HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111703
~~ CO~
~ ~~ ~
\~ ~
::18l¡ 0,\°/
""--I~~
District No.1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness
District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No.3 Commissioner: Judi Mackey
County Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of November 17,2003
Chairman Dan Titterness called the meeting to order. Commissioner Judi Mackey and
Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator David
Goldsmith reported on the following:
· The County wasn't the high bidder on the surplused bookmobile that was to be used as temporary
housing for the County's E911 backup system that is currently located at the Port Townsend Fire
Hall. The fire hall is scheduled to be demolished within the month. In an effort to limit costs for the
relocation of the backup system, the State Military Department was contacted, and they have a used
mobile command post that they will give the County.
· Elected Officials from the County, the City of Port Townsend, the Port, and the PUD will meet this
week to discuss a draft joint Economic Development Strategy. In a recent economic assessment
report, it was noted that the investment community has mixed signals about the countywide
economic development strategy and recommended that the governmental agencies work together to
create a common strategy.
· He and Bob Hamlin, Emergency Management Program Manager, met with City Manager David
Timmons to discuss the need for an integrated Emergency Management Plan for the City and the
County. Their goal is to have a seamless emergency management response regardless ofthe
jurisdictional boundaries. An oversight committee oflegislative representatives from the City and
the County, emergency management personnel, and prime responders will review the plan.
· The amendments for the regional services contract with the City are being reviewed by legal staff.
An addition in 2004 is the shared services of the Building Official who will be a County employee.
The City will contract with the County for certain elements and services of the position.
· The interviewing process for the Code Compliance Officer will be scheduled within the next few
weeks. The interview team will include the Sheriff, the Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the
Directors from DCD and Environmental Health.
· The Open House for the Port HadlockJIrondale UGA is this week. There is also a meeting on fiber
optics at the Glen Cove Industrial Park.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17,2003
~~~\)
\~~~J8'~/
· He has prepared a draft resolution regarding centralized purchasing of information and
communication technologies within the County system. In the past, the departments have been
allowed to purchase equipment and this can create maintenance or support problems for the IS
division. The resolution states that any information or communication technologies equipment
purchase needs to be approved by the Central Services Director or an appropriate person in the IS
division.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: thank you to
Commissioner Mackey for stepping in and doing a great job; thank you to all 3 Commissioners and the
Department ofFish and Wildlife for encouraging agriculture in Jefferson County; the inflation rate isn't 1-
2% , it is actually about 10% or more for insurance, health care, and college expenses; several homeowners
near the airport expressed concern about imposing a noise overlay zone in that area because it will devalue
their property; the Board's "get to yes" policy regarding building permits makes it difficult for contractors to
provide clear cut answers to their customers; documentation on the history of the Penny Creek Quarry was
presented with concerns about the Comprehensive Plan amendment for a mineral resource lands
designation; questions and discrepancies about the Penny Creek Quarry MRL Comprehensive Plan
amendment; thank you to Commissioner Mackey for supporting and helping her constituents in Quilcene;
the County needs to prioritize the budget over a 5 year period instead of looking one year at a time; and
opinions were offered for and against the County making another contribution to the parking fees for Fort
Worden.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Mackey seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 70-03 re: Rescinding and Invalidating a Portion of Resolution No. 61-03, A
Resolution Adopted October 13,2003 Declaring Intent to Vacate Certain County Rights of Way;
Removing Belfrage Road, No. 503409 from the Public Hearing Examiners Calendar for November
18,2003
2. AGREEMENT re: H.J. Carroll Park Caretaker Services; Jefferson County Public Works; Jerry &
Phyllis Smith
3. AGREEMENT re: Public Outreach and Open House Related to the Irondale and Port Hadlock
Urban Growth Area (UGA); Jefferson County Community Development; Christina Pivarnik,
Pivarnik and Co., Ltd.
4. AGREEMENT re: Public Outreach and Open House Related to the Irondale and Port Hadlock
Urban Growth Area (UGA); Jefferson County Community Development; PRR
5. AGREEMENT re: Detoxification Services; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Jefferson
General Hospital
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17, 2003
æJ~\
¡-~,)
~~k:i{;/
6. AGREEMENT re: Substance Abuse Treatment/Outreach Services for West End Residents;
Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Forks Community Hospital
7. AGREEMENT, Amendment No.1 re: "Raising a Healthy Community" and "Preventing
Delinquency Early" Program; Amending Exhibit A-I, Statement of Work; Jefferson County Health
and Human Services; Katherine Carlson, Ph.D.
8. AGREEMENT NO. 0183-44510, Amendment No.1 re: Amending Standard Language of General
Terms and Conditions; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department
of Social and Health Services
9. AGREEMENT NO. 0183-44510, Amendment No.2 re: HIP AA Compliance; Amending Language
of General Terms and Conditions; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services
10. AGREEMENT NO. N10816, Amendment No.3 re: Drinking Water Sanitary Systems Survey;
Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Health
11. Approval of Final Short Plat #SUB03-00026; Amended Stavney Short Plat; To Consolidate Lots 1
and 2 into Revised Lot 2; Located off of Garden Club Road, Nordland; Michael Woodard,
Applicant
12. Re-appoint Parks Advisory Board Member to Serve Another Two (2) Year Term Expiring October
24, 2005; Rick Tollefson
13. Accept Resignation from Housing Authority Advisory Board Member; Julia B. Cochrane
The Board met in Executive Session with the County Administrator, the Civil Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, the Director of Community Development, and an Associate Planner from 10:05 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m.
regarding actual litigation.
HEARING re: Removillg Two (2) Amendments from the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Filial
Docket: Chairman Titterness opened the public hearing in the presence of approximately 20 interested
citizens. Associate Planner Randy Kline explained that these 2 suggested Comprehensive Plan amendments
are text amendments. This type of amendment is included on the final docket at the discretion of the Board
of County Commissioners based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission. He reviewed the
applications:
· MLA 03-232, originally suggested by the Port of Port Townsend, is a proposed Essential Public
Facilities designation for approximately 24 acres of Port owned property adjacent to the airport. This
includes Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code changes related to the allowance of
limited rural scale industrial uses within the designation and a proposed area where residents in close
proximity to the airport would be notified of airport operations.
