HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 03 02 Staff Report
Page 1 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET
March 3, 2021
David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner – Lead, Department of Community
Development
Austin Watkins, Consultant, Department of Community Development
Page 2 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
A. Overview of 2020 Docket and Docketing Process. .................................................. 3
B. Hearing Dates, DCD Staff Contact, and Other Introductory Information. .............. 5
C. Growth Management Indicators ............................................................................... 6
II. Staff Analysis and Recommendations on 2020 Docket Items ..................................... 9
A. MLA19-00019 – Text Amendments to Marijuana Related Development Regulations. ..................................................................................................................... 9
B. MLA20-00116 - Text Amendments to Support Sewering the Brinnon Limited
Area of More Intensive Rural Development. ................................................................ 30
C. MLA20-00102 – Text Amendments to Support the Port Hadlock UGA Sewer
Facility Plan Update. ...................................................................................................... 47
D. MLA20-00039 – Seton Site-specific Rezone from RR1:10 to RR1:5, Parcel ID
No. 001281002, Located at Airport Cutoff Road (SR 19) and Romans Road. ............. 49
III. State Environment Policy Act Compliance ............................................................ 61
Page 3 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
I. Introduction
A. Overview of 2020 Docket and Docketing Process.
Jefferson County is considering three text amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, in addition to one site-specific amendment (rezone) pursuant to the Washington Growth Management Act’s (“GMA”) annual comprehensive plan amendment process. Under GMA and Jefferson County regulations, the Comprehensive Plan may only be amended once per year using a docketing system. Text amendments are suggested by the public, Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners (“BoCC”), and Department of Community Development (“DCD”) staff. These are generally limited to proposals that broadly appeal to the narrative, goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are three suggested text amendments on the 2020 Docket.
Site-specific amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting a
change in their Comprehensive Plan land use designation (rezoning). There is one site-
specific amendment on the 2020 Docket.
Jefferson County accepts applications for suggested text amendments and site-
specific rezones to the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (“UDC”) until
March 1st of each year. Timely applications are placed onto a preliminary docket, along
with suggested amendments from the Planning Commission, BoCC, and DCD.
After March 1st, DCD staff analyzes the preliminary docket and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission on which docket items should be included in the final docket. Next the Planning Commission reviews the preliminary docket, holds a public hearing on the preliminary docket, and makes recommendations to the BoCC on which preliminary docket items should be included in the final docket. The BoCC then reviews the Planning Commission and DCD staff recommendations, typically holds a public hearing, and then adopts a final docket. Site-specific rezones are automatically included in the final docket. Inclusion in the final docket directs DCD staff to further analyze the particulars of the docket item, including recommendations for the docket item. This Staff Report represents DCD staff analysis of the final docket items, including a DCD staff recommendation on each item.
The 2020 Docket Cycle is delayed due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic.
Typically, the final docket is adopted in or around July, with final action on the docket
items by the end of the year. However, the 2020 final docket was not adopted by the BoCC
until October 26, 2020. On August 19, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public
Page 4 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
hearing on the preliminary docket and on September 28, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended that five text amendment applications, along with one site-specific be placed on the final docket. On October 19, 2020, the BoCC held a public hearing on the preliminary docket and on October 26, 2020 adopted the final docket, which included three
text amendment applications and one site-specific application. On November 9, 2020, the
BoCC approved Resolution No. 69-20, giving the Planning Commission until February 26,
2021 to transmit their recommendations on the final docket items to the BoCC. Under
Resolution No. 69-20, the BoCC has until April 30, 2021 to take final action on the docket
items, unless extended.
The 2020 Docket includes the following items:
1. MLA19-00019 – Text Amendments to Marijuana Related Development Regulations;
2. MLA20-00116 – Text Amendments to Support Sewering the Brinnon Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development;
3. MLA20-00102 – Text Amendments to Support the Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan Update; and,
4. MLA20-00039 – Seton Site-specific Rezone from RR1:10 to RR1:5, Parcel ID No. 001281002, Located at Airport Cutoff Road (SR19) and Romans Road.
On January 20, 2021, DCD staff held an informational session with the Planning Commission to provide an overview of each docket item. This Staff Report represents
DCD’s formal analysis of each docket item, including recommendations on each docket
item.
On February 10, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
2020 Docket items. The Planning Commission accepted a total of 49 oral and 3 written
comments in support of MLA19-00019. After deliberations, the Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval/adoption of all 2020 docket items. The Planning
Commission’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be transmitted to the BoCC on March 22, 2021. The BoCC will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation and may hold an additional public hearing if changes are considered to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If the BoCC holds a public hearing, the BoCC will then deliberate and take final action on the 2020 Docket items. The public is invited to participate throughout the process, including comments at the public hearings.
