documents in conjunction with this document for a more comprehensive
understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed. Moreover, to the greatest extent possible this document includes descriptions of, and references to, the content of the ten individual
proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the information from each Comprehensive Plan 1-5 amendment application. For a more thorough understanding of the discussion presented
here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted to supplement the information in this document. 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis This document
provides both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts as appropriate to the general nature of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals. The
adoption of comprehensive plan amendments is classified under SEPA as a non-project (i.e., programmatic) action. A non-project action, such as decisions on policies, plans or programs,
is defined as an action that is broader than permit review for a single sitespecific project. Environmental analysis for a non-project proposal does not require the same level of site-specific
analysis required in conjunction with a permit application; instead, a document such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEPA Addendum discusses impacts and alternatives
appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC 197-11-442). The analysis in this document is not intended to satisfy individual
project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on
issues that are ready for decision, and to exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for decision-making (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Phased review is appropriate
when the sequence of a proposal is from a programmatic document, such as an integrated GMA/SEPA document addressing comprehensive plan amendments, to other documents that are narrower
in scope, such as site-specific, project-level analyses (i.e., “project actions” under SEPA). Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of
growth management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum will be used to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Additional environmental review of development proposals will occur as specific projects are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications).
This will result in an additional incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions require a more detailed evaluation and as additional information becomes available.
Future project action environmental review for development applications that are not categorically exempt from SEPA could occur in the form of a supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or
threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement Following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the
2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. This 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum is available
to agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEPA rules. Comments on the merits of the proposals shall be accepted as outlined below under “Public Comment Period.” 1.2.1.4.1
Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketing Process The public process for compiling the final docket has followed the public involvement requirements of the GMA and the specific procedures
established in JCC 18.45.060 through 18.45.080. DCD staff compiled the preliminary docket following the March 1, 2006 deadline for applications set forth in JCC 18.45.040 (2) (a).
On April 5, 2006, and after timely and effective public notice, the Planning Commission held an open record public hearing to solicit comments on the proposed amendment docket. On
March 15, 2006, the Planning Commission and BoCC held a joint workshop to review the DCD preliminary docketing recommendations and to gather information regarding the items on the preliminary
docket and the DCD report and recommendations. On May 22, 2006, Planning Commission transmitted its final docketing report and recommendations to the BoCC. On May 22, 2006, the BoCC
adopted the final docket for review during the 2006 amendment process. 1-6 1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Planning Commission Public Hearing - Public Comment Period The Jefferson
County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold at least two public hearings to take testimony on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2006 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket (2006 Docket). A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, August 2, 2005, 6:30 PM at the WSU Community Learning Center in Port Hadlock, pertaining to all items on
the 2006 Docket except the proposed MPR. A public hearing is currently scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 6:30 PM at the Brinnon Community Center in Brinnon, pertaining to
the proposed MPR amendment. Formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the public hearings. The issuance of this Staff
Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, initiates a public comment period that remains open through Wednesday, August 2, 2006 for the four site-specific proposed amendments
excluding MLA-06-87. Oral comment may be provided to the Planning Commission at the August 2 public hearing. Written comment may be submitted to the Planning Commission via DCD through
the close of the public hearing on August 2. A separate period will be established for MLA06-87 the proposed MPR. Please submit written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port
Townsend WA 98368 or via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Comments submitted prior to the close of the comment period will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration
during that advisory body’s deliberations. Please note that the Planning Commission may elect at its discretion to schedule an additional date and time for oral comments, and/or extend
the period in which written comments may be accepted. Written public comments submitted after close of the Planning Commission comment period will be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative decision. The BoCC may hold a public hearing before taking final legislative action on the Final Docket (formal notice will
appear in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the BoCC hearing). 1.2.1.4.3 Availability of Documents For more information or to inspect or
request copies of the original applications for the proposed amendments, the adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact DCD Long-Range Planning at
the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where as many relevant documents and maps as possible are
available in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage can be accessed through the County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. 1.2.1.4.4
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Deliberation Following the public hearing(s) on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission will deliberate
on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and formulate a recommendation on each proposal for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). It is anticipated
that the Planning Commission will deliberate on the proposed amendments during its regularly scheduled meeting on August 16, 2006, or until such time that it formulates a recommendation
for transmittal to the BoCC. It is anticipated the Planning Commission will deliberate on the proposed MPR amendment during at a later date. The Planning Commission generally meets
the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock. It is possible that the Planning Commission
will hold one or more special meetings outside of the regular meeting schedule. Following the completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the 2006 Docket, DCD will formally
transmit the Planning Commission recommendation to the BoCC along with the DCD final staff recommendations, any comments submitted during the public comment period, and the record of
the Planning Commission deliberations. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission and DCD recommendations will be presented to the BoCC in the month of November 2006. In making
a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning Commission recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission,
the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice
from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, and any written or oral comments provided to the BoCC before or during a BoCC public hearing on the Docket 1-7 (should one be held). If the
BoCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for agencies and the
public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A legal notice would appear in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing any BoCC public hearings
on the 2006 Docket. A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under consideration is expected prior to the end of the second week in
December 2006. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2006 Docket are available on a Jefferson County webpage dedicated to the 2006
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This webpage can be accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. 1.2.2 Major Conclusions The summary
conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in part 2 of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum are presented here for the reader’s convenience. A reading of the analysis in part
2 in addition to any supporting material referenced in the text, including Appendix Items, is encouraged. Generally, information presented elsewhere is not reprinted here. 1.2.2.1
Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for mitigation measures and conditions are within
the individual staff reports for each of the proposed amendments found in part 2 of this document, “Concise Analysis of the Proposals,” or among the Appendix Items, as appropriate.
Summary statements presented in the Summary Matrix are, in some cases, considerably abbreviated from the full discussion in part 2 and lack explanations of terminology. Readers are
encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues of interest in part 2, and to consult the Appendix Items, the amendment applications themselves, and other supporting
materials listed in part 3, in order to formulate the most accurate impression of impacts associated with the proposals and staff recommendations. “Significant” as used in SEPA means
a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable
text (WAC 197-11-794). # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 1 MLA06-01; Bell;
Discovery Rd.; 12.5 acres; upzone from RR 1:10 to 1:5. None identified. Recommendation - Approval. The parcel meets both the criteria for RR 1:10 and RR 1:5 designation. 1-8
# APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 2 MLA06-74; Austin; S. Jacob Miller Rd.;
30 acres; upzone from RR 1:20 to 1:5. The proposal could increase pressure to up-zone parcels in the immediate vicinity. However, it would not likely detract from the overall intention
of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation - Approval. The most appropriate designation is RR 1:20; however, the parcel meets both the criteria for RR 1:20 and RR 1:5. 3 MLA06-77;
Brown & DCD; Irondale Rd.; 0.72 acres; upzone from RR to Convenience Crossroads. The proposal is consistent with the criteria for LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). It would
not likely detract from the overall intention of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation - Approval. The parcel clearly meets the July 1, 1990 “built environment’ LAMIRD criteria.
4 MLA06-85; Port of Port Townsend; Airport; 2.5 acres; rezone from AEPF to RR. None identified. Recommendation - Approval and designation of parcel as RR 1:5. . The parcel
is surrounded on by an established pattern of parcels of five acres or smaller which are designated RR 1:5. 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
The following table displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use district (from the Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information System database, and
other sources), and the proposed change in the number of acres under each district under the proposals. The reader should understand that these numbers are approximations for planning
purposes only, and all figures have been rounded. They do not necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the ground. They are, however, the best approximation available
at this time. The purpose of the table is to set a context for the legislative decision before the Board of County Commissioners for this year’s amendment cycle. All acreage figures
in the following table are in gross acres, including road rights-of-way and some water features. The net developable acreage would be lower. 1-9 Comparison of Current
and Proposed Land Use District Designations Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current Gross Acreage (2005 Plan) Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals Potential
Future Gross Acreage Under Staff Recommendation Rural Residential RR 1:5 29,168 29,212 (+44 approx.)3 29,212 (+ 44 approx.) RR 1:10 9,886 9,874 (-12.5 approx.) 9,874 (-12.5 approx.)
RR 1:20 51,474 51, 444 (-30 approx.) 51,444 (-30 approx.) Incorporated UGA Port Townsend UGA 4,466 No change No change LAMIRDs Rural Village Centers (Hadlock, Brinnon, Quilcene) 242
No change No change General Crossroads 96 No change No change Convenience Crossroads 10 11 (+.72 approx.) 11 (+.72 approx.) Neighborhood Crossroads 122 No change No change Master Planned
Resort MPR - Village Commercial Center 43 No change4 No change MPR - Resort Complex 10:1 57 No change No change MPR - Multiple Family 10:1 75 No change No change MPR - Single Family
4:1 1,431 No change No change MPR - Single Family Tracts 1:2.5 114 No change No change MPR - Recreation Area 259 No change No change MPR - Open Space Reserve 356 No change No change
Parks & National Forest Parks, Preserves, Recreation - Not MPR 2,859 No change No change Olympic National Forest 57,299 No change No change Olympic National Park 139,463 No change No
change Forestlands Rural Forest 8,645 No change No change Commercial Forest 310,327 No change No change Inholding Forest 7,228 No change No change Resource Based Industrial Zone 152
No change No change Agricultural Commercial Agriculture 4,296 No change No change Agricultural Lands of Local Significance 3,220 No change No change
3 MLA06-87 a proposed MPR would potential change the future gross acreage RR by ± 253 acres. 4 Potential Gross Acreage under applicant proposal with MLA06-87
increase for MPR categories by 253 acres (approx.). 1-10 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations, continued Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current
Gross Acreage (2005 Plan) Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Staff Recommendation Industrial Heavy Industry (Mill) 278 No
change No change Light Industrial (Glen Cove) 72 No change No change Light Industrial/ Manufacturing (Quilcene, Eastview) 56 No change No change Light Industrial/ Commercial (Glen Cove)
90 No change No change Essential Public Facilities Airport EPF 289 287 (-2.5 approx.) 287 (-2.5 approx.) Military Reservation 3,452 No change No change Waste Management EPF 241 No change
No change 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found in the Summary
Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan future development proposals in a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how mitigation
measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none of the potential impacts of the future development scenarios evaluated
in this document would meet all of the parameters (significant and unavoidable and adverse). The staff recommendation includes recommended mitigation measures that go beyond the regulatory
framework currently in place. For more information on the relationship of plan and policymaking to future review of development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness
of Mitigation Measures below at §1.2.4.2. 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty Following is a table summarizing key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers:
# APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 1 MLA06-01; Bell; Discovery Rd.; 12.5 acres; upzone from RR 1:10 to 1:5. This rural residential upzone
raises questions of appropriate circumstances for redesignation. However, in this case RR 1:5 is consistent with zoning in the immediate vicinity. That stated, clarification of policy
for Rural Residential upzones would help to direct future decisions on proposals of this type, and help to uphold the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 1-11 # APPLICATION NUMBER
& DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 2 MLA06-74; Austin; S. Jacob Miller Rd.; 30 acres; upzone from RR 1:20 to 1:5. As discussed regarding MLA06-01, this upzone raises
questions of appropriate circumstances for re-designation. The current designation for this parcel is most appropriate. It also meets criteria for RR 1:5. Clarification of policy
for Rural Residential upzones would help to direct future decisions on proposals of this type and help to uphold the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 MLA06-77; Brown & DCD; Irondale
Rd.; 0.72 acres; up-zone from RR to Convenience Crossroads. The proposal raises the question of reconsideration of LAMIRD boundaries. In this case the designation criteria have been
clearly met. No significant controversies have been identified. 4 MLA06-85; Port of Port Townsend; Airport; 2.5 acres; rezone from AEPF to RR. None identified. 1.2.4 Issues
to Be Resolved 1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made The Comprehensive Plan states that, “a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its citizens” and further
provides four essential components for environmental protection: • Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy; • Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review;
• Critical Area Protection Strategy; and • Public Education and Involvement Strategy. Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact environmental quality. Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations in the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC was developed such that protective measures are incorporated
into permit decisions. (For more discussion on how this process functions, refer to 1.2.4.2 below.) The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals on this year’s Docket may have the potential,
if adopted, to affect the environment. For this reason, each proposal must be carefully analyzed for potential impacts, both as an individual proposal and with respect to cumulative
impacts when associated with the other proposals on the 2006 Docket, and if necessary, denied, conditioned, or modified appropriately. 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
The legislative adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A project action would be a decision on a land use
or building permit reviewed under the 1-12 general policy framework offered by the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations. SEPA review is required for project actions,
unless those actions are categorically exempt from SEPA review when the proposal is compared to the list of exemption thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental review such as the
analysis contained in this document is useful and essential at the non-project level in order to set up a regulatory framework that protects the environment. Mitigation for non-project
actions in this sense is essentially the extent to which the established regulatory framework is effective when applied to future development proposals. Generally, mitigation measures
would not be required for the programmatic action of adopting a Comprehensive Plan or development regulation amendment, but may be useful and appropriate to address probable significant
adverse environmental impacts identified at the project level. It is often the case that project action environmental review is where specific mitigation measures can be applied to
condition a proposal such that the approval and execution of the proposal does not present a significant adverse environmental impact. With regard to environmental review of this year’s
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle docket, it should be understood that Jefferson County has in place a regulatory framework that follows the guidance established in Washington
State laws, such as SEPA, the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective
January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive Plan was
implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses within the
various districts set forth upon the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures Ordinances outlined the development permit review process and related administrative
matters. The UDC replaced these and other previously existing ordinances. Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for what are now called
“environmentally sensitive areas” are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-D, et seq. Environmentally sensitive areas are protected through the application of overlay districts. Examples
of such overlay districts include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, and Wetlands (JCC Articles
VI E-I). The County maintains data to assist in identifying these areas from a variety of sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal government, in a Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create maps depicting the approximate location and extent of environmentally sensitive areas overlay districts. Development
Review Division planners use available GIS information when reviewing land use and building permit applications and apply the protective measures accordingly. Frequently an applicant
is required to submit a Special Report, such as an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan, Habitat Management Plan, or Wetland
Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are governed by JCC §18.45 Article VI-J. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and building permit
approval, but whenever possible to augment existing data for the County GIS database on environmentally sensitive areas. Sometimes the existing regulations are insufficient to effectively
protect the environment when examined in the context of a particular project. Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation measures above and beyond the
protections provided by the established development regulations may be needed to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions may employ their “SEPA
substantive authority” to further condition approval of a development application. These mitigation measures are generally developed through project action SEPA review and established
as permit conditions through an EIS or a threshold Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS). Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of any one
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year’s cycle is not as clear as placing a condition on a permit. The legislative decision to adopt a modified version of the original
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal can be considered a form of mitigation, for example. The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) may be effectively mitigating the potential environmental
impact of adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified proposal or even deciding not to adopt the proposal based on environmental considerations. For formal site-specific
amendment applications, the BoCC could apply a mitigation measure that affects future use of the land in question. In any of 1-13 these cases, mitigation as applied to a non-project
action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct from mitigation as applied to a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action review that established
protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas and other development standards are applied to proposals for on-the-ground development. Judging the effectiveness of mitigation
measures in this context requires on-going attention. 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action The four (4) site-specific proposals under review in this document
are relatively minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction from implementation of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan. In deciding when it is appropriate
to up-zone lower density rural residential parcels to higher density rural residential designations, or when it is appropriate to up-zone commercial forest land to rural residential
designations, the County will establish precedents with far-reaching implications that will be used to judge the appropriateness of similar rezone proposals in years hence. In consequence,
determinations that appear to have little direct environmental impact when viewed in isolation in 2006 may have significant indirect and cumulative environmental impacts if employed
as justification for a substantial number of similar rezones in future Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. Choosing not to approve certain rezone proposals that would increase pressures
to convert commercial forest land and/or rural lands to higher intensity land use designations will likely reduce present and future environmental impacts, prevent sprawl, and preserve
future planning options Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and development under the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan will result in some adverse impacts which are impossible
to avoid. The County's adopted Plan is designed to accommodate the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections for the year 2024. Under any of the
action alternatives reviewed in this document, continued growth and development under the adopted Plan is likely to result in increased urbanization of certain areas of the County,
cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, increased demands upon transportation facilities and transit, and increased demand for public infrastructure and facilities. The County
will continue to plan for distribution of growth that will result in the lowest levels of environmental impacts, focus on infill, and balance capital investments. 2-1 2 Concise Analysis
of the Proposals 2.1 OVERVIEW Pursuant to JCC §18.45, Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy
Act (“SEPA” at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act (“GMA” at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and JCC §18.45, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis
of all proposals to identify the potential for cumulative impacts. In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2) categories: Formal
Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting a change in either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density. Suggested Amendments are generally
limited to proposals that that broadly apply to the narrative, goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure adequate review of potential
environmental impacts, any suggested amendments that could result in a need to re-designate groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria employed for formal site-specific
amendments (i.e., UDC 9.8.1.b and c). This document addresses the five (5) site-specific amendments on the Final Docket. This document further divides the amendments into sub-categories.
Note: A separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for MLA06-87 the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and
Staff Recommendations Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in JCC §18.45 and, in turn, evaluates the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts,
including cumulative impacts. Each amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made based on those criteria. Tables
are for summary information only; please refer to the staff report for each proposal for greater detail. 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), all
recommendations regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must include an inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b). These growth
management indicators address the following: • Growth and development rates; • Ability to provide services; • Availability of urban land; • Community-wide attitudes towards land use;
and • Consistency with state law and local agreements. These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of Jefferson County’s status
during this 2006 amendment cycle. This section will serve to promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators and is intended to be a starting point
for broader community consideration before the Planning Commission and the BoCC. While this review of the growth management indicators provides some basic analysis related to County
demographics, it is not intended to measure progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that task is reserved for the State-mandated Comprehensive Plan update scheduled
for completion in 2011. 2-2 Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45.050 (4) (b) – growth management indicators Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in JCC §18.45.050
(4) (b). (1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize. Discussion: The Office
of Financial Management (OFM) is the State agency responsible for compiling population projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2006 OFM Population Estimate
for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues, shows a 2006 population of 28,200. The 1996 “base year” population estimate used in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan
(see page 3-3) was identified as 25,754 residents. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan predicted a population of 28,482 in 2000, 2,529 less than the 2000 census. The County has passed Resolution
#55-03 which adopted the intermediate population projection from OFM for 2000-2024. The population projection predicts a population of 46,960 in 2024, an annual growth rate of 1.78%.
The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson County, and the population projections that were reflective of the unusual amount of growth at that time. The growth rate
of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth rate of approximately 2%. That being said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington state and its counties have tended
to exhibit growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even decline. For example, the “rural rebound” growth trend experienced by most western states in
the early 1990s – at the time of GMA adoption – was the result of an exodus by nearly two million people leaving California during a severe regional economic recession. Rural and non-metropolitan
growth in Washington, and Jefferson County, during the 1990s was far greater than anticipated but slowed as California’s economy recovered in the mid-1990s (“Washington State County
Population Projections For Growth Management,” Office of Financial Management, March 2002). YEAR 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2005 2006 County Population
8300 6420 8346 8918 11618 9639 10661 15965 20406 27600 28200 Port Townsend 4181 2847 3970 4683 6888 5074 5241 6067 7001 8745 8820 Percent in Port Townsend 50%
44% 47% 53% 59% 53% 49% 38% 34% 32% 31% Jefferson County Population 1910-200 Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management As reference to
the table above indicates, an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the percentage of residents living in the city of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage
of residents living in the city has dropped from 59% to 32%, with County residential units accounting for nearly 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this
shift towards residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services outside of Port Townsend. Resolution #55-03 allocates 36% of the growth over the 20-year
planning period to the City of Port Townsend, 17% each to Port Ludlow MPR and Irondale/Hadlock UGA, and 30% to the rural areas of Jefferson County. (2) Whether the capacity of the
county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased. Discussion: The number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the County, with the exception of policy
decisions made as a result of economic conditions, continues to be equipped to provide the same levels of service available at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. The County is
in the process of adopting GMA 2-3 compliant plans to provide the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) with urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater management.
(3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. Discussion: As a part of the planning process for the unincorporated Port Hadlock UGA,
an analysis of vacant lands within the proposed UGA and a buildout analysis were completed. These studies evaluated the ability to accommodate the allocated population. The Port Hadlock
UGA (partially invalidated by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (see WWGMHB Case No. 04-2-0022, Irondale Community Action Neighbors and Nancy Dorgan v. Jefferson,
Final Decision and Order (May 31, 2005)) was sized to accommodate 118% of the growth allocated by resolution #55-03. With a theoretical carrying capacity of over 30,000, the City
of Port Townsend UGA also appears to be adequately sized to accommodate anticipated future urban growth. (4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are
no longer found to be valid. Discussion: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, the majority of assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments
to GMA and other laws made by the State Legislature and precedentsetting decisions made by the Growth Management Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA. (5)
Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. Discussion: The
most effective way to judge whether changes in countywide attitudes have occurred, aside from reference to local election results, is through statistically significant public opinion
surveys. The last such survey in Jefferson County took place in 1991 through the “Jefferson 2000 Public Opinion Survey” conducted by Elway Research. Many of the opinions expressed
through this survey are reflected in the policy assumptions that form the basis for the Comprehensive Plan. That said, the opinions expressed through the Jefferson 2000 survey were
not intended to predict the future and an updated survey would be the most effective way to gauge whether changes in countywide attitudes have actually manifested. (6) Whether changes
in circumstances dictate a need for amendments. Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption in August of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective,
these changing circumstances include: issues surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered Species Act, County adoption of final development
regulations which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act, Growth Management Hearings Boards clarifications through case law related to specific provisions
of the GMA, the adoption of Unified Development Code amendments establishing a process for locating Major Industrial Development, the completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study,
designation of Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial area, and the designation, and then appeal and partial invalidation, of Irondale/Hadlock as a UGA. Many of these changes in circumstances
were addressed during the 2004 Update to the Comprehensive Plan. (7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act or the Comprehensive
Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policy.
In 2004, Jefferson County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth
Management Act. This review was completed in 2004. 2-4 2.2 FINAL DOCKET Following are brief descriptions of each of the five (5) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Each
case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference. Site-Specific Amendments: 1. MLA06-01; Bell; Discovery Rd.; 12.5 acres; RR 1:10 to 1:5. 2. MLA06-74; Austin;
S. Jacob Miller Rd.; 30 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5. 3. MLA06-77; Brown & DCD; Irondale Rd.; 0.72 acres; RR to Convenience Crossroads. 4. MLA06-85; Port of Port Townsend; Airport; 2.5 acres;
AEPF to RR. 5. MLA06-87; Statesmen & Black Point Properties; Brinnon; 252.64 acres; MPR. The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each amendment
as proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version, or deny adoption. The four proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan constitute address in this document, for the
purposes of the integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, three (3) individual proposed action components (i.e., rural residential rezones; rural industrial/commercial rezones; and
Airport EPF rezones to RR). The environmental review-based alternatives to each proposed action component are as follows: • No Action - Continue application of the Comprehensive Plan
without any or all of the proposed amendments; or • Adopt with mitigating conditions (e.g., as recommended by staff). 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary Staff recommendations for each
proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each individual proposal in part 2.3. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. In
transmitting the Planning Commission to the BoCC later this year, staff will have the opportunity to adjust these preliminary recommendations. The preliminary staff recommendations,
including modifications and mitigation measures, are summarized in the following table: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations # APPLICATION NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 MLA06-01 Bell; 001201004 12.5 acres; RR 1:10 to 1:5 Approval. 2 MLA06-74 Austin; 001081002
30 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5 Approval. 3 MLA06-77 Brown & DCD; 961803402 0.72 acres; RR to Convenience Crossroads Approval. 2-5 # APPLICATION NUMBER APPLICANT/PARCEL NUMBER
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 4 MLA06-85 Port of Port Townsend; Airport; 001331011 2.5 acres; AEPF to RR Approval and designation as 1:5. 2.3 STAFF
REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS The five site-specific amendment proposals are grouped together below according to category: • Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (e.g.,
RR 1:20 to RR 1:5) • Requests for Change from AEPF to Rural Residential (e.g., AEPF to RR) • Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Convenience Crossroads (e.g.,
RR 1:5 to CC) 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (2) Requests for changes in Rural Residential density are subject to criteria contained at Land Use Policy 3.3 (page
367) in the Comprehensive Plan. These criteria attribute one of three residential densities to all residential parcels in Jefferson County: one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5),
one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10), or one dwelling unit per twenty acres (1:20), subject to the following criteria: POLICIES: LNP 3.3.1 A residential land use designation of
one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or
smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries
of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed “suburban” platted subdivisions. LNP 3.3.2 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit
per 10 acres (RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); b. parcels along
the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a “transition” adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and, d. critical area land parcels. LNP 3.3.3 A rural residential land use designation
of one dwelling unit per 20 acres (RR 1:20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 20 acres)
or larger; b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a “transition” to Urban Growth Areas or the [Port Ludlow] Master Planned Resort; d. critical land
area parcels; e. agriculture resource designated parcels; f. publicly owned forest lands; and 2-6 g. lands adjacent to forest resource land. The Jefferson County Code defines the
term “buildable lot” and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in size or greater will typically be adequate to meet health standards related on-site wastewater disposal (i.e. septics)
and individual water systems (i.e. well) [JCC §18.10]. Since 1996, the maximum density that can be achieved through subdivision in Jefferson County is one dwelling unit per five acres.
In January 2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (JCC Title 18) which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site-design through residential
“clustering.” These provisions are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-M (Planned Rural Residential Developments). The three proposals for residential density changes will be reviewed
consistent with these criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for each proposal is provided below. 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA06-01 (Bell) Applicant:
Bell Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001201004 Location: Discovery Road 2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The proposed amendment would re-designate 12.5 acres from
Rural Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5). The subject parcel is located at 1530 Discovery Road, Port Townsend.
The area around the proposed site includes parcels designated RR 1:5 with partially cleared land, an opened gravel pit mine to the North-west and (1) 1:20 acre wood-lot, containing
a paddock, horses and a residence. The proposed twelve and one half acre parcel was once part of s larger piece of land that was logged off in the late nineteen sixties. In the north
and west boundaries, some seed trees were left to re-forest the wood-lot. These trees will remain to include a fifty to seventy foot deep green-space along the western and northern
boundaries, providing some forest habitat and wind protection to the adjacent parcels. The northern five acres would eventually be developed into a rural single residence, and the
remaining acreage will remain developed as is. 2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must
develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-01: Bell UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances
related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the
assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during
the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The proposed
amendment reflects the currently held values of Jefferson County. 2-7 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-01: Bell, continued The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency
requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements
for transportation. The proposed amendment should not adversely impact the level of county services. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan There are no inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and
will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation
network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable
for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned
surrounding land uses The proposal is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. It is similar to the surrounding properties and their access to utilities and land
uses. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. The proposed
site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The site specific proposal does not affect
the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use will be consistent with surrounding land uses. If within an unincorporated
urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA
The proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A),
the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment
meets the requirements of GMA. The character of the rural area will not be affected by redesignating this property. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of
the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 2-8 Discussion
of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant
increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not affect plants, animals,
fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals,
fish, and marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject
to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated
(or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,
floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). A critical areas
aquifer recharge area (SARPA) is identified on part of the parcel. Any issues would have to be resolved in the land division process. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely
to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline
jurisdiction. Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable
additional demand for public services. Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of
the environment. The proposed amendment is does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and
federal laws. 2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment. A pattern of RR 1:5 or smaller parcels exist in the vicinity of
the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). 2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA06-74 (Austin) Reference Number: MLA06-74 Applicant: Cleo Austin Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001081002 2-9 Location:
South Jacob Miller Rd. 2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information The subject property is located on south Jacob Miller Road. The request would change the land use
designation of 001-081-002, a 30-acre parcel located at 841 S. Jacob Miller Road in Port Townsend, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80
(1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-74: Austin UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially
changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the
assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual
amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information
presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment reflects the currently held values of Jefferson County. The proposed site-specific
amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets
concurrency requirements for transportation. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site-specific
amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot
be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact
to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels
are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land uses The subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. 2-10 Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA06-74:
Austin, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the
change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole The proposal could create a pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The
proposal does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA),
the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment
is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment meets the
requirements of GMA and County planning policies. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist
developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D.
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic
or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2 How would
the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may
occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal
be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation
standards. Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and 2-11 scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). A critical areas aquifer recharge area (SUSC) is identified
on part of the parcel. Any issues would have to be resolved in the land division process. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6 How would
the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed amendment
is does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws. 2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment. 2.3.1.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential Density It should be noted that certain of the
proposals appear likely to result in indirect adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert low density rural residential areas (e.g., RR 1:20) to
higher intensity rural use (i.e., RR 1:5). However, the change of rural density proposed amendments in this report are unlikely to undermine the overall purpose of the rural residential
land use scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. 2.3.2 Request for Change from AEPF to Rural Residential Requests for changes for Airport Essential Public Facilities (AEPF) land
use designation to rural residential land use designation are subject to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG). 2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA06-85
(Port of Port Townsend) Applicant: Port of Port Townsend Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001331011 Location: Jefferson County Airport 2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental
Information The request would change the current land use designation a 2.5-acre section of parcel 001331011 located east of the Airport cutoff adjacent to the Jefferson County International
Airport in Port Townsend, from AEPF to RR. The 2-12 requested change would rezone the parcel from AEPF to rural residential. The Assessor’s Office has assigned the new parcel number
for this section of the parcel as: 001331013. 2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall
develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-85: Port of Port Townsend UDC
Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is
based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents
of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment supports current widely held values of Jefferson County residents. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements
for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment
is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable
significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated
burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in significant adverse impacts to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Not applicable.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-85: Port of Port Townsend, continued 2-13 UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to
change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole The
proposal will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the comprehensive
plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to
the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws The proposed amendment meets the requirements GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format
of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Discussion
of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would not likely increase discharge to water, emissions
to air or production of noise. Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish,
or marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal would not be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. Question
#4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposal is not likely to affect environmentally
sensitive areas. A critical areas aquifer recharge area (SARPA+SUSC) is identified on part of the parcel. Any issues would have to be resolved in the land division process. 2-14
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The proposal is not likely to affect shoreline. Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal
is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflict should be apparent. The proposal will be used for buffer. 2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval
of the proposed site-specific amendment. 2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Airport Essential Public Facilities to Rural Residential The proposed AEPF to RR amendment
in this report will not undermine the overall purpose of the rural residential land use scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. 2.3.3 Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation
to Rural Commercial Requests for changes for a rural residential land use designation to a rural industrial or rural commercial designation are subject to Comprehensive Plan goals
and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG) 5.0 on page 3-70. GOAL: LNG 5.0 Establish and maintain the location and size of the County’s Rural Crossroads to provide access to a
limited range of non-residential uses. POLICIES: LNP 5.1 All rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). LNP 5.2
Designate the following historic crossroads as Convenience Crossroads (CC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Nordland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point. LNP 5.2.1 Designation is based on
the criteria in the Growth Management Act and the following additional criteria: a. Consists of a single commercial property; and b. Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling
public with basic consumer goods and services. LNP 5.2.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary of each of the Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic
consumer goods and services. 2-15 LNP 5.3 Designate the following historic crossroads as Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery
Bay, Four Corners, Gardiner, and Mats Mats. LNP 5.3.1 Designation is based on the criteria of the Growth Management Act and the following additional criteria: a. Multiple commercial
properties; and b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services; and c. Serves the local rural population and the commuting/traveling public. LNP 5.3.2 Limit uses and
their scale within the designated boundaries of each of the designated Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads to those involving basic consumer staples with a limited range of goods and services
and/or serving the commuting/traveling public. LNP 5.3.3 Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units,
senior housing, and assisted living facilities, and manufactured/mobile home parks. LNP 5.4 Designate the following crossroads as General Commercial Crossroads (GC) as shown on the
Land Use Map: SR 19/20 Intersection. LNP 5.4.1 Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act and the following additional criteria: a. Location at a major highway
intersection near high density population in the Tri-Area; and b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and multiple community levels of service. LNP 5.4.2 Limit uses and
the scale of those uses within each of the designated General Commercial crossroads to those involving an expanded range of commercial goods and services. LNP 5.4.3 Encourage affordable
housing through the allowance of multifamily housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior housing, assisted living facilities, and manufactured/mobile home parks.