· MLA03-244, suggested by People for a Rural Quimper, is recommended policy changes related to
the elimination of requirements for the County to adopt an airport or noise overlay zone and to
support adoption of an Airport Master Plan to regulate land uses at the airport.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17,2003
~~»
\~/~/
'Z~~i¿!9:~
In January, 2003, the County, on behalf of the Port, submitted a Unified Development Code amendment that
would address the noise overlay component of the UDC and included notification of residents near the
airport of the noise. Because changes were made to the map defining the notification area, a Comprehensive
Plan amendment was necessary. The Comprehensive Plan amendment deadline was May 1, 2003. The Port
Commissioners wanted to have an adopted Airport Master Plan in place and this had not been adopted at the
time of the Comprehensive Plan deadline. DCD also received a timely application from the People for a
Rural Quimper requesting that any reference in the Comprehensive Plan to a noise overlay zone near the
airport be removed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing. In July, the Port contacted the County and asked to
significantly revise the scope of their amendment based on the public testimony from property owners who
were concerned about the noise overlay component. The Port submitted a revised Comprehensive Plan
amendment application in late August. At this time it became clear to staff that they did not have the
resources to adequately review the scope of the amendment.
The Comprehensive Plan currently contains policies that support the continued operation ofthe airport and
the airport has an Essential Public Facilities designation. Based on the facts that: 1) the SEP A review for the
Airport Master Plan hasn't been completed; 2) the Master Plan has not been adopted by the Port
Commissioners; and 3) there is a lack of County staff resources and a short timeline, staff is recommending
that both of these amendments be brought forward after the Airport Master Plan is adopted. County staff
has been working closely with Port staff and they are getting closer to a point where the property owners will
have what they want and be able to achieve the Port's goals also.
Randy Kline noted that the issue of the noise overlay zone and the uses at the airport began when the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The Port filed an appeal of the UDC in 2001 that lead to a series of
settlement agreements between the County and the Port. These Comprehensive Plan amendments before the
Board today are covered under an ongoing legal review and can be brought forward outside of the normal
Comprehensive Plan amendment process in order to achieve compliance with the Hearings Board order.
The Chair opened the meeting for public comment.
Maria Larocque, stated that she is upset that all of the work done by PRQ to get rid ofthe noise overlay zone
is being dismissed. The PRQ amendment shouldn't have to be put on hold until the Port is done with the
Airport Master Plan. She doesn't want her property devalued or to have to worry about getting sued if she
sells it.
Linda Strider, stated that the Port's process regarding the airport has not been very open. For some reason,
the Port is not public about what they want to do at the airport and this makes property owners suspicious.
Most of the small airports in the State don't have noise overlay zones. She doesn't trust the Port to represent
the public because they are constantly changing the boundaries of the area that will be affected. She wants
the noise overlay zone off her property. She feels that this is a case of "backroom" politics.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17,2003
ø. ",''"';;-..
drt,:j¡"
~,,0f)J
Ande Grahn, Olympic Peninsula Planning, representing People for a Rural Quimper, explained that they
have a Master Land use Permit and a docketed amendment that was presented in a timely manner for the
2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. A staff report, dated June 13,2003, stated that the Planning
Commission and staff agreed that there was time to hear all the docketed items and their amendment has not
been revised since that report was made. The PRQ amendment asks to revise the Comprehensive Plan to
emphasize the importance of the Airport Master Plan and to remove the language that "the County shall
adopt a noise overlay ordinance." The Port can still propose the noise overlay zone and have it considered.
Consideration of the PRQ amendment doesn't require the Port to complete their revised amendment or the
Airport Master Plan. All staff has to do is write the report. The PRQ wants the Board to consider their
amendment this year and do it independent of the Port's amendment. Even though there is language in the
Comprehensive Plan encouraging amendments proposed by the public, the only amendments that the
County has considered have been brought forward by individual property owners or by the County. The
Port's amendment is a different issue than the PRQ amendment. She requested that the Board allow the
PRQ amendment to go forward.
Carol Hasse, read her statement into the record. "Dear Commissioners: I am Carol Hasse, owner of Port
Townsend Sails, an internationally renown sail making company that has been in operation for 25 years.
My family and I own a home in the County at 6644 Cape George Road that I had built and have lived in for
the last 12 ~ years. We have hopeful plans of living a long healthy life in this home where my son was born
and my father's ashes lie, where garden soil has been made from glacial till and an orchard has been
planted and solar panels line the roof Currently I'mfeeling the erosion of the worth of my business and of
my professional security because of the uncertainty of Point Hudson's future. In addition, and why I am
expressing my concerns to you, I'mfacing the erosion of the quality of my life and my property values
because of the noise overlay zone now included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. There could be only
one reason for this proposed noise overlay zone, to allow for a significant expansion of our airport. In my
25 years of sail making, I've spend many miserable hours measuring boats for new sails in marinas,
unfortunately located under large airports. The air traffic noise stops all conversation and the oily, filthy
residue coats everything under landing and take-off patterns, leaving hands black from the hoisting of a
single halliard. This is not a healthy environment for my neighbors and my family to be subjected to.
Further, we cannot expect anyone else to buy our property, except at a greatly reduced cost if we must leave
our homes because of noise and air pollution concerns. L and the people I know in Jefferson County, have
not made investments in this community in work or property/home for the purpose of "making a killing. "
We've made these investments in order to make a living, a life in a small town in a rural County we cherish.
We have committed and invested in order to enjoy the gift of residing and contributing to a community, a
County that is surrounded by, and honors nature's beauty, that nurtures and supports talented artisans,
tradespeople, craftspeople, and small scale low-impact sustainable businesses and agriculture. The people
who live here and visit here do not need or want a large noisy airport. I ask you to support us in
maintaining a quality of life we treasure and the value of the property many of us have invested everything
in by removing the noise overlay zone from the Comprehensive Plan. Please do not un docket our
application to remove this noise overlay zone from the County Comprehensive Plan. I thank you sincerely,
Carol. "
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17, 2003
.(e::;~\
fd~' \'\
\-~ "'~~-;
~" -'-..';;>
--.!.L.I":':::--o
Michael Felber, Adelma Beach Road, stated that he has been working on this for 5 years and the real issue is
"how much protection does the airport need?" The airport is protected by the Essential Public Facility
designation and incompatible use zoning laws. The Port says that the noise overlay zone is to notify
prospective house buyers in the area. No other airports have noise overlay zones except SeaTac and
Portland, and these are much larger airports. The noise overlay zone would be used in the Port's favor if
residents chose to file lawsuits against the expansion of the airport because it gives the airport more
protection in Court. The public doesn't know the Port's plans for the airport and we may want to challenge
them. The Port should answer to the citizens about any airport expansion plans. All the PRQ is asking is to
take the noise overlay zone reference out of the Comprehensive Plan.
