HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-9-4 CPA Cycle Staff Report°N d
JEFFERSON COUNTY�w
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IN4`i�
2019 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 4, 2019
INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT
Environmental Review of a Non -Project Action:
Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents
Principal ContributorslAuthors
Department of Community Development
Long -Range Planning
Patty Charnas, Director
Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner
Technical Contributors
Department of Central Services
Doug Noltemeier, Senior GIS Analyst
Kevin Hitchcock, GIS Analyst/Cartographer
Logistical Contributors
Department of Community Development
Nicole Allen, Office Coordinator
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 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 Growth Management Indicators............................................................
2-1
2.2 Staff Report on Site -Specific Amendment..........................................................
2-6
2.2.1 Review of Rezone Proposal MLA19-00013........................................
2-11
2.2.1.1 General Description & Environmental Information ..................
2-11
2.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis ...................................................
2-12
2.2.1.3 Supplemental Sheet for Non -Project Actions SEPA ..............
2-16
2.2.1.4 Staff Recommendation...........................................................
2-17
3 Supporting Record, Analysis, & Materials.................................................................. 3-1
4 Distribution List............................................................................................................4-1
5 Appendices ........................ ....................................................................................... 5-1
A. Maps................................................................................................................ A-1
B. Legal Notice published September 3, 2008............ ....... .................................. B-1
C. Jefferson County Resolution No. 38-15, 2015.... ....... ........... 1......................... C-1
D. Site Photos......................................................................................................... D-1
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
1 Environmental Summary 8 Fact Sheet
1.1 FACT SHEET
Title and Description of Pursuant to the Washington State Growth
Proposed Action Management Act (GMA), the Jefferson County Board
of County Commissioners (BoCC) is considering
adoption of one (1) site -specific amendment to the
2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. This
proposal is to rezone a 10-acre Rural Residential 1:10
parcel to Rural Residential 1:5. This individual
proposal comprises the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Final Docket of the 2019 amendment
cycle.'
This document is a combined Staff Report and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for the
aforementioned proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment. The objective of this document is to
analyze the proposed amendment individually and
cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan
amendment criteria outlined in Chapter 18.45
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 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
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals will come
forward as "deny", "approve" or "approve with
modifications".
Following is a brief description of one (1) proposed
site -specific amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
that is the subject of this notice. This case is filed
under Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number
and Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) for reference:
Site -Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment
1. MLA19-00013; Andrew & Sarah Wilke, 240
Sand Road, off of Crutcher Road, accessed
via Cape George Road, Port Townsend,
WA; 10.07 acres (APN 001184004); RR 1:10
to 1:5.
The 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) on June 17, 2019 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing four (4) suggested text
amendment proposals and one (1) site -specific amendment proposal.
1-1
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicant for
the site -specific amendment proposal.
Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community
Development (DCD)
Long -Range Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official:
Patty Charnas, DCD Director
(360) 379-4493
Contact Person(s)
Joel Peterson, AICP
Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
(360) 379-4457
Authors and Principal Jefferson County Department of Community
Contributors Development Long -Range Planning
Date of Staff Report & SEPA September 4, 2019
Addendum
Date Comments are Due Oral comments are welcome at the Planning
Commission public hearing, 5:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, September 18, 2019, at the Tri-Area
Community Center, 10 West Valley Road,
Chimacum, WA.
■ Written comments will be accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through the
end of the public hearing. Send to: Department
of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street,
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Past Related Actions and The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at
Future Anticipated Actions 5:30 PM, Wednesday, September 18, 2008 for the
purposes of accepting verbal and written
testimony, at the Tri-Area Community Center, 10
West Valley Road, Chimacum, WA. In mid -October,
DCD expects to transmit to the BoCC a final DCD
Staff Recommendation together with the Planning
Commission Recommendation for the site -specific
proposal.
Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on the individual
site -specific Comprehensive Plan amendment
proposal under consideration is expected sometime
prior to the end of the second week in December
2019. The meeting schedules and agendas for the
Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to this
Docket are available by visiting:
1-2
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
htt s:ltwww.co.iefferson.wa.us/578/Jefferson-Count -
Comarehensive-Plan
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 Background material and documents used to support
Material and Documents development of the Addendum are available for
Incorporated by Reference inspection from 9:00 AM 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 Copies of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum, or selected pages thereof, are available
from htips://www.co.iefferson.wa _us15781Jefferson-
County-Comprehensive-Plan.
1-3
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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 most recently in December 2018. 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. Chapter 18.45 JCC contains the process for amending the
Comprehensive Plan. The 2019 "Preliminary Docket" included four (4) proposed text amendments and
one (1) site -specific amendment. Consistent with Chapter 18.45 JCC, all site -specific amendments
(formal applications submitted in conjunction with a fee) automatically qualify for the "Final Docket". The
Jefferson County Planning Commission heard testimony on four (4) 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, after an independent public hearing regarding
the docket, established the Final Docket, declining to docket the four (4) suggested amendments and
establishing the individual site -specific amendment as the single amendment proposal on the Final
Docket.
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 Chapter 18.45
JCC, 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. The analysis in this document supplements
the existing adopted environmental documents incorporated herein by reference. JCC 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, 2019 (Appendix A):
Year State Environmental Policy Act Document Description
1997-1998 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda
prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The
DEIS and HIS 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.
1-4
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Year State Environmental Policy Act Document Description
6/30/1999 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS)--Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task
8/18/1999 III of Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study)
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments. Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study
Task IV.
6/1 1 /2001 I Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study Supplemental EIS Final Decision Document,
June 11, 2001
2002
Integrated Growth Management Act/State Environmental Policy Act Document
Environmental Review of a Non -Project Action: Draft Supplemental EIS August
21, 2002, to Supplement the Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS (1997)
and Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments Draft and Final SEIS. November
25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket.
This FSEIS was appealed before the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board (WWGMHB) of which the WWGMHB issued a Final Decision
and Order (FDO) and remanded it back to the Department for additional
environmental review.
The county hired Wheeler Consulting, to prepare additional environmental
review based on the FDO. A DSEIS to the 2002 CPA SEIS was issued on
March 3, 2004. A FSEIS to the 2002 CPA SEIS was issued on May 12, 2004
as part of the review and in consideration of MLA02-00235.
Staff Recommendation and Environmental Analysis with Regard to the Adoption
2003
of Four Proposed Site -Specific Amendments to the 1998 Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan. SEPA Addendum August 6, 2003. Sept. 17, 2003 SEPA
Addendum for Suggested Amendments
2004 Staff Report and SEPA Addendum to 1998 EIS for UGA Amendments to
2004
the Comprehensive Plan issued May 19, 2004.
2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community
2004
Development Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued September
22, 2004.
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, August 3, 2005. Incorporated
2005
by reference: 1998 DEIS/FEIS and 2004 Addendum.
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Rpt., July 19, 2006
2006
2007 SEPA Addendum, adopting by reference 2004 Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum for UGA Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan issued May 19,
2004 and 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of
Community Development Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued
September 22, 2004.
2008 Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, September 3, 2008.
Adopted by reference: 1998 DEIS/FEIS, and environmental documents from
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 environmental review
2009 Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, September 2, 2009. Adopted
by legal notice: 1998 DEIS/FEIS, September 22nd Staff Report 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, "and all supplementary information ... supporting record,
1-5
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Year State Environmental Policy Act Document Description
analyses, materials."
2010 Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, September 2010.
2013 Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum, Staff Report September 4, 2013. Adopted
by reference all previous SEPA documents.
2015 Staff Report & SEPA Environmental Review, Proposal to Amend Unified
Development Code, JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code, October 29, 2015. Integrated
Growth Management Act/State Environmental Policy Act Analysis,
Environmental Review of a Non -Project Action.
2018 Determination of Significance, Notice of Adoption, and SEPA Addendum to
1998 Draft and Final Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Impact Statements and subsequent Supplemental EISs and Addenda, April 4,
2018.
Update to SEPA Addendum to 1998 Draft and Final Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statements and subsequent
Supplemental EISs and Addenda Addressing Potential Revisions to Proposed
Plan and UDC Update, November 29, 2018
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The individual Comprehensive Plan amendment application, including all supplemental information
submitted with or associated with the application, 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 individual proposal, 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 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket 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
1-6
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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 amendment 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 2019
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum.
This 2019 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, 2019 deadline for
applications set forth in JCC 18.45.040 (2)(a).
On April 14, 2019 the Planning Commission held a hearing to receive public comment on the suggested
amendments of the preliminary docket --four suggested text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
UDC.
On May 1, 2019 the Planning Commission transmitted its final docketing report and recommendations to
the BoCC. The site -specific proposals were docketed automatically.