LNP 5.5 Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads commercial infill development with the surrounding rural area through the creation and implementation
of community based design and development standards. Uses within Rural Crossroads shall be scaled and sized to protect the rural character of the natural neighborhood. Growth Management
Act Criteria In addition to these Comprehensive Plan criteria, specific provisions of the Growth Management Act guide the designation of “limited areas of more intensive rural development”
(LAMIRDs) outside of Urban Growth Areas. Pursuant to the GMA [see RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)] Jefferson County must adopt measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within
LAMIRDs and those areas shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of LAMIRDs. While LAMIRDs must be delineated predominantly by the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment
they may also include undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The GMA sets out four issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition
to respecting the predominance of the 1990 built environment: • The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities; • Physical boundaries such as bodies
of water, streets and highways, and landforms and contours; 2-16 • The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and • The ability to provide public facilities and services in
a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl. The three proposals for rural commercial and industrial changes will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general description,
criteria review, and staff recommendation for each proposal is given below: 2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA06-77 (Brown & DCD) Reference Number: MLA06-77 Applicant: Eugene Brown & DCD
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 961803402 Location: Irondale Rd. 2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The Irondale Store is a parcel approximately 0.70 acres in
size with built environment from a gas station/convenience store that had ceased operation in the mid-1980s. Public water is available to the site. The parcel is currently zoned Rural
Residential 1:5 and is within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. The applicants applied for this rezone in 2002 and the amendment was included in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan docket
in lieu of UGA planning. Under the code all site-specific amendments are to be docketed. Currently the County is developing a Capital Facility plan for sewer that will guide the urban
land use designations that may change the boundaries of the UGA. Designation as a rural commercial Neighborhood Crossroads is consistent with the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.070
(5) (d) i as a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). The request would change the current land use designation for 961-803-402, a 0.72-acre parcel located at 731
Irondale Road in Port Hadlock, from RR to Convenience Crossroads, a rural commercial zone. This request was originally filed by the landowners in 2001 under MLA01-224 and suspended
at that time in the context of ongoing Urban Growth Area planning. 2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-77: Brown
& DCD UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan The subject property is going to be evaluated for sewer service during the ongoing Urban Growth Area (UGA) planning. The property owners applied for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment in 2001 that was not docketed in lieu of UGA planning. Despite the County’s commitment to establishing an Urban Growth Area and planning for sewers, we cannot guarantee
that specific areas will be included until the planning is complete. The property meets all of the criteria under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)i for a Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development
(LAMIRD) and meets the criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code for Convenience Crossroads. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is
based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan The assumptions are still valid, and the case law involving the Growth Management Act is more mature and more clearly defined than when the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted.
2-17 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA06-77: Brown &DCD, continued UDC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents
of Jefferson Count This amendment reflects the values established in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. There will be ample opportunity for the residents of Jefferson County
to submit comments regarding the proposed amendment. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level
of service standards for other public facilities and services This proposal meets concurrency requirements for the transportation network. The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation of Convenience Crossroads. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation
network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities
The proposal is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation of Convenience Crossroads. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the
land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access,
provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The parcel is already developed. Access to the transportation network already exists and has
power and public water serving the building. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole There may be some pressure to designate other Convenience Crossroads or other
LAMIRD designations. Jefferson County has established clear criteria written into the Comprehensive Plan that guides the designation of such properties that meets GMA. There are limited
properties that could potentially take advantage of the LAMIRD criteria. Designating such properties could allow for more goods and services to be offered locally. The proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not affect the population growth projections.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA The proposed redesignation is located within a proposed UGA. The proposal would not affect the adequacy of urban facilities and services to the proposed UGA.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the County-wide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (d) i for LAMIRDs and Countywide Planning Policies
in particular #8 Policy On Rural Areas. The character of the rural area will not be affected by redesignating this property. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format
of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 2-18 Discussion
of each change according to questions set forth in SEPA Rules: Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal is not likely to increase discharge to water or produce
other environmental impacts. Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not likely affect wildlife or plants.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to substantially deplete energy or natural resources. The proposal
will use more electricity to operate the store. Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under
study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or
prime farmlands. Approximately 1/3 or the parcel indicates costal SIPZ. No high chloride wells are identified. Any issues would have to be resolved in the land division process.
Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The subject property is not within shoreline. Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed should
relieve demands on public transportation by providing a walk able destination for the Ironedale neighborhood. Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (d) (i). The parcel clearly meets the
July 1, 1990 “built environment’ LAMIRD criteria. 2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation Approve the proposed rezone. The proposed amendment meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (d)
i for LAMIRDs. The character of the rural area will not be affected by the redesignation of this property. 2.3.3.2 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Rural Residential
Designation to Rural Commercial There may be some pressure to designate other Convenience Crossroads or other LAMIRD designations. However, there are limited properties that could
potentially take advantage of the LAMIRD criteria. The property meets criteria under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)i for a (LAMIRD and meets the criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan and
Unified Development Code for Convenience Crossroads. 3-1 3 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and
information utilized for the development of this 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. This report supplements information presented in prior
environmental documents prepared for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, other legislative actions, and other County decisions and activities. DATE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT EVALUATED September
27, 1978 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan (preGMA) January 2, 1979 Final EIS (FEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan December 21, 1992 Countywide Planning
Policies (Res. No. 40-99) February 14, 1994 DEIS Draft Implementing Ordinance for 1979 Comprehensive Plan March 1, 1995 Existing Conditions Alternatives for establishing GMA Comprehensive
Plan February 24, 1997 DEIS Comprehensive Plan - February 24, 1997 draft May 27, 1998 FEIS Proposed Comprehensive Plan August 3, 1998 Staff Responses to Questions Proposed Comprehensive
Plan January 26, 1999 Land Use Inventory Report Part of Special Study January 26, 1999 Regional Economic Analysis / Forecast Part of Special Study June 30, 1999 Draft Supplemental EIS
(DSEIS) Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task III of TriArea/Glen Cove Special Study) August 18, 1999 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with addenda Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments
(Task IV of TriArea/Glen Cove Special Study) June 11, 2001 Special Study Final Decision Document November 2001 Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Special Study August 21, 2002 Integrated
Staff Report & DSEIS 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket November 25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket December 2002 Final decisions, findings, ordinances, and conditions
2002 Amendment Docket February 13, 2003 Memorandum to Planning Commission Agricultural Lands policy and regulation April 28, 2003 Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 and all documentation for
MLA03-485 Amendments to UDC concerning Agricultural Lands August 6, 2003 Integrated Staff Reports & SEPA Addenda 2003 Amendment Docket February 2004 Water System Plan Vol. 2: Public
Utility District #1 of Jefferson County Depicts Bywater Bay Water System (Fig. 1.1) approved by DOH Feb. 2005 2004 Staff analysis and environmental review for Urban Growth Area (UGA).
MLA04-29 & 30: UGA plans, goals, policies, maps, and regulations. September 22, 2004 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2004 Amendment Docket, including “2004 Update” required
by GMA August 3, 2005 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2005 Amendment Docket 4-1 4 Distribution List Copies mailed or delivered to: Notification of availability emailed or
mailed to: Jefferson County: State Agencies: Planning Commission members (9 persons) Department of Natural Resources (Anne Sharar & SEPA Review) Board of County Commissioners (3
persons) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEPA Review) Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Department of Health (John Aden) Department of Public Works Department of Social & Health
Services (Elizabeth McNagny) Department of Health & Human Services Natural Resources Division Department of Corrections (Rebecca Barney) Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock State
Agencies: Department of Fish & Wildlife (Steve Penland, Tim Rymer, Jeff Davis & SEPA Review) Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development: Growth Management Services Department
of Ecology (GMA Review) Department of Ecology SEPA Unit Puget Sound Action Team (Harriet Beale and John Cambalik)) Notification of availability emailed or mailed to: Parks & Recreation
Commission (Bill Koss) Jefferson County: Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Lorinda Anderson) All other County departments not listed above Local Agencies & Organizations:
City of Port Townsend Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 Other Interested Parties: Port of Port Townsend Jefferson County Conservation District Washington Environmental
Council Washington Association of Realtors Olympic Environmental Council Wild Olympic Salmon North Olympic Salmon Coalition People for a Livable Community Point-No-Point Treaty
Council Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Skokomish Tribe Hoh Tribe Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader Peninsula Daily News Forks Forum 5-1 5 Appendices
Item 1: Legal Notice published July 17, 2006 Item 2: MLA 06-01 (Bell) Item 3: MLA 06-74 (Austin) Item 4: MLA 06-77 (Brown & DCD) Item 5: MLA06-85 (Port of Port Townsend)
5-2 5.1 ITEM 1: LEGAL NOTICE (JULY 17, 2006) NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF SEPA ADDENDUM AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET Pursuant to the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Jefferson County is issuing an integrated GMA/SEPA document per WAC 197-11-210 through 197-11-235
in relation to four of the five (5) site-specific amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that constitute all items on the final docket of the 2006 annual Comprehensive
Plan amendment cycle, except one, a proposed Master Planned Resort in Brinnon. That fifth and final item on the docket will be reviewed separately at first, then integrated into the
full docket later in the year. Jefferson County has determined that it is the appropriate SEPA lead agency for the proposal. Adoption of any Comprehensive Plan amendment on the 2006
docket would be a non-project action under SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Following are brief descriptions of each of the four (4) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are
the subject of this notice. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number and Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) for reference: 1. MLA06-01 proposed by Arthur D. Bell,
on behalf of Jeanne M. Bell and Raymond Anibas, requesting the following: 1) Change the current land use designation of Parcel Number 001-201004, a 12.5-acre parcel located at 1530
Discovery Road, Port Townsend, from Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10) to RR 1:5. 2. MLA06-74 proposed by Drew Austin, on behalf of Cleo Austin, requesting
the following: 1) Change the land use designation of 001-081-002, a 30-acre parcel located at 841 S. Jacob Miller Road in Port Townsend, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 3. MLA06-77 proposed
by Eugene Brown and DCD requesting the following: 1) Change the current land use designation for 961-803-402, a 0.72-acre parcel located at 731 Irondale Road in Port Hadlock, from RR
to Convenience Crossroads, a rural commercial zone. This request was originally filed by the landowners in 2001 under MLA01-224 and suspended at that time in the context of ongoing
Urban Growth Area planning. 4. MLA06-85 proposed by Port of Port Townsend requesting the following: 1) Change the current land use designation of 001-331-011, a 2.5-acre parcel located
adjacent to the Jefferson County International Airport at the southwest corner of State Route 19 and Woodland Drive in Port Townsend, from Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) to
RR. GMA Notice: This document serves as the 60-day notice of intent to amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is being circulated per WAC 365-195-620 to State agencies on
the list provided by the Washington State Office of Community Development of agency representatives responsible for reviewing proposed amendments to comprehensive plans. 5-3 Adoption
of Existing Environmental Documents and Notice of Availability of SEPA Addendum: The document also serves as a notice of adoption of existing environmental documents and notice of availability
of a formal SEPA document, an Addendum, pursuant to SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC). After review of the docket and existing environmental documents, the SEPA Responsible Official
at the Department of Community Development (DCD) has determined that existing environmental documents, augmented by the integrated SEPA Addendum, provide adequate environmental review
to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-600 with regard to consideration of four of the five amendment proposals on the 2006 Docket. [The fifth proposal, a Master Planned Resort
in Brinnon, will require an Environmental Impact Statement.] A Staff Report offering recommended action on these four Comprehensive Plan amendments has been integrated with a SEPA
Addendum per WAC 197-11-235. In accordance with WAC 197-11630, there is no new SEPA-specific public comment period in conjunction with this adoption notice. However, DCD and the Planning
Commission are accepting general comments on the merits of these suggested amendments as detailed below. The following existing environmental documents are being adopted: • Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS are dated February 24, 1997
and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. • 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket Department of Community Development Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued September 22, 2004. Other relevant documents have been incorporated by reference in the
combined Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. Planning Commission Public Hearing: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to take
oral comment on these four Comprehensive Plan amendments. The public hearing will occur on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 beginning at 6:30 PM at the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold
Business Park, 201 W Patison, Port Hadlock. A public hearing on the Brinnon Master Planned Resort proposal will be held later in the year, most likely in September. Public Comment
Period: The Planning Commission and DCD will accept written comments on the merits of these suggested amendments through close of the public hearing, August 2. Any written comments
on these suggested amendments submitted after the close of the public hearing will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative decision.
The BoCC may hold a public hearing before taking action on the final docket. (Formal notice would appear in the newspaper of record.) Written comments on the proposals may be submitted
to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request copies of
the original applications for the proposed amendments, the Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, the adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact
DCD Long-Range Planning at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where documents and notices are
posted in Portable Document Format. The 2006 Docket webpage can be accessed through the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. 5-4 5-5 5.2 ITEM 2: MLA06-01 BELL
5-6 5.3 ITEM 3: MLA06-74 AUSTIN 5-7 5.4 ITEM 4: MLA06-77 BROWN AND DCD 5-8 5.5 ITEM 5: MLA06-85 PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND 5-9
Staff Reports/2007 Staff Report Sections/07cpaStaffSEPA_1EnvSummFactsheet.pdf 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 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 ten (10) individual amendment
proposals to the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Nine (9) site-specific amendment proposals (one of which is a Master Planned Resort (MPR)) and one (1) suggested amendment
proposal (relating to implementation of the Industrial Land Bank provisions of the GMA, RCW 36.70A.367) comprise the 2007 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 eight (8) of the nine (9) site-specific proposed
amendments, as well as the one (1) suggested amendment proposal. The proposed site-specific MPR amendment will be analyzed in a separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The MPR
Draft EIS is hereby incorporated by reference to this 2007 Staff Report. 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 amendments is
a non-project action under SEPA and is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the environmental review needed for future land use or building permit
applications). Following are brief descriptions of each of the ten (10) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are the subject of this notice. Each case has a Master Land
Use Application (MLA) file number for reference: Site-Specific Amendments: 1. MLA07-70; Tukey Investment LLC; west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay
and Old Oak Bay Roads; 20 acres (tax parcel number 921182003); RR 1:20 to 1:5. 2. MLA07-79; Janet Gillanders; Big Leaf Lane,
1 The 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on June 18, 2007 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing
twelve (12) items. 1-1 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers
702113011 & 702113002); RR 1:20 to 1:5. 3. MLA07-90; Richard Broders and Broders Family Associates LP; west side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay; 396 acres (tax parcel numbers
902124002 & 902121002 (partition)); request for Mineral Resource Land Overlay on CF 1:80. 4. MLA07-93; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized
agent of property owner); Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County; 42.91 acres (tax parcel number 412182020); RF 1:40 to RR 1:5. 5. MLA07-94; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented
by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road; approximately 120 acres (tax parcel numbers 921322002 (partitioned)
& 921321004); CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to RR 1:10. 6. MLA07-96; Hill Timber and Bay Mountain Timber (Joseph D’Amico, authorized agent of property owner); west of US 101 in S11,
T29N, R2W W.M.; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 902111008 & 902114001); RR 1:20 to RF 1:40. 7. MLA07-99; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081005);
west of South Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 8. MLA07-100; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob
Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 9. MLA06-87; Black Point Properties, KMC, and W. Kaufman (Statesman Group of Companies Ltd., authorized agent of property owners); approximately 252.64
acres as 13 parcels in the Pleasant Harbor/Black Point area near Brinnon; east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road; RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to master planned resort. Suggested
Amendment: 10. MLA07-104; Jefferson County; initiation of the process and analyses necessary to designate up to two sites located in east Jefferson County under the Industrial Land
Bank provisions of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide additional employment opportunities for county residents. 1-2 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff
Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for the nine (9) site-specific amendment
proposals. Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) Long-Range Planning 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 SEPA Responsible Official: Stacie
Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager (360) 379-4463 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 Authors and Principal Contributors Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long-Range Planning Date of Staff Report & SEPA Addendum and Brinnon
MPR Draft EIS Issuance September 5, 2007 Date Comments are Due For site-specific amendment proposals numbered 1 – 8 and suggested amendment proposal number 10 above: • Oral comments
are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at the Chimacum High School Auditorium. • Written comments will be accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2007. For site-specific amendment proposal number 9 above (Brinnon MPR): • Oral comments are welcome at
the Planning Commission public hearing, Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 6:30 p.m., at the Brinnon Community Center. • Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning
Commission through 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2007. 1-3 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Past Related Actions
and Future Anticipated Actions The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:30 PM, Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at the Chimacum High School Auditorium and a public hearing
at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday October 3, 2007 at the Brinnon Community Center. In early November, DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final DCD Staff Recommendation together with the Planning
Commission Recommendation for all proposals on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the ten (10) Comprehensive
Plan amendment proposals under consideration is expected sometime prior to the end of the second week in December 2007. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission
and BoCC with regard to this Docket are available on a Jefferson County website dedicated to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This website can be accessed
from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. Appeal Information Issues relating to the adequacy of this SEPA Addendum or the Draft EIS 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 and DEIS 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 at 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 1-4 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 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 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, or selected pages thereof, are available at cost from the Jefferson County Department
of Community Development (DCD). The text and selected appendices are also available for free download on the DCD website dedicated to the 2007 annual amendment cycle, which can be
accessed from the Jefferson County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. Copies of this document are available for inspection at DCD and the Jefferson County Public Library at Port
Hadlock. 1-5 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 1.2.1 Introduction and Process Jefferson
County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) on August 28, 1998 and substantively updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. The Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan is a policy document that guides growth and future land use decisions in Jefferson County. In each successive year since initial adoption, the County has conducted a Comprehensive
Plan amendment cycle as provided by the GMA. JCC §18.45 is the set of development regulations adopted in December 2000 to guide the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan. The
2007 “Preliminary Docket” included twelve (12) proposed amendments. Consistent with JCC §18.45, all site-specific amendments (formal applications submitted in conjunction with a fee)
automatically qualified for the “Final Docket.” The Jefferson County Planning Commission heard testimony on 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 two (2)
of the three (3) suggested amendments and establishing ten (10) as the total number of amendment proposals on the Final Docket (i.e., nine (9) site specific proposals (including the
Brinnon MPR which is being addressed through a separate EIS) and one (1) suggested amendment relating to the establishment of up to two Industrial Land Banks as authorized under RCW
36.70A.367). 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in JCC §18.45 and potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The adoption of amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e.,
the review needed for 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. Guidance for preparing integrated SEPA/GMA documents is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235.
The analysis in this document supplements the existing adopted environmental documents incorporated herein by reference. 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents The following
existing environmental documents have been adopted through legal notice published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on September 5, 2007 (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. • 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; and • 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. 1-6 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference The ten (10) Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including
all supplemental information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, all Appendix Items
to this report, and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are incorporated herein by this reference, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 635. The documents listed
in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. The
reader is encouraged to use existing documents in conjunction with this document for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed. Moreover, to the greatest
extent possible this document includes descriptions of, and references to, the content of the ten (10) 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 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals. The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments is classified under SEPA as a
nonproject (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 decisionmaking (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 sitespecific, project-level analyses (i.e., “project
actions” under SEPA). Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report
and SEPA Addendum will be used to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Additional environmental review
of development proposals will occur as specific projects are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications). This will result in an additional incremental level of review
when subsequent implementing actions require a more detailed evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future project action environmental review for development
applications that are not categorically exempt from SEPA could occur in the form of a supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). 1.2.1.4
Process and Public Involvement The following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and associated
Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. 1-7 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 This 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum and the MPR Draft EIS are available to agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEPA rules. Comments on the merits of the proposals shall
be accepted as outlined below under “Public Comment Period.” 1.2.1.4.1 Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketing Process The public process for compiling the final docket has followed
the public involvement requirements of the GMA and the specific procedures established in JCC §18.45.060 through §18.45.080. DCD staff compiled the preliminary docket following the
March 1, 2007 deadline for applications set forth in JCC §18.45.040 (2) (a). On April 4, 2007, 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 14, 2007 to receive public comment on the suggested amendments of the preliminary docket. On April 24, 2007, Planning Commission
transmitted its final docketing report and recommendations to the BoCC. On June 18, 2007 the BoCC adopted the 2007 Final Docket of ten (10) 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 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (2007 Docket). Formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port
Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the public hearings. The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum and the Brinnon MPR Draft EIS on Wednesday, September 5, 2007,
initiates a public comment period. For site-specific amendment proposals numbered 1 – 8 and suggested amendment proposal number 10 above: • Oral comments are welcome at the Planning
Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at the Chimacum High School Auditorium. • Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission
through 4:30 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2007. For site-specific amendment proposal number 9 above (Brinnon MPR): • Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing,
Wednesday, October 3, 2007, 6:30 p.m., at the Brinnon Community Center. • Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
October 24, 2007. 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 1-8 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 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 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where many relevant documents and maps are available
in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 2007 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 hearings on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission will deliberate on the
proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and formulate a recommendation on each proposal for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). It is anticipated that
the Planning Commission will initiate its deliberations for proposals 1- 8 and 10 above following the close of oral testimony on September 19, and may continue deliberating on the proposed
amendments during its regularly scheduled meeting of September 25, 2007. For proposal 9 above (Brinnon MPR) it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate its deliberations
following the close of oral testimony on October 3, 2007, and may continue deliberating on the proposed amendments during other regularly scheduled meetings on October 17, 2007. It
is anticipated that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation and transmittal to the BoCC on all proposed amendments (i.e., including the MLA06-87 – the proposed Brinnon
MPR), by Wednesday, November 14, 2007. 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. Following the
completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the 2007 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 or early December 2007. In making a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning Commission
recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission, the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information),
the DCD staff recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, and any written or oral comments provided
to the BoCC before or during a BoCC public hearing on the Docket (should one be held). If the BoCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket following receipt of
the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A legal notice would appear in the
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing any BoCC public hearings on the 2007 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 2007 (Monday, December 10th has been tentatively identified as a likely adoption
date). The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2007 Docket are available on a Jefferson County webpage dedicated to the 2007 Comprehensive
Plan annual 1-9 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 amendment cycle process. This webpage can be accessed from the Jefferson
County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. 1.2.2 Major Conclusions The summary conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in part 2 of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum
are presented here for the reader’s convenience. A reading of the analysis in part 2 in addition to any supporting material referenced in the text, including Appendix Items, is encouraged.
Generally, information presented elsewhere is not reprinted here. 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts,
and recommendation for mitigation measures and conditions are within the individual staff reports for each of the proposed amendments found in part 2 of this document, “Concise Analysis
of the Proposals,” or among the Appendix Items, as appropriate. Summary statements presented in the Summary Matrix are, in some cases, considerably abbreviated from the full discussion
in part 2 and lack explanations of terminology. Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues of interest in part 2, and to consult the Appendix Items,
the amendment applications themselves, and other supporting materials listed in part 3, in order to formulate the most accurate impression of impacts associated with the proposals and
staff recommendations. “Significant” as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. Significance involves context and
intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable text (WAC 197-11-794). # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 1 MLA07-70; Tukey Investment LLC; west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads; 20 acres (tax parcel
number 921182003); RR 1:20 to 1:5. None identified. Recommendation – Approve the proposed rezone with the Condition that future development be set back from the CF 1:80 designated
land located immediately adjacent and to the south as consistent with JCC 18.15.150. The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded on three sides by zoned
or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater. 2 MLA07-79; Janet Gillanders; Big Leaf Lane, west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 702113011 & 702113002);
RR 1:20 to 1:5. Yes. The proposal would likely increase pressure to up-zone adjacent parcels which are zoned RR 1:20. This would be inconsistent with the overall purpose and effect
of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Recommendation – Deny the proposed rezone. The subject parcel is surrounded on more than 50% of its perimeter
by parcels larger than 20 acres in size that are zoned for low-density rural residential use (RR 1:20). An “established pattern” of 5-acre or smaller parcels does not exist in the
vicinity of the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)), because RR 1:20 1-10 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 zoning is currently
applied to adjacent parcels to the north, west and south. 3 MLA07-90; Richard Broders & Broders Limited Family Partnership; west side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay;
396 acres (tax parcel numbers 902124002 & 902121002 (partition)); request for Mineral Resource Land Overlay on CF 1:80. Yes. Application of the MRL Overlay to designated and mapped
fish and wildlife habitat areas located on the eastern onethird of the proposed overlay area could result in significant adverse impacts to these environmental resources. Recommendation
– Approve the proposed Overlay with the following condition: 1) require the preparation of a habitat management plan as a condition precedent to issuance of any use permit within the
Overlay. As conditioned, the designation of the subject property as MRL Overlay is consistent with NRG 6.0 and related policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the designation
criteria set forth in JCC §18.15.170. 4 MLA07-93; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); Clearwater Road, west
Jefferson County; 42.91 acres (tax parcel number 412182020); RF 1:40 to RR 1:5. Yes. Removal of the property from forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land
base of Jefferson County. It would also be likely to increase pressure to up-zone and convert RF 1:40 parcels located to the northwest of the site. This would be inconsistent with
the overall purpose and effect of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Recommendation – Deny the proposed rezone. Under NRP 3.3, parcels designated
as Forest Land (including RF 1:40 lands) in common ownership separated by a public right-of-way (e.g., Clearwater Road) must be considered a single parcel. The designation of the property
as RF 1:40 is consistent with the guidance contained in the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 5 MLA07-94; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe
Services, authorized agent of property owner); West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road; 120 acres (approximately) (tax parcel numbers 921322002 (partitioned) & 921321004);
CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to RR 1:10. Yes. Removal of the property from forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land base of Jefferson County. The proposal
would likely increase pressure to up-zone and convert resource lands (both CF 1:80 and RF 1:40). This would be inconsistent with the overall purpose and effect of the land use pattern
established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Recommendation – Deny the proposed rezone. The designation of the property as CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 is consistent with the guidance
contained in the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 1-11 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 # APPLICATION
NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 6 MLA07-96; Hill Timber and Bay Mountain Timber (Joseph
D’Amico, authorized agent of property owner); west of US 101 in S11, T29N, R2W W.M.; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 902111008 & 902114001); RR 1:20 to RF 1:40. None identified. Recommendation
- Approve the requested downzone, with the condition that parcels either be tied together via restrictive covenant, or that a boundary line adjustment be completed to ensure that the
minimum 40-acre parcel size criterion for RF 1:40 is satisfied. 7 MLA07-99; Sharon McCarthy - West; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081005); west of South
Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. None identified. Recommendation – Approve the proposed rezone. The applicant’s contiguous property ownership (i.e., including both parcels 001081005
and 001081001) meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded on all sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater. 8 MLA07-100; Sharon McCarthy
- East; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. None identified. Recommendation – Approve
the proposed rezone. The applicant’s contiguous property ownership (i.e., including both parcels 001081005 and 001081001) meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded
on all sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater. 1-12 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007
# APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 9 MLA06-87; Black Point Properties, KMC,
and W. Kaufman (Statesman Group of Companies Ltd., authorized agent of property owners); approximately 252.64 acres as 13 parcels in the Pleasant Harbor/Black Point area near Brinnon;
east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road; RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to master planned resort. Nine (9) issues and impacts are addressed in the Draft EIS including 1) shellfish,
2) water quality, 3) transportation, 4) public services, 5) shorelines, 6) fish & wildlife, 7) rural character, 8) archaeological & cultural, and 9) critical areas. A staff recommendation
will be prepared after reviewing the Final EIS. 10 MLA07-104; Jefferson County; initiation of the process and analyses necessary to designate up to two sites located in east Jefferson
County under the Industrial Land Bank (ILB) provisions of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide additional employment opportunities for county residents. At the time of this
writing, the proposal is insufficiently developed to meaningfully assess its potential range of land use and environmental impacts. This suggested amendment (which when more fully
developed might also incorporate up to two sitespecific rezones) is not prepared for adoption at this time. It is recommended that a final legislative decision on the proposal be deferred,
and that the matter be included on the County’s Comprehensive Amendment docket for 2008. 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations The following table
displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use district (from the Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information System database, and other sources), and
the proposed change in the number of acres under each district under the proposals. The reader should understand that these numbers are approximations for planning purposes only, and
all figures have been rounded. They do not necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the ground. They are, however, the best approximation available at this time. The
purpose of the table is to set a context for the legislative decision before the Board of County Commissioners for this year’s amendment cycle. 1-13 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 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. Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current Gross Acreage (2006 Plan)
Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Staff Recommendation Rural Residential RR 1:5 29,212 29,355 (+143 approx.)2 29,272 (+
60 approx.) RR 1:10 9,874 9,914 (+40 approx.) No change RR 1:20 51,444 51,304 (-140 approx.) 51,404 (-100 approx.) Incorporated UGA Port Townsend UGA 4,466 No change No change LAMIRDs
Rural Village Centers (Hadlock, Brinnon, Quilcene) 242 No change No change General Crossroads 96 No change No change Convenience Crossroads 11 No change No change Neighborhood Crossroads
122 No change No change Master Planned Resort MPR - Village Commercial Center 43 No change3 No change MPR - Resort Complex 10:1 57 No change No change MPR - Multiple Family 10:1 75
No change No change MPR - Single Family 4:1 1,431 No change No change MPR - Single Family Tracts 1:2.5 114 No change No change MPR - Recreation Area 259 No change No change MPR - Open
Space Reserve 356 No change No change Parks & National Forest Parks, Preserves, Recreation - Not MPR 2,859 No change No change Olympic National Forest 57,299 No change No change Olympic
National Park 139,463 No change No change Forestlands Rural Forest 8,645 8,602 (- 43 approx.) 8,685 (+ 40 approx.) Commercial Forest 310,327 310,247 (-80 approx.) No change
2 MLA06-87 a proposed MPR would potentially change the future gross acreage of RR 1:5 by ± 253 acres. 3 Potential Gross Acreage
under applicant proposal MLA06-87, which is being addressed through a separate EIS, would increase overall MPR areas by 253 acres (approx.). 1-14 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations, cont. Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current
Gross Acreage (2006 Plan) Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals Potential Future Gross Acreage Under Staff Recommendation Forestlands, continued Inholding Forest
7,228 No change No change Resource Based Industrial Zone 152 No change No change Agricultural Commercial Agriculture 4,296 No change No change Agricultural Lands of Local Significance
3,220 No change No change Industrial4 Heavy Industry (Mill) 278 No change No change Light Industrial (Glen Cove) 72 No change No change Light Industrial/ Manufacturing (Quilcene, Eastview)
56 No change No change Light Industrial/ Commercial (Glen Cove) 90 No change No change Essential Public Facilities Airport EPF 287 No change No change Military Reservation 3,452 No
change No change Waste Management EPF 241 No change No change Note: The total resource land area subject to the Mineral Resource Land Overlay is not depicted in the above table.
Proposal MLA07-90 would result in the overlay being applied to approximately 396 acres of CF 1:80 zoned land; however, the underlying zoning would not be altered, allowing the commercial
forestry use to resume after extraction of mineral resources and reclamation. 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered
significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found in the Summary Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan future development proposals in
a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how mitigation measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none
of the potential impacts of the future development scenarios evaluated in this document would meet all of the parameters (significant and unavoidable and adverse). In at least two
instances, the staff recommendation includes recommended mitigation measures that go beyond the regulatory framework currently in place. For more information on the relationship of
plan and policymaking to future review of development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures below at §1.2.4.2.
4 MLA07-104 would seek to establish up to two (2) industrial land banks in east Jefferson County under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.367. However,
the location and size of these potential industrial lands is unknown at the time of this writing. 1-15 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty The following table summarizes the key environmental issues and options facing decisionmakers: # APPLICATION
NUMBER & DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 1 MLA07-70; Tukey Investment LLC; west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay
Roads; 20 acres (tax parcel number 921182003); RR 1:20 to 1:5. As has been the case since adoption of the Plan in 1998, what constitutes “an established pattern of same or similar
sized parcels” (LNPs 3.3.1 through 3.3.3) is somewhat unclear. A reasonable interpretation of these policies would suggest that in instances where 50% or more of the perimeter of a
parcel abuts areas designated and/or divided into parcels of equal or lower density, that the existing zoning should be retained. Application of this interpretation in this instance
suggests that the applicant’s request should be approved, rezoning the subject property to RR 1:5. However, clearer policies should be developed to guide rezoning decisions in the
future; doing so would help to ensure rational decision-making that does not erode the purpose and effect of the Plan’s rural residential land use scheme. 2 MLA07-79; Janet Gillanders;
Big Leaf Lane, west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 702113011 & 702113002); RR 1:20 to 1:5. The above discussion relative to MLA07-70 also applies here.