Gabe Ornelas, Cape George, stated that he represents People for a Rural Quimper. This group of citizens
has been committed to this Comprehensive Plan amendment since May 1. These people are very concerned
about the noise overlay zone and how it will affect their properties. When the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted in 1998, the Port threatened to sue the County if the language regarding the noise overlay zone was
not included in the Plan. The County Commissioners made a decision not to go into litigation and changed
the Plan on December 23, 1998. At that time, there was little public process. This Comprehensive Plan
amendment was requested according to the public process and should be addressed on the 2003 docket. The
Port refuses to say why the noise overlay zone is so important. Trust is important and right now there is very
little.
Larry Crockett, Executive Director of the Port of Port Townsend, stated that many of the people who are at
this meeting don't live in the proposed noise overlay zone. He has invited several people from the PRQ to
sit down and talk with him about the airport, but no one has taken him up on his invitations. DCD staff
contacted the Port about removing their amendment from the 2003 docket. The Airport Master Plan hasn't
been adopted and the SEP A is ready to go out for public comment. They hope to have the Plan adopted
within the next 60 days. The noise overlay is just one issue. Other issues that will probably have bigger
impacts on the community are the uses at the airport and whether adjacent Port properties should be part of
the airport or used as buffers. The State laws say that airports must be protected. Even though the airport
has an Essential Public Facility designation, that may not be enough protection. SeaTac and Portland aren't
the only airports that have noise overlay zones, Anacortes and Skagit airports both have "navigation
easements" which actually prevent people from being able to sue. The Master Plan is guided by FAA rules
because they are funding about 90% of it. There are plans to expand the runway by 200 feet for safety
reasons, but the airport is bounded by 2 State highways and there are wetlands on both sides of the
highways. There may be a few more hangers added and the Port hopes that some local businesses will want
to locate there, but the airport will basically stay the way it is right now. We are on the road to reaching a
compromise, and the Port has continued to decrease the area of the noise overlay zone due to public
comment.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17, 2003
tf1j~>
"~ r\
~.@~¡
Mary Winters, Port Attorney, stated that this discussion shows why airports are Essential Public Facilities
and need to be protected. It isn't a popular thing to do. The airport has to be protected from incompatible
uses and that is why the airport overlay zone was added in 1998. If that language is removed from the
Comprehensive Plan, the only protection for the airport would be as an Essential Public Facility. That is a
starting point, but the County has to do more to protect it. There is a lot of misinformation and we need to
have an open house to discuss the facts.
Hearing no further comments for or against the removal ofthe 2 Comprehensive Plan amendments from the
2003 docket, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford explained that since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and appeals have
come forward, the Board has realized the importance of not "making deals" in order to comply with
Hearings Board orders. Public input is always included now when any changes are made. Property owners
clearly don't want a noise overlay on their property or a notice to title. The Port has been backing off on
these requirements, almost to the point that the noise overlay zone is only on Port property, but it doesn't
seem that the general public is aware of this. An open house to discuss these issues is a good idea.
Larry Crockett clarified that the Port has never suggested a "notice to title" on properties adjacent to the
airport. Mary Winters added that a "disclosure statement" was suggested, but it was also removed.
Chairman Titterness reiterated that whenever a transaction of property takes place, there will be no notation
regarding the airport. Mary Winters replied that if it is a new or existing single family residence, there is no
notation.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that when the Board put the removal of these 2 amendments on the
agenda it was because they wanted to address the noise overlay issue with the Airport Master Plan. Leaving
the PRQ amendment on the 2003 docket and making a decision on it in December may be a problem if, in
January or February, the Board has to address the issue again in the Airport Master Plan and make another
decision that may not be the same as the decision in December. He feels that there needs to be a fair, open
process where everyone can review the Airport Master Plan before any decisions are made. There was
discussion on the process for continuing the amendments on the docket and other options for dealing with
them.
Commissioner Mackey moved to have the Board table their decision on the removal of these 2
Comprehensive Plan amendments until 3 p.m. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
Later in the Day: The Board concurred to take this item off the table. Randy Kline reviewed the timeline if
the amendments were to remain on the 2003 docket. Legal notices would need to be in the newspaper this
Wednesday for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on December 3. A staff report would have
to prepared for the hearing. The Planning Commission would have to deliberate and vote on their
recommendation to the Board on December 3. The Board would have to make a decision on the
amendments by December 10.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17, 2003
,%. '.:"'-;"...
é!ir,\ì
'-~jÌ
~z~/
Commissioner Huntingford reiterated that if the 2 amendments aren't done at the same time, he feels that
there will be more problems to be addressed in the future. He is concerned about the mistrust by the
community.
Chairman Titterness asked if just the noise overlay zone issue could be addressed at this time? Mary
Winters answered that what the PRQ is proposing is not the Port's position. There is other language that the
Port is proposing regarding alternatives to deal with the noise overlay zone. Chairman Titterness suggested
that the County-sponsored amendment be amended.
Commissioner Mackey stated that she feels this might be an opportunity for the Port and the residents to
come together and work out their differences at a public meeting. Right now there is a lot of
misunderstanding and clarification is needed.
David Goldsmith pointed out that rushing these 2 amendments through the process by December 10 would
be a disservice to everyone. Allowing another 60 or 90 days to go through the public process in a thorough
manner will not make any difference in the overall picture. Having an open house about the Airport Master
Plan is important.
Ande Grahn explained that the PRQ did not realize that the Port was proposing a similar amendment when
they decided to submit theirs. They are 2 separate amendments and there is no reason that they need to be
considered together. Their amendment was prepared to be considered in 2003 because they wanted to help
establish the groundrules and the framework for which future Port amendments would be considered.
Planning Commission Chair Tom McNerney reviewed the schedule that would be required if these 2
amendments are kept on the docket. The staff report would be available at the Planning Commission
meeting when the public hearing was scheduled. Their practice is to allow submission of written comments
until the close of the public hearing. The Planning Commission would have to make a decision the night of
the hearing and they don't vote on an issue the same night as the public hearing because they don't feel it is
fair to the public.