On June 10, 2019, after timely and effective public notice, the BoCC held an open -record public hearing
on the four suggested amendments on the preliminary docket.
On June 17, 2019, the BoCC adopted the 2019 Final Docket of no suggested text amendments and one
site -specific proposal review.
1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Planning Commission Public Hearin - 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 amendment that comprises the 2019 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket. Formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend &
Jefferson County Leader, prior to the public hearings.
1-7
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, September 4, 2019, initiates a
public comment period. For the individual site -specific amendment proposal comprising the final docket:
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 5:30 p.m., Wednesday,
September 18, 2019, at the Tri-Area Community Center, 10 West Valley Road, Chimacum, WA.
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through the close
of the hearing.
Please submit any written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via
email to peterson@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 at
the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2019 Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycle webpage: https://www.co.iefferson.wa. us/578/Jefferson-County-Comprehensive-Plan.
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 during its regularly scheduled meeting of October 9, 2019. It is anticipated that the Planning
Commission will forward a recommendation and transmittal document to the BoCC on all proposed
amendments by Wednesday, October 16, 2019.
The Planning Commission generally meets the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at the Tri-
Area Community Center, 10 West Valley Road, Chimacum, WA. 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 2019 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 2019.
In making a final legislative decision on the 2019 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 2019 Docket.
1-8
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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 2019 (Monday, December 9th
has been tentatively identified as a likely adoption date). The meeting schedules and agendas for the
Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2019 Docket are available on the 2019
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle webpage: htt s://www.co. efferson.wa.us/578/Jefferson.
County -Comprehensive -Plan.
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 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). The term is often non -quantifiable but involves the
physical setting (context) as well as the magnitude and duration of the impact (intensity). In determining
significance under SEPA rules, the beneficial aspects of a proposal must not be used to balance adverse
impacts.
Table 1.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
MLA19-00013 WILKE REZONE PROPOSAL
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
IMPACTS?
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
This review of potential impacts covered subjects
Approve.
such as infrastructure, transportation, rural character,
and critical areas, and the ability of current
regulations to address potential impacts.
No probable significant adverse environmental
impacts were identified.
1-9
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
1.2.2.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Conclusions regarding significant environmental impacts 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
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. The
2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan restates the GMA definition of rural character and adds
additional clarifying principles specific to Jefferson County. These definitions are provided in Section 2 of
this document.
A 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 open space, natural
landscape and vegetation predominate over the built environment.
Rezone proposals have been made since the 1998 Comprehensive Plan zoning scheme was put into
place. A criterion that has been used to determine if a rezone proposal was appropriate is to examine if
there is an "established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels". An established pattern can be
progressively added to and still be an established pattern. Staff and decision -makers have grappled with
the issue of a "domino effect" of successive up -zones. Each up -zone proposal has been evaluated
individually and in consideration of multiple site -specific issues.
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. Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact environmental quality.
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations codified in
Title 18 JCC, also known as the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC contains development
regulations, process, and procedures. The UDC was developed such that mitigation measures are
incorporated into permit decisions.
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
The legislative adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments and related UDC 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
1-10
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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 critical areas
are contained at Chapter 18.22 JCC. Critical areas 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 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. Mitigation measures, as
required by local development regulations 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. Submitted Special Reports are used in evaluating development proposals and augmenting
existing County GIS critical area databases.
Sometimes the existing local development 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 mitigation 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 a proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment 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. Mitigation measures must be reasonable and roughly proportional to the impacts of the
non -project or project action. 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.
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action
The individual site -specific proposal reviewed in this document is relatively minor in that it does not
collectively represent a distinct change in direction from implementation of the adopted 1998
Comprehensive Plan or subsequent periodic reviews.
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 come. Therefore, determinations that appear
to have little direct environmental impact when viewed in isolation in 2019 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 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 2038. 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.
1-12
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report $ SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals
2.1 OVERVIEW
Pursuant to Chapter 18.45 JCC, 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 Chapter 18.45 JCC, 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. Formal Site -Specific
Amendments. The preliminary docket shall also include all formal site -specific applications for
Comprehensive Plan amendments. Formal site -specific applications for amendments that are
properly and timely filed under JCC 18.45.040 (2)(a) shall be placed on the final docket for
consideration during the current annual amendment process.
Suggested Text 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)). There are no Suggested Text Amendments in the
2019 Amendment Cycle.
This document addresses one site -specific Comprehensive Plan amendment on the Final Docket; there
are no suggested Comprehensive Plan amendments on the 2019 Final Docket.
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.
Individual & Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in Chapter 18.45 JCC and, in turn, evaluates
the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. The one
amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff
recommendation is made based on those criteria.
2.1.1 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
2-1
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
• Consistency between state law and the Comprehensive Plan, or the Comprehensive Plan 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 2019 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.
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45.050 lJ(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 official April 1, 2018 population
determinations are released June 28 of each year. Each year the intercensal population estimate is re -
interpolated to a Census base year (i.e. 2010 until the 2020 census is completed), possibly changing
previously published numbers.
The April 1, 2019 population for Jefferson County in the official April 1 determination (published June,
2019) was 31,900.
Population Trends
In 2015, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend, through the Joint Growth Management
Steering Committee, developed a population projection and county -wide population distribution
(allocations) based on the medium series population growth projection from the OFM for the period 2010-
2038. The projected population growth and allocations were passed by the Board of County
Commissioners as established in Resolution No. 38-15 (Appendix C). The population projection
anticipates a population of 39,221 people in 2038, an estimated growth of 7,916 people from 2018 to
2038. This represents an annual growth rate of 0.98%. This estimate is lower than the previous
comprehensive planning period (2000-2004) which planned on the basis of a 1.78% growth rate. The
population growth rate has trended slightly downward since the last 20-year planning horizon.
Population Allocation
Resolution No. 38-15 allocates shares of the anticipated county -wide population growth to different
locations of the county 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.
Therefore, 70% of future population growth is allocated to urban areas and 30% is allocated to rural and
resource areas. 2010 Census data shows the actual Jefferson County rural/urban distribution was 49% of
the population in rural areas and 51 % of the population resided in designated urban areas of the County.
By applying the 70%/30% allocation to urban/rural areas for the anticipated future 20-year growth, the
effective population shares in 2038 would be 56% in urban areas and 44% in rural areas. This a
planning -level analysis of the observed population distribution in the County, and the results of applying
the adopted allocations of projected growth in urban and rural areas of the County. There is no method of
actually directing growth to certain areas of the County, but is a reference when adopting or amending
plans and making decisions about housing, facilities, or services.
2-2
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
The allocation plan of Resolution No. 38-15 is consistent with the goals of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan to protect rural character and offer more housing and employment choices in Urban
Growth Areas, in MPR areas where urban services are available, and in existing rural communities
classified as Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs). (2018 Comprehensive Plan
p. 1-5).
Residential Development and Existing Lot Supply
This Growth Management Indicator also prompts an inquiry into the subject of development as
anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. Countywide, there is a sufficient supply of residential lots at a
variety of zoned densities to meet the anticipated population growth and development in the 2018-2038
planning period (2018 Comprehensive Plan). No changes were made to zoning in the 2018 Periodic
Review of the Comprehensive Plan.
The assessment of site -specific amendments requires the local area to be considered. The proposal is in
the Quimper Planning Area, defined by the unincorporated Jefferson County west of Port Townsend and
State Route 20 to Discovery Bay, and bounded to the south at Adelma Beach (Figure 2.1). A review of
the distribution of vacant parcels in the Quimper Planning Area is shown below in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
There are 571 of vacant parcels is in the RR1:5 zoning district.
Quimper Planning Area
Table 2.1
Zone
Vacant Parcels
AL-20 - Local Agriculture
6
EPF-WM - Essential Public
Facility -Waste
Management
1
RR-10 - Rural Residential
31
RR-20 - Rural Residential
111
RR-5 - Rural Residential
571
Grand Total
720
Jefferson County Assessor Data
Table 2.2
Total
tcc
5CC;
4ccl
UGC
2E„
1 C"�
r.
41-2C - Local EPF -V-o h-1 -
RR-1E - Rura
Agr;cu_ture EssentaI
Res°dent;a3
Pubic Facjlity-
VV ante
h:lanagernent
Jefferson County Assessor Data
A
RR-2C - Rura=
R -s dent;a'-
riaure 1.i
RR-5 - Pura:
Ra
= 7ata;
2-3
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Supply of land for future development is also available from future subdivisions. Parcels with acreage that
is two times, or greater, the zoned density can subdivide by right. In the Quimper Planning Area, there is
land capacity from future subdivisions that could theoretically accommodate 87-127 new single-family
residences (SFRs). No site -specific analysis was done to determine if there were any unbuildable parcels
in this analysis but parcels selected are over 0.25 acre to account for minimum septic system area. Code
provisions for constrained parcels would assist with buildability, making the total number of unbuildable
parcels low.