Approximately 70% of the boundary of this property abuts designations and actual densities of RR 1:20 and lower. This proposal, as is the case with the other proposed rural upzones,
raises the issue: under what circumstances is it appropriate to redesignate and rezone lower density rural residential parcels for higher density rural use? 3 MLA07-90; Richard Broders
& Broders Family Associates LP; west side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay; 396 acres (tax parcel numbers 902124002 & 902121002 (partition)); request for Mineral Resource
Land Overlay on CF 1:80. 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 above be interpreted as precluding application
of the overlay to areas containing designated and mapped fish and wildlife habitat areas? 1-16 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September
5, 2007 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 4 MLA07-93; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized
agent of property owner); Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County; 42.91 acres (tax parcel number 412182020); RF 1:40 to RR 1:5. The subject parcel encompasses soil types, geology,
topography and environmentally sensitive areas similar to many parcels designated RF 1:40 in Jefferson County. The property is in timber tax classification, indicating its suitability
for timber production. Redesignation and rezoning of the property to RR 1:5 could create a precedent with far reaching implications, including over time, incremental erosion of the
Plan’s overall forest land designation approach. Both the GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan strongly discourage the redesignation of forestland. 5 MLA07-94; Rayonier
Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road; 120 acres (approximately) (tax
parcel numbers 921322002 (partitioned) & 921321004); CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to RR 1:10. The above discussion relative to MLA07-93 also applies here. The subject parcels encompass
soil types, geology, topography and environmentally sensitive areas similar to many parcels designated CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 in Jefferson County. Both parcels are in timber tax classification,
indicating their suitability for timber production. This proposal, as is the case with the other proposed forest land upzones, raises the issue: once designated, is it appropriate
to remove a property from forest land designation absent a manifest error in the initial zoning? 6 MLA07-96; Hill Timber and Bay Mountain Timber (Joseph D’Amico, authorized agent
of property owner); west of US 101 in S11, T29N, R2W W.M.; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 902111008 & 902114001); RR 1:20 to RF 1:40. The proposal as presented is a downzone from RR
1:20 to RF 1:40, changing from a rural residential to resource land designation. Should such a rezone be approved, the authorized agent may apply for a conditional use permit to site
a shooting range on the rezoned parcels. However, such a potential permit application decision is not part of this rezone decision nor would approval of this rezone proposal bind the
County to either approve or deny such a permit application. 1-17 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 # APPLICATION
NUMBER & DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 7 MLA07-99; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081005); west of South Jacob Miller
Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The above discussions relative to MLA07-70 and MLA-07-79 also apply here. Application of the “50% criterion” suggested above, would suggest that the rezoning
request should be approved, since the property is not part of an “established pattern” of RR 1:20 parcels. 8 MLA07-100; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel
number 001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The above discussions relative to MLA07-70, MLA07-79, and MLA07-99 also apply here. 9 MLA06-87;
Black Point Properties; KMC; W. Kaufman (Statesman Group of Companies Ltd., authorized agent of property owners); approximately 252.64 acres as 13 parcels in the Pleasant Harbor/Black
Point area near Brinnon; east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road; RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to master planned resort. The proposed establishment of a master planned resort
must be analyzed for potential environmental impacts and the level of interest within the community for such a level of development intensity in a rural area. Environmental impacts
are analyzed in the Draft EIS referenced in this document. 1-18 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 # APPLICATION NUMBER
& DESCRIPTION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 10 MLA07-104; Jefferson County; initiation of the process and analyses necessary to designate up to two sites located in east Jefferson
County under the Industrial Land Bank (ILB) provisions of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide additional employment The proposed designation of industrial land bank locations
must include consideration of where to site such areas and analysis of the potential impacts. 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) (now codified within 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 how this process operates, 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 2007 Docket, and if necessary, denied, conditioned, or modified appropriately. 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures The legislative
adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A project action would be a decision on a land use or building permit
reviewed under the general policy framework offered by the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations. SEPA review is required for project actions, unless those actions are
categorically exempt from SEPA review when the proposal is compared to the list of 1-19 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5,
2007 exemption thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental review such as the analysis contained in this document is useful and essential at the non-project level in order to set
up a regulatory framework that protects the environment. Mitigation for non-project actions in this sense is essentially the extent to which the established regulatory framework is
effective when applied to future development proposals. Generally, mitigation measures would not be required for the programmatic action of adopting a Comprehensive Plan or development
regulation amendment, but may be useful and appropriate to address probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified at the project level. It is often the case that project
action environmental review is where specific mitigation measures can be applied to condition a proposal such that the approval and execution of the proposal does not present a significant
adverse environmental impact. With regard to environmental review of this year’s Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle docket, it should be understood that Jefferson County has
in place a regulatory framework that follows the guidance established in Washington State laws, such as SEPA, the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).
Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive
Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive Plan was implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place prior to the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses within the various districts set forth upon the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures
Ordinances outlined the development permit review process and related administrative matters. The UDC replaced these and other previously existing ordinances. It has now been codified
at Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for what are now called “environmentally sensitive
areas” are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-D, et seq. Environmentally sensitive areas are protected through the application of overlay districts. Examples of such overlay districts
include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, and Wetlands (JCC Articles VI E-I). The County maintains
data to assist in identifying these areas from a variety of sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal government, in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database.
The data are used to create maps depicting the approximate location and extent of environmentally sensitive areas. Development Review Division planners use available GIS information
when reviewing land use and building permit applications and apply the protective measures accordingly. Frequently an applicant is required to submit a Special Report, such as an Aquifer
Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan, Habitat Management Plan, or Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports
are governed by JCC §18.45 Article VI-J. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and building permit approval, but can augment existing data for the County
GIS database on environmentally sensitive areas. Sometimes the existing regulations are insufficient to effectively protect the environment when examined in the context of a particular
project. Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation measures above and beyond the protections provided by the established development regulations may
be needed to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions may employ their “SEPA substantive authority” to further condition approval of a development
application. These mitigation measures are generally developed through project action SEPA review and established as permit conditions through an EIS or a threshold Mitigated Determination
of Non-significance (MDNS). Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of any one of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year’s cycle is not
always as clear as placing a condition on a permit. For example, the legislative decision to adopt a modified version of the 1-20 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 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 nonproject 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 Eight
(8) of the site-specific proposals and one (1) suggested proposal to implement the Industrial Land Bank provisions of RCW 36.70A.367 (MLA07-104) 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. In deciding when it is appropriate to up-zone
lower density rural residential parcels to higher density rural residential designations, or when it is appropriate to up-zone commercial forest land to rural residential designations,
the County will establish precedents with far-reaching implications that will be used to judge the appropriateness of similar rezone proposals in years hence. In consequence, determinations
that appear to have little direct environmental impact when viewed in isolation in 2007 may have significant indirect and cumulative environmental impacts if employed as justification
for a substantial number of similar rezones in future Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. Choosing not to approve certain rezone proposals that would increase pressures to convert
commercial forest land and/or rural lands to higher intensity land use designations will likely reduce present and future environmental impacts, prevent sprawl, and preserve future
planning options. The County has identified nine (9) areas of probable significant adverse impacts from the proposed Brinnon MPR. Analysis and possible mitigations to these environmental
concerns are included in the Draft EIS. Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and development under the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan will result in some adverse impacts
that are impossible to avoid. The County's adopted Plan is designed to accommodate the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections for the year 2024.
Under any of the action alternatives reviewed in this document, continued growth and development under the adopted Plan is likely to result in increased 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.
1-21
Staff Reports/2007 Staff Report Sections/07cpaStaffSEPA_2ConciseAnalysis.pdf 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals 2.1 OVERVIEW Pursuant to JCC §18.45, Jefferson
County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA” at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act (“GMA” at
RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and JCC §18.45, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of all proposals to identify the potential for cumulative impacts.
In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2) categories: Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners
requesting a change in either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density. Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that broadly apply to the narrative, goals,
policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure adequate review of potential environmental impacts, any suggested amendments that could result
in a need to re-designate groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria employed for formal site-specific amendments (i.e., JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)). This document addresses
eight (8) of the nine (9) site-specific amendments on the Final Docket and the one (1) suggested amendment. This document further divides the amendments into subcategories. Note:
A separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared for MLA06-87 the proposed Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon. 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, & Staff
Recommendations Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in JCC §18.45 and, in turn, evaluates the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, including
cumulative impacts. Each amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made based on those criteria. Tables are for
summary information only; please refer to the staff report for each proposal for greater detail. 1.1.1 Growth Management Indicators Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), all recommendations
regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must include an inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b). These growth management indicators
address the following: • Growth and development rates; • Ability to provide services; • Availability of urban land; • Community-wide attitudes towards land use; and • Consistency with
state law and local agreements. These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of Jefferson County’s status during this 2007 amendment
cycle. This section will serve to promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators and is intended to be a starting point for broader community consideration
before the Planning 2-1 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Commission and the BoCC. While this review of the growth
management indicators provides some basic analysis related to County demographics, it is not intended to measure progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that task
is reserved for the State-mandated Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for completion in 2011. Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45.050 (4) (b) – growth management indicators Each of
the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b). (1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or
slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize. Discussion: The Office of Financial Management (OFM) is the State agency responsible for compiling population projections under
the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2007 OFM Population Estimate for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues, shows a 2007 population of 28,600.
The 1996 “base year” population estimate used in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (see page 3-3) was identified as 25,754 residents. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan anticipated a population
of 28,482 in 2000, 2,529 less than the 2000 census. The County has passed Resolution #55-03 which adopted the intermediate population projection from OFM for the period 2000-2024.
The population projection anticipates a population of 46,960 in 2024, an annual growth rate of 1.78%. The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson County, and the population
projections that were reflective of the unusual amount of growth at that time. The growth rate of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth rate of approximately 2%. That being
said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington State and its counties have tended to exhibit growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even decline.
For example, the “rural rebound” growth trend experienced by most western states in the early 1990s – at the time of GMA adoption – was the result of an exodus by nearly two million
people leaving California during a severe regional economic recession. Rural and nonmetropolitan growth in Washington, and Jefferson County, during the 1990s was far greater than anticipated
but slowed as California’s economy recovered in the mid-1990s (“Washington State County Population Projections For Growth Management,” Office of Financial Management, March 2002).
YEAR 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2005 2006 2007 County Population 8300 6420 8346 8918 11618 9639 10661 15965 20406 27600 28200 28600 Port Townsend
4181 2847 3970 4683 6888 5074 5241 6067 7001 8745 8820 8865 Percent in Port Townsend 50% 44% 47% 53% 59% 53% 49% 38% 34% 32% 31% 31% Jefferson County Population 1910-2007
Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management As the table above indicates, an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the
percentage of residents living in the City of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of residents living in the City has dropped from 59% to 31%, with County residential units accounting
for over 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this shift towards residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services outside
of Port Townsend. 2-2 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Resolution #55-03 allocates 36% of the growth over the 20-year
planning period to the City of Port Townsend, 17% each to Port Ludlow MPR and Irondale/Hadlock UGA, and 30% to the rural areas of Jefferson County. (2) Whether the capacity of the
county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased. Discussion: The number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the County, with the exception of policy
decisions made as a result of economic conditions, continues to be equipped to provide the same levels of service available at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. The County is
in the process of adopting GMA compliant plans to provide the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) with urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater management.
(3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. Discussion: As a part of the planning process for the unincorporated Port Hadlock UGA,
an analysis of vacant lands within the proposed UGA and a build-out analysis were completed. These studies evaluated the ability to accommodate the allocated population. The Port
Hadlock UGA (partially invalidated by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (see WWGMHB Case No. 04-2-0022, Irondale Community Action Neighbors and Nancy Dorgan v.
Jefferson, Final Decision and Order (May 31, 2005)) was sized to accommodate 118% of the growth allocated by resolution #55-03. With a theoretical carrying capacity of over 30,000,
the City of Port Townsend UGA also appears to be adequately sized to accommodate anticipated future urban growth. (4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based
are no longer found to be valid. Discussion: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, the majority of assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments
to GMA and other laws made by the State Legislature and precedent-setting decisions made by the Growth Management Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA.
(5) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. Discussion:
The most effective way to judge whether changes in countywide attitudes have occurred, aside from reference to local election results, is through statistically significant public opinion
surveys. The last such survey in Jefferson County took place in 1991 through the “Jefferson 2000 Public Opinion Survey” conducted by Elway Research. Many of the opinions expressed
through this survey are reflected in the policy assumptions that form the basis for the Comprehensive Plan. That said, the opinions expressed through the Jefferson 2000 survey were
not intended to predict the future and an updated survey would be the most effective way to gauge whether changes in countywide attitudes have occurred. (6) Whether changes in circumstances
dictate a need for amendments. Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption in August of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective, these changing
circumstances include: issues surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered Species Act, County adoption of final development regulations which
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act, Growth Management Hearings Boards clarifications through case law related to specific provisions of the GMA,
the adoption of Unified 2-3 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Development Code amendments establishing a process for
locating Major Industrial Development, the completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study, designation of Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial area, and the designation, and then
appeal and partial invalidation, of Irondale/Hadlock as a UGA. Many of these changes in circumstances were addressed during the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Updates to the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. Discussion:
The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policy. In 2004, Jefferson County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, conducted
a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management Act. 2.2 FINAL DOCKET Following are brief descriptions of each
of the ten (10) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference. Site-Specific Amendments: 1. MLA07-70;
Tukey Investments LLC; west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads; 20 acres (tax parcel number 921182003); RR 1:20 to 1:5. 2. MLA07-79;
Janet Gillanders; Big Leaf Lane, west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 702113011 & 702113002); RR 1:20 to 1:5. 3. MLA07-90; Richard Broders & Broders Family
Associates LP; west side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay; 396 acres (tax parcel numbers 902124002 & 902121002 (partition)); request for Mineral Resource Land Overlay on
CF 1:80. 4. MLA07-93; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County; 42.91 acres
(tax parcel number 412182020); RF 1:40 to RR 1:5 5. MLA07-94; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); West of Oak
Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road; 120 acres (approximately) (tax parcel numbers 921322002 (partitioned) & 921321004); CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to RR 1:10. 6. MLA07-96;
Hill Timber and Bay Mountain Timber (Joseph D’Amico, authorized agent of property owners); west of US 101 in S11, T29N, R2W W.M.; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 902111008 & 902114001);
RR 1:20 to RF 1:40. 7. MLA07-99; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081005); west of South Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 8. MLA07-100;
Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 9. MLA06-87; Black Point Properties,
KMC and W. Kaufman (Statesmen Group of Companies Ltd. Authorized agent of the property owners); Brinnon; 252.64 acres; MPR (addressed through a separate EIS). Suggested Amendment: 10.
MLA07-104; Jefferson County; initiation of the process and analyses necessary to designate up to two sites located in east Jefferson County under the Industrial Land Bank (ILB) provisions
of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide additional employment opportunities for county residents. 2-4 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum September 5, 2007 The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each amendment as proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version,
or deny adoption. The eight (8) site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are addressed in this Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum constitute three (3) individual
proposed action components (i.e., rural residential rezones; commercial and rural forest rezones; and floating overlay rezones (i.e., MRL Overlay). The environmental review-based alternatives
to each proposed action component are as follows: • No Action - Continue application of the Comprehensive Plan without any or all of the proposed amendments; • Adopt with or without
modifications and/or mitigating conditions as appropriate; or • Defer for consideration during the 2008 Plan and Code Update process. 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary Staff recommendations
for each proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each individual proposal in part 2.3. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for consideration.
In transmitting the Planning Commission to the BoCC later this year, staff will have the opportunity to adjust these preliminary recommendations. The preliminary staff recommendations,
including modifications and mitigation measures, are summarized in the following table: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations # APPLICATION NUMBER
APPLICANT/PARCEL NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 MLA07-70 Tukey; 921182003 20 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5 Approve with condition. 2 MLA07-79 Gillanders;
702113011 & 702113002 40 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:5 Deny. 3 MLA07-90 Broders; 902121002 & 902124002 396 acres; apply MRL Overlay to CF 1:80 Approve with conditions. 4 MLA07-93
Rayonier 412182020 43 acres; RF 1:40 to RR 1:5 Deny. 5 MLA07-94 Rayonier 921322002 & 921321004 120 acres; 80 acres CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 & 40 acres RF 1:40 to RR 1:10 Deny.
6 MLA07-96 Hill Timber & Bay Mountain Timber (Security Services Inc./Joseph D’Amico); 902111008 & 902114001 40 acres; RR 1:20 to RF 1:40 Approve with condition. 2-5 Jefferson
County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 # APPLICATION NUMBER APPLICANT/PARCEL NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
7 MLA07-99 McCarthy - West; 001081005 20 acres; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 Approve. 8 MLA07-100 McCarthy - East; 001081001 20 acres; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 Approve. 9 MLA07-104 Jefferson
County ILB; no parcels yet identified No acreage yet identified; could include two sites designated “Industrial Land Bank.” Defer until the proposal is more fully developed and analyzed
(i.e., 2008). 2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS Eight (8) of the site-specific amendment proposals evaluated in this document are grouped together below according to category:
• Four (4) requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (e.g., RR 1:20 to RR 1:5); • One (1) request for Change from Rural Residential Density to Forest Resource Land Designation
(e.g., RR 1:20 to RF 1:40); • Two (2) requests for Change from Forest Resource Land Designation to Rural Residential Designation (e.g., CF 1:80 to RR 1:20; RF 1:40 to RR 1:10); and
• One (1) request for Application of an Overlay Designation (e.g., MRL Overlay on CF 1:80). 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (4) Requests for changes in Rural
Residential density are subject to criteria contained at Land Use Policy 3.3 (page 3-67) in the Comprehensive Plan. These criteria attribute one of three residential densities to all
residential parcels in Jefferson County: one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5), one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10), or one dwelling unit per twenty acres (1:20), subject to the
following criteria: POLICIES: LNP 3.3.1 A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a.
an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller
parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed “suburban” platted subdivisions.
LNP 3.3.2 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: 2-6 Jefferson County 2007
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); b. parcels along the coastal
area of similar size; c. areas serving as a “transition” adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and, d. critical area land parcels. LNP 3.3.3 A rural residential land use designation of
one dwelling unit per 20 acres (RR 1:20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 20 acres)
or larger; b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a “transition” to Urban Growth Areas or the [Port Ludlow] Master Planned Resort; d. critical land
area parcels; e. agriculture resource designated parcels; f. publicly owned forest lands; and g. lands adjacent to forest resource land. The Jefferson County Code defines the term
“buildable lot” and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in size or greater will typically be adequate to meet health standards related on-site wastewater disposal (i.e. septics) and individual
water systems (i.e. well) [JCC §18.10]. Since 1996, the maximum density that can be achieved through subdivision in Jefferson County is one dwelling unit per five acres. In January
2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (JCC Title 18) which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site-design through residential “clustering.”
These provisions are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-M (Planned Rural Residential Developments). The three proposals for residential density changes will be reviewed consistent
with these criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for each proposal is provided below. 2.3.1.1 MLA07-70 (Tukey Investment LLC) Applicant: Tukey
Investment LLC (Bill Marlow/Bruce Seton) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 921182003 Location: West side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The proposed amendment would redesignate approximately twenty (20) acres from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per twenty
acres (RR 1:20) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1:5). The subject parcel is located on the west side of Oak Bay Road near the top of Yarr Hill, south of Port
Hadlock in unincorporated Jefferson County. The parcels adjacent and to the north and east of the subject site are designated RR 1:5 and have been partially cleared. Adjacent and
to the west lies property zoned RR 1:20. Though designated RR 1:20, this property lies within the Irondale Acre Tracts (platted in 1910) and has been divided into four (4) acre parcels
which are considered by the County to be legal lots of record, despite their lower density zoning. The entire southern boundary of the subject site abuts land designated and zoned
Commercial Forestry one dwelling unit per eighty acres (CF 1:80) owned by Olympic Resource Management. This property is designated timberland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes),
in active forest management, and was partially harvested in 1997 (FPA97-00001). The subject site was recently cleared and is comprised by moderate slopes (i.e., less than 15%); the
southeastern portion of the property is identified as having a “slight” risk of landslide hazard 2-7 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007 under the County’s environmentally sensitive areas mapping, though there is no known history of landslides on-site. The subject parcel also includes two seasonal
drainages identified as Type 9 DNR streams; these two intermittent drainages converge near the northwest corner of the property into one Type 5 stream, which would appear to be a tributary
of Little Goose Creek. Redesignation and rezoning of the property would create three (3) additional parcels and permit up to four (4) dwelling units to be constructed on-site. 2.3.1.1.2
Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific
criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-70: Tukey UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially
since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which
was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted remain valid. However, the applicant has presented new information relating to the densities of the legal lots of record within the Irondale Acre Tracts (platted in 1910)
that was not specifically considered during the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents
of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment would not appear to be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through
the Plan amendment process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards
for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation. The proposed amendment should not adversely impact the level of county services.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan There are no inconsistencies
with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded on three sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater.
The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental
features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant
adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. 2-8 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report
& SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-70: Tukey UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that
the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities
and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The proposal is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. It is similar to the surrounding properties
and their access to utilities and land uses. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan The site-specific
proposal does not affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use will be consistent with surrounding land
uses. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the
immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with
the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws The proposed amendment meets the requirements of GMA. The character of the rural area will not be affected by redesignating this property. The following environmental
analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? 2-9 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007 The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to
applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4 How would the proposal be likely
to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened
or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria
established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). Two intermittent Type 9 DNR streams that converge to form a Type 5 DNR stream are mapped on the property. Any issues relating
to streamside setbacks and buffers would be resolved in the land division process. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6 How would the proposal
be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question
#7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed amendment does not
conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws. 2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff
recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition that future development be set back from the CF 1:80 zoned land located immediately adjacent and to the
south as consistent with JCC18.15.150(3)(a). The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded on three sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per
5 acres or greater (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). 2.3.1.2 MLA07-79 (Gillanders) Reference Number: MLA07-79 Applicant: Janet Gillanders Assessor Parcel Number(s): 702113011 & 702113002 Location:
West of US 101, north of Quilcene 2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information The subject parcels are located west of US Highway 101, north of Quilcene, on Big Leaf
Lane. The request would change the land use designations and zoning of both tax parcels, each 2-10 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007 approximately 20 acres in size, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The properties to the north, west and south of the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:20. The property
touching the southwest corner of the subject site is designated and zoned RF 1:40. The parcels adjacent and to the east, which immediately abut US Highway 101, are designated and zoned
RR 1:5. The Little Quilcene River, a Type 1 DNR Stream, bisects both tax parcels, with approximately twelve (12) acres of Ms. Gillanders’ ownership lying east of the river, and the
remaining 28 lying west of the river. The western edge of the subject site (i.e., that area lying generally westwards of Big Leaf Lane) is comprised by slopes identified as having
a “slight” risk of landslide hazard under the County’s environmentally sensitive areas mapping. There is no known history of landslides onsite. Redesignation and rezoning of the property
would theoretically permit up to eight (8) dwelling units to be constructed on-site, quadrupling the current permissible dwelling unit density. The applicant has indicated that, if
her request is approved, she intends to create three parcels, consisting of two (2) parcels east of the river each larger than five (5) acres in size, and one parcel west of the river,
twenty-eight (28) acres in size. 2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings
and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-79: Gillanders UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances
related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the
assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. There has been no new information presented related to this specific proposal that has not been considered during
the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The proposed
amendment would not appear to be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through the Plan amendment process. The proposed
site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment appears inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically LNP 3.3.1(a), which states that five (5) acre zoning should
be applied in areas with an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels. Twenty (20) acre parcels characterize the adjacent properties to the north, west and south. 2-11
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-79: Gillanders UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation
The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental
features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant
adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the
subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities
and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. The proposed site-specific
amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best
interests of the county as a whole The proposal would likely increase pressure to upzone adjacent parcels which are zoned RR 1:20, thus eroding the overall purpose and effect of the
land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that
are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within
an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and
the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management
Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws
The proposed amendment meets the requirements of GMA and County planning policies. The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental
Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise? 2-12 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase
in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal is not likely to affect plants, animals,
fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals,
fish, and marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject
to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated
(or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,
floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is inconsistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). The Little
Quilcene River, a Type 1 DNR Stream bisects the property. The proposal would be likely to increase the number of potential building sites abutting the river; streamside setback and
buffer areas would have to be resolved in the land division process. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow
or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Little Quilcene River, a Type 1 DNR Stream within the “Conservancy” designation of the Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program. If approved, the proposal would quadruple rural residential densities on the subject site, and increase the potential number of dwelling units abutting the river.
To the extent that approval of the proposal may conflict with LNP 3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be viewed as encouraging land uses incompatible with the County’s rural residential
land use designation scheme. Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate
any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment. As noted in the response to Question #5, above, the proposed amendment conflicts with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see
LNP 3.3). More than 70% of the perimeter of the subject site abuts areas zoned for RR 1:20 densities. Thus, the proposed rezone area does not lie within an area where an established
pattern of 5-acre parcels and densities currently exist. 2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment. The subject parcel is surrounded
on more than 50% of its perimeter by parcels larger than 20 acres in size that are zoned for low-density rural residential use (RR 1:20). An “established pattern” of 5-acre or 2-13
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 smaller parcels does not exist in the vicinity of the subject site (see LNP 3.3.1(a)).
Because RR 1:20 zoning is currently applied to adjacent parcels to the north, west and south, application of the RR 1:10 land use designation to “transition” between areas of varying
densities would also appear inappropriate. Approval of the request would be likely to increase pressure to upzone adjacent parcels which are zoned RR 1:20, thus eroding the overall
purpose and effect of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). 2.3.1.3 MLA07-99 (McCarthy) - West Reference Number: MLA07-99 Applicant: Sharon McCarthy
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 001081005 Location: West of South Jacob Miller Road 2.3.1.3.1 General Description and Environmental Information The subject parcel is located west of South
Jacob Miller Road and east of Hidden Trails Road north of the County Landfill and near the Port Townsend municipal boundary. The request would change the land use designation and zoning
of this twenty (20) acre from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The properties to the north, west and south of the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:5. The property adjacent and to the
east of the subject property is also owned by the applicant, is subject to a separate rezone application evaluated herein (i.e., MLA07-100), and is also designated and zoned RR 1:20.
A review of Jefferson County environmentally sensitive area maps reveals the presence of a pond and wetland in a shallow depression located in the northeast quadrant of the parcel.
The property is enrolled in the designated forest land tax program (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes), and was subject to an un-even aged harvest in 2002 (FPA2605035). Redesignation
and rezoning of the property would theoretically permit up to four (4) dwelling units to be constructed on-site, quadrupling the current permissible dwelling unit density. The applicant
has indicated that, if her request is approved, access would be provided to the property from Jacob Mill Road via an easement traversing her property adjacent and to the east. 2.3.1.3.2
Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific
criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-99: McCarthy - West UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related
to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to the area have
changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. In 2006, Jefferson County approved the upzone of the Cleo Austin property (tax parcel number 001081002) lying adjacent
and to the east of Jacob Miller Road. With the approval of the Austin rezone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5, the McCarthy properties (i.e., both tax parcels) became an isolated inholding of
RR 1:20 surrounded by RR 1:5 zoned lands. Prior to the approval of the Austin downzone, the McCarthy properties were part of a contiguous block of RR 1:20 zoning abutting the Port
Townsend City limits. 2-14 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-99: McCarthy - West
UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered
during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain
valid. However, the applicant has presented new information relating to the Austin downzone (2006), which represents a change in circumstances since the initial adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan in 1998. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment would not appear to be inconsistent
with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through the Plan amendment process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements
for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan There are no inconsistencies
with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded on three sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater
(see LNP 3.3.1(a)). The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result
in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to
the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access,
provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation.
2-15 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-99: McCarthy - West UDC/JCC Criterion Staff
Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, with the
exception of parcel 001081001, which is owned by the applicant and lies adjacent and to the east of the subject site. Though functionally related and in common ownership, the applicant
opted to submit two separate rezone applications for her properties (MLA07-99 and MLA07-100). No erosion of the overall purpose and effect of the land use pattern established in the
1998 Comprehensive Plan would be expected to result from approval of the requested rezone. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive
Plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the
immediate area and the overall UGA Although in relative proximity to the boundary of the Port Townsend UGA, the proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under
review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable
interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment meets the requirements of GMA and County planning policies. The following
environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water
withdrawal or discharge. Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine
life. 2-16 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural
resources? All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4 How would the proposal
be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning
criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). An undelineated and unclassified pond and associated wetland lies on the northeast quadrant of the subject property.
Any issues relating to wetland setbacks and buffers would be resolved in the land division process. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6
How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public
services. Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed
amendment does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws. 2.3.1.3.3 Staff
Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment. The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded on three sides by zoned
or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). 2.3.1.4 MLA07-100 (McCarthy) - East Reference Number: MLA07-100 Applicant: Sharon McCarthy Assessor Parcel
Number(s): 001081001 Location: Adjacent and west of South Jacob Miller Road 2.3.1.4.1 General Description and Environmental Information The subject parcel is located immediately adjacent
and to the west of South Jacob Miller Road and east of the property discussed in MLA07-99, immediately above. Thus, it too is north of the County Landfill and near the Port Townsend
municipal boundary. The request would change the land use designation and zoning of this twenty (20) acre from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. The properties to the north, south and east of the
subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:5. The property adjacent and to the west of the subject property is also owned by the applicant, is subject to a 2-17 Jefferson County 2007
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 separate rezone application evaluated herein (i.e., MLA07-99), and is also designated and zoned RR 1:20.
A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of mapped environmentally sensitive areas. The property is enrolled in the county’s open
space agriculture program (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes), and was subject to an un-even aged harvest in 2002 (FPA2605035). The applicant’s home, constructed in 1991 and remodeled
in 1997, lies within the limits of this tax parcel. Redesignation and rezoning of the property would theoretically permit up to four (4) dwelling units to be constructed on-site, quadrupling
the current permissible dwelling unit density. The applicant has indicated that, if her request is approved, access would be provided to the property adjacent and to the west (i.e.,
tax parcel number 001081005) from Jacob Mill Road via an easement traversing the subject parcel. 2.3.1.4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact
Analysis - MLA07-100: McCarthy - East UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially
changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have changed substantially since the adoption of the Plan. In 2006, the County approved the
upzone of the Cleo Austin property (tax parcel number 001081002) lying adjacent and to the east of Jacob Miller Road. With the approval of the Austin rezone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5,
the McCarthy properties (i.e., both tax parcels) became an isolated inholding of RR 1:20 surrounded by RR 1:5 zoned lands. Prior to the approval of the Austin downzone, these properties
were part of a contiguous block of RR 1:20 zoning abutting the City limits. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new
information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon
which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. However, the applicant has presented new information relating to the Austin downzone (2006), which represents a change in circumstances
since the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The
proposed amendment would not appear to be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through the Plan amendment process. The
proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation. 2-18 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative
Impact Analysis - MLA07-100: McCarthy - East UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies
of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan There are no inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded
on three sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant
adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens
upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Generally, the
subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of
other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure
to change the land use designation of other properties, with the exception of parcel 001081005, which is owned by the applicant and lies adjacent and to the west of the subject site.
Though functionally related and in common ownership, the applicant opted to submit two separate rezone applications for her properties (MLA07-99 and MLA07-100). No erosion of the
overall purpose and effect of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan would be expected to result from approval of the requested rezone. The proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect
the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA Although in relative proximity to the boundary of the Port Townsend UGA, the
proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. 2-19 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-100: McCarthy - East UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The
proposed amendment meets the requirements of GMA and County planning policies. The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental
Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise? It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,
animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be
subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
All subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4 How would the proposal be
likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning
criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.3). The property is unlikely to affect environmentally sensitive areas. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to
affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline
jurisdiction. Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable
additional demand for public services. 2-20 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Question #7 Identify, if possible,
whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed amendment does not conflict with the zoning
criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws. 2.3.1.4.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval
of the proposed site-specific amendment. The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:5 designation, and is surrounded on three sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres
or greater (see LNP 3.3.1(a)). 2.3.1.5 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential Density The four (4) proposals for change of rural residential density involve a total
of five (5) tax parcels encompassing approximately one hundred (100) acres. Approval of these four amendments, as proposed by the applicants, would have the practical result of creating
the potential for fifteen (15) additional rural dwelling units over baseline conditions (i.e., from five (5) currently, to twenty (20) if all are approved). All subsequent subdivision,
including the ability to use the clustering provisions of county code, would be subject to review pursuant to the JCC at the time of application. Based on this programmatic environmental
review, no site-specific characteristics exist which would preclude the use of these sites for higher density rural residential purposes. Additionally, the fact that the requests are
located in geographically separated areas (i.e., near Port Townsend, south of Port Hadlock, and north of Quilcene) minimizes the potential for negative cumulative environmental and
capital facility impacts. It should be noted, however, that one of the proposals (MLA07-79) appears likely to result in indirect and cumulative impacts to the environment in the form
of increased pressure to convert low density rural residential areas (i.e., RR 1:20) to higher intensity rural use (i.e., RR 1:5); this would make likely other similar upzones in the
future, eroding the overall purpose and effect of the rural residential land use scheme established by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. 2.3.2 Request for Change from Rural Residential
to Forest Resource Land Designation (1) Requests for changes from Rural Residential density to Forest Resource Lands must be considered against both the Rural Residential classification
and designation criteria set forth under section 2.3.1 of this document, above, as well as the classification and designation criteria set forth within the Natural Resources Element
of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-1 through 4-5; and NRG 3.0 and NRPs 3.1 through 3.5 and NRG 4.0 and NRPs 4.1 through 4.8). Relevant excerpts from this Natural Resources
Element narrative and goal and policy language include the following: Forest Lands Classification and Designation of Forest Lands Jefferson County’s Forest Lands Designation and
Conservation strategy was developed based on an analysis of local conditions and the following guidelines provided by the Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development
(CTED): 2-21 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Table 4-1 Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource Lands in
Jefferson County Indicator Comments 1. Availability of public services and facilities conducive to the conversion of forest lands. Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are
intended to be served by public facilities and services within a twenty-year period, forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be located outside of UGA boundaries. 2.