Commissioner Mackey stated that, in earlier testimony, it was mentioned that some items have been
approved by the Board during the holidays when people are out of the County. She said that, during her 4
months in office, the Board has been criticized frequently for rushing into things. This feels rushed. The
Port and the residents need to talk.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to table MLA03-232 and MLA03-244 and put them on the County
Commissioners' agenda on January 20,2004 to be put back on the docket. Commissioner Mackey seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford also asked that the County be
kept updated on the Airport Master Plan's progress and the Port's outreach plan.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17,2003
{j¡.:".~.:\
\~~;
\Z\~0~
Warren Steurer, Parks & Recreation Manager re: Parks Advisory Board Recommendation
for Request to Fund Fort Worden Parking Fees: Warren Steurer stated that the Parks Advisory Board was
asked to review a request to the County from the Fort Worden Advisory Board regarding funding of a
portion of the parking fees at Fort Worden for 2004. The Parks Advisory Board looked at the various issues
including the people employed by the Fort, the tourism that it brings into the County and the impacts to
Chetzemoka Park and North Beach Park from overuse. Fort Worden is an important State park and it is
heavily visited. The Parks Advisory Board feels that their role in the community is to partner and
collaborate with the schools, the City and the State parks to help encourage open recreation. As a result,
they voted unanimously that $5,000 of Community Park Grant funding be contributed to the County's
portion of the Fort Worden parking fees for 2004. However, they also realize that this is a difficult decision
because the other State parks in the County aren't being helped with parking fees.
Kees Kolff, Fort Worden Advisory Board, explained that there is a 2 year agreement with the State Parks
Department in order to "lock in" the amount that will need to be contributed for parking fees in 2004 and
2005. They are only asking the County to commit to $10,000 for 2004 at this time, although they hope that
the County is willing to contribute next year also. A new 18,000 square foot hall at Fort Worden was
recently completed and it is hoped that the facility will attract more events and people. Kees Kolff added
that they are requesting that the County pay 1/6 of the total amount for the parking fees.
Nora Porter, Fort Worden Advisory Board, said that other State parks have begun to work the State Parks
Department on agreements for parking fees. Each Park Ranger needs to be the lead for their park and the
other parks in the County may have the same opportunity ifthey can form a foundation or group to raise the
money for parking fees. She offered to work with people in the County who are interested in making this a
county-wide resource that would be free to everyone.
Walter McQuillen noted that the County is being asked to subsidize a State park. There are County parks
where the funding needs to be used. The State just built a new building at Fort Worden and they should be
able to take care of their own parks. The County Commissioners are responsible for Jefferson County, not
Fort Worden State Park.
Commissioner Huntingford stated his concerns about the parking fee contribution from the County being
expected in the future. He noted that last year when the County contributed, the Board was told that it was a
one-time thing and the Fort Worden Advisory Board would increase revenues to subsidize the parking fees
in future years.
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 17,2003
Øi~).)
\~~~;
'{t!~/
Kees Kolff stated that they need to have an answer to the State Parks Department by the end of this month.
The Board agreed to make a decision at their November 24 meeting.
MEETING ADJOURNED
JEFFERSON COUNTY
~. OFCOM~SSIONERS
~
Dan Titterness, Chair
SEAV \I T Y C Q ',¡
, ft~· ;t-:."l-~" ',/
. ,¡,' , .,'~ co
" . . "",. '"...., '. ,t
.. . \ ... j "
,. . ", ~:~ :c-
':~: "\" I '....1'.. Yi .. ::' .
.... "" . " ~.... t
./ .
If. .)"'-t-~
.. .r - l.._ -J. ,¡ ..f
...
., . ..\ /
ATTESt!" " " '
()iA.L 7(aÝÁf.D-J /~~Cf-..'1.Á'
arna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board '
Page 10
œ: m II/~þ3
Publish one (1) time: Wednesday November 5, 2003
Bill: Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368
Staff Contact: Randy Kline, Project Planner, (360) 3794464
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR PURPOSES OF
REMOVING TWO AMENDMENTS FROM THE 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
FINAL DOCKET
NOTICE IF HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners will hold a public
hearing to take testimony on removinQ two (2) suggested Comprehensive Plan text amendments from
the 2003 amendment final docket on .....~.;~ '7,2002, .'1:eø."m.at the Board of
Commissioners Chambers in the Jefferson County Courthouse. A brief summary of the amendments
proposed for removal follows:
Application Number MLA03-o0232 suggested by Port of Port Townsend (1) proposes
Essential Public Facilities (EPF) designation for approximately 24 acres of Port owned
property adjacent to the Jefferson County International Airport (2) proposes Comprehensive
Plan and Unified Development Code changes related to the allowance of limited rural scaled
industrial uses within the EPF designation and (3) proposes an area in which residents in
close proximity to the airport would receive notification of airport operations.
Application Number MLA03-o0244 suggested by People for a Rural Quimper proposing
Comprehensive Plan policy changes related to the elimination of requirements for Jefferson
County to adopt an Airport Overlay or Noise Overlay ordinance and to support adoption of an
Airport Master Plan to regulate land uses at the Jefferson County Intemational Airport.
For copies of these applications or further information please contact Randy Kline, Project Planner, at
the Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360)
3794450 or rkline(éùco.iefferson.wa.us. Written comments may be submitted to the above address
and will be accepted until the close of the public hearing on Monday November 17, 2003.
V· ~ , ,
-.
Jcfr:::n~G'-, :._~u_:: í..j
11/3//),3
',."
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Removing Two (2) Amendments from the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Final Docket
DATE: Monday, November 17, 2003 at 11:00 a.m.
PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
¿ ~ Þ-'"_ ~ C..;-v <,,(--~ /¿f..-,,¿p~ //d!-a ~T aDD
/ 7: ~~tt'~
f'f\~ Í~) ~I r--t-~ /(0 R~ Sr -f5r Q-B-O
{ DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
nnn
~
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Removin Two 2 Amendments from the 2003 Com rehensive Plan Final Docket
DATE: Monda, November 17, 2003 at 11:00 a.m.
PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
I
/1
D~
,ß1DD
DDEr
D [}D
D œD
~ DD
~¡2 ï 'ÍodN~ND D I2Q D
'I D 0 D
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
HEARING: Removing Two 2 Amendments from the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Final Docket
DATE: Monda, November 17, 2003 at 11:00 a.m.
PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers
NAME (Please Print)
j
j
¡
,¡
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
6 (0 A-~Æ ßtJ/t:-1f.
lZ"1' ~, ~ (.bOIlCé ~,)
DD
[i}1] D
ErDD
ø-ITD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street - Port Townsend - Washington 98368
360/379-4450 -360/379-4451 Fax
www.cojefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment
MEMORANDUM
To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, County Administrator,
Planning Commission, and Interested Parties
Fr: Department of Community Development
Date: June 13,2003
Re: Department of Community Development (DCD) Review of Preliminary
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and Recommendation for Placement on
the Final Docket
Attachments: Item 1 2003 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
Item 2: 2003 List ofDCD On-Going Programs and Projects
Backe:round
- Pursuant to Unified Development Code (ODC) section 9.6.1 the Department of Community
':Development is charged with the task of reviewing suggested Comprehensive Plan amendments
and preparing a report conceming which suggested amendments should be placed on the final
docket. In so doing, the Department is required to address the need, urgency and appropriateness
of each suggested amendment and to include the following considerations in their
recommendation:
- The availability of sufficient DCD staff to substantively review the suggested
amendments and manage the public review process.