Quimper Planning Area Parcels that Can Subdivide Based on
Acreage and Zoned Density
# Parcels
Double or
*Potential
Total Parcel
Zoned Density
Greater
New SFR
58-82
Acreage
466
RR5 >or= 10 acres
24
RR10 >or= 20
acres
10
15-23
272
RR20 >or= 40
acres
8
14-22
503
Jeff. Co. Assessor Data
*Range of new SRF is bracketed by all having an existing home & all undeveloped (vacant)
(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 specified in the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
(3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and
need.
Discussion: Planning analysis of the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area demonstrates there is
sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand, 1,814 additional persons by 2038,
under the assumption that there will be future growth at urban densities.
Development of a sanitary sewer facility for the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area will enable
additional urban -level growth and urban population densities. The GMA specifies that urban growth shall
be encouraged within a UGA and growth outside of a UGA can occur only if it is not urban in nature
(RCW 36.70A.110). The Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area Land Capacity Analysis
(Comprehensive Plan Appendix E) demonstrates that with current urban zoning designations, the
allocated 20-year population could be accommodated.
With current urban zoning, 2,103-2,529 dwelling units can be accommodated, which translates into an
approximate population of 4,416-5,311 people. This meets the projected population allocation to this
UGA of 5,394 within a reasonable term of error for a 20-year projection.
GMA does not allow growth at urban densities until urban services are available, namely sanitary sewer
service, in which case Transitional Rural Development Standards apply (JCC 18.18.050 Table 3A-2 and
Chapter 18.19 JCC).
2-4
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Residential holding capacity that can be achieved under Transitional Rural Development standards is
based on the on -site sewer code, generally allowing a minimum lot area of 12,500 s.f. for an on -site
septic system. This equates to an approximate residential density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
Using the net total buildable acreage in residential zones from the UGA Land Capacity Analysis, there are
approximately 162.47 net buildable acres for residential development in the UGA. At 12,500 s.f. or 3.5
DU/ac, the theoretical holding capacity of the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA under Transitional Rural
Development Standards is approximately 567 net additional dwelling units on underdeveloped or vacant
land, accommodating approximately 1190 people.' Transitional Rural Development Standards would not
allow sufficient density to accommodate the 1,814 persons allocated to the UGA from the projected 2018-
2038 population growth.
Master Planned Resorts are allocated a population of 1,141 additional people by 2038 for Port Ludlow
(789) and Pleasant Harbor (352).
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.
The proposed up -zoning of a rural residential parcel to make an additional rural residential lot will not
affect planning assumptions for urban lands or the holding capacity of urban lands.
(4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
found to be valid.
Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan recently went through a Periodic Review in 2018. Newly
articulated Vision Statement, Foundational Principles, Goals and Policies, and Action Plans, that clearly
and strongly communicated a priority for County services and funding decisions to address opportunities
for affordable housing and rural economic development while protecting public health and the
environment. The assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid.
(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 developed
under the Growth Management Act was originally adopted in 1998 and most recently reviewed and
revised in 2018. The Plan's goals and values are freshly articulated.
(6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments.
Discussion: With a newly reviewed and revised plan, the Unified Development Code is undergoing a
thorough review under the rubric of Regulatory Reform. This evaluation of development regulations is
intended to streamline and improve the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Regulatory Reform results collectively implement the renewed emphasis on affordable housing
and rural economic development and are therefore not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
' Based on 2.1 persons per household. Refer to Appendix E, 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
2-5
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
(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.
2.2 STAFF REPORT ON SITE -SPECIFIC AMENDMENT
Request for Change of Rural Residential Density
The individual request for change in Rural Residential density is 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. See location Map 2.0 Request for Change of Rural Residential
Density.
Rural Character
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. County policy requires consideration of rural character when reviewing land uses
(Comprehensive Plan p. 1-29). The 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan restates the
GMA definition of rural character and adds additional clarifying principles specific to Jefferson
County:
The GMA defines rural character as follows:
"Rural character" refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural
element of its comprehensive plan:
(a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built
environment,
(b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live
and work in rural areas,
(c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities,
(d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
(e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density
development,
(f) That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services, and
(g) That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and groundwater and
surface water recharge and discharge areas RCW 36.70A.030(16).
2-6
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Additional principles that define Jefferson County's rural character include the following
(elements of the GMA definition for rural character supported by each principle are shown in
parenthesis):
F► Ensure that the County's quality of life is preserved as it is enhanced. (all)
F Protect and conserve the County's agricultural and forest working lands, shoreline and mountain
vistas, visual and forest corridors, night sky, and natural ecosystems. (a, c, d)
Encourage development that blends with the County's natural setting. (a, c)
Promote low -density residential development that is consistent with the historical pattern of
growth, prevents a new pattern of sprawling development, and offers a variety of residential
densities. (e)
0 Promote economic development that supports place -based jobs, supports renewable resources,
supports local healthy food and local job and housing choices for residents and the local workforce.
(b, d)
Encourage and provide incentives for businesses to create local "family wage" employment
opportunities, and for modern economic opportunities —including home -based business and
cottage industries —compatible with surrounding uses. (b)
[:o-] Provide efficient delivery of rural public services which minimize the need for additional
infrastructure. (f)
0► Protect and conserve the environment, ecologically sensitive areas, natural surface water and
recharge areas, and preclude development and land uses which are incompatible with critical areas.
(d, g)
The land use designations and the goals and policies of this element have been developed to meet these
criteria. Goals and policies of other elements of the Comprehensive Plan have been evaluated for
consistency with the protection of rural character as defined above, and by the other factors contributing
to local "rural character" as provided under the full text of the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use and Zoning Designations
The site -specific rezone proposal, is also reviewed against the criteria used to apply the County's zoning
scheme, put in place in 1996 (Ordinance No. 05-0214-96) for planning under the Growth Management
Act and part of the updates adopted in 2018 Comprehensive Plan periodic review.
The Rural Residential 1 unit/10 acres (RR 1:10) zone has been purposefully applied as a transition density
between RR1:5 and RR1:20, and has been designated in areas that are particularly affected by critical
areas.
2-7
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Table 3. Summary of Rural Land Use & Zoning Designations
Use/Zoning
F__'
PrincipalLand
Designp�tion
Criteria for desigq� _on m
Land Use
Rural Residential
Located in areas of similar development; areas with smaller
Single family residential
1 unit/5 acres
existing lots of record; along the coastal area; adjacent to Rural
(RR 1:5)
Village Center and Rural Crossroad designations; overlay
designation for pre-existing platted subdivisions.
Rural Residential
Located in an area with similar development patterns; adjacent
Single family residential
1 unit/10 acres
to Urban Growth Area, transition density between RR 1:5 and RR
(RR 1:10)
1:20; parcels in coastal areas of similar size; includes land
affected by critical areas.
Rural Residential
Located in an area with similar development patterns; Adjacent
Single family residential
1 unit/20 acres
to Urban Growth Area, Resource Production Land or
(RR 1:20)
State/National Forest Land; parcels in coastal areas of similar
size; includes land affected by critical areas; includes private
timberlands; includes agricultural lands.
Review and analysis of surrounding zones
The pattern of zoned densities and parcel sizes around the vicinity of the subject parcel can be seen in
Map 2.1. Residential densities in the area include RR1:5, RR1:10, and RR1:20, predominately RR1:10.
Parcels that are less than 10 acres in size but are zoned RR1:10 are identified on the map by a box
containing the parcel acreage.
The 5-acre parcels zoned RR1:10 shows the history of pre-GMA parcel segregations. All subdivisions
creating parcels below 10 acres in size in this area were done before 1996, with the exception of one
density exemption pursuant to JCC 18.30.050 (4). The GMA zoning applied a Rural Residential 1:10
designation in this area as a transition density between the RR1:5 and RR1:20 zones and to serve the
purpose of critical area protection, as shown in Table 2.3. The RR1:10 rural residential density is applied
to the wetland mosaic below Discovery Ridge which and continues down -drainage to Discovery Bay (Map
2.2).
The subject property is abutting a 5-acre RR1:5 parcel to the north, part of a row of RR1:5 parcels. A
rezone of the subject property would continue the row of RR1:5 by two parcels extending south.
Also depicted on Map 2.1 are RR1:10 parcels that are entitled to further subdivision based on acreage
exceeding 20 acres in the RR1:10 zone. Acreage is noted in the blue circles.