Proximity of forest land to urban and suburban areas and rural settlements. To protect forest lands of long-term commercial significance from encroachment by incompatible uses, they
should be located outside the urban and suburban areas and rural settlements. 3. Size of the parcels. Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should consist of predominantly
large parcels. 4. Compatibility and intensity of neighboring land uses and settlement patterns with forest lands of long-term significance. Forest lands of long-term commercial significance
should be adjacent to large parcels to allow for adequate buffering and setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settlement patterns. 5. Property tax classification. Forest lands
of long-term commercial significance should be eligible for assessment as open space or forest land pursuant to RCW 84.33 or 84.34. 6. History of land development permits nearby. Forest
lands of long-term commercial significance should not be designated in areas under development pressure that are likely to convert to higher intensity land uses. In order to conserve
the forest resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry industry while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, it was determined that Forest Lands would
consist of three classes: • Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80); • Rural Forest Lands (RF-40); and • Inholding Forest Lands (IF) for parcels entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural
Forest Lands unless the parcel is less than twenty (20) acres in size or if a development application for the parcel is vested. The landowner must submit a written request to have the
parcel removed from Forest Resource Inholding designation. Any parcel that meets the following criteria will be classified as Forest Land and designated as Forest Land of Long-Term
Commercial Significance: • The land should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one (1) through four (4) as mapped by the Department of Natural Resources. • Minimum parcel size
should be a minimum of nominally eighty (80) acres for Commercial Forest Lands forty (40) acres for Rural Forest Land, with parcels smaller than the minimum included when the acres
of at least the minimum size are contiguously owned and the land is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status. • The parcel should be part of a Forest Land Block at least three hundred
twenty (320) acres in size that meets the designation criteria. The Forest Land Blocks will continue to exist even though individual parcels may be removed in the future because they
no longer meet the established designation criteria. The Forest Land Block shall apply if the amount of designated Forest Land in the block falls below three hundred twenty (320) acres,
but not if the acreage of the block falls to zero (0). • No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Urban Growth Area or within one half (1/2) mile of the three designated
Rural Village Centers or within approximately one half (1/2) mile of the urbanized boundary of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort. 2-22 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 • The parcel is currently in a deferred forest tax status pursuant to RCW 84.33 or RCW 84.34 or classified or designated Timber
Tax land, or State or Federal land outside the National Forest Service boundary; and • A majority of the parcel should be located outside any community water system service area. The
Regulatory Framework for Forest Lands Jefferson County is currently regulating forest lands and forest practices under JCC title 18, sections 18.15, 18.20, 18.30 and 18.40. The best
opportunity to manage forest land uses occurs at the state and local permitting stages. Landowners must apply for a Forest Practices Permit when conducting forest practices that have
the potential for adverse impacts on public resources as described in WAC 222-16-050. Landowners choosing to maintain their land in forestry uses must state their intent to do so on
the Forest Practice Application. Since the adoption of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance in January, 1997, the County has heard from both timber owners and adjacent landowners regarding
conflicts over forest lands activities adjacent to residential lots that were previously platted in sizes too small to provide an adequate buffer from effects of activities such as
noise and the spraying of herbicides. In 2002, a Forest Transition Overlay district was established to address potential conflict between forest resource lands and pre-platted high
density residential parcels of one acre or less in size. Any future changes in the Forest Lands Ordinance or Forest Lands designations would require full public review. All forest
practices in Jefferson County must comply with the Washington State Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09), administered by the Department of Natural Resources. These laws are designed to
protect water quality, shorelines, fish and wildlife habitat and the public’s opportunity to enjoy these resources. Regulations will also be developed and applied to incorporate the
recommendations of agreed-upon watershed and salmon recovery plans related to land and resource management, which is further discussed in the Environment Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Landowners choosing to convert their land to non-forest uses also must state their intent on the Forest Practices Application. As provided in the Forest Practices Act, these
landowners must conduct their forest practices in accordance with applicable local government regulations, which may include, but are not limited to, the Critical Areas Ordinance and
the State Environmental Policy Act. Forest lands being converted to non-forest uses should be managed to guide the manner and extent of alteration and to minimize adverse environmental
impacts. The 1997 State Legislature enacted Substitute Senate Bill 5714, requiring local governments to issue forest practice permits for harvest sites which will be converted to non-forestry
purposes (Class IV – General). The bill also mandates that local governments develop a public process for lifting the six-year moratorium on conversion required when the landowner does
not state an intent to convert or when a harvest project occurs without obtaining the appropriate Forest Practice application. This law expands the County’s regulatory role in forest
practices, and will require closer coordination with the State Department of Natural Resources. FOREST LANDS GOAL: NRG 3.0 Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term
economic use. 2-23 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 POLICIES: NRP 3.1 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that
includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Forest Lands for long-term commercial significance based on the
quality of the forest environment, the size of the parcel, the tax status, current use, and distance from populated areas. NRP 3.2 Encourage the continued diversity of forestry by
designating classes of long-term commercially significant forest land that allow the continued existence of a range of approaches to forest management. NRP 3.3 Parcels designated as
Forest Land in common ownership separated by a public right-of-way shall be considered as a single parcel. NRP 3.4 Allow commercial forest management and harvest, mineral extraction,
sand and gravel operations and those land uses which maintain, enhance, or have no impact on the long term management of designated commercial forest lands. NRP 3.5 Support and facilitate
the improvement of state and local environmental regulations affecting the forest products industry in order to improve operational predictability, minimize regulatory costs to forest
land owners, and encourage protection of the forest environment and surrounding watersheds. GOAL: NRG 4.0 Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land
use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands. POLICIES: NRP 4.1 Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes except for lands that
have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Allow one dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law. NRP 4.2 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that
includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the interim ordinance for conditional uses in Forest Lands. NRP 4.3 Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing
site and design requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated forest land. NRP 4.4 Minimize dangers from natural disasters such as fire, through siting and design criteria
for structures on designated Forest Lands. NRP 4.5 Minimize conflict between primary and secondary forest production facilities and related developments and forest management activities
through siting and design requirements. NRP 4.6 Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts
into designated Forest Lands except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. NRP 4.7 Address community concerns and land use conflicts which may arise as a
result of forest practices in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, forest landowners, and the general public. 2-24 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 NRP 4.8 Facilitate a cooperative process bringing together timber company representatives, environmental groups, landowners,
and other interested parties to address concerns related to incompatible land uses between parcels existing adjacent to forest lands at the time of adoption of Ordinance #01-0121-97,
the interim Forest Lands Ordinance. 2.3.2.1 MLA07-96 (Hill Timber & Bay Mountain Timber/D’Amico) Applicant: Hill Timber & Bay Mountain Timber (D’Amico – agent) Assessor Parcel Number(s):
902111008 & 902114001 Location: West of US 101 in S11, T29N, R2W W.M. 2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information The request would change the current
land use designation of two contiguous 20-acre tax parcels (902111008 & 902114001) located in west of US 101 in S11, T29N, R2W W.M. from low density Rural Residential (RR 1:20) to lower
density Rural Forest (RF 1:40). The northerly tax parcel (902111008) is owned by the Hill Timber Partnership (formed by the Gunstone family). The southerly tax parcel (902114001)
is owned by Bay Mountain Timber (also formed by the Gunstone family). The subject tax parcels are located immediately adjacent and to the west of the Richard Broders property that is
the subject of a separate MRL Overlay request evaluated herein (MLA07-90). The properties to the north and west of the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1:20. The property
adjacent and to the south of the subject property is also owned by the Hill Timber Partnership, and designated and zoned RF 1:40. The elevations on the subject site range from over
650 feet near the eastern boundary to just under 600 feet on the western boundary. A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of mapped
environmentally sensitive areas. Both parcels are identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as designated forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). No permit data are
available to indicate whether or not the properties have been recently harvested. Redesignation and rezoning of the property would theoretically reduce the permissible dwelling unit
density of the properties from two (2), to one (1), halving the current permissible density. The applicant has indicated that, if his request is approved, a conditional use application
will be submitted to establish a shooting range on the site (note: shooting ranges are permissible via CUP approval within the RF 1:40 zone; see Table 3-1 of JCC §18.15.040). 2.3.2.1.2
Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific
criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. 2-25 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact
Analysis - MLA07-96: Hill Timber/D’Amico UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially
changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. In brief, the landowner has
expressed a willingness and desire to downzone the property and expand the County’s forest resource land base; this is a significant change in circumstances from the conditions that
prevailed in 1998. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during
the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment would not appear to be inconsistent with
the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through the Plan amendment process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements
for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation.
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan As recommended be conditioned
by staff, the proposal would appear wholly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed RF 1:40 zoning of the parcel appears consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s narrative
and policies relating to the designation of rural forest land. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation
network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities
The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks or environmental features. In
the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development,
including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Generally, the subject parcel is physically suitable for
the requested land use designation. 2-26 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-96:
Hill Timber/D’Amico UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless
the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole Approval of the proposal would be unlikely to lead to other downzones
of Rural Residential land to Forest Resource land. In any event, such proposals should not necessarily be viewed as eroding the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan (CP). The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does
not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed
site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located
within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies
for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws As conditioned by staff, the proposed amendment is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan polices and designation criteria governing rural forest resource lands; the proposal is wholly consistent with Plan and GMA provisions which favor
the preservation and enhancement of forestry uses. The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental
Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would
the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would
reduce current allowable density, and therefore be unlikely to result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to
affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result
of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. 2-27 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or
natural resources; all subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4: How would
the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild
and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. As recommended be conditioned by staff, the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the forest resource land classification and designation criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see the Plan narrative on pp
4-2 through 4-4 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element, including Table 4-1). Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. To the extent that approval of
the proposed rezone would expand rural forest zoning it would appear to encourage use that is consistent with the County's adopted Plan and the GMA. Question #6: How would the proposal
be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question
#7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment appears to be wholly consistent with Comprehensive Plan narrative, designation criteria and policies governing forestlands (see the Plan narrative on pp 4-2 through 4-5 of
the Natural Resource Conservation Element, as well as and NRGs 1.0 and 3.0 and the policies thereunder). The proposal would also appear to be consistent with the natural resource industry
goal of the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.040(8)). 2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition that the two tax parcels
either be tied together via restrictive covenant, or that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) be completed to consolidate the parcels and ensure that the minimum 40-acre size criterion
for the RF 1:40 designation is satisfied. As conditioned, the subject site would meet the criteria for rural forestland designation set forth in the Natural Resource Conservation Element
of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: • The parcels are comprised predominantly of forest land grades 1 through 4 as mapped by the DNR; • As conditioned by staff, the parcel would
be at least 40 acres in size; • The property is part of a forest land block of at least 320 acres in size; • No part of the proposed rezone area lies within ½ mile of a UGA or Rural
Village Center; • The parcels are, and have been, enrolled in a deferred forest tax program; and, • No portion of the proposed rezone site lies within a community water system service
area. 2-28 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Change from Rural Residential
to Forest Resource Land The proposed RR 1:20 to RF 1:40 amendment evaluated in this report will further advance the purpose of the County’s Forest Resource Land designations set forth
within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. 2.3.3 Requests for Change from Forest Resource Land to Rural Residential Designation (2) Requests for changes from Forest Lands to Rural Residential
density must be considered against the classification and designation criteria set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-1 through
4-5; and NRG 3.0 and NRPs 3.1 through 3.5 and NRG 4.0 and NRPs 4.1 through 4.8). Relevant excerpts from this Plan narrative and goal and policy language are set forth in section 2.3.2
of this document, above. The three (3) proposals for rural commercial and industrial changes will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general description, criteria review,
and staff recommendation for each proposal is given below: 2.3.3.1 MLA07-93 (Rayonier/Terra Pointe) - Clearwater Reference Number: MLA07-93 Applicant: Rayonier Forest Resources L.P.
(Terra Pointe Services, agent) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 412182020 Location: Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County 2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The
request would change the current land use designation of an approximately 43 acre parcel (42.91) from Rural Forest one dwelling unit per forty acres (RF 1:40) to Rural Residential one
dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1:5). The subject parcel lies adjacent and to the east of the Clearwater River in S18, T24N, R12W W.M., and is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor
as designated forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). An FPA issued on May 19, 2003 authorized an uneven aged harvest and associated road construction on the property, indicating
that it has been in active forest production (FPA2605389). The abutting properties on the north, west (i.e., across the Clearwater River) and south are designated and zoned RR 1:5.
The property adjacent and to the east is Commercial Forest (CF 1:80). Additionally, the property which meets the northwestern-most corner of the subject parcel is also designated
and zoned RF 1:40. A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County reveals that the Clearwater River is identified as a Type 1 DNR stream, and that wetlands may be present
on the southeastern quadrant of the property (i.e., on the east side of Clearwater Road). Redesignation and rezoning of the property would theoretically increase the permissible dwelling
unit density of the property from one (1), to eight (8), an eight-fold increase in potential dwelling unit density. 2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080
(1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
2-29 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-93: Rayonier/Terra Point - Clearwater UDC/JCC
Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive
Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents
of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment would not appear to be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through
the Plan amendment process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards
for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies,
and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal would appear to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The current RF 1:40 zoning
of the parcel appears consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s narrative and policies relating to the designation of rural forest land. No persuasive arguments or evidence has been
presented to suggest that the property was incorrectly designated as RF 1:40. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks or environmental
features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated
land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Generally, the subject parcel is
physically suitable for the requested land use designation. 2-30 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact
Analysis - MLA07-93: Rayonier/Terra Pointe - Clearwater UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole Approval of the proposal would be likely
to increase pressure to convert Rural Forest Resource Lands to higher intensity use, eroding the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). The proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect
the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under
review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable
interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan polices and designation
criteria governing rural forest resource lands and runs contrary to Plan and GMA provisions which disfavor conversion of productive forest lands to higher intensity uses. The following
environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would theoretically result in the construction of seven (7) additional
dwelling units over baseline conditions. However, these additional units would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2: How
would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development
that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would
the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific development proposals
will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. 2-31 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September
5, 2007 Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. Though the subject
parcel contains wetland areas, and a riverine environment, ongoing protection of these areas under the County’s environmentally sensitive areas regulations would help to prevent any
adverse impacts of potential future development. Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land
or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The Clearwater River is a Type 1 DNR Stream within the “Conservancy” designation of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
If approved, the proposal could lead to an eight-fold increase in residential densities on the subject site, and increase the potential number of dwelling units abutting the river.
To the extent that approval of the proposal may conflict with the forest resource land classification and designation guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be viewed as encouraging
land uses incompatible with the County’s Forest Lands designation scheme. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,
state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment appears to be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan narrative,
designation criteria and policies governing commercial forestlands (see the Plan narrative on pp 4-2 through 4-5 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element, as well as and NRGs 1.0
and 3.0 and the policies thereunder). The proposal would also appear to clearly conflict with the natural resource industry goal of the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.040(8)). 2.3.3.1.3 Staff
Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment. The parcel continues to meet the criteria for rural forestland designation set forth in the Natural
Resource Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: • The parcel is comprised predominantly of forest land grades 1 through 4 as mapped by the DNR; • The parcel is
over 40 acres in size; • The property is part of a forest land block of at least 320 acres in size; • No part of the proposed rezone area lies within ½ mile of a UGA or Rural Village
Center; • The parcel is, and has been, enrolled in a deferred forest tax program; and, • No portion of the proposed rezone site lies within a community water system service area. Removal
of the property from forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land base of Jefferson County, an action that is strongly disfavored under both the GMA and the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. It would also be likely to increase pressure to up-zone and convert RF 1:40 parcels located to the northwest, thus eroding the overall purpose and effect
of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Staff notes that under NRP 3.3, parcels designated as Forest Land (including RF 1:40 lands) in common ownership
separated by a public right-of-way (e.g., Clearwater Road) must be considered a single parcel. 2-32 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 5, 2007 Accordingly, the designation of the property as RF 1:40 is consistent with the guidance contained in the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2.3.3.2
MLA07-94 (Rayonier/Terra Pointe) – Mats Mats Reference Number: MLA07-94 Applicant: Terra Pointe Services, agent for Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. Assessor Parcel Number(s): Portions
of 921322002 & 921321004 Location: West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road 2.3.3.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information The request includes two component
parts: first, it would seek to change the current land use designation on a portion of one (1) tax parcel of approximately forty (40) acres in size (tax parcel number 921321004) from
Rural Forest one dwelling unit per forty acres (RF 1:40) Rural Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres (RR 1:10). The same tax parcel number is associated with a 160-acre block
of land to the southwest of the proposed rezone area that is currently zoned Commercial Forest one dwelling unit per eighty acres (CF 1:80). Second, the proposal would seek to split-zone
a tax parcel of approximately 160 acres in size (tax parcel number 921322002, upzoning the eastern half (i.e., 80 acres) of this parcel from Commercial Forest one dwelling unit per
eighty acres (CF 1:80) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per twenty acres (RR 1:20). Thus, the total proposed rezone area comprises some 120 total acres. The forty (40) acre
area proposed for rezoning from RF 1:40 to RR 1:10 (a portion of tax parcel 921321004) lies immediately adjacent and to the east of Oak Bay Road, just east of Mats Mats Bay. It is
bounded on the north by land designated and zoned RF 1:40, on the west by land designated and zoned CF 1:80 which is also subject to this rezone proposal. On the south, the forty (40)
acre component is bounded by land zoned RR 1:5 and “local agriculture”; on the east (i.e., across Oak Bay Road) is land designated and zoned RR 1:10. The Jefferson County Assessor
identifies the parcel as designated forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). In addition to the application for rezoning, recent permit activity concerning this parcel includes
the following: an uneven aged harvest in 2003 (FPA 2605459); a stormwater permit with SEPA (i.e., a FPA Class IV General Conversion, December 18, 2006; BLD06-00710); and a timber harvest
and associated road construction earlier this year (FPA2608296). A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of any environmentally
sensitive areas on that portion of this tax parcel subject to the rezone proposal. The eighty (80) acre proposed rezone area (i.e., the east half of tax parcel number 921322002) is
bounded by land designated and zoned as follows: on the north by RR 1:5; on the west by CF 1:80 (i.e., the west half of tax parcel number 921322002); on the south by CF 1:80 (a portion
of tax parcel number 921321004); and on the east by RF 1:40 (i.e., including the proposed RF 1:40 to RR 1:10 proposed rezone area described above). The Jefferson County Assessor also
identifies this parcel as designated forestland. This parcel was apparently also subject to the application for stormwater permit with SEPA (i.e., a FPA Class IV General Conversion,
December 18, 2006) under BLD06-00710 referenced above. A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County does not reveal the presence of any known environmentally sensitive
areas except for “slight” landslide hazard areas in proximity to the northern boundary of the proposed rezone area (i.e., tax parcel number 921322002). Taken together, redesignation
and rezoning of this 120-acre area would theoretically increase the theoretical dwelling unit density of the property from two (2), to eight (8), a significant increase over current
permissible density. 2-33 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 2.3.3.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080
(1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA07-94: Rayonier/Terra Pointe – Mats Mats UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area
in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have not changed substantially since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. However, the applicant contends that data regarding the number of vacant buildable lots within the North Port Ludlow area are obsolete, and that increased
demand for larger rural residential lots, in conjunction with the recent amendments to the County’s environmentally sensitive areas regulations, represent a substantial change in conditions.
Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process
or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. The applicant asserts
that data regarding the supply of larger vacant rural residential parcels are obsolete. Staff notes that creation of a supply of rural residential lots was not a significant factor
guiding the initial application of resource land use designations. Protection of existing rural character and existing resource related industries were significant objectives. Whether
the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents To the extent that the proposal would permit an erosion of the County’s resource
land base, the proposed amendment may be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through the Plan amendment process. The
proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal would appear to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The current RF 1:40 and CF 1:80 zoning of the parcels appears consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan’s narrative and policies relating to the designation of rural forest land. No persuasive arguments or evidence has been presented to suggest that the property
was incorrectly designated as RF 1:40 and CF 1:80 in the first instance. 2-34 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative
Impact Analysis - MLA07-94: Rayonier/Terra Pointe – Mats Mats UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse
impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon
existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Generally, the
subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of
other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole Approval of the proposal would be likely
to increase pressure to convert Commercial and Rural Forest Resource Lands to higher intensity use, eroding the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). The
proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not materially
affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific
amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located within an area
that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan polices and designation criteria governing rural forest resource lands and runs contrary to Plan and GMA provisions which strongly disfavor conversion of productive forest lands
to higher intensity uses. The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the
Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to
increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? 2-35 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 The proposal would theoretically result in the construction of six (6) additional dwelling units over baseline conditions.
However, these additional units would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,
animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal
would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local energy conservation standards. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study)
for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands. The subject parcels contain slight landslide hazard areas on the northern boundary of the proposed CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 rezone area. If the request were to be approved, development
in these areas would be reviewed and if necessary, conditioned under the landslide hazard area provisions of the County’s environmentally sensitive areas regulations. Question #5:
How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed
rezone area does not involve the Shoreline jurisdiction. However, if approved, the proposal could lead to a four-fold increase in residential densities on the subject site. To the
extent that approval of the proposal may conflict with the forest resource land classification and designation guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, it may be viewed as encouraging
land uses incompatible with the County’s Forest Lands designation scheme. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,
state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment appears to be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan narrative,
designation criteria and policies governing Commercial Forest Lands and Rural Forest Lands (see the Plan narrative on pp 4-2 through 4-5 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element,
as well as and NRGs 1.0 and 3.0 and the policies thereunder). The proposal would also appear to clearly conflict with the natural resource industry goal of the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.040(8)).
2-36 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 2.3.3.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific
amendment. The subject parcels continue to meet the criteria for commercial and rural forestland designation set forth in the Natural Resource Conservation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, as follows: • The parcels are comprised predominantly of forest land grades 1 through 4 as mapped by the DNR; • The parcels are over 40 and 80 acres in size, respectively; •
The property is part of a forest land block of at least 320 acres in size; • No part of the proposed rezone area lies within ½ mile of a UGA or Rural Village Center; • The parcels are,
and have been, enrolled in a deferred forest tax program; and, • No portion of the proposed rezone site lies within a community water system service area. Removal of the property from
forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land base of Jefferson County, an action that is strongly disfavored under both the GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan. It would also be likely to increase pressure to up-zone and convert CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 parcels located elsewhere in the vicinity, thus eroding the overall purpose and effect
of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). Accordingly, the existing designation of the properties as CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 is consistent with the guidance
contained in the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, staff notes that the subject parcels encompass soil types, geology, topography and environmentally sensitive
areas similar to many parcels designated CF 1:80 and RF 1:40 in Jefferson County. 2.3.3.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Forest Resource Land to Rural Residential
Designation The two (2) proposals for removal of commercial and rural forestland designation involve a total of approximately 163 acres (i.e., 80 acres of CF 1:80 and approximately
83 acres of RF 1:40). Approval of these two amendments, as proposed by the applicants, would have the practical result of creating the potential for thirteen (13) additional rural
dwelling units over baseline conditions (i.e., sixteen (16) total, up from three (3) under current zoning) if approved. All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to utilize
clustering provisions, would be subject to review pursuant to the JCC at time of application. Based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific characteristics exist
which would preclude the use of these sites for residential purposes. Additionally, the fact that the requests are located in geographically separated areas (the West End and near
Mats Mats on the east side of the County) minimizes the potential for negative cumulative environmental and capital facility impacts. It should be noted that both proposals appear
likely to result in indirect and cumulative significant adverse impacts to the environment in the form of increased pressure to convert commercial forest lands to higher density rural
residential use (i.e., RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20); approval of these rezones would appear to make other similar upzones more likely in the future, eroding the overall purpose and
effect of the commercial forest land designation scheme within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). 2.3.4 Request for Application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay to an Underlying
Commercial Forest Land Designation (1) Requests for application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay designation must be evaluated against Mineral Resource Land classification and designation
criteria set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-6 and 4-7; and NRGs 2-37 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0, and NRPs 6.1 through 9.2). Relevant excerpts from this Natural Resources Element narrative and goal and policy
language include the following: Mineral Lands Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands Based upon the criteria provided by the Department of Natural Resources, there are
three key issues that need to be addressed in the designation and conservation of mineral resource lands: 1. Classifying the types of mineral resources that are potentially significant
in Jefferson County; 2. Defining the amount and long-term significance of aggregate that is needed to meet the demand of Jefferson County’s projected population; and, 3. Determining
how to balance a variety of land uses within mineral resource areas. Future mineral resource lands consist of areas identified with the potential for the existence of mineral resources.
These areas: • appear to contain the resource, based upon the information supplied by Department of Natural Resources; • are not primarily within critical areas, for example, the
100-year flood plain or high quality wetland areas; and, • are at least 80 acres in size, of which one forty (40) acre parcel or two twenty (20) acre parcels are currently vacant.
The criteria used to classify mineral resource lands in Jefferson County were based on the guidelines provided by the state and an analysis of local conditions. Limited geological
information is available to accurately identify, evaluate, and designate mineral resources of longterm commercial significance. U.S. Geological Survey Maps and Department of Natural
Resources surface mining data were reviewed by the Mineral Lands Work Group for the County to determine current and potential mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance.
Based upon this evaluation, and in conjunction with the analysis and assessment of forest resource lands, a high degree of overlap between lands devoted to growing timber and land
potentially containing commercial mineral deposits was identified. Because of the amount of forest cover and geology of Jefferson County, most mineral resources are located in forest
resource lands. Therefore, the inclusion of mineral extraction and primary processing as a permitted use on designated forest land will protect mineral resource lands from the
encroachment of incompatible development, conserve the mineral resource land base of Jefferson County, and allow for its future utilization by the mining industry. In addition, the
County has included in this strategy an action item to perform an analysis to determine the 50-year construction aggregate supply, so as to ensure that the lands to be protected will
meet the 50-year projected demand within an economically feasible distance to the market area or areas within County jurisdiction. This satisfies the GMA requirements to not knowingly
preclude opportunities for future mining and, as the lands are identified, to inform nearby property owners of the potential for future mining use of these areas in order to prevent
or minimize potential conflicts. The Natural Resource Lands Element and JCC title 18 identify the extraction of sand, gravel, rock, and minerals as a permitted use. The JCC provides
development regulations on mining activities such as size, clearing, stormwater controls and protection of critical areas. The Land Use map of this Plan depicts the location of existing
mining operations which currently 2-38 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 operate under a Department of Natural Resources
Surface Mining Reclamation Permit, and provides an underlying land use designation. The Mineral Lands map accompanying this element shows the parcels regulated under DNR permits, although
it should be noted that the mining operations for a number of the sites do not occupy the entire parcel. The Regulatory Framework for Mineral Lands Once identified, lands under
consideration for commercial mineral extraction must also be evaluated to assess land use compatibility, economic issues, and environmental impacts. A matrix (Table 4-3) accompanying
NRP 6.2 is provided as a reference point for both the County and applicant to assess the feasibility of designating and protecting the mineral resource and should be linked to future
land use decisions. Specific areas of review will include, at a minimum, the following: compatibility with neighboring land uses; noise; traffic; visual impacts; water resources,
including surface water, ground water, and wetlands; soil, including erosion, slopes, flooding, and contamination; and fish and wildlife habitat. Eventually, as the mineral resource
is depleted, mining sites are abandoned, or the operations discontinued for long periods of time. Reclamation of abandoned, depleted, or discontinued mines creates opportunities for
new uses compatible with adjacent land uses. Reclamation reduces the dangers associated with some types of abandoned mines, improves the aesthetics of the site, and can create environmental
amenities, such as lakes, ponds, wetlands, and forests. Reclamation plans are required by the Department of Natural Resources and will be considered by Jefferson County during environmental
assessment of proposed mining operations. Policies in this Plan encouraging reclamation plans will be addressed through SEPA review of mining operations regulated by the Department
of Natural Resources. The State Department of Natural Resources regulates mining sites of three (3) acres in size or larger. MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS GOAL: NRG 6.0 Conserve
and protect Mineral Resource Lands for long-term economic use. POLICIES: NRP 6.1 Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Interim Mineral Lands
Ordinance for classifying and designating Mineral Resource Lands of commercial significance based on physical and topographic characteristics, distance from populated areas, and the
quality of the resource. NRP 6.2 Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes a process for reviewing mineral lands designation petitions which assesses the feasibility of
designating mineral resource lands according to Table 4.3, and considers compatibility with adjacent land uses, economic issues and environmental impacts. NRP 6.3 Adopt a final Forest
Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the interim ordinance allowing mineral extraction and the primary processing of materials on designated Forest Lands, provided that the extraction
is conducted under a Washington State Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Permit and/or other applicable permit and is performed in accordance with the guidelines for best
management practices established by Jefferson County. NRP 6.4 Mitigate conflicts with adjacent land uses by zoning and regulations including operation, siting, buffering and design
requirements which minimize conflicts between mineral extraction/primary processing activities and land use activities 2-39 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff
Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 located adjacent to designated mineral lands. Table 4-3 Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands NOT SUITABLE
FOR DESIGNATION CONSIDER FOR DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIRABLE DESIGNATION HIGHLY DESIRABLE DESIGNATION CRITICAL QUALITY OF DEPOSIT Low grade deposit. Variable but located near use
area or processing plant. Deposit made economical to mine by upgrading material. Grade meets the requirements for road construction or can be upgraded. Concrete quality. SIZE OF DEPOSIT
Small deposit. Small deposit (less than 2,000 tons) Medium-size deposit. Large deposit (7.5 million tons) Very large deposit (10 million tons). ACCESS DISTANCE FROM MARKET More than
20 miles from use area. Distance from use area is minimized due to access to interstate. Less than 10 miles from the use area; alternative access route available. Large deposit presently
beyond economical hauling distance to present use areas. Near highways: access can be provided. Within 5 miles of uses area. Adjacent to highway with access for trucks. COMPATIBLE
WITH NEARBY AREAS Adjacent land use presently incompatible with mining (appreciable residential development within range of excessive noise, dust, blasting, vibrations, etc.) Scattered
development within outer range of impacts of mining; owners may not object to mining. Adjacent land suitable for development and within commuting distance of use area. Imminent incompatible
development on adjacent lands. No incompatible land uses existing or likely in the foreseeable future (adjacent land in national forest, operator’s ownership, agricultural land use).
IMPACT OF NOISE Noise level in adjacent presently developed areas would clearly exceed standards if mining occurred. Noise level in adjacent undeveloped areas would exceed standards
for likely use, but use of these areas can be easily delayed or economical mitigation can be provided by barriers. Noise at adjacent residential areas less than 50 dB(A) due to distance
or topographical barrier, berm can be constructed easily. IMPACT OF BLASTING Too close to existing subdivision. Blasting no required; permanent open space between quarry and other
uses; topographical barrier between quarry and other land uses; only occasional light blasting; blasting compatible with adjacent uses. 2-40 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Table 4-3 continued NOT SUITABLE FOR DESIGNATION CONSIDER FOR DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIRABLE DESIGNATION HIGHLY DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION CRITICAL IMPACT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC Only access is local road through residential area. Slightly longer alternative route exists. Alternative truck route can be built at reasonable
expense; alternative transportation (conveyor, etc., can be used past residential streets). Adjacent to freeway with access to site. VISUAL IMPACT Mining would destroy or create. Mining
activity cannot be screened and would permanently alter landscape. Some activity visible from residential areas, but no permanent deterioration of landscape. Mining activity can be
easily screened by berms and/or vegetation. Activity screened by topography or vegetation, or appreciably reduced by distance. SURFACE & GROUND WATER IMPACTS Potential adverse impacts
to water resources on site. Water resources on site and can be avoided. Limited water resources on site and can be mitigated. No water resources on site. WETLANDS IMPACT High quality
wetlands throughout the site. High quality wetlands only on a portion of site and can be avoided. Lower quality wetlands on site and can be mitigated. Wetlands can be avoided on site.
No or minimal wetlands on site and of low quality. SLOPES Site located in active unstable slope area. Potential or historical unstable slopes. Unstable slopes on site can be avoided.
Minimal slopes throughout the site. Level grade mining with minimal slopes. BIOLOGICAL IMPACT Rare and threatened/ endangered plants or animals on site. Site includes priority wildlife
habitat that would be permanently moved by mining. Species of Special Concern habitat located on site. Minor or temporary loss of fish and wildlife habitat. No significant biological
resources; rehabilitation of site would replace or create habitat. IMPACT OF FLOODING Mining would cause erosion of adjacent property; could be prevented only at great expense. Mining
would create erosion hazard for roads, bridges, and utility lines; however, these structures could be strengthened at reasonable costs. Mining would create flood control channel and
would not damage adjacent land. GOAL: NRG 7.0 Provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mining extraction and processing operations. POLICIES: NRP
7.1 Require environmental review on all mineral lands designation requests and/or conditional use permits. NRP 7.2 Provide for the following factors in mineral resource land use
decisions: a. The range of environmental impacts, including short-term and long-term effects arising over the lifetime of the proposal; 2-41 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 b. The ability of the site to confine or mitigate all operational impacts; c. The compatibility of operations with
adjacent land uses when mitigating measures are applied; d. The capacity of transportation facilities to handle safely the transport of products from the site; and, e. The adequacy
of plans for reclamation of the site for appropriate future use. NRP 7.3 Develop standards and guidelines to identify and address the impact of mining operations on adjoining properties.