- Anticipated DCD cost and budget for processing the suggested amendments.
These recommendations consider the proposed amendments in the context of available resources.
Su~e:ested Amendments
Jefferson County has received four suggested Comprehensive Plan amendments (see attached
Item 1). Two of these amendments were proposed by entities other than Jefferson County and
two by Jefferson County. Complete copies of each application are available at the Department of
Community Development and further information is available on the Jefferson County website at
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment.
In addition to the four suggested amendments submitted, Jefferson County has received four
formal site-specific amendment applications for a grand total of eight proposed amendments.
Pursuant to the Unified Development Code section 9.6.4(b), site-specific applications are
automatically included on the final docket.
Discussion of DCD StafT Sufficiency
The Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long Range Planning Division
currently consists of two staff persons. Based on our January 2003 list of On-Going Long Range
Planning Programs and Projects (see attached Item 2), the Long Range Planning Division is
responsible for 10 broad program based items, including Planning Commission staffing, and
multiple project based items including completion of Tri-Area UGA planning and various high
profile proposals such as the Port Ludlow Marina expansion, Mats Mats Quarry expansion,
pending Fred Hill Materials conveyor and pier proposal. All of these items need to be addressed
at the current staffing level of two employees. Support of these existing programs and projects
currently exceeds Long Range Planning Division staffing levels. For this reason, inclusion of
suggested amendments on the final docket must involve consideration of the entire Long Range
Planning Division and Department of Community Development workload.
Anticipated DC» Cost and Budeet
The March 22, 2000 Cost Analysis done for the 1999/2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
process showed a total cost of $31,700 for 14 Comprehensive Plan amendments with an average
review cost of $2,265 per amendment. Using the average cost of $2,265 per amendment, review
of the four formal site-specific amendments required to be on the fmal docket will cost
approximately $9,000. This is a required cost due to the fact that these applications must be
processed. The total estimated cost for processing all eight amendments on the docket is
$18,120.
Plannine Commission Work Plan
In addition to staff time, it should be noted that all Comprehensive Plan amendments require
review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will need to consider numerous
issues over the next year including, but not limited to, settlement negotiations or remands related
to Comprehensive Plan appeals on issues such as LAMIRD designation, aquifer recharge areas,
and salt water intrusion. Other items requiring Planning Commission review include the Tri-Area
UGA 0 all high profile issues. Based on budgetary restrictions and in an effort to save costs,
DCD has adopted a Service Policy limiting Planning Commission meetings to twice per month.
The number of suggested amendments included on the final docket directly affects the Planning
CommissionsO ability to provide thorough and thoughtful amendment review.
.. Department of Community Development Final Docket Recommendation
Based on the discussion above and the need, urgency, and appropriateness of the submitted
suggested amendments the Department of Community recommends that all all four suggested
amendments submitted be included on the final docket. These include the following:
(1) Application Number MLA03-232 proposed by the Port of Port Townsend which (1)
proposes Essential Public Facilities (EPF) designation for approximately 24 acres of Port owned
property adjacent to the Jefferson County International Airport (2) proposes Comprehensive Plan
and Unified Development Code changes related to the allowance of limited rural scaled industrial
uses within the EPF designation and (3) proposes an area in which residents in close proximity to
the airport would receive notification of airport operations
(2) Application Number MLA03-244 proposed by People for a Rural Quimper which
proposes Comprehensive Plan policy changes related to the elimination of requirements for
Department of Community Development (DCD)
Review of Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
and Recommendation for Placement on the Final Docket
2
Jefferson County to adopt an Airport Overlay or Noise Overlay ordinance and to support adoption
of an Airport Master Plan to regulate land uses at the Jefferson County International Airport.
(3) Application Number MLA03-209 proposed by Jefferson County to develop a
Agricultural Lands strategy including consideration of land use designations, reconsideration of
UDC regulations and additional unfinished Agricultural Lands planning tasks as described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
(4) Application Number MLA03-21O by Jefferson County proposing the addition of
narrative and policy language in the Comprehensive Plan and UDC related to compliance
with a Growth Management Hearings Board order concerning seawater intrusion
protection.
Conclusion
Based on an assessment of D~@~l!t ~fÇommuni Development staffing leve
êost and bu~et.. CllITentcountv-wide budget conditions, an
Comprehensive PI ents, the --þej)ãi1m~~t _ ~ëëõmmends that all four suSa:est€d
amen ents be included on the final docket for a total of eight docketed items on the final docket
when combined with the four site-specific applications.
[END)
~~1 \ ~
q; . ~ J I t 'IV'':>
/' ~~ rt ./
'JJ? J¡þ~
~~~
tepartment of Community Development (DCD) t .
."'ow" ....;m..~ Com".._. PI.. __ """'" ~ I ':l ? "ð :?
and Recommendation for Placement on the Final Docket V dl (,,/'oJ V
3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 7, 2003
~...."
~
There are 4 suggested amendments. Two of the amendments were submitted by the County. One is to put
specific narrative and policy language in the Comprehensive Plan related to seawater intrusion. The other
amendment is a proposal to develop an agricultural land strategy. DCD is being proactive and they have
sent out 600 notices to landowners asking if they would like to be part of an agricultural lands designation.
There is some controversy with the Port of Port Townsend amendment and an amendment submitted by
People for a Rural Quimper that addresses the noise overlay component at the airport. The Planning
Commission feels that a detailed discussion on the Airport Master Plan will include the noise overlay
component and they voted 8-0 to combine these 2 amendments. Staff is recommending that these two
amendments be addressed separately. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez also recommended
separate numbers for these two amendments because it will create a simpler record if there is an appeal.
Randy Kline reiterated that the Planning Commission's recommendation is to put all 4 of the amendments
listed above on the docket.
The 4 site specific amendments include:
· The Northwest School of Wooden Boat Building and the Port Hadlock Village Center
· A & E Forest has submitted an application to redesignate 40 acres ftom rural residential 1120 to rural
residential 1/10
· Donna Paul bas submitted an application to redesignate approximately 60 acres of commercial forest
land to rural residential 1/20.