Page 5 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
B. Hearing Dates, DCD Staff Contact, and Other Introductory Information. Proponent: Jefferson County BoCC for text amendments and on behalf of the applicant for the site-specific rezone amendment. Planning Commission The Planning Commission Held on Wednesday, Hearing Date: February 10, 2021. Location of Staff Report The Staff Report and all supporting material may be found and Supporting Material: online at https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/0/fol/2710488/Row1.aspx
Date Public Hearing No public hearing is currently scheduled. If an additional Comments are Due: public hearing is scheduled, information relating to comment submission will be inserted here. DCD Staff Contact: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner – Lead djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us (360) 379-4450 Notice and Posting: If an additional public hearing is required, notice and posting
information will be inserted here.
Tentative Adoption April 30, 2021.
Date:
Page 6 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
C. Growth Management Indicators Jefferson County Code (“JCC”) 18.45.080(1)(b) requires that all Comprehensive Plan amendments include an inquiry into the seven growth management indicators (“GMIs”) listed in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b). The GMI address the following:
• Growth and development rates;
• Ability to provide services;
• Availability of urban land;
• Whether assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are still
valid;
• Community-wide attitudes towards land use;
• Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendment; and,
• Consistency between state law and the Comprehensive Plan, or the Comprehensive Plan and local agreements. The GMIs are not necessarily amendment-specific, but rather are designed to provide a snapshot of Jefferson County’s status during this 2020 Docket cycle. This section
serves to promote consideration and inquiry into these GMIs and is intended to be a starting
point for broader community consideration before the Planning Commission and BoCC.
Growth Management Indicators – 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 GMA. The April 1, 2020 population for Jefferson County was 32,190. The official population on April 1, 2019 was 31,900, with an estimated growth of 290 persons. This is a 0.90% growth rate. In 2019, it was estimated that the growth rate was 0.98%. The Comprehensive Plan estimates a 0.98% growth rate over the 2018-2038 planning horizon. The majority of the estimated 2020 population growth occurred in the unincorporated areas. Unincorporated areas grew by 235 persons from 22,290 to 22,525 or a 1.05% growth rate between 2019 and 2020. The City of Port Townsend grew by 55 persons from 9,610 to 9,665 or a 0.57% growth rate.
Overall, Jefferson County appears to be growing consistent with the growth
population projects in the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 7 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Site-specific amendments require that the local area be analyzed. In 2018, 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 had a total of 571 vacant RR1:5 parcels, 31 vacant RR1:10 parcels, and 111 vacant RR1:20
parcels. In addition, some of these parcels are larger than the minimum lot size. Based upon
the parcels that may, in theory, be subdivided, it is estimated that another 87-127 single-
family residences could be obtained through subdivision.
(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 continues to be equipped to provide the same levels of service specified in the Comprehensive Plan. (3) Whether sufficient urban land us designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. Discussion: Planning analysis of the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area (“Port Hadlock UGA”) demonstrates that there is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand of 1,814 additional persons by 2039, under the assumption that there will be future growth at urban densities.
Development of a sanitary sewer facility for the Port Hadlock UGA 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 only
occur if it is not urban in nature. The Port Hadlock UGA Land Capacity Analysis,
Comprehensive Plan, Appendix E demonstrates that the current 20-year population can be
accommodated. With the current urban zoning an additional 2,103-25,29 dwelling units
can be accommodated in the Port Hadlock UGA. However, the County has a transitional
(rural) zoning applied to the Port Hadlock UGA until its sanitary sewer becomes available. Development under the transitional zoning can accommodate approximately 567 additional dwellings; however, transitional zoning cannot support the projected 2018-2038 population growth targets. (4) Whether any assumption upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer found to be valid. Discussion: In 2018, the Comprehensive Plan recently went through a Periodic Review and Update. A newly articulated Vision Statement, Foundational Principles, Goals and Policies, and Actions Plans clearly communicate the priorities for County services and
funding decisions to address affordable housing and rural economic development while
Page 8 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
protecting the public health and 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 development under GMA was adopted in 1998 and most recently
reviewed and revised in 2018. The Plan’s goals and vision statement are consistent with
current countywide attitudes.
(6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments.
Discussion: With a newly reviewed and revised plan, the UDC is undergoing a thorough review under Regulatory Reform as required by resolution of the BoCC. Regulatory reform efforts and changes to state policies and regulations resulted in amendments to the UDC, such as updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance and permit processing procedures. In 2020, the County received a draft sewer plan for the Port Hadlock sewer, which revises the engineering details of the sewer to provide a more cost-effective solution for sewering the Port Hadlock UGA. This plan requires edits to the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the County has begun investigating sewering the Brinnon Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (“LAMIRD”). Revisions to
the Comprehensive Plan policies and narratives, in addition to development regulations are
needed to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations are
consistent with state law and the County’s direction. Finally, as recreational marijuana
matures in Washington, the County became aware of unforeseen impacts to production and
processing of marijuana in rural residential zoning districts. Based upon this new
information, amendments to the development regulations for recreational marijuana may
be required.