Such conditioning should not have the intent of rendering mining operations economically unfeasible. NRP 7.4 Evaluate small mining operations to determine when the cumulative impact
of small operations becomes a significant adverse impact upon the land or upon adjacent lands. GOAL: NRG 8.0 Ensure that County mineral resource lands are restored to safe and
useful condition with enhancement and mitigation of damage to the function and aesthetics of the environment and subsequent land uses. POLICIES: NRP 8.1 Develop requirements
for reclamation plans for mineral extraction activities. These requirements may exceed minimum State requirements. NRP 8.2 Ensure that reclamation plans preserve the safety, function
and value of adjacent lands including aesthetic and environmental and water resource values. NRP 8.3 Encourage reclamation plans which provide enhanced public value such as parks,
play-grounds, open space, trails, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat. NRP 8.4 Encourage reclamation that occurs on an ongoing basis as mineral deposits are depleted. NRP
8.5 Avoid the potential for aquifer contamination in importing material used for reclamation backfill or storage and in approving subsequent land use activities on reclaimed mining
lands. NRP 8.6 Establish standards for performance bonds unless otherwise required for reclamation activities to be provided prior to the initiation of mineral resource extraction
land use activities. GOAL: NRG 9.0 Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral extraction activities. POLICIES: NRP 9.1 Regulate mining operations
to prevent adverse impacts to ground or surface water quality. NRP 9.2 Establish a preference for the protection of aquifers and recharge zones from the effects of surface mining
in the event that adverse impacts cannot be avoided through best management practices. 2-42 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September
5, 2007 The proposal for application of the MRL Overlay designation will be reviewed consistent with this narrative, goal and policy direction. A general description, criteria review,
and staff recommendation for the proposal is provided below. 2.3.4.1 MLA07-90 (Broders) Applicant: Richard Broders and the Broders Family Associates LP Assessor Parcel Number(s):
902124002 & a portion of 902121002 Location: West side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay 2.3.4.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The proposed amendment
would seek to apply the Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay designation to approximately 396 acres of CF 1:80 designated and zoned land. Because the proposal is to apply an overlay
designation to the subject properties, it would not seek to change the underlying CF 1:80 land use designation and zoning. The subject parcels are located immediately west (though
not directly adjacent) to US Highway 101 in S12, T29N, R2W W.M. The northerly tax parcel (90211002) is owned by the Broders Family Limited Partnership. The proposal is to apply the
MRL Overlay designation to the southern one-half of this tax parcel (i.e., approximately 320 acres), as well as to tax parcel number 902124002 (i.e., approximately seventy-six (76)
acres), which lies adjacent and to the south. Parcel 902124002 is owned by Richard Broders. These properties lie adjacent and immediately east of the parcels proposed to be downzoned
to RF 1:40 under MLA07-96, discussed previously in this document. The current land use designations and zoning of surrounding properties are as follows: to the north is the remainder
of parcel 901124002 owned by the applicant and zoned CF 1:80; to the west lie two (2) twenty (20) acre parcels designated RR 1:20 and one (1) property designated RF 1:40 (note: these
RR 1:20 parcels are those proposed for RF 1:40 zoning under MLA07-96); to the south lie parcels designated RR 1:20; and to the east is a combination of RR 1:20 and RR 1:5 designated
land. The elevations on the subject site range from approximately 150 feet near the eastern perimeter of the proposed overlay area, to over 500 feet on the western perimeter. A review
of maps and information on file with Jefferson County reveals the presence of the following mapped environmentally sensitive areas: wildlife habitat areas, including areas likely within
¼ mile of an Eagle’s nest apparently located off-site, along the shoreline, and northeast of the proposed MRL Overlay; one field verified Type 4 DNR Stream and a number of Type 5 streams
on the eastern one-half of the property; both moderate and slight landslide hazard areas, also situated roughly on the eastern one-half of the proposed MRL Overlay area; and two relatively
small erosion hazard areas in the southeastern corner of the property. The entire proposed MRL Overlay area is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as designated forestland
(i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). Redesignation would in not change the permissible dwelling unit densities on-site, which would continue to be restricted to one dwelling per
eighty acres consistent with the underlying CF 1:80 zoning. 2.3.4.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. 2-43 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff
Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA07-90: Broders UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)) Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related
to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to area have changed
substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the requirements of the JCC, the applicant has provided geological and economic report evaluating the potential
extractable mineral resources on-site; moreover, the applicant has requested application of the MRL Overlay, consistent with the procedures for designation outlined in the Plan and
codified in the JCC. Together, these facts are sufficient to reach the conclusion that conditions have changed relative to the site since initial adoption of the Plan in 1998. Whether
the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual
amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. However, the applicant has presented
new information relative to the commercial significance and quality of the sand and gravel deposits on this site that was not specifically considered during the adoption process or
any of the annual amendment cycles. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment would
not appear to be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views may be made more evident through the Plan amendment process. The proposed site-specific amendment
meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency
requirements for transportation. The proposed amendment should not adversely impact the level of county services. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals,
policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan There do not appear to be any clear inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel
would appear to meet most of the assessment criteria set forth in Table 4-3 of the Plan’s Natural Resource Conservation Element for “designation desirable.” However, to the extent
that the proposed overlay encompasses areas that are classified and designated as Fish and Wildlife Habitat area under JCC §18.15.285, designation may be problematic under the “biological
impact” criterion of the assessment matrix. Please also refer to the discussion of the criteria in JCC §18.15.170 in the table below. 2-44 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA07-90: Broders UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)) Staff Evaluation The proposed
site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features
that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse
impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features that cannot be mitigated. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision
of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The proposal is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. It is similar to the surrounding
properties and their access to utilities and land uses. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless
the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to change the land
use designation of other properties. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive
Plan The site-specific proposal does not affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use will be consistent
with surrounding land uses. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities
and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment
is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and
any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment meets the requirements of GMA. The proposal also would appear to satisfy the criteria set forth in JCC §18.15.170, except
for criterion 6 relating to Fish and Wildlife Habitat areas. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Habitat areas will be analyzed through a habitat management plan and include mitigations to
prevent adverse impacts to the natural resources. In addition to the findings and conclusions required under JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
must also develop additional findings and conclusions as set forth under JCC §18.15.170 that consider specific criteria relative to mineral lands. Mineral Resource Lands of long-term
commercial significance are those lands from which the commercial extraction of minerals (i.e., sand, gravel, rock and other valuable aggregate or 2-45 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 metallic substances) can be anticipated within twenty (20) years, and which are characterized by affirmative findings
relative to all of the criteria set forth in the table below. Assessment of Long-Term Commercial Significance of Mineral Resources – MLA07-90: Broders UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.15.170)
Staff Evaluation Has a known or potential extractable resource in commercial quantities been verified by submittal of a geologic and economic report prepared by a qualified professional?
Yes. Mr. Dan McShane, a licensed engineering geologist for the Statum Group of Bellingham, Washington, was retained by Mr. Broders to prepare such an evaluation. Mr. McShane has
concluded that a high quality deposit of at least .5 million tons exists within the proposed overlay area. Please refer to pages 3-5 of the Mr. McShane’s report (included as part of
Mr. Broder’s application) for further detail. Is the parcel is a minimum of 10 acres in size? Yes. As indicated previously, the proposed overlay encompasses approximately
396 acres. Is the subject property surrounded by parcels no smaller than five acres in size on 100 percent of its perimeter? Yes. The proposed overlay is bounded predominantly
by twenty (20) acre and larger parcels. On the eastern boundary there is a triangular tax parcel, which while oddly shaped and relatively small, nevertheless slightly exceeds five
(5) acres in size. The parcel is owned by Ramon Broders, zoned RR 1:5, and lies entirely west of US 101. This is the smallest parcel bordering the proposed MRL Overlay site. Does
the current, or will the future, land use designation have a residential density equal to, or lower than, one (1) unit per five (5) acres? Yes. The existing and future permissible
density of all areas within the proposed MRL Overlay is one dwelling unit per eighty acres (CF 1:80). Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside the shoreline designation, an urban growth
area or rural village center, and more than one-half mile of any established or potential urban growth area or rural village center boundary, as shown on the official maps of the Comprehensive
Plan? Yes. The proposed MRL Overlay area is several miles north of the Discovery Bay Crossroads Neighborhood Commercial area. No portion of the proposed site lies within the shoreline
jurisdiction or a current or potential future UGA. 2-46 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 Assessment of Long-Term
Commercial Significance of Mineral Resources – MLA07-90: Broders UDC/JCC Criterion (JCC §18.15.170) Staff Evaluation Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside of regulated wetland or fish
and wildlife habitat areas pursuant to Article VI-H and VI-I of Chapter 18.15 JCC [Ord. 8-06 § 1]? No. A significant portion of the northeastern quadrant of the proposed MRL Overlay,
almost entirely on tax parcel number 901124002 would appear to fall within the limits of a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area designated under §JCC 18.15.285. The following environmental
analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? A habitat management plan will be required so that the proposal would not affect plants,
animals, fish, or marine life. Moreover, future mineral extraction activities that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections
for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? All subsequent project specific development proposals
will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas
or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see
the Mineral Lands Assessment Matrix, Table 4-3, of the Natural Resource Conservation Element of the Plan). One Type 4 DNR Stream and several Type 5 DNR Streams exist within the limits
of the proposed MRL Overlay. Any issues not addressed through this non-project review of the proposal relating to streamside setbacks and buffers could also be resolved in the mine
permitting process, consistent with the requirements of JCC §18.20.240, the performance and use specific development standards for mineral extraction, mining, quarrying and reclamation
activities. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans? 2-47 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional
demand for public services. Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendment does not appear to conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. However, note the concerns raised in the tables above regarding
Fish and Wildlife Habitat areas and the “biological impact” criterion of the Mineral Lands Assessment Matrix (Table 4-3) in the Natural Resource Lands Element of the Plan, as well as
JCC §18.15.170(6), the criterion which requires that the MRL Overlay not include designated habitat areas. To the extent that the proposed MRL Overlay encompasses designated habitat
areas, it would appear to conflict with the County’s Code. 2.3.4.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed MRL Overlay amendment, with one condition: • A Habitat
Management Plan that provides appropriate mitigation to prevent adverse environmental impacts to the critical area shall be prepared and submitted to the County as a condition precedent
to issuance of any use permit for mining activities within the MRL Overlay. 2.3.4.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay Designation
to an Underlying Forest Resource Land Designation As modified by staff, the proposed application of the MRL Overlay to the property subject to MLA07-90 will advance the purpose of the
County’s MRL Overlay designation set forth within the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, while also preserving the property for future commercial forestry use. 2.4 STAFF REPORT: SUGGESTED AMENDMENT
2.4.1 Implementation of RCW 36.70A.367 Relating to the Establishment of Industrial Land Banks 2.4.1.1 MLA07-104 (Jefferson County) Applicant: Jefferson County Assessor Parcel Number(s):
N/A Location: Unknown at this time (Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments) 2.4.1.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information The nature and extent of this
proposed amendment cannot be ascertained with any degree of accuracy at this time. The information gathering and analysis process that may ultimately lead to the designation of one
up to two Industrial Land Bank (ILB) sites in the County is in its formative stage. Accordingly, analysis within this document would appear premature. 2-48 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 2.4.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Please refer to the comment in section 2.4.1.1.1, above. Because the proposed amendment
has not been developed at the time of this writing, it is not possible to assess the proposal against the review criteria of JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)). Findings assessing Pursuant to
UDC §9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations,
follow. Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Because the ILB alternatives have not yet been developed or analyzed, it is premature to attempt to assess their potential
environmental impacts under SEPA. Accordingly, a supplemental sheet for nonproject actions has yet to be prepared. 2.4.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation This suggested amendment (which when
more fully developed would also incorporate up to two (2) site-specific rezones) is not prepared for full review or adoption at this time. It is recommended that a final legislative
decision on the proposal be deferred, and that the matter be included on the County’s Comprehensive Amendment docket for 2008. On March 30, 2007, the County entered into a Professional
Services Agreement with E.D. Hovee & Company to prepare key elements of the analyses necessary for the County to determine whether or not it wishes to pursue the designation of one
or more ILB sites under RCW 36.70A.367. The work being conducted by Hovee & Company will result in the preparation of the following project deliverables: • An Economic Futures Report;
• A Searchable Database Report (i.e, of commercial and industrial businesses within the County); • Industrial/Commercial Land Use Scenarios (i.e., Industrial land use alternatives);
• An Assessment of Commercial/Industrial Land Use Needs; and • SEPA analysis of any sites recommended for designation as ILBs under RCW 36.70A.367. These analyses must be completed
in order to identify and propose any site-specific land use redesignations that might form part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket for 2008. 2-49
Staff Reports/2007 Staff Report Sections/07cpaStaffSEPA_3SupportingRecord.pdf 3
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 3 Supporting Record, Analyses, & Materials The table below lists existing environmental
documents and other documents and information utilized for the development of this 2007 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 (preGMA) January 2, 1979 Final EIS (FEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan December
21, 1992 Countywide Planning Policies (Res. No. 40-99) February 14, 1994 DEIS Draft Implementing Ordinance for 1979 Comprehensive Plan March 1, 1995 Existing Conditions Alternatives
for establishing GMA Comprehensive Plan February 24, 1997 DEIS Comprehensive Plan - February 24, 1997 draft May 27, 1998 FEIS Proposed Comprehensive Plan August 3, 1998 Staff Responses
to Questions Proposed Comprehensive Plan January 26, 1999 Land Use Inventory Report Part of Special Study January 26, 1999 Regional Economic Analysis / Forecast Part of Special Study
June 30, 1999 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task III of Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study) August 18, 1999 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with addenda
Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task IV of Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study) June 11, 2001 Special Study Final Decision Document November 2001 Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Special
Study August 21, 2002 Integrated Staff Report & DSEIS 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket November 25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket December 2002 Final decisions,
findings, ordinances, and conditions 2002 Amendment Docket February 13, 2003 Memorandum to Planning Commission Agricultural Lands policy and regulation April 28, 2003 Ordinance No.
05-0428-03 and all documentation for MLA03-485 Amendments to UDC concerning Agricultural Lands August 6, 2003 Integrated Staff Reports & SEPA Addenda 2003 Amendment Docket February
2004 Water System Plan Vol. 2: Public Utility District #1 of Jefferson County Depicts Bywater Bay Water System (Fig. 1.1) approved by DOH Feb. 2005 2004 Staff analysis and environmental
review for Urban Growth Area (UGA). MLA04-29 & 30: UGA plans, goals, policies, maps, and regulations. September 22, 2004 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2004 Amendment Docket,
including “2004 Update” required by GMA August 3, 2005 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2005 Amendment Docket July 19, 2006 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2006 Amendment
Docket 3-1 Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 [PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 3-2
Staff Reports/2007 Staff Report Sections/07cpaStaffSEPA_4Distribution List.pdf 4
Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 4-1 4 Distribution List Copies mailed or delivered to: Notification of availability
emailed or mailed to: Jefferson County: State Agencies: Planning Commission members (9 persons) Department of Natural Resources (Anne Sharar & SEPA Review) Board of County Commissioners
(3 persons) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEPA Review) Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Department of Health (John Aden) Department of Public Works Department of Social &
Health Services (Elizabeth McNagny) Department of Health & Human Services Natural Resources Division Department of Corrections (Rebecca Barney) Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock
Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4 - Brinnon State Agencies: Department of Fish & Wildlife (Jeff Davis) Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development: Growth Management
Services Department of Ecology (GMA Review) Department of Ecology SEPA Unit Puget Sound Partnership (John Cambalik) Notification of availability emailed or mailed to: Parks & Recreation
Commission (Bill Koss) Jefferson County: Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Lorinda Anderson) All other County departments not listed above Local Agencies & Organizations:
City of Port Townsend Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 Other Interested Parties: Port of Port Townsend Jefferson County Conservation District Washington Environmental
Council Washington Association of Realtors Olympic Environmental Council Wild Olympic Salmon North Olympic Salmon Coalition Point-No-Point Treaty Council Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Skokomish Tribe Hoh Tribe Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader Peninsula Daily News Forks Forum Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 4-2 [PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
Staff Reports/2007 Staff Report Sections/07cpaStaffSEPA_Cvr_to_ToC.pdf
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2007 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 September 5, 2007 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 of Community Development Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner
Technical Contributors Department of Central Services Doug Noltemeier, Senior GIS Analyst Logistical Contributors Department of Community Development Rose Ann Carroll, Office
Administrator Jeanie Orr, Planning Clerk – Long Range Planning Debbie Kilmer, Planning Clerk – Development Review Division Table of Contents Page 1 Environmental Summary & Fact
Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1 1.1 Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 Environmental Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-6 1.2.1 Introduction & Process . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents
by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 1.2.1.4 Process & Public Involvement .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-7 1.2.2 Major Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix
of Impacts & Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . .1-10 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current & Proposed Land Use Designations 1-13 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16 1.2.4 Issues to be Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-19 1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-19 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19 1.2.4.3 Main Options to be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action . 1-21 2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1 2.1.1
Staff Reports, Cumulative Impact Analysis & Recommendations . . . . 2-1 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Final
Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5 2.3 Staff Reports: Site-Specific Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential
Density (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6 2.3.1.1 MLA07-70 (Tukey) . . . . . ……………………... . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 2.3.1.2 MLA07-79 (Gillanders) . . . . . . ……………………… . . .
. . . 2-10 2.3.1.3 MLA07-99 (McCarthy - West) . . . . . . . . . ………….….. . . . . 2-14 2.3.1.4 MLA07-100 (McCarthy - East) . . . . . . . . . ………………. . . . 2-17 2.3.1.5 Cumulative Analysis
of Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21 2.3.2 Request for Change from Rural Residential to Forest
Resource Land Designation (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-21 2.3.2.1 MLA07-96 (Hill Timber/D’Amico) . . . …………………….. . . .2-25
i Page 2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Change from Residential to Forest Resource Land Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29 2.3.3 Requests for Change from
Forest Resource Land to Rural Residential Designation (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29 2.3.3.1 MLA07-93 (Rayonier/Terra
Pointe; Clearwater) . . . . . .. . . . .2-29 2.3.3.2 MLA07-94 (Rayonier/Terra Pointe; Mats Mats) . . . . . . . . . . .2-33 2.3.3.3 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change from Forest
Resource Land to Rural Residential Designation . . . . . . . . . 2-37 2.3.4 Request for Application of the Mineral Resource Lands Overlay to an Underlying Commercial Forest Land Designation
(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-37 2.3.4.1 MLA07-90 (Broders) . . . . . . . . …………………….... . . . . . . 2-43 2.3.4.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Application of the Mineral
Resource Land Overlay to an Underlying Forest Resource Land Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48 2.4 Staff Report: Suggested
Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-48 2.4.1 Implementation of RCW 36.70A.367 Relating to the Establishment of Industrial Land Banks . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48 2.4.1.1 Reference Number MLA07-104 (Jefferson County) . . . . . . . 2-48 3 Supporting Record, Analysis, & Materials
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 4 Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4-1 5 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 A. Legal Notice published September
5, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . ………….. . . . . . . .5-3 B. Location Map of Proposed Amendments …………………………………………5-9 B.1 MLA 07-70 (Tukey) – Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . .
. .. . . . . . . 5-13 B.2 MLA 07-79 (Gillanders) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . . . . . . . .5-17 B.3 MLA 07-90 (Broders) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . . ……….
. 5-21 B.4 MLA07-93 (Rayonier) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . ………… .5-25 B.5 MLA07-94 (Rayonier) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone ………… . .5-29 B.6 MLA07-96 (D’Amico)
- Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . . . . . . . . . .5-33 B.7 MLA07-99 (McCarthy) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . ………... 5-37 B.8 MLA07-100 (McCarthy) - Map of Proposed
Redesignation/Rezone . . . . . . . .5-41 B.9 MLA06-87 (Statesman) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone ………... 5-45 [MLA07-104 (Jefferson County) - not mapped] ii
Staff Reports/2013_CPA_Staff_Rpt_1-4.pdf
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2013 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 September 4, 2013 INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT
Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action: Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents Principal Contributors/Authors Department of Community Development Long-Range Planning
Carl Smith, Director of Community Development Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner Technical Contributors Department of Central Services Doug
Noltemeier, Senior GIS Analyst Logistical Contributors Department of Community Development Jodi Adams, Office Administrator Kaycee Hathaway, Planning Clerk i Table of Contents
Page 1 Environmental Summary & Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1 Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 Environmental Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-4 1.2.1
Introduction & Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-5 1.2.1.4
Process & Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-6 1.2.2 Major Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1-8 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts & Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . 1-8 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current & Proposed Land Use Designations . 1-9 1.2.2.3 Significant
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-10 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 1.2.4 Issues to be Resolved
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12 1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-12 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness
of Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13 1.2.4.3 Main Options to be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action . 1-14 2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .2-1 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Impact Analysis & Recommendations . . . . 2-1 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Final Docket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4 2.3 Staff Reports: Site-Specific Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4 2.3.1 MLA12-00274
(McLuen) . . . . . . . . . . ……………………... . . . . . . . . ..2-4 2.3.2 MLA13-00045 (Boulton) . . . . . . . . . . …………………….... . . . . . . . . 2-10 3 Supporting Record, Analysis, & Materials
. . . . . . . . . . . ….. ….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 4 Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 4-1 5 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 A.1 Location Map of Proposed Amendments
…………………………………………5-3 A.2 MLA12-00274 (McLuen) – Map of Existing Land Use. . . . ………….. . . . . . . . 5-5 A.3 MLA12-00274 (McLuen) – Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . . . . . .
5-7 A.4 MLA13-00045 (Boulton) – Map of Existing Land Use. . . . ………….. . . . . . . . 5-9 A.5 MLA13-00045 (Boulton) – Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone . . . . . . 5-11 B. Jefferson
County Resolution No. 55-03, September 22, 2003………. . . . . . . 5-13 C. Legal Notice published September 4, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . ………….. . . . . . .5-17 D. Soils information
for MLA13-00045: Boulton. . . . . . . . . . . ………….. . . . . . . 5-19 Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 1-1 1 Environmental
Summary & Fact Sheet 1.1 FACT SHEET Title and Description of Proposed Action Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) is considering adoption of two (2) individual amendment proposals to the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Both proposals are site-specific amendment proposals that comprise
the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which is the “Final Docket” for this year’s annual amendment cycle.1 This document is a combined Staff Report and State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for the two (2) sitespecific proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and one (1) UDC amendment. The objective of this document is to analyze the proposed
amendments individually and cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45 and potential environmental impacts under
SEPA. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments is a non-project action under SEPA and is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the environmental
review needed for future land use or building permit applications). Jefferson County Code 18.45.080 (1)(d) specifies that recommendations from the Planning Department and Planning
Commission, and subsequent decision by the Board of County Commissioners on these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals will come forward as deny, approve or approve with
modifications. Following are brief descriptions of each of the two (2) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are the subject of this notice. Each case has a Master Land
Use Application (MLA) file number and Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) for reference: Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 1. MLA12-00274; Gary McLuen (William Marlow, agent);
APN 901-054-003; Located at mile post 5 of SR 20 on the east side of SR 20, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/SR 210 intersection. Proposal requests
a rezone of approximately 37 acres of land designated Rural Residential 1:20 (RR 1:20) to Rural Residential 1:10 (RR 1:10); 2. MLA13-00045: John Boulton (Doug Mason, agent); APN 802-141-005;
Located at 780 Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately 0.7 miles south west of the northern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection and 0.4 miles northwest of the southern Boulton Rd/US
1 The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on June 3, 2013
following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing two (2) items. Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 3, 2008 1-2 101
intersection. Proposal requests a rezone of 12.7 acres of land designated Rural Forest 1:40 (RF 1:40) to become Prime Agricultural 1:20 (AP 1:20). Proponent The Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for the two (2) site-specific amendment proposals. Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community Development
(DCD) Long-Range Planning 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 SEPA Responsible Official: Stacie Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager (360) 379-4463 Authors and Principal Contributors
Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long-Range Planning Date of Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 Date Comments are Due For the two amendment proposals:
Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 18, 2013, at Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd, Chimacum, WA 98325.
Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 2013. Send to: Department of Community Development, 621
Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Past Related Actions and Future Anticipated Actions The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 6:30 PM, Wednesday, September 18,
2013, at Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd, Chimacum, WA 98325. In October, DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final DCD Staff Recommendation together with the Planning
Commission Recommendation for all proposals on the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on both of the two (2) Comprehensive
Plan amendment proposals under consideration is expected sometime prior to the end of the second week in December 2013. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission
and BoCC with regard to this Docket are available on a Jefferson County web page dedicated to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This web page can be accessed
from the Jefferson County website: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2013cycle.htm Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September
4, 2013 1-3 Appeal Information Issues relating to the adequacy of this SEPA Addendum and other procedural issues may not be appealed under the administrative appeal provisions of JCC
§18.40.330. Appeals of GMA actions (i.e., a legislative decision by the BoCC) are heard first by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Location of Background Material
and Documents Incorporated by Reference Background material and documents used to support development of the Addendum are available for inspection from 9:00 AM to noon and 1:00 PM to
4:30 PM, Monday through Thursday, at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Appointments are welcome.
Relation to Other Documents A series of documents have been prepared by or on behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations (i.e., the Unified Development Code (UDC) codified as Title 18 JCC), including amendments to both the Plan and UDC. These documents, listed in part 3 of this document,
“Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. They are incorporated herein by
this reference. The reader is encouraged to refer to these documents in conjunction with this document for a broader understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed. In this document,
descriptions of and references to the contents of the proposed amendments have been provided to the greatest extent possible, but do not include all information from the Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications. For a more complete understanding of the discussion presented within this document, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be
consulted. Cost to the Public Hard copies of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, or selected pages thereof, are available at
$0.15 per page from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) and are also available on Compact Disk at $1.10. The documents can be downloaded in PDF format from
the DCD web page dedicated to the 2013 annual amendment cycle (http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us). Copies of this document are also available for inspection at DCD and the Jefferson County
Public Library at Port Hadlock. Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 3, 2008 1-4 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 1.2.1 Introduction
and Process Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (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 allowed
for a Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle as provided by the GMA. JCC 18.45 contains the set of development regulations adopted in December 2000 to guide the process for amending the
Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Chapter 18.45.060(4)(b) of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC), a preliminary docket was not required
this year as Jefferson County received only two site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments. A suggested amendment for increasing density allowances in Jefferson County’s West End
was initiated by the Planning Commission and subsequently unanimously decided to be put on hold to allow for an action plan in advance of consideration in 2014. The Planning Commission
further approved a motion with a vote of 4-2-0 to, “Collect information from the residents of the West End sufficient for us to develop MLA13-00042, collected by the end of 2013 and
discussed by the Planning Commission.” In subsequent discussions with the Planning Commission, the plan has been revised to incorporate this West End outreach and public involvement
into the Periodic Assessment. We intend to conduct a series of meetings throughout the county in 2014 that will identify the concerns and high priority items for consideration in the
2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle in anticipation of the 2016 deadline. No other suggested amendments were submitted to the Department of Community Development by the March 1,
2013 deadline. The Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved the Final 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket on June 3, 2013 consisting of two (2) proposed site-specific
amendments: 1. MLA12-00274, by Gary McLuen, a Site Specific Proposal to rezone land designated RR 1:20 to all RR 1:10. 2. MLA13-00045, by John Boulton, a Site Specific Proposal to rezone
land designated RF 1:40 to Prime Agricultural (AP1:20). This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum. The object of this document
is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with regard to goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as amendment criteria outlined in JCC §18.45,
and potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented
in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for future land use or building permit applications). This is an integrated
GMA/SEPA document that combines environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering a recommended action on each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and the UDC amendment. Guidance
for preparing integrated GMA/SEPA documents is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235. The analysis in this document supplements the existing adopted environmental
documents 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 4, 2013 (Appendix C): Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998.
The DEIS and FEIS, dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive
Plan; Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 1-5 The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2004 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 22, 2004; The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on August 3, 2005; The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on July 19, 2006; The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 5, 2007. The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket by
the Department of Community Development, issued on September 3, 2008. The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket by the
Department of Community Development, issued on September 2, 2009. The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket by the Department
of Community Development, issued on September 1, 2010. 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference The two (2) Comprehensive Plan amendment applications including all supplemental
information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, all Appendix Items to this report,
and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are incorporated herein by this reference, pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 and 635. The documents listed in part 3 of
this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. The reader is encouraged
to use existing documents in conjunction with this document for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed. Moreover, to the greatest extent possible this
document includes descriptions of, and references to, the content of the two (2) individual proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the information from each Comprehensive
Plan amendment application. For a more thorough understanding of the discussion presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted to supplement
the information in this document. 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis This document provides both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts as appropriate
to the general nature of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals and associated UDC amendment proposal. The adoption of comprehensive plan and UDC amendments is classified
under SEPA as a non-project (i.e., programmatic) action. A non-project action, such as decisions on policies, plans or programs, is defined as an action that is broader than permit
review for a single site-specific project. Environmental analysis for a non-project proposal does not require the same level of site-specific analysis required in conjunction with
a permit application; instead, a document such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEPA Addendum discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project
proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC 197-11-442). The analysis in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e.,
the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are ready for decision, and
to exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for decision-making (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Phased review is appropriate when the sequence of a proposal is from
a programmatic document, such as an integrated GMA/SEPA document addressing comprehensive plan amendments, to other documents that are narrower in scope, such as site-specific, project-level
analyses (i.e., “project actions” under SEPA). Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth management planning actions. The analysis
in this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum will be used to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 3, 2008 1-6 Comprehensive Plan and UDC. Additional environmental review of development proposals will occur as specific projects
are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications). This will result in an additional incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions require a more detailed
evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future project action environmental review for development applications that are not categorically exempt from SEPA could
occur in the form of a supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement The following is a description
of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, related UDC amendment, and associated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. This
2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum is available to agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEPA rules. Comments on the merits of
the proposals shall be accepted as outlined below under “Public Comment Period.” 1.2.1.4.1 Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketing Process The public process for compiling the final
docket has followed the public involvement requirements of the GMA and the specific procedures established in JCC §18.45.060 through §18.45.090. The Planning Commission submitted a
suggested amendment prior to the March 1, 2013 deadline as follows: 1. MLA13-42 proposed by Jefferson County Planning Commission, requesting the following: Rezone lands designated
Rural Residential in Jefferson County’s West End (RR 1:10 and RR 1:20) to RR 1:5. Approximately 1,907 acres of land are zoned RR 1:10 and 23, 983 acres are zoned RR 1:20.
No other suggested amendments were submitted to the Department of Community Development by the March 1, 2013 deadline. The Administrator prepared
an Administrator’s Report on the Suggested Amendment for the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle, issued March 12, 2013 recommending the suggested amendment not be included in the
final docket. Upon consideration of the Administrator’s Report, the Planning Commission deliberated and subsequently unanimously decided to put the suggested amendment on hold to allow
for an action plan in advance of consideration in 2014. With effective withdrawal of the suggested amendment for 2013, only two (2) site-specific amendment proposals remained for consideration.