· MakilPhillips bave submitted an application for a mineral resource lands overlay designation for
several parcels near the Penny Creek Quarry.
The Board agreed to vote on the final docket on July 14.
Randy Kline also reported on the 5 consultants who have been hired to do the UGA work.
· Mark Personious is doing the UGA development regulations.
· PRR is doing the public outreach.
· Economic and Engineering Services is doing the general sewer plan component. It is crucial that this
infonnation is out to the public as soon as possible.
· Bucher, Willis and Ratliff are doing the transportation element.
· Gray & Osborne is doing the stormwater element.
On July 15 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the consultants are scheduled to meet in Port Hadlock to go over the
project issues and do a walking tour of the area. The Board is invited to attend.
\ ,,1\ 1J A I() V 'lP 0;;
~1" /' L.fit t~ W~V'CJ
Jr'\j 0 CI
~ ~~
~~
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 7, 2003
"'''~...''.
.. ~."y
~. ." ;'
.....
5. AGREEMENT Interlocal re: Reimbursable Work Perfonned by County Public Works and/or
Rental of County Equipment; Jefferson County Public Works; Mason County Public Works
6. AGREEMENT re: Tri Area Urban Growth Area Stonnwater Management Plan, Project #SPI636;
Jefferson County Public Works; Gray and Osborne, Inc.
7. AGREEMENT re: Provide Childbirth Education Classes; Jefferson County Health and Human
Services; Mark Saran, M.A.
8. AGREEMENT re: Mobile Mammography Screening Day in Quilcene; Jefferson County Health and
Human Services; Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
9. AGREEMENT re: Childbirth Education Classes; Jefferson County Health and Human Services;
Amy Irene Lynch
10. AGREEMENT #0263-26642, AmeDdment No.4 re: Developmental Disabilities Biennial;
Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services
11. AGREEMENT re: Aerial Photography Interpretation and Classification for the Tri Area; Jefferson
County Natural Resources Division; Sanborn Colorado, LLC
12. AGREEMENT re: Employment as SRS Summer Camp Coordinator for 2003; Sue Hay
13. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING re: Early Childhood Services for Prevention,
Identification and Treatment of Disease; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Olympic
Community Action Program (OlyCAP)
14. Request to Hear Property Tax Appeals for the Year 2003; Jefferson County Board of Equalization
15. Request for Overnight Parking at East Beach, Marrowstone Island on Saturday, July 26,2003;
Roberta Hendrix Family
2004 Budget Goals and Objectives: After some minor changes to the language of the
resolution, Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO.~ establishing budget
goals and objectives for 2004. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried.
Consultant Presentation re: Gateway Visitors' Center Master PIIlII: Debbie Berre~ Public
Works introduced Craig Curtis and Petra Mechaely of the Miller Hull Partnersbip who reviewed a slide
presentation on the conceptual design for the new Olympic Gateway Visitor Center.
Community Development re: Transfer of Planning Commission Recommendlltion on
Final Docket and Update on Tn Area UGA Planning Procøss: Associate Planner Randy Kline reviewed
the Planning Commission's recommendation on the final docket for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments. The Board needs to make a decision on the final docket by July 14. Staff recommends that
they wait a week to make this decision because the Port of Port Townsend plans to submit a revised scope
for their Airport Master Plan application later this week.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 14, 2003
~
~
County Administrator David Goldsmith reported that JeffComm, the emergency dispatch services for the
County, is concerned about the ordinance that controls naming and re-naming roads, especially for
emergency medical response, because many of the names are so similar. There is a group of Emergency
Responders, County personnel, and Dispatchers reviewing the ordinance to try and revamp the road naming
system. They plan to submit a report and recommendation.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to reject the proposed name change and have staff notifY the property
owners that they have 30 days to suggest a new name. Chairman Tittemess seconded the motion which
carried.
HEARING re: Petition to Change the Name of tl Prl,ate Road; Mldkiff Village RtHUlln
Port Ludlow; Sterling and Kathleen Couch, Petitioners: Wendy Wani, Public Warks Department,
explained that this is a petition to rename Midkiff Village Road in Port Ludlow. JeffComm is against
changing any names in the County at this point. There is one taxpayer that owns all 3 lots on this road and
his first choice for a new name is not a duplicate or similar to any other road name in the system. The
recommendation is to change the name to Attitude Lane.
Chairman Tittemess opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed name
change, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve
RESOLUTION NO. 36-03 changing the road name of Midkiff Village Road to Attitude Lane. Chairman
Titterness seconded the motion which carried .
Fintd Deterlllination on Planning COlllmission Recomlllendation and Setting The
Comprehensive Pliut Âmendment Find Docket (Contlnuedfrom July 7, 2003): Department of
Community Development Director AI Scalf advised. that the Board received the Port of Port Townsend's
letter this moming regarding the change to their Comprehensive Plan amendment submittal. This meeting is
to set the final docket and is not a public hearing. He advised that the annual Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycle is governed by section 9.6 of the UDC. The Planning Commission has presented their
recommended final docket. If the Board adds or subtracts Comprehensive Plan amendments to this docket,
a public hearing is required.
Chainnan Titterness asked if the letter ftom the Port modifying their request is allowed? AI Scalf answered
that it is allowed. The Planning Commission and the Board will hold a public hearing on the modified
amendment in the future.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 14, 2003
en..
. . ¥,
.
AI Scalf continued by noting that there are 4 site specific amendments under consideration: MLA03-182,
MLA03-189, MLA03-225 and MLA03-231. The Planning Commission, DCD staff, and the Board
concurred that these 4 amendments go forward in the cycle. There are 4 other amendments that the Planning
Commission and DCD staff are recommending go forward. The Planning Commission recommended
combining the 2 amendments that deal with the airport, but the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney has advised
against this.
Chairman Tittemess asked if the Board can proceed with docketing but take staff's recommendation not to
combine the 2 airport amendments? AI Scalf answered that this does not change the Planning
Commission's recommendation regarding the docket because nothing is being subtracted or added. Staff
concurs that the 4 amendments be docketed. Tom McNerney, Planning Commission Chair, pointed out that
after the legal opinion was given against combining the 2 amendments, the Planning Commission had no
problem with keeping the amendments separate.
Al Scalf reviewed the process if the Board accepts the recommendation on the final docket ftom the
Planning Commission and staff.
· Staff prepares a preliminary staff recommendation and initiates environmental review.
· The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on each amendment.
· Planning Commission deliberates and formulates recommendation.
· Staff transmits the Planning Commission's recommendation to Board along with the final staff
recommendation and final environmental review.