Applicable Comprehensive Plan References for Rural Residential Land Use
Of most relevance is Chapter 1, of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use. The Land Use
Strategy of the Plan (p. 1-15) is balanced by the County's Vision, Framework Goals, and the
Land Use Element by:
F► Directing growth as much as possible to urban areas including the Port Hadlock / Irondale Urban
Growth Area;
2-8
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
u Offering a variety of residential housing types at low, medium, and high densities in designated
urban and rural village centers and crossroads;
0 Ensuring areas designated as Master Planned Resorts follow their adopted development standards
and development agreements;
0 Conserving resource lands —agriculture, forestry, and mineral —of long-term commercial
significance;
0 Accommodating projected rural residential population and employment growth through flexible and
innovative approaches to growth in LAMIRDs and other rural communities, including fostering their
role as rural employment centers, and offering opportunities to create a vibrant economy while
sustaining rural character in a rural county;
Ft Working cooperatively with other groups and individuals to develop long-term future opportunities
to improve rural economic development and visitor facilities along established highway/tourist
corridors.
Goals & Policies Regarding Rural Residential Land Use:
Rural Areas Policies Summarized from County -Wide Planning Policy (2018 Comprehensive Plan p. 1-34)
Rural areas are "characterized by low density development, open spaces, minimal public services,
resource dependent activities, and industries; and outdoor recreational facilities." Innovative tools such as
"clustering or density transfer is considered a positive tool" to maintaining rural character. Level of service
standards are to fit rural areas and rural centers such as: "emergency services, transportation and roads,
individual septic systems, individual or community water systems, and storm water and water quality"
systems.
Parcel sizes are to be "commensurate with the character of existing rural communities," and rural areas
are to have a "variety of acreage parcels."
Land Use Goals & Policies, 2018 Comprehensive Plan
Goal LU-G-7 Preserve the functions and values of critical environmental areas and protect development
from the risks of environmental hazards.
❑► Policy LU-P-7.1 Ensure that land use decisions consider climate change, and are based on land
use ordinances which are in compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance and all applicable state
environmental laws.
L Policy LU-P-7.2 Allow residential, commercial, and industrial development in a manner that
minimizes risk from flooding, earth movement, shoreline erosion, sea level rise, and other natural
hazards.
F�] Policy LU-P-7.13 Continue to protect existing wetland area and functions, while encouraging
wetland enhancement and restoration under the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Continue to periodically
review and update CAO regulations relating to wetlands, including best available science.
Goal LU-G-11 Protect the quality and quantity of surface, ground, and marine water resources
through locally implemented shoreline, critical areas, and other related environmental programs.
2-9
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
F Policy LU-P-11.2 Preserve the environmental functions of surface and ground water resources by
retaining native vegetation and open spaces where feasible and by requiring mitigation measures for land
use activities that may adversely impact surface and ground water.
❑► Policy LU-P-11.4 Promote best management practices and voluntary open space conservation to
protect critical areas in land use regulations related to septic systems, forest management, agricultural
practices, industry, and other development.
Goal LU-G-18 Encourage residential land use and development intensities that protect the
character of rural areas, avoid interference with resource land uses, and minimize impacts upon
environmentally sensitive areas.
0 Policy LU-P-18.1 Rural residential cluster subdivisions shall be encouraged, consistent with
development regulations, throughout the rural areas. The open space tracts in these planned rural
residential development subdivisions should be permanently preserved.
❑► Policy LU-P-18.2 Integrate open space planning with innovative programs such as the purchase or
transfer of development rights, cluster development with density bonuses, open space tax assessment,
and acquisition of easements.
Goal LU-G-20 Ensure that rural residential development preserves rural character, protects rural
community identity, is compatible with surrounding land uses, and minimizes infrastructure
needs.
F' f Policy LU-P-20.1 Identify and encourage diverse rural land uses and densities which preserve rural
character and rural community identity.
0 Policy LU-P-20.2 Establish rural residential land use densities for all lands located outside of
designated Urban Growth Areas. Proposed rural residential densities and site -specific re -zones 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. Proposed changes to residential land use designations shall
take into consideration the vacant lot supply of the local area before allowing site -specific changes to
residential zoning.
El,:] Policy LU-P-20.5 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, and one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres in size —and subject to the criteria in Chapter JCC
18.15.040.
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.
septic systems) and individual water systems (i.e. wells).. Since 1996, the maximum rural density that
can be achieved through subdivision in unincorporated Jefferson County is one dwelling unit per five
acres.
The proposal for residential density changes will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan and other relevant laws and regulations. A general description, required findings and conclusions,
and staff recommendation is provided below.
2-10
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
2.2.1 Review of Rezone Proposal MLA19-00013
Applicant: Andrew and Sarah Wilke
Assessor Parcel Number: 001184004
Location: 240 Sand Road
Note: The application (Page 1 Exhibit B) provides a quote attributed to DCD Customer
Assistance Meeting CAM18-718 as: "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."
This is a misplaced reference. The quote is from a 2006 staff report and is not
contemporaneous with this 2019 evaluation.
Evaluations from past staff reports were provided to the applicant to assist with their decision -
making for pursuing this proposal. Evaluations of past rezone requests do not set precedent for
future decisions. The question about how to evaluate these types of proposals is briefly
discussed in the "areas of uncertainty" portion of Section 1 of this Report.
2.2.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would rezone 10.07 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 addressed as 240 (Home) and 292 (ADU) Sand Road, near the location where
Sand Road becomes adjacent to South Edwards Road. Sand Road begins as a turn off of
Crutcher Road, accessed by Cape George Road, approximately two miles from the City of Port
Townsend in unincorporated Jefferson County. Sand Road Serves approximately 26
residences.
The parcel adjacent to the northeast is RR1:5 and is the last of a row of four (4) parcels of
RR1:5 along Sand Road. (c.f. Application Exhibit G showing lot areas < 5 acres in RR1:10 or
RR1:20 zones. RR1:10 parcels are adjacent to the northwest, to the west, and to the south of
the subject parcel. Parcels directly across Sand Road to the east are RR1:5.
The subject parcel is irregularly "U shaped and the stem extending to the west is part of a
wetland complex. It was created in the 1980's by dividing the original 20-acre parcel through a
Common Tenant Division. Discovery Bay Ridge is adjacent to the west side of the property, and
has a slope of about 20% over and elevation rise of about 300 feet. There is a trellised drainage
pattern off of the ridge forming non -fish -bearing streams in the near vicinity, and feeds fish -
bearing streams as tributaries connect (Map 2.2). Off -site, the slope is wooded and categorized
as Slight Landslide Hazard. Past clear -cuts (1991) on Discovery Bay Ridge have created
stormwater runoff issues for residents on the east slope near the subject parcel (comments in
SUB97-00005). Low lying areas of Sand Road have experienced seasonal flooding from
stormwater runoff and high groundwater levels supplying the wetland complex.
Rezoning the property would divide an ADU from the primary residence, creating one (1)
additional parcel, and opening the potential for an additional home on the ADU site, and
additional ADU on the home site, although there is limited area for additional development due
to the presence of wetlands and wetland buffers. (Figure 2.2.)
2-11
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Figure 2.2 Site Planning Characteristics
Generalized depiction of current site development characteristics including structures, septic areas,
wellhead protection, wetlands and buffers.
2.2.1.2 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 Imps
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators
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
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
rsis — MLA18-00013: Wilke
Staff Evaluation
The circumstances related to the area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Population growth has occurred slower than projected
in the past decade. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan
has adjusted population projections.
2-12
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents 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 proposed site -specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
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 recently in 2018 and reflects the widely
held values of the residents of Jefferson County.
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation. The proposed amendment should not
adversely impact the level of county services. Sand
Road is classified as a Local Access Road which is
rated for up to 399 Average Daily Trips (ADT) (>100 to
<400).
Approximately 26 residences (27 parcels total) use
Sand Road --assume double if all had Accessory
Dwelling Units, and multiply by a standard residential
trip count of 6.
26x2 = 52 *6 trip ends/day = 312
27x2 = 54 * 6 trip ends/day = 324
That is still a conservative number because not every
parcel has a residence, and not every residence has
also an ADU.
The site is outside of any water service area and is
served by a well. Existing structures are outside of the
wellhead protection area, a 100-foot radius of the well.
The property subdivision would need to meet Two
Party Well Agreement requirements. If installing a new
well, it would need to be at least 100 feet from any
property line.
Electrical service is currently and readily available to
the area, provided by Public Utility District #1 of
Jefferson County.
The Comprehensive Plan considers the allocation of
future population to various zoning districts and
geographic areas when analyzing the overall zoning
scheme, and reviews residential lot supply to
accommodate future growth.
GMA and the Comprehensive Plan share the goal 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 sprawling development patterns.