Pursuant to Chapter 18.45.060(4)(b) of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC), a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission
on the preliminary docket was not required this year as the remaining two site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments are to be automatically included in the final docket. On June
3, 2013, the DCD Staff presented to the BoCC the Administrator’s Report, Planning Commission discussion on their own initiated and withdrawn suggested amendment and a recommendation
for the final docket to the BoCC. At that meeting, the BoCC unanimously adopted the 2013 Final Docket of two (2) proposals for review. 1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Planning
Commission Public Hearing - Public Comment Period The Jefferson County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold at least one (1) public hearing to take testimony on the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments that comprise the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (2013 Docket). Formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County
Leader, prior to the public hearings. The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, initiates a public comment period. For the two (2) site-specific
amendment proposals comprising the final docket: Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 1-7 Oral comments are welcome
at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 18, 2013, at Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd, Chimacum, WA 98325. Written comments will be accepted
by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 2013. Send to: Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA
98368 Please submit any written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via email to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Comments submitted prior to the close of
the comment period will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration during that advisory body’s 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 2013 Comprehensive Plan amendment
cycle webpage, where many relevant documents and maps are available in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 2013 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage can be accessed through the
County homepage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us. 1.2.1.4.4 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Deliberation Following the public hearing(s) on the proposed Comprehensive
Plan and UDC Amendments, the Planning Commission will deliberate on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and formulate a recommendation on each proposal for consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate its deliberations for the proposals following the close of oral testimony
on September 18, and may continue deliberating on the proposed amendments as needed during its regularly scheduled meetings on October 2, 2013 and November 6, 2013. It is anticipated
that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation and transmittal document to the BoCC on all proposed amendments no later than Wednesday, November 18, 2013. The Planning
Commission generally meets the first Wednesday of any given month at the Board of County Commissioner Chambers in the basement of the Jefferson County Courthouse. It is possible that
the Planning Commission will hold one or more special meetings outside of the meeting schedule outlined above. Additional meetings will be properly noticed in the legal section of
the Leader. Following the completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the 2013 Docket, DCD will formally transmit the Planning Commission recommendation to the BoCC along
with the DCD final staff recommendations, any comments submitted during the public comment period, and the record of the Planning Commission deliberations. It is anticipated that the
Planning Commission and DCD recommendations will be presented to the BoCC in late November 2013. In making a final legislative decision on the 2013 Docket, the BoCC considers the
Planning Commission recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission, the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other
background information), the DCD staff recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, and any written or
oral comments provided to the BoCC before or during a BoCC public hearing on the Docket (should one be held). If the BoCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket
following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A legal notice
would appear in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing any BoCC public hearings on the 2013 Docket. Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 3, 2008 1-8 A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under consideration is
expected prior to the end of the second week in 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). Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 1-9 Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation # APPLICATION
NUMBER & DESCRIPTION PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/ PROPOSED MITIGATION/ CONDITIONS 1 MLA12-00274; Gary McLuen (William Marlow, agent); APN
901-054-003; Located at Mile post 5 of SR 20 on the east side of SR 20, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/SR 210 intersection. Proposal requests a rezone
of land designated both Rural Residential 1:10 and 1:20 (RR 1:10 and RR 1:20) to become all Rural Residential 1:10 (RR 1:10); No significant adverse environmental impacts identified.
Approve. 2 MLA13-00045: John Boulton (Doug Mason, agent); APN 802-141-005; Located at 780 Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately 0.7 miles south west of the
northern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection and 0.4 miles northwest of the southern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection. Proposal requests a rezone of 11.8 acres of land designated Rural Forest
1:40 (RF 1:40) to become Prime Agricultural 1:20 (AP 1:20). No significant adverse environmental impacts identified. Approve. 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land
Use District Designations The following table displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use district (from the Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information
System database, and other sources), and the proposed change in the approximate number of acres under each district under the proposals. Increases in gross acreage are indicated as
a positive number and decreases are indicated with “-“. The reader should understand that these numbers are approximations for planning purposes only, and most figures have been rounded.
They do not necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the 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, excluding
some road rights-of-way and including some water features. The net developable acreage would be lower. Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum September 3, 2008 1-10 Table 2. Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations Land Use Designation/Zoning District Current Gross Acreage Potential Future
Gross Acreage Under Applicant Proposals % Change Potential Future Acreage under Staff Recommendation Agriculture AL-20 Local Agriculture 3,086 No change No change No change
AP-20 Commercial Agriculture 4,182 4,195 0.312% 4,194 Total Agriculture Lands 7,268 7,281 0.180% 7,280 Forestry RF-40 Rural Forest 12,217 12,204 -0.105% 12,205 CF-80 Commercial
Forest 309,332 No change No change No change CF-80/MRLO Commercial Forest Mineral Resource Land Overlay 161 No change No change No change Total Forest Lands 321,710 321,697 -0.004%
321,698 Residential RR-10 Rural Residential 9,107 9,144 0.409% 9,144 RR-20 Rural Residential 50,338 50,301 -0.074% 50,301 RR-5 Rural Residential 26,893 No change No change No
change Totals Combined Total Forest & Agriculture Resource Lands 328,978 No change No change No change Total Rural Residential Lands 86,337 No change no change No change 1.2.2.3
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found in the Summary Matrix above (Table 1,
Section 1.2.2.1). Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan future development proposals in a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how
mitigation measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none of the potential impacts of the future development scenarios
evaluated in this document would meet all of the parameters (significant and unavoidable and adverse). For more information on the relationship of plan and policymaking to future review
of development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures below at §1.2.4.2. 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty Table 3 summarizes
the key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers: # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 1-11 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 1 MLA12-00274; Gary McLuen (William
Marlow, agent); APN 901-054-003; Located at Mile post 5 of SR 20 on the east side of SR 20, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/SR 210 intersection.
Proposal requests a rezone of land (approx 37 acres) designated 1:20 (RR 1:20) to become Rural Residential 1:10 (RR 1:10); As has been the case since adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan in 1998, that which constitutes “an established pattern of same or similar sized parcels” (LNPs 3.3.1 through 3.3.3) is somewhat unclear. In the past, this criterion has been applied
in instances where if more than 50% of the perimeter of a parcel abuts areas designated and/or divided into parcels of higher density, to permit up-zoning. Application of the established
pattern criteria may be useful in making decisions about the allocation of future population growth, but in isolation of population growth allocation considerations, the established
pattern criteria may have limited purpose and unintended cumulative consequences. This proposal, as is the case with the other proposed rural upzones, raises the issue: under what
circumstances is it appropriate to re-designate and rezone lower density rural residential parcels for higher density rural use? Should one year’s worth of proposals be considered
“cumulative analysis,” or is a longer time frame optimal in terms of achieving the goals contained in the GMA and the Comprehensive Plan? The applicant created the split-zone parcel
upon consolidation of two parcels in 2004. Is it appropriate to now up-zone a portion of the parcel? It may be appropriate to consider if the original parcel that was zoned RR 1:20
would be appropriate for rezone if it were still in the configuration at time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1998. The original parcel had RR1:5 zoning to the south and west of
the parcel. RR 1:10 to the north and Commercial Forest to the east. It does not fall distinctly or obviously into one zoning district. At over 20 acres in size and with forest lands
to the east, it could qualify for RR 1:20. Given the pattern of development of parcel 5 acres in size and zoned RR 1:5 to the east and south of the original parcel, the applicant contends
this parcel could qualify as RR 1:5. DCD staff disagrees given the large parcel size, RR 1:10 zoning and pattern of development and the adjacent forest resource land. Parcels north
of this property were zoned RR 1:10, and DCD staff can accept that this parcel could also qualify for RR 1:10 given there is not a pattern of development of 20 acre parcels near this
parcel. Does this action set precedence for others to consolidate parcels, creating a split zoned parcel and then use it as justification for an up-zone? Not if we consider whether
a property would have been viable for up-zone at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in the parcel’s original configuration. Staff recommends approval of this proposal. Changing
the zoning of the rural residential 1:20 portion of the parcel to rural residential 1:10 would not create pressure to up-zone parcels immediately adjacent to the property and it does
not contain significant critical areas. The issues concerning established pattern criteria and precedence to up-zone similar parcels in the county remain controversial. Jefferson County
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 3, 2008 1-12 # APPLICATION NUMBER & DESCRIPTION Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY 2 MLA13-00045:
John Boulton (Doug Mason, agent); APN 802-141-005; Located at 780 Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately 0.7 miles south west of the northern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection and
0.4 miles northwest of the southern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection. Proposal requests a rezone of 12.7 acres of land designated Rural Forest 1:40 (RF 1:40) to become Prime Agricultural
1:20 (AP 1:20). The application requests rezone of land designated as Rural Forest and used historically for agricultural use to a land use designation of Prime Agriculture Land.
The property owner is working with the Conservation Land Trust to place a conservation easement on this land in an effort to maintain the viability of the farm in the future. Mr.
Boulton also has an interest in selling the farmland and home to a farmer that is currently leasing the property. The home is located on land zoned Rural Forest while the farmland
is primarily zoned agriculture. In order to sell the house with the farmland and not with the larger timber land, Mr. Boulton would need to obtain a boundary line adjustment (BLA)
to align the conservation easement with the parcel boundaries. Currently, a BLA is not allowed across zoning districts and would be denied if proposed. It is of utmost importance
that Jefferson County preserve and protect its resource lands from conversion to incompatible uses. Does it undermine the Growth Management Act or the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan to allow conversion of lands designated for Forest Lands to Agricultural Lands? Does this set a precedence for future erosion of Forest Land acreage to another resource land use?
As always, it is important to consider the scope and scale of each proposal before us not only individually but for potential cumulative effects. Following the designation criteria
will maintain the integrity of our decisions. Staff recommends approval of this proposal. This farm is historical, continuously productive, and owned by the same landowner as the
adjacent forest lands. Given the common ownership, Mr. Boulton has been able to manage the lands jointly. While historically beneficial, the applicant proposes it is not financially
viable for a new farmer to purchase both the farm and large forest land tracts. It is common practice for farmers to live on the land they farm. It is not always typical for foresters
to live on the land they manage for timber. This historical benefit should not preclude the future division of the forest land from the home and farm. Further, the unique nature of
this farm ensures this action is not likely to set a precedence for future rezones of portions of forest land adjacent to agriculture. 1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved 1.2.4.1 Environmental
Choices to Be Made The Comprehensive Plan states that, “a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its citizens” and further provides four essential components for
environmental protection: Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy; Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review; Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 1-13 Critical Area Protection Strategy; and Public Education and Involvement Strategy. Each choice taken by the
County and its residents may impact environmental quality. Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations in the Unified Development Code (UDC)
(codified as Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). The UDC was developed such that protective measures are incorporated into permit decisions. For more discussion on 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 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, it should be understood
that Jefferson County has in place a regulatory framework that follows the guidance established in Washington State laws, such as SEPA, the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA). Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement
the Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. These development regulations were codified as Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code. Until the adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive
Plan was implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses
within the various districts set forth upon the Comprehensive Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures Ordinances outlined the development permit review process and related administrative
matters. The UDC replaced these and other previously existing ordinances. Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for critical areas are
contained at JCC §18.22, et seq. Critical areas are protected through the application of overlay districts. Examples of such overlay districts include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas,
Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and Wetlands. The County maintains data to assist in 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 Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff
Report & SEPA Addendum September 3, 2008 1-14 and building permit approval, but can augment existing data for the County GIS database on critical areas. Sometimes the existing regulations
may not adequately protect the environment when examined in the context of a particular project. Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation measures
above and beyond the protections provided by the established 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 two (2) of the site-specific proposals and the UDC amendment proposal reviewed in this document are relatively minor in that they do not collectively represent a
distinct change in direction from implementation of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan or subsequent 2004 periodic review. In deciding when it is appropriate to up-zone lower density
rural residential parcels to higher density rural residential designations, or when it is appropriate to re-zone commercial forest land to agricultural land designations, the County
will establish precedents with far-reaching implications that will be used to judge the appropriateness of similar rezone proposals in years to come. Therefore, determinations that
appear to have little direct environmental impact when viewed in isolation in 2013 may have significant indirect and cumulative environmental impacts if employed as justification for
a substantial number of similar rezones in future Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. Denying certain rezone proposals that would increase pressures to convert commercial forest land
and/or rural lands to higher intensity land use designations will likely maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan by reducing present and future environmental impacts, preventing
sprawl, and preserving future planning options. Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and development under the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan will result in some unavoidable
adverse impacts. The County's adopted Plan is designed to accommodate the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections for the year 2024. Under any
of the action alternatives reviewed in this document, continued growth and development under the adopted Plan is likely to result in increased 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 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-1 2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals 2.1 OVERVIEW Pursuant to JCC §18.45, Jefferson County
is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA” at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act (“GMA” at RCW 36.70A),
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and JCC §18.45, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of all proposals to identify the potential for cumulative impacts. In general,
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2) categories: Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting
a change in either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density. Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that broadly apply to the narrative, goals, policies
and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure adequate review of potential environmental impacts, any suggested amendments that could result in a need
to re-designate groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria employed for formal site-specific amendments (i.e., JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b)). This document addresses the two
(2) site-specific amendments on the Final Docket. 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, & Staff Recommendations Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in
JCC §18.45 and, in turn, evaluates the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. Each amendment proposal is described below, evaluated
based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made based on those criteria. Tables are for summary information only; please refer to the staff report for each proposal
for greater detail. 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), all recommendations regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must include an inquiry
into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b). These growth management indicators address the following: Growth and development rates; Ability
to provide services; Availability of urban land; Community-wide attitudes towards land use; and Consistency with state law and local agreements. These indicators are not necessarily
amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of Jefferson County’s status during this 2013 amendment cycle. This section will serve to promote consideration and inquiry
into these seven growth management indicators and is intended to be a starting point for broader community consideration before the Planning Commission and the BoCC. While this review
of the growth management indicators provides some basic analysis related to County demographics, it is not intended to measure progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan;
that task is reserved for the State-mandated Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for completion in 2011. Jefferson County Code (JCC) §18.45.050 (4) (b) – growth management indicators
Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in JCC §18.45.050 (4) (b). Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September
4, 2013 2-2 (1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize. Discussion: The
Office of Financial Management (OFM) is the State agency responsible for compiling population projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2013 OFM Population Estimate
for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues, shows a 2013 population of 30,275. The 1996 “base year” population estimate used in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan
(see page 3-3) was identified as 25,754 residents. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan anticipated a population of 28,482 in 2000, 2,529 less than the 2000 census. The County passed Resolution
#55-03 which adopted the intermediate population projection from OFM for the period 2000-2024. The population projection anticipates a population of 46,960 in 2024, an annual growth
rate of 1.78%. The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson County, and the population projections that were reflective of the unusual amount of growth at that time. The
growth rate of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth rate of approximately 2%. That being said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington State and its counties
have tended to exhibit growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even decline. For example, the “rural rebound” growth trend experienced by most western
states in the early 1990s – at the time of GMA adoption – was the result of an exodus by nearly two million people leaving California during a severe regional economic recession. Rural
and non-metropolitan growth in Washington, and Jefferson County, during the 1990s was far greater than anticipated but slowed as California’s economy recovered in the mid-1990s (“Washington
State County Population Projections For Growth Management,” Office of Financial Management, March 2002). The Great Recession saw slowed economic and population growth in recent years.
Table 3 Population Trend for Jefferson County YEAR 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2005 2008 2010 4/1/2013 OFM ESTIMATE County Population 8300 6420 8346 8918 11618 9639
10661 15965 20406 27600 28800 29872 30275 Port Townsend 4181 2847 3970 4683 6888 5074 5241 6067 7001 8745 8925 9113 9225 Percent in Port Townsend 50% 44% 47% 53% 59% 53% 49% 38% 34%
32% 31% 30.5% 30.47% Jefferson County Population 1910-2007 Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management As the table above indicates, an interesting
trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the percentage of residents living in the City of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of residents living in the City has
dropped from 59% to 30.5% per the 2010 Census, with County residential units accounting for approximately 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this shift
towards residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services outside of Port Townsend. Resolution #55-03 allocates 36% of the growth over the 20-year planning
period to the City of Port Townsend, 17% each to Port Ludlow MPR and Irondale/Hadlock UGA, and 30% to the rural areas of Jefferson County. (2) Whether the capacity of the county to
provide adequate services has diminished or increased. Discussion: The number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the County, with the exception of policy decisions
made as a result of economic conditions, continues to be equipped to provide the same levels of service available at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. The County is in the process
of implementing provisions for the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) to have urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater management. Jefferson County
2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-3 (3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need.
Discussion: Based upon a 2004 population of 2,553 persons and the projected 20-year growth of an additional 2,353 persons in the Irondale-Port Hadlock UGA, said area will accommodate
the adopted population target of 4,906 for 2024. The holding capacity of the UGA is 5,065, some 159 persons over the 4,906 target. With a theoretical carrying capacity of over 30,000,
the City of Port Townsend UGA also appears to be adequately sized to accommodate anticipated future urban growth. (4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based
are no longer found to be valid. Discussion: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, the majority of assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments
to GMA and other laws made by the State Legislature and precedent-setting decisions made by the Growth Management Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA. Aerial
photography and Lidar data is available today that wasn’t available at time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. Such information allows study and analysis context that may provide substantiation
for more refined land use designation boundaries. (5) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the
Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. Discussion: Changes in countywide attitudes have not been revealed that necessitate any sweeping changes to the Plan, nor the basic values embodied
within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. (6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments. Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since
Comprehensive Plan adoption in August of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective, these changing circumstances include: issues surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species
listings under the Endangered Species Act, County adoption of final development regulations which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act, Growth Management
Hearings Boards clarifications through case law related to specific provisions of the GMA, the adoption of Unified Development Code amendments establishing a process for locating Major
Industrial Development, the completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study, designation of Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial area, and the designation, and then appeal and partial
invalidation, of Irondale/Hadlock as a UGA. Many of these changes in circumstances were addressed during the subsequent Updates to the Comprehensive Plan. (7) Whether inconsistencies
exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. Discussion: The Comprehensive
Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policy. In 2004, Jefferson County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, conducted a review of the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management Act. The next periodic review is slated for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
cycle in order to be complete by the June 30, 2016 deadline established by the State of Washington. Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2013 2-4 2.2 FINAL DOCKET Following are brief descriptions of each of the two (2) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Each case has a Master Land Use Application
(MLA) file number for reference. 1. MLA12-00274, by Gary McLuen, a Site Specific Proposal to rezone land designated RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to all RR 1:10. 2. MLA13-00045, by John Boulton,
a Site Specific Proposal to rezone land designated RF 1:40 to Prime Agricultural (AP1:20). The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each amendment
as proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version, or deny adoption. The two (2) site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are addressed in this Integrated
Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. The environmental review-based alternatives to each proposed action component are as follows: No Action - Continue application of the Comprehensive
Plan without any or all of the proposed amendments; Adopt with or without modifications and/or mitigating conditions as appropriate; or Defer for consideration during the 2015
Plan and Code Update process. 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary Staff recommendations for each proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each individual proposal in part
2.3. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. In transmitting the Planning Commission to the BoCC later this year, staff will have the
opportunity to adjust these preliminary recommendations. The preliminary staff recommendations, including modifications and mitigation measures, are summarized in the following table:
2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations # APPLICATION NUMBER APPLICANT/PARCEL NUMBER GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1
MLA12-00274 Gary McLuen; APN 901-054-003 37.2 acres; RR 1:20 to 1:10 Approve 2 MLA13-00045 John Boulton; APN 802-141-005 12.7 acres; RF 1:40 to AP 1:20 Approve 2.3 STAFF REPORTS:
SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS Two (2) site-specific amendment proposals are evaluated in this document: One (1) request to rezone land designated RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to all RR 1:10.
One (1) request to rezone land designated RF 1:40 to Prime Agricultural (AP 1:20). 2.3.1 Request for Change of Rural Residential Density: MLA12-00274, McLuen Requests for changes
in Rural Residential density are subject to criteria contained at Land Use Policy 3.3 (page 3-48) in the Comprehensive Plan. These criteria attribute one of three residential densities
to all residential parcels in Jefferson County: one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5), one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10), or one dwelling unit per twenty acres (1:20), subject
to the following criteria: Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-5 POLICIES: LNP 3.3.1 A residential land use designation
of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres)
or smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the
boundaries of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed “suburban” platted subdivisions. LNP 3.3.2 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling
unit per 10 acres (RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres); b. parcels
along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a “transition” adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and, d. critical area land parcels. LNP 3.3.3 A rural residential land
use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acres (RR 1:20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels
(i.e., 20 acres) or larger; b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a “transition” to Urban Growth Areas or the [Port Ludlow] Master Planned Resort;
d. critical land area parcels; e. agriculture resource designated parcels; f. publicly owned forest lands; and g. lands adjacent to forest resource land. The Jefferson County Code
defines the term “buildable lot” and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in size or greater will typically be adequate to meet health standards related on-site wastewater disposal (i.e.
septics) and individual water systems (i.e. well) [JCC §18.10]. Since 1996, the maximum density that can be achieved through subdivision in Jefferson County is one dwelling unit per
five acres. In January 2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (JCC Title 18) which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site-design through
residential “clustering.” These provisions are contained at JCC §18.15 Article VI-M (Planned Rural Residential Developments). The proposal for residential density changes will be
reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for this proposal is provided below. 2.3.1.1 MLA12-00274 (McLuen) Applicant:
Gary McLuen (Bill Marlow, representative) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 901054003 Location: 4932 Highway 20 Port Townsend, WA Located at mile post 5 of SR 20 on the east side of SR
20, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/SR 210 intersection. 2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The proposed amendment would
redesignate approximately thirty-seven (37) acres of an approximately 58 acre parcel from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per twenty acres (RR 1:20) to Rural Residential one dwelling
unit per ten acres (RR 1:10). The subject parcel is located along the eastern portion of Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4,
2013 2-6 Discovery Bay, uphill of SR 20 in unincorporated Jefferson County. Existing development on the site includes a single family residence with an attached shop and a detached
outbuilding. Three zoning designations overlay the parcel. Refer to the existing land use map , Appendix A.2, page 55. The northern portion is Rural Residential 1:10, the southern
portion proposed for rezone under this application is Rural Residential 1:20, and a triangular shape at the southeastern portion of the parcel is Commercial Forest 1:80. The parcels
adjacent and to the south and southwest of the parcel are zoned RR 1:5. Parcels north and northwest of the subject site are designated RR 1:10. Lands east of the property are Commercial
Forest CF1:80. This property is taxed as residential (Assessor’s code 1100) and obtained three forest practice permits for timber harvest. One harvest included ten acres and was
obtained in 2006 (FPA2608103), and two 20acre timber harvest approvals were approved in 2011 (FPA2611456 and FPA2611026). The forest practice applications indicated the owner did not
plan to convert the land from forestry use within ten years after approval of the application. As such, the parcel is subject to a “Mandatory six year development moratorium. For six
years after the date of the application the county shall deny any and all applications for permits and approvals, including building permits and subdivision approvals, relating to or
for non forestry uses of land subject to the application,” per JCC 18.20.160(5)(b). The moratorium expires October 19, 2017. Staff determined a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a rezone
is not a land use approval subject to the moratorium. The applicant responded to staff request for comment on the change in intention to convert the land from forestry use as follows:
It is quite simple actually at the time the FPA was filed the Mcluens had no intention of subdivision...It was about a year later...Mr. Mcluens health situation had been declining
and they wanting an ability at some point in the future to be able to sell parts of the 60 acres that they own in case of emergency financial issues...So they started talking about
how they may move forward...We are aware that the subdivision could not take place until the moratorium has been lifted...In spite of that fact and time line the Mcluens felt that they
would be right to spend the investment now in preparation for the end of the moratorium and eventual subdivision...And, like you, I didn't see where it would preclude a CPA anywhere
in the rules so we moved forward... Thanks I hope this sheds a little light on our motives and end goals... (Bill Marlow, 8/27/2013) Moratoria may be released subject to JCC 18.20.160(5)(c).
In order to obtain a full release of the moratorium, an affirmative finding must be made that the person requesting the release did not attempt to avoid the county review or restrictions
of a conversion forest practices application, as evidenced by a transfer of property. This process also involves a Type III process whereby a public hearing is held before the hearing
examiner who makes the final determination. Under current regulations, the existing owner of the property would not be able to submit an application to subdivide the property until
the moratorium expires in 2017. The property was originally two properties and underwent a Boundary Line Adjustment (MLA04-00473) to consolidate the two parcels into one parcel. Critical
areas noted onsite include proximity to an eagle nest, slight landslide hazard area, some unstable soils, susceptible aquifer recharge area, and coastal seawater intrusion protection
zone. Rezoning of the property would create the potential for one additional parcel with associated single family residential development. 2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant
to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff
evaluations, follow. Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-7 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA12-00274 (McLuen) UDC/JCC
Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan The applicant states circumstances related to area have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption because a boundary line adjustment consolidation created a split zoned parcel.
Staff maintains the actions of this property owner should not be used as substantiation for a rezone as it may circumvent our community’s long range planning effort. As such staff
reviewed this proposed rezone as if it were a separate parcel in the configuration at time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1998. Circumstances have not changed substantially since
the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was
not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted remain valid. However, the applicant has requested County reconsideration of the appropriate zoning for this parcel. Since Comprehensive plan adoption in 1998, the County has
established an informal policy of considering “pattern of development” using a 50% threshold. Where properties are bordered by properties of a smaller size on 50% of their perimeter,
the Planning Commission and Board have agreed such a “pattern of development” of smaller density may be supported. This 50% threshold within the larger context of the residential density
designation criteria was not specifically considered during the adoption process or any of the annual amendment cycles for this parcel. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents The proposed amendment would not appear to be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents; these views
may be made more evident through the Plan amendment process. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect
adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation. The proposed amendment should not adversely
impact the level of county services. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive
Plan There are no inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:10 designation, and is surrounded on two sides by zoned or platted densities
of 1 d.u. per 5 acres or greater and one side by zoned densities of 1 d.u. per 10 acres. Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4,
2013 2-8 Cumulative Impact Analysis - MLA12-00274 (McLuen) UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse
impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon
existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses The proposal
is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. It is similar to the surrounding properties and their access to utilities and land uses. The proposed site-specific
amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best
interests of the county as a whole The proposal is unlikely to create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. The proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan The site-specific proposal does not affect the land use and population
growth projections that are the basis of the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use will be consistent with surrounding land uses. If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment
is not located within an area that is currently under review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide
Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment meets the
requirements of GMA. The character of the rural area will not be affected by redesignating this property. The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project
Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet
for Nonproject Actions Question #1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances;
or production of noise? Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-9 It is not likely that this proposal would result in a
significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would not affect
plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections
for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? All subsequent project specific development proposals
will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question #4 How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas
or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan (see
LNP 3.3). Any critical areas are protected per the protection standards in JCC 18.22. Question #5 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6 How would the proposal
be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question
#7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed amendment does not
conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws. 2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff
recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition that future development be set back from the CF 1:80 zoned land located immediately adjacent and to the
east as consistent with JCC18.15.150(3)(a). The parcel meets the criteria for the RR 1:10 designation, and is surrounded on two sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5
acres or greater and one side by zoned densities of 1 d.u. per 10 acres. 2.3.2 Request for Change from Rural Forest to Agricultural Resource Land Designation: MLA13-00045, Boulton
Requests for changes from Forest Resource Lands to Agricultural Resource Lands must be considered against Agricultural Resource designation criteria with consideration of the Forest
Resource classification and set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan are included below and in the section
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information below. Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-10 Agricultural
Lands Classification and Designation of Agricultural Land It is Jefferson County’s intent to protect and foster opportunites for the successful practice of agriculture. The land in
Jefferson County was examined to assess the long-term commercial viability of parcels considered for agriculture zoning. While undeveloped land with prime agricultural soils as identified
in the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington, clearly must be preserved, additional parcels also have long term commercial significance
for agriculture at the local level. Successful, commercial agriculture can be practiced on many types of soils, through a variety of environmentally sound means on small parcels as
well as large. Economically 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. NRG 1.0 Encourage
the conservation of resource lands and the long-term sustainable use of natural resource-based economic activities throughout Jefferson County. NRP 1.6 Support cooperative resource
management among natural resource landowners, environmental groups, state, federal and tribal governments. NRG 10.0 Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and its associated
lifestyle. NRP 10.3 Support the conservation of agricultural NRP 10.9 Encourage the preservation of family owned farms by discouraging the conversion of these lands to other uses.
2.3.3.1 MLA13-00045 (Boulton) Reference Number: MLA13-00045 Applicant: John Boulton (Doug Mason, agent) Assessor Parcel Number(s): 802141005 and 802141006 Location: Located at
780 Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately 0.7 miles south west of the northern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection and 0.4 miles northwest of the southern Boulton Rd/US 101 intersection.
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The request would change the current land use designation of an approximately 12.7 acre portion of parcels 802141005 and
802141006 from Rural Forest one dwelling unit per forty acres (RF 1:40) to Prime Agriculture one dwelling unit per twenty acres (AP:20). The subject portions of these parcels span
both sides of Boulton Rd. The north-south orientation and location of the quarter section map likely influenced the location of the change from forest land designation to agriculture
land designation. Currently, both 802141005 and 802141006 are split zoned. A review of maps and information on file with Jefferson County reveals that the property encompasses land
mapped as susceptible aquifer recharge area, wetlands, seismic hazard, a Type F stream (Andrews Creek), and a Type N stream. Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff
Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-11 Redesignation and rezoning of the property would not likely increase the permissible dwelling unit density of the property. The land
in question is less than 20 acres and could be absorbed into the existing surrounding agriculture land owned by Mr. Boulton. The land in question, encompasses Soils within the area
proposed for rezone include: Belfast fine sandy loam (Bf) Belfast silt loam, wet variant (Bk) Cassolary sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (Cf D) Cathcart gravelly silt loam,
30 to 50 percent slopes (ClE) Wapato silty clay loams (Wa) During review of the proposal, staff noted the treed area area at the southern portion of the property proposed for rezone
with soils mapped as Casolary sandy loam. Given it is currently treed; it did not appear to be historically used for agriculture. Staff sought input from the representative about
inclusion of the treed area with this rezone application. The response follows: Thank you for your inquiry about the Boulton Farm conservation easement and the relation to the GMA
amendment proposal. As you know, Jefferson Land Trust is working with John Boulton to see that the agricultural values of the Boulton Farm are protected through a conservation easement,
and we anticipate purchase of the easement will take place in the next few months. The boundaries of the conservation easement protected property are indicated on the attached survey
( the most recent survey map - please disregard the map I sent you just a few minutes ago.) The boundary of the conservation easement protected area will define the farm property from
the forest property. As you noted, the new surveyed boundary of parcel #3 on the attached map, compared to the map that you were provided with the GMA application has been slightly
modified. This modification took place primarily to include an existing farm road that is in use for agricultural operations within the proposed conservation easement area. This area
also includes some forested acreage within the farm boundaries, since a working forest component can provide multiple benefits to the farm including wood products for agricultural buildings,
firewood, and shade for farm animals. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks - Sarah Spaeth 9/3/2013 Staff understands there are benefits Mr. Boulton
may have enjoyed while farming and managing adjacent forest jointly due to common ownership and proximity. For practical purposes, he used his land as needed to accommodate both uses.
The home intended for sale along with the farm is located on forest land. The original home burned down and was replaced in the same footprint in 2010. Further, the representative
explained that the treed areas are beneficial for a working farm. This farm is historical, continuously productive, and owned by the same landowner as the adjacent forest lands. While
historically beneficial, the applicant proposes it is not financially viable for a new farmer to purchase both the farm and large forest land tracts. It is common practice for farmers
to live on the land they farm. It is not always typical for foresters to live on the land they manage for timber. This historical benefit should not preclude the future division of
the forest land from the home and farm. The Comprehensive Plan intends to maintain the uses of our resource lands for the future. It does not mandate the continued joint ownership
of differing land uses across zoning districts. Further, the unique nature of this farm ensures this action is not likely to set precedence for future rezones of portions of rural forest
land adjacent to agriculture unless the home for managing the farm historically (pre-GMA) is located on the adjacent forest land. 2.3.3.1.2 Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-12 Table 4-2 Guidelines for Classification of Agricultural Resource Lands in Jefferson County MLA13-00045 Boulton 1. Presence
of prime agricultural soil as the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington on a significant portion of the parcel. A significant portion
of prime agricultural soils should be approximately one third or more of the parcel. Met 2. Historic usage for agriculture. Land which has been used for agriculture for a number of
years or can be converted back to active agriculture, even if it is currently lying fallow, should be given high priority for agricultural designation. Met 3. Parcels of land 10 acres
or larger in size should be given strong consideration however smaller parcels may also be highly suitable for agricultural designation. Some types of agriculture are best practiced
on parcels ten acres and larger and they should be given high priority for agricultural designation. Smaller parcels considered suitable for agriculture designation, which are adjacent
to residentially designated land, may be subject to increased regulatory oversight for some types of agricultural practices. Met 4. Participation by parcel owner in the Open Space Tax
Program for Agricultural Land. Participation in the Open Space Tax Program is not a requirement for agricultural designation; however, it is a good indication of qualifying land. Met
5. Located away from existing land uses that would interfere with agricultural practices. Some existing land uses would interfere with agricultural activities such as uses, which pollute.
Residential uses are not considered uses, which would interfere with agricultural practices. The possibility that agricultural uses practiced according to Best Management Practices,
may interfere with residential uses shall not be a reason to deny agricultural designation of a parcel. Met 6. Located outside of areas already served with “urban governmental services”
which are typically provided in cities. Areas where the public has already made a significant investment in services suited to urban levels of development such as storm and sanitary
sewers, street cleaning services, urban levels of fire and police protection, etc. are no longer suitable to be classified as a natural resource to be protected from more intense development.