· If the Board accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation, they do not have to hold a public
hearing.
· If the Board doesn't agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation, they will need to hold
a public hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford noted that there are several people in attendance that are interested in the Port of
Port Townsend's revision to their amendments. Larry Crockett, Port Manager, explained that the Port has
had several meetings to find an option to deal with the noise overlay issue. At a meeting with DCD s~
Associate Planner Randy Kline noted that the County has overlay maps on the website and that may be a
way to notify people that the aÍtpOrt creates an environmental impact. There would be no notice to title.
The Port would send a letter to each property owner in the 55DNL area and the title companies would not be
involved. There are some uses that could pose problems near the airport such as daycare centers, schools,
and churches or a large ham radio tower or cell tower. The essential public facility amendment has been
taken off the table until after the Airport Master Plan is completed per FAA guidelines. The only other issue
regarding the removal of the essential public facility amendment is that, as a site specific amendment, the
Port was required to pay a $2,250 application fee.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has several concerns about the follow through on the process that
the Port is suggesting in place of the notice to title and the how the County will notify the Port when a
property within the SSDNL is sold. These are changes that people wanted although they may still need a
little refining. AI Scalf reiterated that the modified amendment deals only with the noise impact issue.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 14, 2003
~
Commissioner Huntingford moved to docket all 8 amendments separately, and to include the Port's changes
and establish the final docket for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. Commissioner Titterness
seconded the motion which carried.
The Board met in Executive Session ftom 11: 15 to 11 :45 a.m. with the County Administrator, the
Community Development Director and the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding potential litigation and
then from!! :45 to 11 :59 a.m. with the County Administrator and the Public Works Director regarding real
estate negotiations and a personnel matter.
MEETING ~JóÛRN5Q·· "
.' '-S'"
/ .J.,.-...J..
, ' . ð \
SEAL: í ~ . \ t· '.. .~~ ¡': '.... ·
(: \ . '/. ,: "
\ ~ . , t'
, -'
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Iii-~
ATTESI:: . J
4t~{ ~ ..j)¿,þ'1l-
~ 'DelaneÝ, CMC / . r)
Clerk of the Board ,-r
(V lICIInt)
3rd District Commissioner
Page 7
Exhibit B: Proposed Amendatory Language
REQUESTED TEXT AMENDMENTS
GOAL:
EPG 3.0 Ensure continuation of the airport as a safe and efficient essential public facility.
POLICIES:
EPP 3.1 Encoura2e the Port of Port Townsend to adoot an Airoort Master Plan De·¡elop an "Airport
Overlay ZOBe" for Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) which:
... Discourages the siting of new, incompatible land uses at the Jefferson County International
Aimort (JCIA) aåjaeeøt tEl the airpørt~
.. Establishes a Boise e'/arlay zOBe~
· Identifies and regulates land uses within a "runway protection zone;"
· Identifies and regulates land uses within an "airport approach zone;" and,
.. Regulates obstacles in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 77 ttfHH.
the "~A1irpøct Overlay ZOBe" is established fer the JCIA.
EPP 3.3 The CeW1ty, in eooper'lltÎeB ,Nith the Pert efPect TevlflseBd, ....All åeyelop M1d adopt a
Noise O';erlay bOBe Or4:iBtmee.
EPP 3.10 .&eeæ:age the eommÌftfteøt betv.'een JefferseB Ceety aBd the Pert efPort To·.VflseBd tEl
ooøfàiB:ate iBdividaal plaBÐing ooæmeøts tEl preeluàe the eee1:1ffeBee af futafe BÐise
eønf1iet areas. Coordinate with the Port of Port Townsend to explore options in flight
patterns to mitigate noise events, as long as options preserve safe aeronautical regulations
and procedures.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES CHAPTER
B. JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT STRATEGY
Action Items
1. Jeffer~on County shall work cooperatively with the Port of Port Townsend and aviation officials
to develop and adopt aft "Airport Overlay ZaBe" §JJb-area olan that imnJements an Aimort Master Phw
for Jefferson County International Airport. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0)
2. Based upon the results of the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Study, the County may re-evaluate land use
designations within the "Airport Oyerlay 2aM" a sub-area olan that imolements an Aimort Mª-$ter flan.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0,3.0)
. .\.. ~ ~ {2. ~ '\{ì~
(' W~T ~~~ \ ~~< ~
'1} L.},o\W-'VoU~
Y <Ý 003
'YPµov. )-
Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment: People for a Rural Quimper
Page 3
Exhibit C: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria
UDC SECTION 9.4
A. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located substantially changed since the adoption ofthe Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
Yes, Jefferson County considered and did not adopt a Noise Overlay Ordinance for the Jefferson
County Airport in 1999 (tabled indefinitely). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the
proposed ordinance. The BOCC could not find adequate justification to adopt a Noise Overlay
Ordinance after extensive public testimony, BOCC questioning and staff research. Subsequently,
the Port of Port Townsend and Jefferson County entered into a settlement agreement, relating to the
subject policies (Policies EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.1O and the Airport Strategy Items A & B),
requiring that the County implement the policies.
The Port of Port Townsend has not provided any justification that a Noise Overlay Ordinance is
required. There is no evidence that a noise overlay is required by any State or FCC requirement to
site Essential Public Facilities or Airports.
In addition, since the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the Uniform Development
Code has been subsequently adopted. Provisions included within the UDC Section 3.6.11
adequately address the needs of the Port of Port Townsend.
Section 3.6.11 Uniform Development Code (UDC)
d. Development Standards. This section provides standards to minimize the conflicts between the Jefferson
County International Airport and proposed future development proximal to the airport proper. These protective
standards prevent the establishment of future incompatible uses and airspace obstructions in airport clear zones,
approaches and surrounding areas and shall comply with the standards established in the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), Part 77 (Objects affecting navigable airspace). Where the standards contained in this section
conflict with FAR, Part 77, the more restrictive shall apply. All other development standards and review and approval
criteriaín this Code shall also apply.
i Notice Provisions. Land division, site plan applications, and building permits within the airporl,s area of
influence (defined in the interim as that area within the airporl,s 65 DNL noise contour interval) shall be submitted to
the Port of Port Townsend for comment. In addition, these applications shall contain or be accompanied by a notice
provided by the administrator. Said notice shall include the following disclosure: . The subject property is near an
airport where a
variety of airport dependent uses occur that are not compatible with development. Potential discomforts or
inconveniences may include. but are not limited to: noise. aircraft take·offs and landings. Such notice to be affixed to
the clat and recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor.