Review of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
and Assessor data demonstrates there is adequate
rural residential lot supply. Additional lots can become
available through subdivision of parcels already > in
size of the zoned density. Allowing unchecked rural
2-13
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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
residential upzoning and the creation of additional
rural residential lots could weaken the County's ability
to direct growth to urban areas.
The proposed amendment will not result in probable
significant adverse impacts to the transportation
network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or
environmental features. The subdivision would either
share the existing well or install a new well, as it is
outside of water service areas. It is assumed that
current environmental protection standards would be
adequate to protect the wetlands and wetland buffers
from a decrease in functions and values.
In the case of a site-
Generally the subject parcel is physically suitable for the requested land use
specific amendment
designation because the proposal would simply divide house and ADU. The site
to the land use map,
is limited in the ability to expand development primarily from extensive wetlands.
that the subject
There would be little additional land area for expansion of uses and structures
parcels are
without encroaching on the wetland buffer. Other constrains here, normal to any
physically suitable
site development, include a wellhead protection zone, septic systems & reserve
for the requested
areas, stormwater requirements, and an easement for Sand Road, With
land use designation
subdivision there may be a potential for more intensive use of the property if
and the anticipated
structures were expanded or redeveloped in some way. A wetland delineation
land use
and categorization to establish boundaries and buffer widths has been
development,
contracted but not completed.
including but not
limited to access,
The site was visited by the applicant's representative and DCD on August 7,
provision of utilities
2019. To test some basic assumptions, DCD reviewed aerial photographs to
and compatibility
find an apparent wetland boundary, and applied JCC 18.22.330 Table (2) for
with existing and
moderate impact land uses. Assuming a delineated Category III wetland and a
planned surrounding
high habitat score, a buffer width of 110 feet would be applied. The house
land uses
structure was built before the UDC was adopted and appears to be about 50 feet
from wetlands, based on a cursory field observation only (not a field wetland
delineation). The ADU structure is upland and would not be in a buffer area.
The wetland report will be needed to show true wetland boundaries and buffers.
It can be seen from the current development pattern of the site that. County
wetland regulations provide some flexibility to address site -specific conditions.
Wetland protection is first assured by following the "mitigation sequence", a
series of considerations while planning activities in wetlands or their buffers, as
outlined in 18.22.350 JCC. It specifies that the following sequence of activities is
followed to ensure no net loss of wetland function, value, and acreage:
1. First, avoidance. If avoidance is not possible, then
2. Minimizing impacts. If minimization still causes loss of function, value,
or acreage, then
3. Compensating for adverse impacts to regulated wetlands and buffers.
Other code provisions that may be available when there is encroachment on
wetland buffers is Buffer Reduction or Buffer Averaging with a Habitat
Management Plan outlining mitigation activities to offset impacts. This allows
limited encroachment in wetland buffers in exchange for improving the functions
and values of the buffer or wetlands elsewhere or increasing buffer widths in
2-14
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 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
applicable areas.
Alternative protection standards developed in a Critical Area Stewardship Plan
(CASP) for wetlands and buffers could be an option for landowners for wetlands
rated Category II, III, or IV in residential or agricultural zones. This allows a
proponent to create an individualized site -specific performance plan for wetland
and wetland buffer protection.
Because of the shape of the subject parcel and the preponderance of wetland
area, subdivision into two 5-acre parcels divides the predominant wetland area
into two parts. This property line may not be physically apparent on the ground,
but could, over time, cause impacts to function and value of the wetland while
under two ownerships and two management strategies. This variability is often
seen when property boundary fencing traverses a wetland.
The site was reviewed for applicability of applying the Planned Rural Residential
Development (PRRD) standards of 18.15.475 JCC as a possible subdivision
alternative to dividing, to the 10.07-acre parcel into two 5-acre lots. The PRRD
promotes creativity in site layout and design and allows flexibility in the
application of the standards for residential development in rural residential and
agricultural districts. This flexibility in site design is in exchange for a reserve
tract for planning open space or to protect critical areas. The reserve tract may
be owned by a homeowner's association, corporation, partnership, land trust,
individual, or other legal entity.
The PRRD incentives are geared toward larger cluster development proposals
but is applicable to a minimum parcel size of 10 acres in a RR1:5 zone. The
reserve tract requirement for RR1:5 is 65% of the development acreage. The
reserve tract for this 10.07-acre parcel would be 6.5 acres, leaving about 3.5
acres for two lots. The resulting lot sizes could be varied through averaging as
allowed in 18.15.515(2)(c).
The change in land use designation could potentially create pressure to up -zone
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- This particular site -specific amendmen
specific amendment population growth projections. Care
does not materially cumulative effect with future actions.
affect land use and
population growth
projections that are
the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan
t
does not materially affect land use or
should be taken to prevent possible
2-15
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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
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 is not located within an area that is currently under
review for UGA designation.
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)). GMA also requires comprehensive plans
to provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their
jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment
growth... consistent with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of
financial management.
The GMA also encourages innovative land use management techniques,
including, but not limited to, density bonuses, cluster housing, planned unit
developments, and the transfer of development rights (36.70A.090) and gives
deference to jurisdictions to appropriately plan for local circumstances.
Given the analysis of this report, it is presumed that the proposal is consistent
with the GMA and other applicable laws and regulations.
2.2.1.3 Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions — SEPA
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).
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
because of the limitations to additional site development. 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 additional land clearing and development that could affect native plants,
animals, and wetlands. 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.
2-16
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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 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 may affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental
protection. Care must be taken to appropriately apply critical area 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?
Allowable land and shoreline use 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?
Water is provided by a private well. If the property is subdivided, the well would need to become shared,
or a second well drilled. Properties in this area are just outside of the City of Port Townsend water
service area to the northeast, and South Hasting LUD #3 to the south. Cape George Colony Club water
service area is to the west, on top of Discovery Ridge, serving Cape George Village.
The proposal would likely generate an additional 6-12 vehicle trips per day and 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. Wetlands and wetland buffers will be
regulated by Chapter 18.22 JCC.
2.2.1.4 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment based on the Growth Management Indicators,
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, and SEPA Supplemental Checklist. This recommendation is for
re -zoning only, and does not commit the County to approving subsequent applications or proposals.
While there is concern that 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.
Regarding 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 detailed data to see any effects of one rezone , or sufficient policy
about upzoning at this time to factor it into the recommendation. [Next page.]
2-17
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
The wetlands and wetland buffers on the site are regulated by Jefferson County Code. The property has
limited ability for future intensification from additional buildings. However, intensification of use can still
occur. Future development proposals will be evaluated for consistency with the Jefferson County Code.
2-18
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
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
September 27, 1978
January 2, 1979
December 21, 1992
February 14, 1994
March 1, 1995
February 24, 1997
May 27, 1998
August 3, 1998
August 6, 1998
January 26, 1999
January 26, 1999
June 30, 1999
August 18, 1999
June 11, 2001
November 2001
August 21, 2002
November 25, 2002
December 2002
August 6, 2003
September 22, 2004
August 3, 2005
July 19, 2006
September 5, 2007
September 3, 2008
September 2, 2009
September 1, 2010
2013
DOCUMENT
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)
Final EIS (FEIS)
Countywide Planning Policies (Res. No.
DEIS
Existing Conditions
DEIS
FEIS
Staff Responses to Questions
Washington Department of Natural
Resources Forest Practices Report #
2601814
Land Use Inventory Report
Regional Economic Analysis / Forecast
Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS)
Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with
addenda
_Special Study Final Decision Document
Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Special
Integrated Staff Report & DSEIS
Integrated FSEIS
Final decisions, findings, ordinances,
and conditions
Integrated Staff Reports & SEPA
Addenda _
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
Integrated Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
Integrated Staff Report & SEPA
DOCUMENT EVALUATED
Proposed Comprehensive Plan (pre-
rehensive Plan
Draft Implementing Ordinance for 1979
Comprehensive Plan
Alternatives for establishing GMA
Comprehensive Plan - February 24,
1997 draft
Proposed Comprehensive Plan _
Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Forest Practices report for parcel #801-
091-002
Part of Special Study
Part of Special Study
Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments (Task III of Tri-Area/Glen
Cove Special Study
Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments (Task IV of Tri-Area/Glen
Cove Special Studv)
2002 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket
2002 Amendment Docket
2002 Amendment Docket
2003 Amendment Docket
2004 Amendment Docket, including
"2004 Update" required by GMA
2005 Amendment Docket
2006 Amendment Docket
2007 Amendment Docket
2008 Amendment Docket
2009 Amendment Docket
2010 Amendment Docket
2013 Amendment Docket
3-1
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Addendum
2015
Staff Report & SEPA Environmental
SEPA Review of UDC Amendment
Review, Proposal to Amend Unified
Development Code, JCC 18.30.150
Sign Code, October 29, 2015.