Met 7. Location outside of existing Master Planned Resort (MPR) or Urban Growth Area (UGA) land use designations. Undeveloped land with prime agricultural soils was not included in
Jefferson County’s designated UGA or MPR areas, therefore any additional undeveloped parcels in those areas should be preserved for more intensive development and not designated as
agricultural lands of long term commercial significance. Met Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-13 8. Currently in
commercial agricultural use. Land currently being used for any type or scale of commercial agriculture should be given high priority for agricultural designation. Met 9. Physically
and topographically suitable for the practice of commercial agriculture. Some land which is excessively steep, wet, unstable, prone to frequent flooding, primarily rock cliffs, etc.
is clearly not suitable for designation as agricultural land of long term commercial significance. Met 10. If currently designated as Rural Forest (RF-40) land has already been platted
into 20 acre or smaller parcels. A rezone from Rural Forest designation to Agricultural designation must not result in creating an increase in allowable residential density. Therefore
only those Rural Forest parcels already platted in 20 acres or smaller lot sizes may be considered for eclassification to Agricultural designation. Not met, but as proposed would meet
the intent by only rezoning a portion of the property thus not allowing additional residential density. 11. Is not currently designated as Commercial Forest (CF-80). Commercial Forest
land has been designated based on soil suitability for forestry and should not be converted to agricultural designation. Met 12. Is not currently designated as Inholding Forest (IF).
This land is located within Commercial Forest designation areas and it has poor soils for agriculture and is not suitable for agricultural designation. Met Table 4-2a Criteria for
Agriculture Land Designation Prime Agricultural Land (AP-20) MLA13-00045 Boulton Land designated as Prime Agricultural Land shall meet the following criteria: • consist, in substantial
proportion, of land with prime agricultural soils as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington; and Met • be in regions of
the county where commercial agriculture is the current and historically predominant use including but not limited to the following areas: o Quimper Peninsula o Beaver Valley o Chimacum
Valley o Discovery Bay Valley o Quilcene River Valley o Tarboo Valley o Dosewallips Valley o West Jefferson County valleys; and Met Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-14 • is not currently served by “urban governmental services”; and Met • is in an area characterized by a substantial proportion of
undeveloped parcels of land 20 acres or greater in size; and Met • is outside of any area designated as Master Planned Resort (MPR) or Urban Growth Area (UGA); and Met • is in an area
where no existing land uses are present, which will seriously interfere with the successful long term practice of a range of agricultural activities; and Met • does not include land
currently designated Rural Forest (RF-40) presently in a parcel size 40 acres or larger, or Commercial Forest (CF-80) or Inholding Forest (IF). Met as proposed and meets intent by only
rezoning a portion of the property and thus not allowing additional residential density. Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to JCC §18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board
of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA13-00045:
Boulton UDC/JCC Criterion Staff Evaluation Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan The circumstances related to the area have not changed substantially since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, however, the owner is aging and
would like to provide arrangements for continued use of the farm subsequent to his ownership. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan The majority of the
assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan was adopted remain valid. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents
The proposed amendment would not appear to be inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County residents. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation
and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation. The proposed
site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal would appear to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The current RF 1:40 zoning and agriculture zoning are appropriate, the applicant just wishes to demarcate the boundary to Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-15 accurately reflect management of the farm. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant
adverse impacts to the county’s transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens
upon existing or planned service capabilities The proposed amendment will not result in a probable significant adverse impact to the transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks or environmental features. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation
and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities and compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses Generally, the
subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of
other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole Approval of the proposal would not likely
increase pressure to convert Rural Forest Resource Lands to Agriculture, nor would it erode the overall purpose and effect of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (CP). The proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan The proposal does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does not affect
the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA The proposed amendment is not located within an area that is currently under
review for UGA designation. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson county, any other applicable
interjurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan polices and designation criteria
governing agricultural resource lands. The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed
by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Section D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely
to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would not result in additional
residential development. Potential plans for expansion of accessory agricultural uses would be encouraged consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 4, 2013 2-16 development regulations. Any such project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would
be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal would
not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local protections for plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal is unlikely to
deplete energy or natural resources; all subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards. Question
#4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. Though the subject parcel contains wetland
areas, and stream environment, ongoing protection of these areas under the County’s critical areas regulations would help to prevent any adverse impacts of potential future development.
Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Question #7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state,
or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed amendment does not conflict with the zoning criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan. It
is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws. 2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment, with the condition
that the applicant apply for a boundary line adjustment to align the parcel boundaries along the edge of the conservation easement and new zoning boundary. Jefferson County 2013
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2013 3-1 3 Supporting Record, Analyses, & Materials The table below lists existing environmental documents and
other documents and information utilized for the development of this 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. This report supplements information
presented in prior environmental documents prepared for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, other legislative actions, and other County decisions and activities. DATE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT
EVALUATED September 27, 1978 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan (pre-GMA) January 2, 1979 Final EIS (FEIS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan December
21, 1992 Countywide Planning Policies (Res. No. 40-99) February 14, 1994 DEIS Draft Implementing Ordinance for 1979 Comprehensive Plan March 1, 1995 Existing Conditions Alternatives
for establishing GMA Comprehensive Plan February 24, 1997 DEIS Comprehensive Plan - February 24, 1997 draft May 27, 1998 FEIS Proposed Comprehensive Plan August 3, 1998 Staff Responses
to Questions Proposed Comprehensive Plan January 26, 1999 Land Use Inventory Report Part of Special Study January 26, 1999 Regional Economic Analysis / Forecast Part of Special Study
June 30, 1999 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task III of TriArea/Glen Cove Special Study) August 18, 1999 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with addenda
Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task IV of TriArea/Glen Cove Special Study) June 11, 2001 Special Study Final Decision Document November 2001 Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Special
Study August 21, 2002 Integrated Staff Report & DSEIS 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket November 25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket December 2002 Final decisions,
findings, ordinances, and conditions 2002 Amendment Docket February 13, 2003 Memorandum to Planning Commission Agricultural Lands policy and regulation April 28, 2003 Ordinance No.
05-0428-03 and all documentation for MLA03-485 Amendments to UDC concerning Agricultural Lands August 6, 2003 Integrated Staff Reports & SEPA Addenda 2003 Amendment Docket February
2004 Water System Plan Vol. 2: Public Utility District #1 of Jefferson County Depicts Bywater Bay Water System (Fig. 1.1) approved by DOH Feb. 2005 2004 Staff analysis and environmental
review for Urban Growth Area (UGA). MLA04-29 & 30: UGA plans, goals, policies, maps, and regulations. September 22, 2004 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2004 Amendment Docket,
including “2004 Update” required by GMA August 3, 2005 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2005 Amendment Docket July 19, 2006 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2006 Amendment
Docket September 5, 2007 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2007 Amendment Docket September 3, 2008 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2008Amendment Docket September 2, 2009
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2009 Amendment Docket September 1, 2010 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum 2010 Amendment Docket Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 3-2 [PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Jefferson County 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September
4, 2013 4-1 4 Distribution List Copies mailed or delivered to: Notification of availability emailed or mailed to: Jefferson County: State Agencies: Planning Commission members (9
persons) Department of Natural Resources (Anne Sharar & SEPA Review) Board of County Commissioners (3 persons) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEPA Review) Prosecuting Attorney’s
Office Department of Health (John Aden) Department of Public Works Department of Social & Health Services (Elizabeth McNagny) Department of Health & Human Services Natural Resources
Division Department of Corrections (Rebecca Barney) Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4 - Brinnon State Agencies: Department of
Fish & Wildlife (Jeff Davis) Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic Development: Growth Management Services Department of Ecology (GMA Review) Department of Ecology SEPA Unit Puget
Sound Partnership (John Cambalik) Notification of availability emailed or mailed to: Parks & Recreation Commission (Bill Koss) Jefferson County: Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(Lorinda Anderson) All other County departments not listed above Local Agencies & Organizations: City of Port Townsend Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 Other Interested
Parties: Port of Port Townsend Jefferson County Conservation District Washington Environmental Council Washington Association of Realtors Olympic Environmental Council Wild Olympic
Salmon North Olympic Salmon Coalition Point-No-Point Treaty Council Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe Skokomish Tribe Hoh Tribe Port Townsend & Jefferson
County Leader Peninsula Daily News Forks Forum Jefferson County 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum September 5, 2007 4-2 [PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY
BLANK]
Ordinances Re RR Upzone/Ordinance #02-1104-13.pdf
6C STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE APPROVING TWO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, FILE NUMBERS: MLA12 -00274 McLuen MLA13 -00045 Boulton Ordinance No.. 02- 1104 -
13 WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ( "the Board ") has, as required by the Growth Management Act ( "the GMA "), as codified at RCW 36. 70A.010 et seq., set in motion
and now properly completed professional review and public notice and comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County' s Comprehensive Plan originally adopted by
Resolution No. 72 -98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended, and; WHEREAS, as mandated by the GMA, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County'
s Comprehensive Plan ( " CP ") that composed the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket ( " the Docket "), and; WHEREAS, of the two ( 2) proposals that compose the Final Docket, both
( 2) were approved or approved, and; WHEREAS, an adopting Ordinance is required to formalize the Board' s legislative action, and; WHEREAS, the Board makes the following Findings of
Fact with respect to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle and these four amendments: The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development regulations
or Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18 in the Jefferson County Code (JCC) in December 2000. The CP was reviewed and updated in 2004. The GMA, which mandates that Jefferson County
generate and adopt a CP requires that there be in place a process to amend the CP. 3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County including corporations
and other business entities] on a regular basis. In accordance with RCW 36.70A. 130, CP amendments can generally be considered no more frequently than once per year." 4. This particular
amendment cycle began on or before March 1, 2013, the deadline for submission of a proposed CP amendment. 5. All of the amendment proposals were timely filed by March 1, 2013. 6. Two
formal site - specific amendments and one suggested amendments ( for a total of three) were placed on the Preliminary Docket through the CP amendment process referenced at JCC Section
18.45.050. 7. MLA12 -00274 for APN 901 - 054 -003 is submitted by Gary McLuen with William Marlow, agent. The parcel is located at mile post 5 of SR 20 on the east side of SR 20, approximately
1. 5 miles south of the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd/ SR 210 intersection. The proposal requests a rezone of land ( approx 37 acres) designated 1: 20 (RR 1: 20) to become Rural Residential
1 : 10 ( RR 1: 10). 8. MLA13 -00045 for APN 802 -141 -005 is submitted by John Boulton with Doug Mason, agent. The parcel is located at 780 Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately
0.7 miles south west of the northern Boulton Rd/ US 101 intersection and 0.4 miles northwest of the southern Boulton Rd/ US 101 intersection. The proposal requests a rezone of 12. 7
acres of land designated Rural Forest 1: 40 ( RF 1: 40) to become Prime Agricultural 1: 20 ( AP 1: 20). 9. The Planning Commission submitted a suggested amendment, MLA 13- 42 West End
Zoning, prior to the March 1, 2013 deadline requesting rezone of lands designated Rural Residential in Jefferson County' s West End (RR 1: 10 and RR 1: 20) to RR 1: 5. Approximately
1, 907 acres of land are zoned RR 1: 10 and 23, 983 acres are zoned RR 1: 20. 10. No other suggested amendments were submitted to the Department of Community Development ( "DCD ") by
the March 1, 2013 deadline. 11. The Planning Manager prepared her report on the Suggested Amendment for the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle, issued March 12, 2013 recommending
the suggested amendment not be included in the final docket. 12. Upon consideration of that report at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 1, 2013, the Planning Commission deliberated
and subsequently unanimously decided to put the suggested amendment on hold to allow for an action plan in advance of consideration in 2014. 13. DCD Staff and each applicant provided
presentations on the two site - specific applications to the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 1, 2103. 14. With effective withdrawal
of the suggested amendment for 2013, only two (2) site - specific amendment proposals remained for consideration. 15. All site - specific Comprehensive Plan amendments are automatically
included in the Final Docket in accordance with JCC 18. 45. 060 ( 4)( b)( i). 16. Because the only proposals during this CP amendment cycle are site - specific, a public hearing and
recommendation by the Planning Commission on the preliminary docket was not required this year. 17. On June 3, 2013, the DCD Staff presented to the BoCC the Planning Manager' s report
as well as the Planning Commission discussion regarding the ( withdrawn) suggested amendment and a recommendation for the final docket to the BoCC. 18. At that meeting, the BoCC unanimously
adopted the 2013 Final Docket of two (2) proposals for review, both of which are site - specific. 19. The Department of Community Development published the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket, Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, an integrated Growth Management Act and State Environmental Policy Act document on September 4, 2013. The report analyzes the proposals on the
Final Docket and offers preliminary recommendations for each amendment proposed. 20. All of these amendments have been subject to a SEPA- derived analysis through the Staff Report and
SEPA Addendum dated September 4, 2013. The entire amendment cycle has been considered cumulatively with respect to a county -wide environmental review of the associated impacts, if
any, of these proposals. 21. One conclusion of that report was there would be no probable significant adverse environmental impacts if these two site - specific Comprehensive Plan amendments
were adopted by the Board. 22. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed open public hearing on September 18, 2013. Oral public comment relating to the two proposed amendments was
taken during the public hearing, and written comments were accepted through the close of public hearing. There were two oral comments by representatives of each application made during
the public hearing expressing agreement with the staff report. No additional citizens commented at the public hearing, and DCD received no written comments relating to these proposed
amendments. 23. The small number of written and oral comments by citizens suggests the proposed amendments are neither controversial nor contrary to the goals and policies reflected
in the County' s CP. 24. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments following the public hearing at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September
18, 2013. 25. The above statements indicate that the proposed CP amendments were and are the subject of "early and continuous" public participation as is required by GMA. 26. The Planning
Commission entered a specific finding for MLA12 -00274 McLuen): The County has and will maintain 26, 893 acres designated rural residential. RR 1: 20 is reduced by less than one -tenth
of one percent, and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will, with passage of this amendment, still have the " variety of RR densities" that is required by the GMA. 27. The Planning
Commission entered a specific finding for MLA13 -00045 ( Boulton): The Boulton farm is historical, continuously productive, and owned by the same landowner as the adjacent forest lands.
Given the common ownership, Mr. Boulton has been able to manage the lands jointly. 28. While historically beneficial, the applicant pointed out it is not financially viable for a new
farmer to purchase both the farm and the large forest land tracts. It is common practice for farmers to live on the land they farm. It is not always typical for foresters to live on
the land they manage for timber. 29. This historical benefit should not preclude the future division of the forest land from the home and farm as not separating the farm from the forest
lands might cause the end of farming at this farm. 30. Further, the unique nature of this farm, i.e., that forest lands are commonly owned with it, ensures this action is not likely
to set a precedent for future rezones of portions of forest land adjacent to agriculture. This action matches the Comprehensive Plan to the actual use of the property on the ground
and continues natural resource activities on all affected land. 31. A conservation easement is under development to ensure perpetual use of the property in agricultural use. The potential
for more low density sprawl will be averted by adoption of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. 32. On September 18, 2013 the Planning Commission voted on the two site - specific Comprehensive
Plan amendments and unanimously recommended approval of both of them. 33. The Planning Commission voted on these proposed amendments only after considering the 18 Growth Management
Indicators ( " GMI ") made applicable by County code to any site - specific CP amendment, specifically seven listed in JCC 18.45. 050( 4)( b)( i) through ( vii), three listed at JCC
18.45. 080( 1)( b)( i) through ( iii) and the eight found at JCC 18, 45. 080( 1)( c)( i) through ( viii). 34. In summary, when applying the GMI to the proposed CP amendments, the Planning
Commission concluded it was able to make affirmative findings that these amendments are not at variance with the goals and policies of the CP, reflect the values of the County' s citizenry,
will not adversely impact the county' s ability to manage growth or provide services, do not create cumulative negative impacts and will, if adopted, create circumstances in the County
where the county has the proper balance of rural residential, commercial and natural resource lands, thereby remaining consistent with both the CP and the Countywide planning policies.
35. The Planning Commission memorialized their findings and recommendations in the Planning Commission Recommendation for 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket dated September
18, 2013. 36. Because the DCD staff recommendations remained unchanged from the September 4, 2013 Staff Report throughout the process that Staff Report of September 4, 2013 and the
Planning Commission document dated September 18, 2013 were transmitted to the Board through formal agenda request dated October 7, 2013. 37. Both documents are part of the record upon
which this legislative decision is reached. 38. In accordance with Ch. 36.70, the Planning Enabling Act, DCD planning staff and the Planning Commission comprise the Planning Agency.
39. For the 2013 CP amendment cycle DCD and the Planning Commission agreed on the recommendation to approve both amendments, thus the Planning Agency recommendation reflects concurrence
between the Planning Commission and DCD for the 2013 Final Docket. 40. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Final Determination of Non - Significance and Adoption of Existing Environmental
Documents on October 2, 2013 based on the earlier conclusion that adoption of these CP amendments would not give rise to any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. 41.
The Board considered the Planning Agency recommendation on October 7, 2013 including the DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum dated September 4, 2013, the Memorandum from the
Planning Commission re: Recommendation on the 2013 Docket, and the signed maps ( signed by the Planning Commission Chair and the Planning Manager) for which the Planning Commission
recommends approval. 42. On October 7, 2013 the Board voted unanimously to accept the Planning Agency recommendation without any changes and thus, in accordance with JCC 18.45. 080(
2)( b) the Board was not required to conduct its own public hearing. 43. Pursuant to JCC 18.45. 080( 2)( c) the Board was required to consider the same 18 GMI considered by the Planning
Commission. 44. Inquiry into the GMI referenced above was begun for the 2013 Docket through the DCD integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum of September 4, 2013. 45. Specifically,
the board adopts the staff Cumulative Impact Analysis in the staff report, including the Growth Management Indicators, beginning on Page 2 -1. 46. Furthermore, the Board incorporates
here by reference Table 2 found in the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum of September 4, 2013 at p. 1 - 10, particularly that part of Table 2 containing information on the amount of
acreage in each of the three Rural Residential designations, RR 1: 5, RR 1: 10 and RR 1: 20. 47. A review of that portion of Table 2 indicates that about 1/ 3 of the County' s Rural
Residential land has a designation of RR 1: 5, about 1/ 101' of the County' s Rural Residential land has a designation of RR 1: 10 and the remainder, approximately 58% of the County'
s Rural Residential land holds the zoning designation of RR 1: 20. 48. Those rough proportions were not changed in any significant manner by the board' s approval of MLA 12- 274 and
thus the County continues to have, even after the adoption of these two Comprehensive Plan amendments, the variety of rural residential densities required by the GMA. 49. The Board
adopts the Planning Commission' s written findings regarding the GMI as detailed in the Planning Commission " Recommendation ...." dated September 18, 2013. 50. That document from the
Planning Commission dated September 18, 2013 is incorporated here by reference as if stated in full here. 51. Those written findings are also augmented by audio recordings from the
Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2013, during which deliberations took place and the recommendations were formulated. Meeting minutes will conform to these findings. 52.
Per JCC 18.45.080(2)( b) the Board voted unanimously to accept the Planning Agency recommendation without a change in the recommendation on October 7, 2013 and thus was not required
to conduct its own public hearing. 53. On October 7, 2013, the Board unanimously approved a motion to direct staff to write an ordinance to memorialize their actions. 54. All procedural
and substantive requirements of the GMA, through the JCC (Title 18) and the Planning and Enabling Act (RCW 36.70), have been satisfied. 55. The Board adopts the map for MLA12 -274 in
Attachment " A" dated September 18, 2013 and signed by the Planning Commission chair and Planning Manager. 56. The Board adopts the map for MLA13 -45 in Attachment " A" dated September
18, 2013 and signed by the Planning Commission chair and Planning Manager. 57. Adoption of these two site - specific CP amendments promotes and supports the general health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County and furthers the goals and policies of the County' s adopted CP. 58. The Board adopts these two site - specific CP amendments under the general
police power" provided to it as the legislature for a local government by the Constitution of the State of Washington. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows: Section One: Under
MLA12 -274 [ Gary McLuen; William Marlow, agent], located at mile post 5 of SR 20 on the east side of SR 20, approximately 1. 5 miles south of the Four Corners Rd/Discovery Rd /SR 210
intersection, approximately 37 acres identified as APN 901 - 054 -003 shall be given in its entirety an underlying land use designation of Rural Residential 1: 10 ( RR1: 10) depicted
on the corresponding map in " Attachment A ". Section Two: Under MLA13 -00045 [ John Boulton; Doug Mason, agent], located at 780 Boulton Rd, Quilcene, WA 98376, approximately 0.7 miles
south west of the northern Boulton Rd/ US 101 intersection and 0.4 miles northwest of the southern Boulton Rd/ US 101 intersection, approximately 12. 7 acres portion of a parcel identified
as APN 802 -141- 005 that portion being consistent with the portion depicted on the corresponding map in Attachment A" as Prime Agricultural 1: 20 (AP 1: 20). Section Three: The Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is amended to reflect for the parcels impacted by these amendments the underlying land use designations shown and reflected on the two maps made
Attachment " A" to this Ordinance. Section Four: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non - compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, then the development
regulations and/ or underlying zoning designations applicable to that parcel or parcels prior to adoption of the non - compliant or invalid section of this Ordinance shall be applicable
to that parcel or parcels. Section Five: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non - compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, such a finding of non -
compliance or invalidity shall not nullify or invalidate any other section of this Ordinance. Section Six: This Ordinance becomes effective on the date it is executed. APPROVED AND
ADOPTED this day of JEFFERSON COUNTY i BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LLSEAL -4 4 F John stin, Chairman TTY David Sullivan l_, 1 Ni`L Carolyn A ery Deputy Clerk of the Board ciclu o A651MC-
Phil Johnson Approved as to form dw 112.6. 3 ( 0'j ow David Alvarez, Chief Civil D 10 Appendix " A" Maps for: MLA12 -00274 McLuen MLA13 -00045 Boulton ii 5 F 3JfJJJ YE og F F + ySy
o! u gs s b c E e E x N< G5 ' Etl V 5 s.• IT G Consent Agenda JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Carl Smith, Director, Dept. of Community Development Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager DATE: November 4, 2013 SUBJECT: Approval of 2013 CPA Adopting Ordinance reflecting the changes
to the Comprehensive Plan on two amendments regarding zoning changes STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On October 7, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a motion to instruct
DCD staff to draft an adopting ordinance that reflected their decisions on the 2013 Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals. The attached documents include: 1. Adopting Ordinance 2.
Attachment A —maps ANALYSIS / STRATEGIC GOALS / PROS and CONS: Approval ofthe adopting ordinance codifies the Board' s decisions. FISCAL IMPACT / COST- BENEFIT ANALYSIS: None. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve adopting ordinance and Notice of Adoption. REVIEWED BY: i Philip Morle C my Administrator Date
Ordinances Re RR Upzone/Ordinance #10-1002-06.pdf
STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FOUR } COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, } FILE NUMBERS MLA06- 01 [ BELL], } ORDINANCE NO. 10- 1002- 06 MLA06-74 [ AUSTIN],
} MLA06- 77 [ BROWN AND DCD], & } MLA06-85 [ PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND] } WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners (" the Board") has, as required by the Growth Management Act
("the GMA"), as codified at RCW 36.70A. 010 et seq., set in motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and comment with respect to any and all proposed
amendments to the County' s Comprehensive Plan as originally adopted by Resolution No. 72- 98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended, and; WHEREAS, as mandated by the GMA, the
Board has reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County' s Comprehensive Plan (" CP") that composed the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (" the Docket"), and;
WHEREAS, of the five ( 5) proposals that composed the original Docket, the Board has approved or approved with conditions four ( 4) of those proposals— MLA 06- 01 [ Bell], MLA06- 74
[ Austin], MLA06- 77 [ Brown & DCD] and MLA06- 85 [ Port of Port Townsend]— and an adopting Ordinance is required to formalize the Board' s legislative action, and; WHEREAS, the Board
makes the following Findings of Fact with respect to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle and these four amendments: 1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998
and its development regulations or Unified Development Code (" UDC") in December 2000. The CP was reviewed and updated in 2004. 2. The GMA, which mandates that Jefferson County generate
and adopt a CP requires that there be in place a process to amend the CP. 3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County including corporations
and other business entities] on a regular basis. In accordance Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments with RCW 36. 70A. 130, CP amendments can generally be
considered " no more frequently than once per year." 4. This particular amendment " cycle" began on or before March 1, 2006, the deadline for submission of a proposed CP amendment.
5. All of the amendment proposals were timely filed by March 1. 6. Five formal site- specific amendments and two suggested amendments were placed on the Preliminary Docket through the
CP amendment process contained at JCC Section § 18. 45. 7. The Planning Commission and the Board held ajoint workshop on March 15 concerning the Preliminary Docket. 8. The Planning
Commission completed its recommendation on the Preliminary Docket on April 5. 9. The Board established the Final Docket on May 22, 2006 to include only the five site- specific amendments.
10. The Department of Community Development (" DCD") issued an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (" SEPA") Addendum on July 19 analyzing the four 4) proposals
listed in this ordinance from the Final Docket and offering preliminary recommendations for each. 11. The remaining proposal from the Final Docket, MLA06- 87 [ Statesmen] required an
independent environmental impact statement and is in not included in the ordinance. 12. The four amendments have been subject to a SEPA- driven analysis through the DCD Staff Report
and SEPA Addendum dated July 19, 2006. 13. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on August 2. Oral public comment related to proposed amendments was taken during
the public hearing and written comments were accepted through the close of the hearing. 14. DCD provided the following memoranda to the Planning Commission to supplement the record:
a. August 31: Public Works Conditions for MLA06-77. 15. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments a regularly scheduled meeting on August 16. 16. The above statements
indicate that the proposed CP amendments were and are the subject of "early and continuous" public participation as is required by GMA. 2 Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re: 2006 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments 17. The Planning Commission recommendation was transmitted to the Board through formal memorandum dated September 14, 2006. That formal memorandum is part of the record
for the legislative decision. 18. The Planning Commission recommended approval of three of the four proposals, exactly as requested by the applicants, specifically MLA06- 01 [ Bell],
MLA06- 74 [ Austin], and MLA 06- 85 [ Port of Port Townsend]. 19. The Planning Commission recommended to the Board a condition from Public Works for one proposal, MLA06- 77 [ Brown
& DCD], whereby a future development permit would attach two conditions: 1) no direct access to Irondale Road permitted and 2) access from 4th Avenue may not interfere with the operation
ofthe Irondale Road / 4`h Avenue intersection. 20. The final DCD staffrecommendation was presented to the Board during the same September 25 public session in which the Planning Commission
recommendation of September 14 was also presented. 21. The final DCD staff recommendation matched the Planning Commission recommendation for all four ofthe site-specific applications.
22. On September 25, 2006 the Board considered the four amendments made part of the final DCD staff and Planning Commission 2006 Docket. 23. On that date the County Commissioners stated
for the public record that they agreed with the Planning Commission recommendations and thus would not need to hold a separate public hearing on these four site- specific applications.
24. The remaining proposal, MLA06- 87 [ Statesmen], was removed from the 2006 Docket by the Director of Community Development in consultation with the applicant on October 2, 11M 25.
All procedural and substantive requirements of the GMA have been satisfied. 26. Pursuant to JCC Section § 18.45. 080, for all adopted amendments the Board shall develop findings and
conclusions which consider the growth management indicators set forth in JCC Section § 18. 45. 050( 4) ( b) ( i) through ( vii), as well as items in JCC Section 18. 45. 080( 1) ( b)
( i) through ( iii). 27. JCC Section 18. 45.080( 1) ( c) which contains eight criteria from which the Board must generate findings, is applicable only to site-specific Comprehensive
Plan amendments. 3 Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 28. Inquiry into the growth management indicators referenced above was begun for the 2006 Docket
through the DCD integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum of July 19. The Board' s findings and conclusions with respect to the growth management indicators are augmented by the July
19 staff findings and conclusions. 29. With respect to JCC § 18. 45. 050( 4) ( b) ( 1), which asks whether assumptions regarding growth and development have changed since the initial
CP adoption, the Board concludes that census data indicates that the population growth rate in this county has slowed in the last two to four years, but may increase again during the
20 -year planning horizon ( until 2024) that is covered by the current CP. 30. With respect to JCC § 18.45.050(4)(b)(2), which asks whether the capacity ofthe County to provide adequate
services has diminished or increased, the Board concludes that these CP amendments will not impact the ability of the County to provide services and thus this particular GMI is not
relevant to these amendments. 31. With respect to JCC § I 8. 45. 050(4)(b)( 3), which asks if sufficient urban land is or has been designated within the County, the Board concludes
that this GMI is not relevant to any analysis of any of the CP amendments made effective by adoption ofthis Ordinance. 32. With respect to JCC § 18. 45. 050( 4) ( b)( 4), which asks
if any ofthe assumptions on which the initial CP was based have become invalid, the Board concludes that the assumptions upon which the CP is based have generally not changed. The Board
is aware of its obligation to maintain a variety ofrural densities 33. The Board expressly concludes that adoption of certain CP amendments relating to increased Rural Residential density
during this CP amendment cycle will not trigger a Domino Theory" ofupzoning in which neighboring parcels will necessarily and automatically receive the same treatment. 34. With respect
to JCC § 18. 45. 050( 4)( b)( 5), which asks if any of the countywide attitudes upon which the CP was based have changed, the Board concludes that the countywide attitudes have not
generally changed since these CP amendments were generally not controversial or the subject of much opposition. 35. With respect to JCC § I 8.45. 050( 4)( b)( 6), which asks ifthere
has been a change in circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment, the Board concludes that there have not been any overarching or countywide change in circumstances that
would dictate Ll Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments or require a shift in the policies reflected in the CP, but that such absence should not negatively
impact a proponent who comes to the County with a proposal for a site- specific amendment to the CP based on facts and evidence particular to her, his or its parcel( s). That site-specific
application is entitled to a careful review by the County if the CP is to remain a living document. 36. With respect to JCC § 18. 45. 050( 4)( b)( 7), which asks if inconsistencies
have arisen between the CP, the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, the Board concludes that these amendments do not reflect any such inconsistency, since a variety of rural residential
densities is maintained even after adoption of these CP amendments. 37. Pursuant to JCC Sections 18.45. 080( 2)( c) and 18.45. 080( 1)( b), the Board enters the following findings and
conclusions for each of the adopted amendments on the Docket, except when and as noted below: 1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/ or the area in which it is located
have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 2) The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based continue
to be valid; however new information related to rural residential designation criteria is available which was not considered during the adoption process of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan. 3) Based upon public testimony, the proposed amendment appears to reflect current widely held values of the residents ofJefferson County. 38. In addition to the required findings
set forth in JCC Section § 18. 45. 080( 1)( b), in order to recommend approval of a formal site-specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Board must also make eight ( 8)
findings as specified in Section I8. 45. 080( 1)( c)( 1) through ( 8). 39. Pursuant to JCC Section § 18.45.080( 1)( c), the Board enters the following findings for each of the proposed
site- specific amendments, excepted when and as noted below: 1) 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 ( e.g., sheriff, fire, and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services).
5 Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2) The proposed site- specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of
the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 3) 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.
4) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to the following: i. Access ii.
Provision of utilities; and iii. Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses. 5) The proposed site- specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land
use designation of other properties, unless the change ofland use designation for other properties is in the long- term best interests of the county as a whole. 6) The proposed site-specific
amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. 7) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA),
the proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA. 8) The proposed
amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act ( Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, applicable interjurisdictional policies and agreements,
and local, state and federal laws. 40. With respect to the four individual amendments adopted by the Board, the Board enters the following case -specific findings and conclusions. 41.
MLA 06-01 related to Assessor' s Parcel Number (APN) 001201004 was submitted by Arthur D. Bell. The parcel is located at 1530 Discovery Road and the applicant sought to rezone this
12. 5 -acre site from Rural Residential ( RR) 1: 10 to Rural Residential 1: 5. 42. With respect to MLA06- 01, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts as if stated in full here
the findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and Co Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re: 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments the DCD StaffReport and SEPA Addendum
(July 19, 2006) which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any. 43. MLA06- 74 related to APN 001081002 was submitted by Drew
Austin for Cleo Austin. The applicants sought to rezone an approximately 30 -acre parcel located at 842 South Jacob Miller Road from RR 1: 20 to RR 1: 5. 44. With respect to MLA06-
74, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts as if stated in full here the findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and the DCD Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum ( July 19, 2006) which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any. 45. MLA06- 77 related to APN 961803402 was submitted
by the Browns and DCD and the applicant seeks to rezone an approximately 0.72 -acre parcel located at 781 Irondale Road, near the intersection of Irondale Road and 4a' Avenue, from
RR 1: 5 to Convenience Crossroads. 46. With respect to MLA06- 77, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts as if stated in full here the findings and conclusions in favor thereof
of the Planning Commission and the DCD StaffReport and SEPA Addendum (July 19, 2006) which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts,
if any. 47. With respect to MLA06-77, approval for the rezone includes two conditions established by the County' s Public Works Department: 1) that there be no direct access to Irondale
Road from the parcel and 2) that access from 4h Avenue not interfere with the operation of the Irondale Road / 4`h Avenue intersection. Those conditions would be attached to a future
development permit. 48. The parcel that is the subject of this amendment meets the requirements of RCW 36. 70A. 070 ( d) ( i) for a Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (
LAMIRD). 49. The parcel meets the July 1, 1990 ` built environment' LAMIRD criteria found in state law because a structure once used as a store has been on the site since before the
measuring date of July 1, 1990. 50. MLA06- 85 related to APN 001331011, submitted by the Port of Port Townsend, a distinct municipal corporation. The Port seeks to rezone a portion
of that parcel, which is located east of the Airport Cutoff Road ( SR 19), from Airport Essential Public Facility AEPF) to Rural Residential or RR. 7 Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re:
2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 51. The rezone furthers the purpose of providing an extra buffer to the residences on the east side of SR 19 where it is known as Airport Cutoff Road.