Because there is no justification for adoption of a Noise Overlay Ordinance, the applicants are
requesting that the subject policies (policies EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.10 and the Airport Strategy
Items A & B) be deleted or amended, as proposed, thereby relieving Jefferson County of any
requirement to amend the UDC or adopt a Noise Overlay Ordinance, prior to consideration of a Sub-
Area Plan (Airport Master Plan).
Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment: People for a Rural Quimper
Page 4
B. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no
longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the
process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent
amendment?
Yes, the assumptions that formed the basis of the adoption of the subject policies and strategies
(Policies EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.1 0 and the Airport Strategy Items A & B) are no longer valid.
The Port of Port Townsend has not demonstrated the need for a Noise Overlay Ordinance. Airport
activities, development and siting are adequately addressed by the policies and goals of the Essential
Public Facilities Chapter of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning
Policies. In addition, adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent
adoption of the UDC, allow for the Port to propose a Sub-Area Plan consistent with an Airport
Master Plan.
The applicant (PRQ) is requesting that the subject policies (policies EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.10
and the Airport Strategy Items A & B) be deleted or amended, and that no further amendments be
made to the Uniform Development Code (UDC) with regard to implementation of Essential Public
Facilities Goal 3.0 until such time as an Airport Master Plan is completed, reviewed and adopted.
By deleting and/or amending the subject policies from the Comprehensive Plan, the County would
be no longer be obligated to adopt a Noise Overlay Ordinance or amend the UDC to establish an
Airport Noise Overlay.
C. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County?
The proposed amendment does reflect widely held community values. As demonstrated by the
attached history of the Planning Commission and BOCC consideration of a proposed Noise Overlay
Ordinance in 1998-1999 (EXHffiIT D), the community and the BOCC have clearly stated that there
is no demonstrated need for a Noise Overlay Ordinance. Significant public testimony was
considered by the BOCC in 1999, opposed to establishment of a Noise Overlay Ordinance, and the
BOCC, at that time, choose not to adopt the Noise Overlay Ordinance.
In addition, the subject policies (policies EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.1O and the Airport Strategy
Items A & B) are inconsistent with other adopted goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
which also reflect widely held community values. The applicant proposal to delete or amend the
subject polices to eliminate this inconsistency. Specifically, the following land use goals and
policies are inconsistent with the subject policies:
LAND USE GOAL
LNG 1.0 Comply with the Growth Management AcL the Countywide Planning Policy, this Comprehensive Plan, and the
Land Use Map in all adopted land use, environmental and development regulations, and subsequent land use decisions
and approvals.
lNP 1.2 Acknowledge and protect the rights of private property owners in preparing land use,
developmenL and environmental regulations, prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory
actions, and preserve reasonable uses for regulated properties.
The subject policies (Policies EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.10 and the Airport Strategy Items A & B)
require the County adopt an Airport Noise Overlay, which is an arbitrary and discriminatory action
Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment: People for a Rural Quimper
Page 5
that is contrary to preservation of private property rights. A Noise Overlay may be an unfair
"taking" of an individual property rights, with out an established public benefit. Airport operations
are adequately protected by the other provisions of the Essential Public Facilities Chapter.
LAND USE GOAL:
LNG 16.0 Identify and designate lands for both public purposes and essential public facilities.
LAND USE POLICIES:
L N P 16.4 Provide for broad-based participation by agencies, citizens and other interested parties in the
process for designating land to be used for essential public facilities.
LNP 16.5 Develop standards that require public facilities to be sited in a manner unobtrusive to the
immediate environment These standards should address buffers, screening, lighting,
noise, drainage, traffic impact and lot coverage.
The subject policies (policies EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.1O and the Airport Strategy Items A & B)
require the County adopt an Airport Noise Overlay prior to completion of an Airport Master Plan.
Review of the Master Plan, and subsequent adoption of a sub-area plan better addresses the broad-
based participation, and comprehensive planning intentions of the above referenced polices.
LAND USE GOAL:
LNG 21.0 Ensure that development is accomplished in a manner which protects the long-term habitability, historically
significant areas, and natural beauty of Jefferson County.
LAND USE POLICIES:
LNP 21.1 Encourage the preservation and conservation of Jefferson County's unique history,
scenic resources, and rural community identities, support the contributions that each
community has made to the fabric of the County's rural and cultural character, and
encourage the preservation of community cohesiveness through designated land uses in
this Plan.
LNP 21.2 Encourage project proponents to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the public health,
safety, and welfare as a result of a proposed projec~ action, or use concurrent with project development
Establishment of a noise overlay may restrict the ability of the County to accomplish this goal, by
permitting land-uses at the airport, with out regard to noise impacts on long-term habitability,
historically significant areas and natural beauty. In addition, arbitrary adoption of indiscriminate
overlays is not supportive of the community cohesiveness, and may restrict the ability to require
future project proponents at the JCIA site to mitigate adverse impacts.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
POLICY EPP 1.7 Adopt development regulations for essential public facilities which include standards and
criteria related to:
a. Facility operations
b. Health and safety
c. Nuisance effects
d. Maintenance of standards congruent with applicable governmental regulations, particularly as they may change and
become more stringent over time.
E P P 1.9 Ensure that Jefferson County's policies and regulations on essential public facility siting
are coordinated with and advance other planning goals.
The subject policies (Policies EPP3 .1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.1 0 and the Airport Strategy Items A & B)
do not require that the proposed development regulations address the above criteria. If the subject
policies are deleted or amended, then any development regulations proposed to address the JCIA
will be required to be consistent with EPP1.7.
Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment: People for a Rural Quimper
Page 6
In conclusion, adoption of the suggested text amendments relieves the County of the obligation to
adopt an Airport Noise Overlay. The Comprehensive Plan does not include any background
information, studies, or documentation that suggest that a noise overlay is required. The subject
policies require that the County adopt a overlay that appears to have no demonstrated scientific
basis, contributes to no identified public, health or safety need, is not consistent with any established
regulatory authority, does not protect private property rights and may constitute a "taking" under
State law.
In addition, any consideration and/or adoption of an amendment to the UDC, to implement policies
EPP3.1, EPP3.3 and EPP3.10 and the Airport Strategy Items A & B is premature without review and
adoption of an Airport Master Plan (Sub-Area Plan). The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and UDC clearly delineate the procedure and criteria for adoption of a sub-area plan, and these
procedures and criteria will adequately ensure that the a proposed sub-area plan (Airport Master
Plan) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with widely-held community values.
Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment: People for a Rural Quimper
Page 7