Integrated Growth Management
Act/State Environmental Policy Act
Analysis, Environmental Review of a
Non -Project Action.
2018
Determination of Significance, Notice
Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review
of Adoption, and SEPA Addendum to
1998 Draft and Final Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Impact Statements and subsequent
Supplemental EISs and Addenda, April
4, 2018.
2018
Update to SEPA Addendum to 1998
Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review
Draft and Final Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan Environmental
Impact Statements and subsequent
Supplemental EISs and Addenda
Addressing Potential Revisions to
Proposed Plan and UDC Update,
November 29, 2018
2019
Jefferson County Planning Commission
2019 Amendment Docket
Record of 2019 Annual Comprehensive
Plan and UDC Amendments
Preliminary Docket and
Recommendations.
3-2
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
4 Distribution List
Notification of Availability Emailed or
Delivered to:
Jefferson County:
Planning Commission members
Board of County Commissioners
Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Department of Public Works
Jefferson County Fire Protection District #1
Port Townsend School District #50
Jefferson Transit Authority
State Agencies:
Dept. of Commerce, Growth Management
Services
Department of Ecology SEPA Unit
Local Agencies & Organizations:
City of Port Townsend
Jefferson County Public Utility District #1
Port of Port Townsend
Jefferson County Conservation District
Point -No -Point Treaty Council
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Skokomish Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Quinault Tribe
Hoh Tribe
Makah Tribe
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader
Peninsula Daily News
State Agencies:
Department of Ecology (SEPA Desk)
Department of Natural Resources (SEPA Review)
Department of Archeology and Historic
Preservation
Department of Fish & Wildlife (SEPA Desk)
4-1
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
4-2
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
5 Appendices
A. Maps
B. Legal Notice published September 4, 2019
C. Jefferson County Resolution No. 38-15, September 22, 2015
D. Site Photos
5-1
Jefferson County 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 4, 2019
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
5-2
Appendix A:
Maps
Map 2.0 Location Map of Proposed Amendment A-2
Map 2.1 Area Zoning Characteristics A-3
Map 2.2 DNR Mapped Streams and Wetland Mosaic A-4
A-1
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
A-2
(j 1 17 4112
1'. K�V ME W06CS777700 f
.. . .......
st
jr,6
47, Ef 0
_QO
MA p ?
UL
Do
Ov
UL too .C, c 34
Id.
VI_ —
rq
DS 07C P G�, ['�O o o v 0 0 os Z'7()oOqL46 0
L£D0054Y..
-L?,'ooObs
•
0 9 coo us t- '5
O?OoogLVG
OE"Onvc
Ll
GCOOO, LY6
)CO09LIDS,
c
WL
tell. 0- 0
_!, % C.
o. 0
cq
Lot,
ft ra
_ 5L
mM-r
q. I
1 :dJ s 1'fss
a .l
toy
IS 419
CL
IS�i4b N y.
Ir
:.; �'
f
ITA
1��Ir 3 lw �•�1 yL / " b'
PM P,Ic
LIsWK►tiP� l�
cc
�... � 3 ` �l0 , '� • � . i ` ����`' � is + ` r.
u ❑ j% 7 bj i. f' ti �a
it ' • w
lb
a
IV
a �, k..c� •ea.
~1' U f
Lu
Sty ��.� � - .. '} _ � �: •1 �
:5 Qi 13lv •�,� al3• �i
N•Pa4tn� ` � d� �..
AL �� Sl
r S = r
1 5
_ _I
-
.
1 W . 1�
-_
-
LF
ILE --'
=
r
r'
z -
~ OL
7
= ■
=
■
�VqoF ;6.
SF-
� T -
L-
or r
Appendix B:
Legal Notice
Published September 4, 2019
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
$ON JEFFERSON COUNTY
a DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 1 email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
ON http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
WITH NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND
AVAILABILITY OF SEPA ADDENDUM
AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
RELATING TO A SITE -SPECIFIC ZONING AMENDMENT PROPOSAL MLA19-00013
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, titled "Staff Report & SEPA Addendum" in relation to one (1) site -specific zoning amendment
proposal amending the Land Use Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The re -zone
proposal constitutes all items on the final docket of the 2019 annual Comprehensive Plan amendment
cycle (Ch. 18.45 JCC). Jefferson County has determined that it is the appropriate SEPA lead agency for
the proposals. Adoption of any Comprehensive Plan amendment is a non -project action under SEPA,
Chapter 43.21 C RCW.
Description of Current Proposal: Jefferson County provides an annual amendment cycle for proposed
suggested text amendments and site -specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Code. The single docketed item is a site -specific proposal to Rezone an 11-acre parcel
APN 001184004 from Rural Residential 1:10 (RR10) to Rural Residential 1:5 (RR5) to enable future
subdivision into two parcels. The proposal is from Andrew and Sarah Wilke, 240 Sand Road, Port
Townsend, WA, reference Case Number MLA19-00013. The site is accessed via Cape George Road &
Crutcher Road, with Sand Road turning off of Crutcher Road.
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 Commerce of agency representatives responsible for reviewing proposed
amendments to comprehensive plans and implementing regulations.
Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) and Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents: After
review of the proposal and existing environmental documents, the SEPA Responsible Official at the
Department of Community Development (DCD) has determined that existing environmental documents,
augmented by the 2019 integrated Staff Report & SEPA Addendum, provide adequate environmental
review to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-600 with regard to consideration of the proposal. In
accordance with WAC 197-11-630, there is no new SEPA-specific public comment period in conjunction
with this Comprehensive Plan amendment package.
The following existing environmental documents are being adopted:
1997-1998: 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.
ME
1999: Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS)-Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments regarding Tri-
Area/Glen Cove Special Study. Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS)-Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments. Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study.
2001: Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study SEIS Final Decision Document, June 11, 2001.
2002-2004: Integrated Growth Management Act/State Environmental Policy Act Document
Environmental Review of a Non -Project Action: Draft Supplemental EIS August 21, 2002, to
Supplement the Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS (1997) and Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments Draft and Final SEIS. November 25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment
Docket. To respond to an appeal, Wheeler Consulting was contracted to prepare additional
environmental review. A DSEIS to the 2002 CPA SEIS was issued on March 3, 2004. A FSEIS to
the 2002 CPA SEIS was issued on May 12, 2004
2003-2015: Addenda prepared to the above documents for Comprehensive Plan and related non -
project actions.
2018 Determination of Significance, Notice of Adoption, and SEPA Addendum to 1998 Draft and
Final Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statements and subsequent
Supplemental EISs and Addenda, April 4, 2018; updated November 29, 2018.
Planning Commission Public Hearing: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing to take oral and written comments on the one (1) site -specific
Comprehensive Plan amendment comprising the 2019 final docket. The public hearing for this
amendment proposal will occur on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, beginning at 5:30 PM at the Tri-
Area Community Center, 10 West Valley Road, Chimacum, WA.
Public Comment Period: The Planning Commission and DCD will accept written comments on the
merits of the proposed amendment starting Wednesday, September 4, 2019 through close of the hearing
Wednesday, September 18, 2019. Any written comments on the proposed amendment 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 Leader newspaper at a later date.) Written comments on
the proposals may be submitted to Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port
Townsend WA 98368 or via email to: jPeterson (aco.jefferson.wa.us.
Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect copies of the original applications for the
proposed amendments, the Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, adopted existing environmental
documents or other related information, contact DCD by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/578/Jefferson-County, Comprehensive -Plan.
B-2
Appendix C:
Jefferson County Resolution
No. 38-15
October 26, 2015
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: David Goldsmith, Interim Community Development Director
DATE: October 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Resolution to adopt a Countywide Growth Management
Population Projection and Allocation for 2016-2036 and 2018-
2038.
ATTACHMENTS. Resolution adopting population projection and allocation for
2016-2036 and 2018-2038
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The County and City of Port Townsend are each in the process of updating their GMA
comprehensive plans. This work requires coordination and agreement between the City and
County on certain items, especially future population projections and allocations, through the
Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC). The JGMSC has completed their
work and voted unanimously to recommend the population projection and allocation to the
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners for formal adoption.
ANALYSIS:
The allocation formula for 20 year population projections are as follows: 70% urban and 30%
rural/resource lands, including the following: City of Port Townsend (36%), Port
Hadlock/lrondale UGA (19.4%), Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (10.1%), Brinnon Master
Planned Resort (4.5%) and unincorporated Rural and Resource areas of the County (30%).