52. With respect to MLA06- 85, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts as if stated in full here the findings and conclusions in favor thereof ofthe Planning Commission and the
DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum ( July 19, 2006) which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any. 53. Through enactment of
this Ordinance, the subject acreage shall hereafter be designated RR 1: 5. 54. The Assessor' s Office has assigned the new parcel number for this section of the parcel as APN 001331013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows: Section One: Under MLA06- 01 [ Bell], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of
real property with APN 001201004, located at the 1530 Discovery Road be given in its entirety an underlying land use designation of Rural Residential 1: 5. Section Two: Under MLA06-
75 [ Austin], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of real property with APN 001081002, located at 842 South Jacob Miller
Road parcel located be given in its entirety an underlying land use designation of Rural Residential 1: 5. Section Three: Under MLA06- 77 [ Brown & DCD], the map of Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel ofreal property with PIN 961803402, located at 781 Irondale Road be given in its entirety an underlying zoning designation
Convenience Crossroads and that land division through the permit process provided in the Title 18 ofthe Jefferson County Code shall only be completed with the condition that no direct
access to Irondale Road be permitted and access from 4`}' Avenue shall not interfere with the operation of the Irondale Road / 4th Avenue intersection. Ordinance No. 10- 1002- 06 re:
2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Section Four: Under MLA06- 85 [ Port of Port Townsend], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the
2.5 -acre section ofthe parcel ofreal property with PIN 001331011 located east ofAirport Cutoff Road (also known as SR 19) be given an underlying zoning designation of Rural Residential
1: 5 as APN 001331013. Section Five: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non- compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, then the development regulations
and/ or underlying zoning designations applicable to that parcel or parcels prior to adoption of the non-compliant or invalid section of this Ordinance shall be applicable to that parcel
or parcels. Section Six: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non- compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, such a finding ofnon-compliance or invalidity
shall not nullify or invalidate any other section of this Ordinance. Section Seven: This Ordinance becomes effective on the date it is executed. r c t 0 AT7' F,S; s o C/ L atthesJulie
, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved as to form only: caA,j l 0 2 0 Jefferson Co. Prosecuto s Office 6
Ordinances Re RR Upzone/Ordinance #10-1212-05.pdf
STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE APPROVING SIX COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, FILE NUMBERS MLA 05-06 [ McDIEHL], MLA05-39 [ NELSONIMONROE], MLA05-51 [ KIRKPATRICK],
MLA05- 59 [ OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP], MLA05-60 [ OLYMPIC PROPERTY GROUP], MLA05- 66 [ JEFFERSON COUNTY] ORDINANCE NO. 10- 1212- 05 WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners
(" the Board") has, as required by the Growth Management Act ("the GMA"), as codified at RCW 36. 70A. OI0 et seq., set in motion and now completed the proper professional review and
public notice and comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County' s Comprehensive Plan originally adopted by Resolution No. 72- 98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently
amended, and; WHEREAS, as mandated by the GMA, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County' s Comprehensive Plan (" CP") that composed the 2005 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket (" the Docket"), and; WHEREAS, of the ten ( 10) proposals that compose the Docket, the Board has approved or approved with conditions six ( 6) of those proposals-
MLA 05- 06 [ McDiehl], MLA05- 39 [ Nelson/Monroe], MLA05- 51 [ Kirkpatrick], MLA05- 59 [ Olympic Property Group], MLA05- 60 [ Olympic Property Group], and MLA05- 66 [ Jefferson County]-
and an adopting Ordinance is required to formalize the Board' s legislative action, and; WHEREAS, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact with respect to the 2005 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Cycle and these six amendments: 1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development regulations or Unified Development Code (" UDC") in December
2000. The CP was reviewed and updated in 2004. Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2. The GMA, which mandates that Jefferson County generate
and adopt a CP requires that there be in place a process to amend the CP. 3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County including corporations
and other business entities] on a regular basis. In accordance with RCW 36.70A. 130, CP amendments can generally be considered " no more frequently than once per year." 4. This particular
amendment " cycle" began on or before February 1, 2005, the deadline for submission of a proposed CP amendment. 5. All of the amendment proposals were timely filed by February 1, 2005.
6. Nine formal site- specific amendments and two suggested amendments were placed on the Preliminary Docket through the CP amendment process contained at UDC Section 9.4. 7. The Planning
Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Preliminary Docket on March 2. 8. The Planning Commission and the Board held a joint workshop on March 10 concerning the Preliminary
Docket. 9. The Planning Commission completed its recommendation on the Preliminary Docket on March 16, later revising its recommendation upon advisement from the Board. 10. The Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners held a joint workshop on April 6 to provide an opportunity for the site- specific CP amendment applicants to make public presentations
on their proposals. 11. The Board established the Final Docket on April 18 as the nine site-specific amendments plus one suggested amendment limited to " housekeeping" map and text
items only. 12. The Department of Community Development (" DCD") issued an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (" SEPA") Addendum on August 3 analyzing the proposals
on the Final Docket and offering preliminary recommendations for each. Page 2 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 13. All of these amendments
have been subject to a SEPA- driven analysis through the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum dated August 3, 2005. 14. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August
17. Oral public comment related to proposed amendments was taken during the public hearing and written comments were accepted through the close of business August 24. 15. DCD provided
the following memoranda to the Planning Commission to supplement the record: a. August 11: Additional information on 2005 Docket. b. September 7: Response to public comments and additional
information. c. September 21: Planned Rural Residential Developments. 16. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments at regularly scheduled meetings on September
7 and September 21, completing deliberations on September 21. 17. The above statements indicate that the proposed CP amendments were and are the subject of "early and continuous" public
participation as is required by GMA. 18. The Planning Commission recommendation was transmitted to the Board through formal memorandum dated October 19, 2005 and is part of the record
for the legislative decision. 19. The Planning Commission recommended approval of nine of the ten proposals, exactly as requested by the applicants, specifically MLA05- 06 [ McDiehl
LLC], MLA05- 38 [ Hopkins/Barber Family], MLA05- 39 [ Nelson/Monroe], MLA05- 53 Widell], MLA05- 59 [ Olympic Property Group], MLA 05- 60 [ Olympic Property Group], MLA05- 61 [ Olympic
Property Group], MLA05- 66 [ Jefferson County], and MLA 05- 70 [ Pepper]. 20. The Planning Commission recommended to the Board a modification to one proposal, MLA05- 51 [ Kirkpatrick/Skurdal],
whereby in lieu of the applicant request to rezone from Rural Residential (" RR") 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres ( 1 : 20) to RR 1 : 5, the property in question be rezoned from RR 1 :
20 to RR 1: 1 O. Page 3 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 21. The final DCD staff recommendation was presented to the Board during the
same October 24 public session in which the Planning Commission recommendation of October 19 was also presented. 22. The final DCD staff recommendation matches the Planning Commission
recommendation for two of the nine site- specific applications and for the one suggested amendment. For the other seven site-specific applications, the final staff recommendation differs
from the Planning Commission recommendation, in that DCD recommends denial while the Planning Commission recommends approval. 23. The Board held a duly- noticed public hearing on the
Docket on November 14. 24. On November 21, the Board deliberated and decided upon the proposals composing the 2005 Docket, except that a decision on MLA05- 60 was deferred to December
5. 25. All procedural and substantive requirements of the GMA have been satisfied. 26. Pursuant to UDC Section 9. 8, for all adopted amendments the Board shall develop findings and
conclusions which consider the growth management indicators set forth in a) UDC Section 9. 5.4. b( l) through ( 7), and b) items ( 1) through (3) in UDC Section 9. 8. 1.b. 27. UDC Section
9. 8. 1.c, which contains eight criteria from which the Board must generate findings, is applicable only to site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. 28. Inquiry into the growth
management indicators referenced above was begun for the 2005 Docket through the DCD integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum of August 3. The Board' s findings and conclusions with
respect to the growth management indicators are augmented by the August 3 staff findings and conclusions, except when and as noted below. 29. With respect to UDC 99. 5.4. b( I), which
asks whether assumptions regarding growth and development have changed since the initial CP adoption, the Board concludes that census data indicates that the population growth rate
in this county has slowed in the last two to four years, but may increase again during the 20-year planning horizon ( until 2024) that is covered by this CPo Page 4 of21 Ordinance No.
10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 30. With respect to UDC ~ 9.5.4.b(2), which asks whether the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has diminished
or increased, the Board concludes that these CP amendments will not impact the ability of the County to provide services and thus this particular GMI is not relevant to these amendments.
31. With respect to UDC ~ 9. 5.4.b( 3), which asks if sufficient urban land is or has been designated within the County, the Board concludes that this GMI is not relevant to any analysis
of any of the CP amendments made effective by adoption of this Ordinance. 32. With respect to UDC ~9. 5.4.b(4), which asks if any of the assumptions on which the initial CP was based
have become invalid, the Board concludes that the assumptions upon which the CP is based have generally not changed, except that the ambiguity of Land Use Policy 3. 3 of the CP has
again impacted the decision- making process of another CP cycle and undoubtedly needs further attention from the County Commission. Until such a " fix" is implemented, the individual
applications for increased Rural Residential density must and will be considered on a case- by-case basis. By the same token the Board is aware of its obligation to maintain a variety
of rural densities and expressly concludes that adoption of certain CP amendments relating to increased Rural Residential density during this CP amendment cycle will not trigger a "
Domino Theory" of upzoning in which neighboring parcels will necessarily and automatically receive the same treatment. 33. With respect to UDC 99.5.4.b( 5), which asks if any of the
countywide attitudes upon which the CP was based have changed, the Board concludes that the countywide attitudes have not generally changed since these CP amendments were generally
not controversial or the subject of much opposition. 34. With respect to UDC 99. 5.4. b( 6), which asks if there has been a change in circumstance that may dictate the need for an amendment,
the Board concludes that there have not been any overarching or countywide change in circumstances that would dictate or require a shift in the policies reflected in the CP, but that
such absence should not negatively impact a proponent who comes to the County with a Page 5 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments proposal
for a site- specific amendment to the CP based on facts and evidence particular to her, his or its parcel(s). That site- specific application is entitled to a careful review by the
County if the CP is to remain a living document. 35. With respect to UDC 99. 5.4. b( 7), which asks if inconsistencies have arisen between the CP, the GMA and the Countywide Planning
Policies, the Board concludes that these amendments do not reflect any such inconsistency, since a variety of rural residential densities is maintained even after adoption of these
CP amendments. 36. Pursuant to UDC Sections 9. 8. 2. c and 9. 8. 1.b, the Board enters the following findings and conclusions for each of the adopted amendments on the Docket, except
when and as noted below: 1) Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. 2) The assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based continue to be valid; however new information related to rural residential
designation criteria is available which was not considered during the adoption process of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 3) Based upon public testimony, the proposed amendment
appears to reflect current widely held values ofthe residents of Jefferson County. 37. In addition to the required findings set forth in UDC Section 9. 8. 1.b, in order to recommend
approval of a formal site- specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Board must also make eight (8) findings as specified in Section 9.8. 1.c( l) through (8). 38. Pursuant
to UDC Section 9. 8. 1.c, the Board enters the following findings for each of the proposed site-specific amendments, excepted when and as noted below: 1) 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 ( e. g., sheriff,
fire, and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services). Page 6 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2)
The proposed site- specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 3) 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. 4) The subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested
land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including but not limited to the following: 1. Access 11. Provision of utilities; and iii. Compatibility with existing
and planned surrounding land uses. 5) 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. 6) The proposed site- specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. 7) If within an unincorporated urban growth area ( UGA), the proposed site- specific amendment does not materially
affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA. 8) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act
Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, applicable inter-jurisdictional policies and agreements, and local, state and federal laws. 39. With respect
to the six individual amendments adopted by the Board, the Board enters the following case- specific findings and conclusions. Page 7 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 40. MLA 05- 06 for Parcel Identification Number (" PIN") 821117005 is submitted by McDiehl LLC. The parcel is located at the northeast corner of the Osprey
Ridge and Oak Bay Roads within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (" MPR") and the applicant seeks to rezone this 0.89- acre site from MPR Residential to MPR Village Commercial Center.
41. Amendment of an internal land use designation within the Port Ludlow MPR is correctly achieved through legislative action in conjunction with the annual CP amendment cycle, pursuant
to Jefferson County Code (" JCC") 17.05. 060 Revisions to Resort Plan. 42. Parcel 821117005 is not owned by Port Ludlow Associates, LLC, the successor in interest to Pope Resources,
and thus the 2000 Development Agreement between Pope ( now Port Ludlow Associates) and the County is not applicable to that parcel. 43. With respect to MLA05- 06, the Board unanimously
concurs with and adopts as if stated in full here the findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum ( August 3, 2005)
which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any. 44. Master Planned Resorts (" MPRs") are governed under a distinct statutory
provision within the GMA. They are not Rural Lands, and thus are not Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development. Instead, RCW 36.70A.360 provides that MPRs may constitute urban
growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section." 45. Since an MPR is more akin to an urban area, approving this CP amendment that allows additional commercial development
to occur at an intersection in that urban area where commercial development already exists is supported by both state law and public policy. 46. MLA05- 39 for PIN 801213014 is submitted
by Nelson/Monroe and seeks to rezone an approximately 16.47- acre parcel in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene from RR 1: 20 to RR 1: 5. Page 8 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving
Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 47. With respect to MLA05- 39, having considered and reviewed the DCD staff recommendation to deny the applicant request, the Board, in a vote
of 2 to 1 in favor of the application, adopts as its own findings and conclusions and incorporates them herein as if stated in full those portions of Planning Commission recommendation
that discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any. 48. With respect to MLA05- 39, exactly what constitutes " an established pattern
of similarly sized parcels," a Rural Residential land use designation criteria under Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 3. 3, is ambiguous. 49. The subject property is bordered by a
significant number of parcels that are five ( 5) acres or less. Approval of this rezone request would create a logical transition from smaller parcels of five acres or less to larger
parcels often ( 10) acres or more. Approval of this CP amendment is consistent with a reasonable reading of Land Use Policy 3. 3. 50. This CP amendment establishes a Rural Residential
density in which two additional lots can potentially be created in a short plat subdivision permit process. As such, the county continues to have a sufficient variety of rural densities
as it has legislatively created RR 1: 5, RR 1: 10 and RR 1: 20 zones and has a substantial inventory in each of those three categories. 51. The applicant' s proposal requests a change
in density, not use. Allowing a family member to build a home on land owned by the family for generations is not incompatible use. 52. MLA05- 51 for PIN 601031007 is submitted by Kirkpatrick
and Skurdal; the applicant seeks to rezone an approximately 20- acre parcel on the west side of the Coyle Peninsula from RR 1 : 20 to RR 1 : 5. 53. With respect to MLA05- 51, having
considered and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation to rezone to RR 1: 10 rather than RR 1: 5, and the DCD staff recommendation to deny the applicant request and its alternate
recommendation to rezone the subject parcel to RR 1: 1 0 with the condition that a Planned Rural Page 9 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Residential Development (" PRRD") be the method by which land division would occur through the permit process, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts the findings and conclusions
of the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum ( August 3, 2005) that correspond with this alternate recommendation for approving this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and
its environmental impacts, if any. Those findings and conclusions from DCD are incorporated herein as if stated in full here. 54. RR 1: 10 zoning is more appropriate for the subject
parcel than RR 1: 5, as this property serves as a transition from smaller parcels along the Coyle Peninsula marine shoreline and the designated Forest Resource Lands of the Coyle Peninsula
interior. 55. Land division through a PRRD application will best allow development on the property that is properly buffered from neighboring commercial forest operations on designated
Forest Resource Lands and from geologically hazardous areas on the site. 56. MLA05- 59 for PIN 821343005, submitted by Olympic Property Group, seeks to rezone an approximately 40- acre
parcel near Shine on the north side of State Route SR") 104 from RR 1: 10 to RR 1: 5. 57. With respect to MLA05- 59, the Board unanimously concurs with and adopts the findings and conclusions
in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum ( August 3, 2005) which discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental
impacts, if any. Those findings and conclusions are incorporated herein as if stated in full here. 58. Although the parcel is some 40 acres in size, it is bordered on 75% of its perimeter
with 5- acre lots and zoning that date back to the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1998. The proposal is consistent with a reasonable reading of Land Use Policy 3. 3. 59. Because
of surrounding parcel sizes and because land use designations of higher density border a majority of the parcel perimeter, this proposal enjoys particular circumstances that merit re-
consideration of its 1998 land use designation. Page 10 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 60. MLA05- 60, submitted by Olympic Property
Group for seven distinct parcels grouped under PIN 821152001, seeks to rezone approximately 251 acres in the Tala Point area east of the Port Ludlow MPR and north of Paradise Bay Road
from RR 1: 20 to RR 1: 5. 61. With respect to MLA05- 60, having considered and reviewed the DCD staff recommendation to deny the applicant request, the Planning Commission recommendation
to approve it, and a collection of alternatives, the Board unanimously adopts as its own findings and conclusions ( as if stated in full herein) those portions of Planning Commission
recommendation that discuss this CP amendment, its potential cumulative impacts and its environmental impacts, if any, and adds the following findings, conclusions, and conditions.
62. What constitutes an established pattern of similarly sized parcels is unclear. 63. The subject properties are bordered by a significant number of parcels that are less than five
acres in size. Approval of this rezone request would create a logical transition from smaller parcels of less than five acres to larger parcels of five acres. This amendment request
is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of CP Land Use Policy 3. 3. 64. Approval of this amendment satisfies GMI # 6, Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for this
amendment. The general location of this property is in close proximity to Port Ludlow and the Hood Canal Bridge and is subject to considerable development pressure. As such the current
zoning of 1 : 20 is not appropriate. Growth trends in the county have for 50 years reflected a gradual shift in population from urban to rural areas. The Port Ludlow/ Shine area is
projected to accommodate a significant percentage of future growth in the county. This trend is born out by recent market factors indicating high demand for five- acre parcels in the
Ludlow/Shine area. 65. The tax benefits to a financially and economically distressed county resulting from increased density are in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole.
Page 11 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 66. Open space designation near the subject parcel and the presence of a large stateowned parcel
in the vicinity helps to enhance rural character. 67. Through enactment of this Ordinance, the subject acreage shall hereafter be designated RR 1: 5, except that the west half of the
west half of the southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, lying northerly of Paradise Bay Road, shall remain in the RR 1 : 20 designation. 68. The approximately
33- acre area that remains designated RR 1 : 20 shall act as a transition buffer from the Port Ludlow MPR, in concert with a 19- acre open space tract within the MPR and adjacent to
and contiguous with the referenced 33- acre area. 69. The Board finds that with respect to CP Land Use Policy 3.3. 3. c, which assigns an RR 1 : 20 designation to " areas serving as
a ' transition' to Urban Growth Areas or the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort," the intent of the policy for areas directly outside of the Port Ludlow MPR is to provide a transitional
buffer that emphasizes the external boundary of the MPR, rather than provide an urban reserve for future development at urban-level densities. 70. In order to prevent the possibility
of the fulfillment ofa " Domino Theory," whereby vicinity parcels would be re- designated from RR 1 : 20 to RR 1: 5 over time in the near future, land division of the subject property
shall also be conditioned on the execution and recordation with the Jefferson County Auditor of a legal document endorsed by Olympic Property Group that precludes Olympic Property Group
and its successor entities from submitting applications for additional rezones for an increase in density for any of its holding in the area to the south and west bounded by Paradise
Bay Road, SR 104, SR 19, and Oak Bay Road, for a period of twenty ( 20) years from the date of enactment of this Ordinance. 71. The rezoned parcels are subject to the condition that
a Planned Rural Residential Development (" PRRD"), in conjunction with a re-plat or long plat permit application, shall be the only method by which land division will be permitted to
occur. Page 12 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 72. Land division through a PRRD includes a mandatory provision for dedicated open space.
The required open space will contribute to the ' transition' from the Port Ludlow MPR, will provide ecological and community benefits in general, and can be situated so as to ameliorate
concerns with respect to designated ' critical areas' on the site, including geologically hazardous areas in the northwest corner abutting the marine shoreline. 73 . Water resources
are a concern. It is not appropriate for this area to drill individual wells for each of the tax parcels that could be created through land division with a higher density zoning. Aquifer
degradation due to seawater intrusion is a possibility, if not already a problem, in this area. 74. Land division through a PRRD application will best allow development on the property
that is properly buffered from the wellheads and/or on- site septic systems of the parcels of five acres and less that are positioned along the Tala Point marine shoreline. 75. The
County has regulations in place at UDC 93. 6.5. a( 4) that affect development in areas subject to an increased risk of seawater intrusion and, for example only, considers parcels within
one- quarter mile (1,320 feet) of any marine shoreline to be a region that does suffer from that increased risk of seawater intrusion and consequently more stringent regulations concerning
development at that location. 76. The northernmost parcel that is proposed by Olympic Property Group within MLA 05- 60 for increased Rural Residential density abuts a marine shoreline
and thus that parcel, or a portion of it, does suffer from an increased risk of seawater intrusion. 77. An overriding concern of the County is that the proposed project does not harm
the existing aquifer utilized by the existing parcels along Tala Shores and Ludlow Beach Roads. 78. Therefore, in light of concerns over water resources and by using its legislative
discretion in consideration of this amendment proposal, the Board establishes the following conditions for land division of the area referenced in this CP amendment. Page 13 of21 Ordinance
No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 79. No Individual Wells. Any development on the subject property shall not use individual wells, but shall be served
off a new or existing well that shall be located away from the shoreline. The well shall be located south of Paradise Bay Road, no closer than 2, 000 feet from the shoreline of Ludlow
Bay or Hood Canal. 80. Water Rights. The applicant shall either utilize an existing well with sufficient water rights (in a location as described immediately above) to serve subject
proposal or shall drill a new well and apply for new water rights. If a new well is to be installed, then the applicant shall do the following: a. Hire a professional civil engineer
to prepare a Financial Feasibility Study to determine the cost of constructing infrastructure to service the area described above. The service area shall be broken into four (4) zones
as follows: 1. Zone 1 - Parcels lying along Ludlow Beach Road. 11. Zone 2 - Parcels lying along Tala and Paradise Bay Roads. 111. Zone 3 - Undeveloped lands including the applicant'
s development. IV. Zone 4 - All parcels lying in Section 10. b. The Feasibility Study shall develop a cost sharing scheme that spreads costs as follows: 1. System- wide costs ( such
as water storage) shall be shared equally among all participants. 11. Unique costs to extend service to each zone shall be levied to each zone. 111. The Study will analyze the cost
to extend service to the nearest property line abutting the right of way for each parcel. c. The applicant will contact, by certified mail, all owners in the four zones described above
and inquire as to their interest and willingness to participate in the creation of a private or public water system based upon the Financial Feasibility Study. Initial cost estimates
will be included and will be based on full participation in each zone. d. After the above survey is completed, a new cost estimate will be prepared for each zone based upon participation.
a Page 14 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments e. The applicant will share the information with nearby private water system managers and Jefferson
County Public Utility District (" PUD") No. 1 to inquire as to their interest in managing the new water system. f. The applicant, at its sole cost, shall then make application for water
rights in sufficient supply to service the new parcels and all existing parcels whose owners have expressed interest in participating in the cost of constructing the new system. g.
Once the water rights have been secured and the applicant's project is approved, the applicant and other interested owners shall work cooperatively to establish a new public or private
water system. 81. MLA05- 66 is a suggested amendment developed by DCD on behalf of Jefferson County and seeks to correct Comprehensive Plan land use map anomalies and errors in the
Plan text and tables. The elements are outlined, described, and depicted in the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum of August 3. 82. With respect to MLA05- 66, the Board unanimously
concurs with and adopts the findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission and the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. Those findings and conclusions are incorporated
herein as if stated in full here. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows: Section One: Under MLA05- 06 [ McDiehl LLC], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby
amended to reflect that the parcel of real property with PIN 821117005, located at the northeast corner of the Osprey Ridge and Oak Bay Roads in Port Ludlow, shall be given in its entirety
an underlying land use designation ofMPR Village Commercial Center. Section Two: Under MLA05- 39 [ Nelson/Monroe], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended
to reflect that the parcel of real property with PIN Page 15 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 801213014, an approximately 16.47- acre
parcel located in the Dabob Valley near Quilcene, shall be given in its entirety an underlying land use designation of Rural Residential 1: 5. Section Three: Under MLA05- 51 [ Kirkpatrick/Skurdal],
the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of real property with PIN 601031007, an approximately 20- acre parcel on the west side
of the Coyle Peninsula, shall be given in its entirety an underlying zoning designation of Rural Residential 1: 10 and that land division through the permit process provided in the
Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code shall only be completed in conjunction with a Planned Rural Residential Development. Section Four: Under MLA05- 59 [ Olympic Property Group], the
map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the parcel of real property with PIN 821343005, an approximately 40- acre parcel near Shine on the
north side of SR 104, shall be given in its entirety an underlying zoning designation of Rural Residential 1: 5. Section Five: Under MLA05- 60 [ Olympic Property Group], the map of
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is hereby amended to reflect that the seven distinct parcels grouped under PIN 821152001, an approximately 251- acre area in the Tala Point
area east of the Port Ludlow MPR and north of Paradise Bay Road, shall be given an underlying zoning designation of Rural Residential 1: 5, except that the west half of the west half
of the southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, lying northerly of Paradise Bay Road, shall remain in the RR 1 : 20 designation. Additionally, future land division
shall occur only in conjunction with a PRRD application and, prior to land division approval, water resource development shall occur in correspondence with the conditions as described
above in the numbered findings related to MLA05- 60, specifically #60 through 80 inclusive. Findings #60 through #80 listed above shall have regulatory effect for all parcels included
by Olympic Property Group within and as part of application MLA05- 60 Page 16 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and shall be binding upon
any successor in interest to the Olympic Property Group, as that interest may appear. Section Six: Under MLA05- 66 [ Jefferson County], the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
is hereby amended to reflect the correction of map anomalies and the Comprehensive Plan text and table corrections as outlined and described in the paragraphs that follow: West End
In the Plat of Oil City in the West End of Jefferson County, parcels were zoned in 1998 based on ownership. Parcels that were privately owned were zoned Rural Residential and those
owned by the National Park Service were shown as Olympic National Park. There are instances of private ownership within the Park and parcel ownership has changed over time. Through
this Ordinance, all parcels, whether currently in private or public ownership, that are currently designated Rural Residential and are within the boundary ofthe Olympic National Park,
are hereby designated Olympic National Park on the map of CP Land Use Designations. Parcel 712161000, also in the West End, and which is zoned Commercial Forest (" CF"), has a railroad
right of way that was zoned RR 1 : 20 going through the middle of it. Pursuant to typical practice, the right of way is hereby designated as Commercial Forest. Agriculture Lands of
Local Importance In the year 2004, Agricultural Lands of Local Importance (" AL") designation was requested for parcels with PIN 501032024 ( 4.97 acres) and 501032025 ( 5. 04 acres).
The application listed two parcel numbers but only one was included in the matrix created for analysis and decision- making. Parcel 501032024 was erroneously excluded, and therefore
was not rezoned. It is hereby adopted that parcel 501032024 be zoned AL, as was intended in last year' s amendments. Page 17 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments The application for parcel 901254007 ( 9.68 acres) was erroneously stapled together with another application under the same name last year. However, only the parcel
number from the other application made it into the matrix. The application for this parcel indicates that the Agricultural Lands Committee of the Planning Commission discussed the matter,
and recommended inclusion of the parcel within the Local Ag designation. This amendment implements that intent and gives a Local Ag designation to Parcel # 901254007. The application
for parcel 921324028 ( 5. 12 acres) was stapled together with the application for parcel 921324022, but never made it to the matrix last year. The subject parcel is adjacent to parcel
921324022, which was rezoned to Local Ag. This amendment causes parcel 921324028 to also be zoned Local Agriculture. Parcel 802363023 ( 6. 77 acres) was an incorrect parcel number included
on the matrix for approval. Parcel 802363022 ( 5. 63 acres) was the parcel that was actually subject to the requested rezone. Parcel 802363022 was mistakenly omitted from Local Ag designation,
while parcel 802363023 was mistakenly included; parcel 802363023 belongs to a landowner who did not request Local Ag designation during last year' s process. This Ordinance serves to
remove 802363023 from the designation of Local Ag and grants the designation of Local Ag to 806263022. A portion of parcel 901112040 remains designated Rural Residential 1 : 5; the
parcel is hereby zoned Local Ag in its entirety adding 0.27 additional acres. The UGA boundary intersects a large parcel, 901034003, " Sunfield Farm." The small portion of that parcel
that lies inside the UGA boundary was inadvertently rezoned Local Ag. It was never the intention to rezone anything inside the UGA. Though the portion of this rather large parcel that
is in question is quite small ( 0.09 acres), it is necessary to correct this error. That portion of parcel 901034003 located within the UGA boundary is Page 18 of21 Ordinance No. 10-
1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments hereby given the designation provided to it pursuant to Ordinance # 10- 0823- 04 as that Ordinance was modified by the June
6, 2005 decision of the County Commission to return to rural development standards within the UGA. Parcels lacking any land use designation The parcel with PIN 603143001, approximately
38 acres in size and currently depicted as two parcels split by a right of way is hereby zoned Rural Residential 1 : 20. Parcel # 503360001 is a Department of Natural Resources (" DNR")-
owned parcel split into pieces of 190 and 110 acres, respectively. The parcel is hereby designated CF 1 : 80. There is a grouping of parcels comprising approximately 980 acres along
the north bank of the Quinault River that were not zoned when the CP was adopted in 1998. The following parcels are within the boundary of the Olympic National Park and are hereby designated
as such on the map ofCP Land Use Designations: 408292002, 408291001, 408291010, 408291003, 408291007, 408291005, 408291004, 408282001, 408281001, 408280000, 408291006, 408291009, 408291008,
408291002, 408291012, 408292001, 408293001, 408282013, 408282014, 408282004, 408282003, 408282005, 408282006, 408282007, 408282008, 408282009, 408282010, 408282011, 408282015, 408282002,
408291011, 408293002, 408292003, 000000260. An island off the tip of Indian Island consisting of portions of these parcels: 921000000 Indian Island) and 021180000 ( Fort Flagler) was
never zoned. Zoning for each portion is hereby made consistent with the rest of the respective parcels, namely Military Reservation and Parks, Preserves and Recreation (" PPR"), respectively.
Page 19 of21 Ordinance No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Small" zones After analyzing 50 some- odd parcels that intersect 21 " small" zones in east Jefferson
County, areas that are smaller than one acre, the following anomalies were identified for correction: Zoning for parcels with PIN 021332007 ( 0.05 acres) and 021332002 ( 0. 18 acres),
both designated PPR, should be amended to follow property lines. In the case of the former, the area of the PPR designation is retracted to include only the parcel; in the case of the
latter, the area of the PPR designation is expanded slightly to include the full parcel. Parcel 021283022 ( 0. 15 acres) is hereby rezoned PPR to accurately reflect its inclusion in
East Beach Park. A portion of parcel 502021001 is zoned RR 1 : 20 although the parcel is inside Dosewallips State Park. Because the vast majority of the parcel is designated PPR, the
PPR designation is hereby applied to the entirety of the parcel with PIN 502021001. Comprehensive Plan Table and Text Amendments The Population Projection Table, Table 3- 1 on page
3- 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, contains an error. The 2000 population figure for Unincorporated Rural & Resource Areas, as indicated in BoCC Resolution 55- 03, was 13, 972 rather than
18, 972. The correct figure of 13, 972 is hereby formally entered into the Comprehensive Plan through adoption of this Ordinance. In the CP Land Use and Rural Element ( p. 3- 70, number
6), there is a reference to designating two Industrial Land Banks (ILBs). That language is hereby corrected to "... a bank with two master planned locations." Page 20 of21 Ordinance
No. 10- 1212- 05 Approving Six 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Section Seven: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non- compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management
Act, then the development regulations and/or underlying zoning designations applicable to that parcel or parcels prior to adoption of the non- compliant or invalid section shall be
applicable to that parcel or parcels. Section Eight: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non- compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, such a finding
of non- compliance or invalidity shall not nullify or invalidate any other section of this Ordinance. Section Nine: This Ordinance becomes effective on the date it is executed. Approved
and adopted this 12TH day of December. 2005. fj i~'t~ 11}/1C( . .' J "(~~ 1~.{,Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board ' . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS f.~: f) i~.. Phil J0
. n, Chair I /~/~ t:~~~ V~J~ DaVI Sullivan, Member Patrick M. Rodgers, Member Page 21 of21