The population allocation is a foundational element of the GMA Comprehensive Plan and will be
utilized in the update of the City's and the County's comprehensive plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pass the proposed Resolution adopting the Countywide Growth Management Population Projection
and allocation for 2016-2036 and 2018-2038 as recommended by the JGMSC.
REVIEWED BY:
'Philip Morley, my 4dministrat r
Date
will be required by the end of the County's 20 year planning period at 2038
(1,516/2 = 758 DU's).
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort was an existing MPR at the time of GMA
adoption. According to U.S. Census data, the 2010 population of Port Ludlow
was 2,603, with an estimated population per residence of 1.9 persons. The
development agreement adopted in 2000 provides for a cap of 2,250
residential "Measurement Equivalent Residential Units" (MERU's). MERU is
the measurement and transfer mechanism for capping total development
within the MPR. One residential MERU equates to one residential unit and
equals 200 gallons per day of sewer waste water flow. In 2015, 1,544
residential dwelling units (DU's) had been constructed, leaving 706 DU's
remaining. Maximum buildout of Port Ludlow with a range of 1.4-1.9 people
per residence equates to 3,375-4,275. Assuming a 75% buildout at 1.49
persons per household results in an estimated population increase of 789,
meaning approximately 529 additional units will be needed by the end of the
County's 20 year planning period at 2038. Given slower than anticipated
growth, Jefferson County does not expect full buildout of Port Ludlow to occur
within the 20-year planning period.
Brinnon future MPR land use designation was established in 2008. Approval
by the Board of County Commissioners of zoning regulations and a
development agreement is still required prior final establishment of the MPR
and project construction. The maximum number of residential units for the
MPR is capped at 890 units with a 35% maximum for permanent occupancy.
35% of 890 is 312units. Assuming a population increase of 352 during the 20
year planning period, at 1.5 persons per residence, approximately 235
additional units (or 75% buildout) will be needed by the end of the County's
20 year planning period at 2038. Note: the higher population values shown in
Column's D and F in Tables 3 and 3A are theoretical amounts assuming
growth occurred from 2010 to 2038.
9of9
Table 3B. 2015 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-year Population
Projection and Distribution (2018-2038)
I„ A I B C D E F G
2010
Allocation Projected
I Estimated
Projected
(2010-2038)
Population
of Total Growth
Growth
Population
Projected
12
County- (2010-
(2018-
2038
Compound
wide 2038)
2038)13
Annual
Growth
Growth Rate
Port Townsend UGA 9,113
2,814
' 12,479
36%
3,366
1.13%
(Incorporated)
19.4%
1,814
5,394
Tri-Area UGA14
3,580
1,516
1.48%
Unincvr prated
j
3,547
1.11%
Port Ludlow MPR
2,603
10.1
944
789
Unincorporated
4.5%
421
352
26.16 %
Brinnon MPR
--
421
(Unincorporated)
UGAIMPR Total
15,296
70%
6,648
6,471
21,841 1.28%
Unincorporated
14,576
30%
2,804
2,445
17,380
0.63%
Rural &
Resource Areas
Coun -wide Total
29 8721r,
100%
9,349
7,816
39,221
0.98°/
Consistent with prior methodology, 36% of the projected county -wide growth would be
planned for and accommodated within the Port Townsend UGA. The adjusted urban
allocations within the County reflect:
• Port Townsend UGA — In regards to residential land, the city has a theoretical
carrying capacity of over 30,000 people and thus, is adequately sized to
accommodate anticipated future urban growth (12,165 by 2036). Assuming a
population increase of 2,711 at 1.98persons/household, approximately 1,369
additional units will be needed by the end of the City's 20 year planning
period at 2036
■ Tri-Area - The percentage allocated to Tri-Area (Port Hadlock/Irondale) UGA
is expected to increase once sewer service is available. The project has
building permits issued for the first phase of the system, and the County is
seeking the funding to construct the system. Anticipated growth will not likely
be a straight-line increase. Rather it is expected that once the system is
constructed, population will increase rapidly. The population projections for
this area assume development at urban densities with sewer service
available. Assuming 2.0 persons per household, to accommodate the
projected population increase of 1,516, approximately 758 additional units
12 Source: Estimated using tract and block data, 2010 U.S. Census
13 Source: Estimated based on OFM's 2018 Projection for Jefferson County (31,405) and percentages in
Column C.
14 In 2004, the Tri-Area UGA became known as the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA_ Tri-Area is used here for
consistency.
15 Source: 2010 U.S. Census
8of9
Table 3A. 2015 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population
Projection and Distribution (2016-2036)
A ' B C
D_ E
F G
2010 Allocation
Projected Estimated
Projected (2010-
Population of Total
Growth Growth
Population 2036)
4 County-
(2010- (2016-
20367 Projected
wide
2036)5 2036)6
Compound
Growth
Annual
Growth
3,052 2,711
Rates
Port Townsend
9,113
36%
12,165
1,12%
UGA (incorporated)
Tri-Area UGA9
3,580
19.4%
1,645
1,461
5,225
1.47%
Unincorporated)
3,459
1.11 %
Port Ludlow MPR
2,603
10.1 %
856
_
760
(Unincorporated)
Brinnon MPR
--
4.5%
381
1 339
381
25.68%
(Unincorporated)---
UGA/MPR Total
15,296
70%
5,934
5,271
21,230
Unincorporated
14,576
30%
2,543
2,260
17,119
0.62%
Rural $
Resource Areas
Counter -wide Total
29,87210
1000,
8,477
7,631
38,34911
0.97°%
4 Source: Estimated using tract and block data, 2010 U.S. Census
5 Formula: 2036 total county population less 2010 total county population allocated as per percentages in
Column C.
6 Formula: 2036 total county population less OFM's 2016 Projection for total county population; allocated
as per percentages in Column C.
7 Formula: B + D
e CAGR = (Ending Value/Beginning Value)"(11 # of Years) - 1
s In 2004, the Tri-Area UGA became known as the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA. Tri-Area is used here for
consistency.
10 Source: 2010 U.S Census
11 Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, 2013
7of9
+ Allocated a proportionate share of the 2000 - 2024 projected countywide growth under
the OFM medium series projection to the Port Townsend and Tri-Area UGAs and the
Port Ludlow MPR.
Application of this approach resulted in a total of approximately 70% of the county's total 2000 -
2024 growth being allocated to urban areas, with the balance of growth being directed to
unincorporated rural and resource areas of the county. Some 36% of the projected countywide
growth would be planned for and accommodated within the Port Townsend UGA, while a
combined 34% would be accommodated within Tri-Area UGA and Port Ludlow MPR, shown
below.
Table 2. 2003 Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend
20-Year Population Projection and Distribution
Anticipated Percentage of (2003) Projected
Growth Total Countywide Compound Annual
(2000-2024) Growth (Res. 55- Growth Rate
Port Townsend UGA j 4,985 �36% 1 1.97%
Tri-Area UGA'
2,353
17%
2.76%
(Unincorporated)
Port Ludlow MPR 2,353
17%
4.14%
Unincor orated
UGAIMPR Total
9,691
W 70%
2.45%
Unincorporated
4,149
30%
1.09%
Rural &
Resource Areas
100%
1.78%
CountMide Total
_
13,840
Similar to the 2003 methodology, the approach for the 2016 and 2038 updates is to
+ Retain the urban to rural disaggregation of 70% of the county's total growth being
allocated to urban areas with the 30% balance being directed to unincorporated rural
areas.
• Allocate 36% of the projected countywide growth to the Port Townsend UGA
See Table 3A and Table 3B below.
3 In 2004, the Tri-Area UGA became known as the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA. Tri-Area is used here for
consistency.
EXHIBIT A
Staff Recommended Population Projections
for Comp Plan Updates
Allocation Methodology'
POPULATION PROJECTION: The county and city staff recommend adopting OFM's medium
series projection.
Table 1:
Year Population
2036 1 27, 426
2038 ! 27,427
OFM 2012 Proiections
Population Population
Medium Hi h)
38,349 49.638
39,221 51201
Adoption of this projection would bring the county and city squarely into GMA compliance with
regard to population projections under sections 36.70A.130 and .110 RCW. OFM's low
projection for 2036 and 2038 shows a population that is less than what it already is in 2015.
OFM's high projection shows a growth pattern that is much greater than actual growth for the
past 15 years. For these reasons, the staff recommends adoption of OFM's medium series
projection extended to 2036 for the City and 2038 for the County unincorporated areas as the
growth management planning population to be used in updating the comprehensive plans of the
city and county.
ALLOCATION:
Using the OFM medium series projection for future GMA planning efforts, a reasonable urban
versus rural population distribution must be determined. Once this urban component of growth
is identified, specific allocations of urban population growth must be made to the county's urban
areas.
It should be understood that while selection of a countywide population projection falling within
the OFM forecast range is mandatory, the manner in which this population is allocated within a
county is entirely discretionary under the GMA, provided that all projected urban growth is
allocated to properly designated urban areas,
In 2003 (resolution 55-03), the allocation methodology remained consistent with the JGMSC's
prior efforts, specifically:
• Used the original, "three UGA" Watterson West Forecast developed in December of
1994 as the basis for the urban/rural disaggregation, rather than the "two UGA" forecast
adopted by the JGMSC in March of 1996;
• Identified the percentage of countywide growth projection to occur within the Port
Townsend UGA, Tri-Area UGA and Port Ludlow MPR, respectively, under the original
Watterson West forecast2; and
8-20-15. Revised to include a County 20-year planning period of 2018-2038
Note: Consistent with the forecast and allocation adopted by the JGMSC in 1996, it was assumed that 90% of the projected
growth within the Oak Bay/Port Ludlow planning area (planning area #7) would occur within the Port Ludlow MPR; it was further
assumed that 90% of the growth forecast for the Tri-Area planning area (planning area #3) would occur within the Tri-Area UGA.
5 of 9
3. Adoption of Allocation Methodology Summary. The Allocation Methodology Summary in
EXHIBIT A is attached hereto and incorporated herein as a summary of the methodology
used to develop the adopted population projections and growth allocation.
4. This Resolution supplants and replaces Jefferson County Commission Resolution 455-03 and
renders that 2003 Resolution null and void.
Approved and signed this � �ay of October, 2015.
Attest:
(,�kp4ku .G
Carolyn ery
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Approved as to Form Only:
David Alvarez
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
4 of 9
JrEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
David
Phil
Kathleen Kler, Member
TABLE 2A. Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-Year Population Projection
and Allocation (2016-2036)
2010 Allocation Projected
Estimated Projected
(2010-2036)
Population of Total Growth
Growth Population
Projected
County- (2010-
(2016- 2036
Compound
wide 2036)
2036)
Annual
Growth
Growth Rate
2,711
12,165
Port Townsend
9,113 1 36% 3,052
1.12%
UGA (Incorporated)
1,461
5,225
Port Hadlock/
3,580 19.4% 1 645
1,47%
Irondale UGA
(Unincorporated)
1,11 %
Port Ludlow MPR
2,603
10.1 %
856 760
3,459
(Unincorporated)
--
4.5%
381 339
_
25.68%
Brinnon MPR
381
(Unincorporated)
Subtotal of UGAs & 15,296
70%
5,934 5,271 21,230 1.27%
MPRs
_
Unincorporated 14,576
30%
2,543 2,260 17,119 0.62%
Rural & Resource
Areas
County wide Total
29;872
100% 8,477
�
7,531
38,349 0.97% {
I
TABLE 3B. Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend 20-year Population
Projection and Allocation (2018-2038)
2010
Allocation j Projected Estimated
Projected (2010-2038)
Population
of Total Growth Growth
Population Projected
County- (2010- (2018-
2038 Compound
wide 2038) 2038)
Annual
Growth
Growth Rate
_
Port Townsend UGA 9,113
36% 3,366 2,814
12,479 1.13%
(Incorporated)
Port Hadlock/ 3,580
19.4%
1,814
1,516
5,394
1.48%
Irondale UGA
(Unincorporated)
Port Ludlow MPR
2,603
10.1
944
789
3,547
1.11%
(Unincorporated)
--
352
421
Brinnon MPR
4.5%
421
26.16 %
(Unincorporated)
Subtotal of UGAs &
15,296 70%
6,545
5,471 21,841
1.28%
MPRs
2,804
2,445 17,380
Unincorporated
_
14,576 30%
0.63%
Rural & Resource
Areas
County wide Total
29,872 100%
9,349
7,816
39,221
0.98%
3 of 9
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2015, the Port Townsend City Council unanimously voted to
endorse the OFM medium series projection and allocate 70% of growth to urban areas (UGAs
& MPRs), including 36% to the Port Townsend UGA and directing the Joint Growth
Management Steering Committee representatives and DSD staff to present the city's position to
the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2015, the Joint Growth Management Committee met as a
body and received County and City staff s joint recommendation on population projections and
allocations for the new Comprehensive Plan periods, and the underlying methodology; and
WHEREAS, the proposed allocations are reasonable and within the range of choices
afforded to jurisdictions under the GMA and will allow for ongoing and extensive planning
efforts to proceed with respect to the 20 year planning periods listed above; and
WHEREAS, at its October 16, 2015 meeting, the JGMSC unanimously voted to
recommend to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners that the County adopt the
recommended population forecast and allocation for the Comprehensive Plan periods;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County,
Washington, in regular session assembled, does hereby resolve as follows:
Adoption of Countywide Growth Management Population Projection. Based on the
concurrence of the City of Port Townsend and the recommendation the Joint Growth
Management Steering Committee, the medium countywide population forecast by the
Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) as displayed in bold in TABLE 1
below is hereby adopted for the respective comprehensive planning periods 2016-2036 and
2018-2038:
f Year
2036
2038
TABLE 1: OFM Population Projection
Population Population Population
(Low) Medium (High)
27,426 38,349 49,638 --
27,427
221
51,201
2. Adoption of Countywide Population Growth Allocation. Based on the concurrence of the
City of Port Townsend and the recommendation the Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee, the following population growth allocations as displayed in TABLE 2A and
TABLE 2B below are hereby adopted for the respective comprehensive planning periods
2016-2036 and 2018-2038:
2of9
cc.. IY,,,D 16
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ADOPTING A COUNTYWIDE }
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING }
POPULATION PROJECTION FOR }
THE PERIODS 2016-2036 AND 2018-2038, }
AND ALLOCATING PROJECTED URBAN }
GROWTH TO URBAN GROWTH AREAS }
AND MASTER PLANNED RESORTS }
Resolution No. M__.-15
WHEREAS, the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) was
established in 1991 pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), Section 36.70A.210, as the
collaborative County and City process required by that statute to provide a framework for
adoption of a county -wide planning policy; and
WHEREAS, in 1992 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) and the City
of Port Townsend, Jefferson County's only incorporated city, jointly adopted the Countywide
Planning Policies (CPPs), as required by Section 36.70A.210 of the GMA; and subsequently
amended the CPPs in 1994 to adopt the state definition of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, CPP Policy 1.1 requires that the County work with Port Townsend to
establish updated population forecasts and allocations; and
WHEREAS, in 2003, county and city staff developed a joint methodology to update the
countywide population forecast and urban population allocations consistent with the CPPs to
address the period 2000 to 2024; and the JGMSC recommended and the County subsequently
adopted by Resolution No. 055-03 the joint population projection and allocation including:
• Adoption of OFM's medium population projection: 2024 population: 40,139; and
allocation of the projected population growth as follows;
• 70% of growth to urban areas (UGAs & MPRs), including 36% to the Port
Townsend UGA, with the remaining urban population growth distributed between the
Tri-Area (Port Hadlock) UGA and the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort; and
• 30% of growth to rural/resource lands; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(5)(b) and RCW 36.70A.130(6)(e), Jefferson
County and the City of Port Townsend will update their Comprehensive Plans to address the plan
period 2016-2036 (City of Port Townsend), and 2018-2038 (Jefferson County); and
WHEREAS, in 2014 and 2015 City and County planning staff worked cooperatively to
develop a recommended update to the countywide population forecast and allocation for each
jurisdiction's new Comprehensive Plan period; and
1 of 9
Appendix D:
Site Photos
Photo 1. Front of House, 240 Sand Road
Photo 2. Back of House, 240 Sand Road
Photo 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), 292 Sand Road
Photo 4. Sand Road to Left, ADU Driveway to Right
Photo 5. Landscape Views from House/ADU to Wetlands
Photo 6. Landscape Views from House/ADU to Wetlands
Photo 7. ADU above and House in Trees Behind
Photo 8. Lower Property South to Sand Road Gate
Photo 9. Main Wetland Area
Photo 10. Sand Road
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Photo 1. Front of House, 240 Sand Road
Photo 2. Back of House, 240 Sand Road
Photo 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), 292 Sand Road
Photo 4. Sand Road to Left, ADU Driveway to Right
!'dTlEjlli� llllin'Y��Iy i(a?: ,-
i
�r
�yff y� _ 7 . c
'Amif
aWO-
OP $0
+ Y � � f r•
r y -• �
~ .
r � -
Photo 9. Main Wetland Area
Photo 10. Sand Road
S = =
`_T
_ r _ _ = -
1 . _
_ 1 ■ J - 1 r
- ■ _ _ r_■