(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: With the exception of sewering the Brinnon LAMIRD docket item, the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing development regulations may be needed to support the Brinnon sewer docket item.
Page 9 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
II. Staff Analysis and Recommendations on 2020 Docket Items
DCD staff analysis on each docket item is below.
A. MLA19-00019 – Text Amendments to Marijuana Related Development Regulations.
Docket Item: Revisions to marijuana development regulations for rural residential zoned
properties within unincorporated Jefferson County.
Background: In Washington’s 2012 General Election state voters approved Initiative 502 (“I-502”) which legalized recreational marijuana at the state level. In 2013, Washington finalized I-502 administrative rules and began accepting recreational marijuana applications on November 13, 2018. While I-502 authorized recreational marijuana, it did not preempt local government’s zoning authority under its police powers for the siting, location, and operation of recreational marijuana facilities.1 However, when the state began accepting applications for recreational marijuana producers, processors, and retailers, Jefferson County did not have locally adopted zoning regulations governing recreational marijuana.
On August 11, 2014, the BoCC established a moratorium on new recreational
marijuana facilities. The moratorium prohibited the acceptance or processing of
applications for the siting, location, or operation of recreational marijuana facilities within
Jefferson County.2 Prior to the moratorium, Jefferson County considered recreational
marijuana producing (growing) an agricultural use permitted under JCC 18.20.030 and
allowed as a “yes” use in the Rural Residential zoning districts. Processing of recreational
marijuana was interpreted as a use requiring a cottage industry permit in the Rural
Residential zoning districts. Typically, a marijuana facility includes both production (grow) and processing operations. On June 8, 2015, the BoCC adopted an ordinance establishing development regulations governing the siting, location, and operation of recreational marijuana facilities within unincorporated Jefferson County (“2015 Ordinance”). The 2015 Ordinance developed zoning restrictions and development regulations to alleviate probable significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from recreational marijuana facilities.3 The 2015 Ordinance established the following use zones for production and processing:
1 WAC 314-55-020(11). See also Wa. Att’y Gen. Op. 2014 No. 2 (January 16, 2014). 2 Jefferson County Ordinance No. 04-0608-15 re: Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Jefferson County at pg 5. 3 Id. “Because recreational marijuana is only recently lawful, applicants, the County and the State do not know what PSAEI, if any, will arise from producing or processing marijuana but should have the tools in place ahead of time to
Page 10 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Production: Allowed as a yes use in Agricultural zoning district, Rural Industrial and Urban Industrial zoning districts. Allowed as a Conditional Discretionary C(d) use in Rural Residential zoning districts and Forest Resource zoning districts. Prohibited in all
other zoning districts.4
Processing: Allowed as a yes use in Rural Industrial and Urban Industrial zoning
districts. Allowed as a Conditional Discretionary C(d) with a cottage industry permit in
Forest Resource Lands and Rural Residential zoning districts. Prohibited in all other zoning
districts.5
The 2015 Ordinance adopted performance standards on recreational marijuana
facilities, including size limitations on permanent and temporary producing (grow)
structures in the Rural Residential and Forest Resource Lands zoning districts. All
permanent or temporary production (grow) facilities in Rural Residential 1:5 (“RR1:5”) zoning district are limited to 5% of the gross parcel size up to a maximum of 10,890 gross square feet. In the Rural Residential 1:10 (“RR1:10”), Rural Residential 1:20 (“RR1:20”), Commercial Forest 80 (“CF80”), Rural Forest 40 (“RF40”), and Inholding Forest 20 (“IF20”) the production (grow) structure is limited to 5% of the gross parcel size up to a maximum of 21,780 gross square feet. There was no size limitation for outdoor production (grow) facilities in the RR1:5, RR1:10, RR1:20, CF80, RF40, and IF20 zoning districts. The 2015 Ordinance also required recreational marijuana processing facilities in the
Rural Residential and Forest Resource zoning districts to obtain a cottage industry permit.
Consistent with Jefferson County cottage industry performance standards, the 2015
Ordinance established a 5,000 gross square foot size limitation on any processing facilities
in the Rural Residential and Forest Resource zoning districts. The processing facility size
limitation is independent of the production (grow) size limitations.
mitigate any PSAEI which do occur. It is important to have these regulatory tools in place should they be needed to be proactive rather than reactive.” Id. at 3. 4 Id. Marijuana Producer is defined as “a person licensed by the state liquor control board to produce and sell marijuana at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. Marijuana producing for the purpose of this section shall include drying, trimming and bagging of a recreational marijuana product when done in conjunction with producing.” 5 Id. Marijuana Processor is defined as “a person licensed by the state liquor control board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products, package and label useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products for sale in retail outlets, and sell useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products at wholesale to marijuana retailers. Marijuana processing for the purpose of this section may or may not include drying, trimming and bagging of a recreational product.
Page 11 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Existing Marijuana Facilities in Jefferson County Jefferson County has 12 marijuana production and processing facilities licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (“WSLCB”). Below is a breakdown of
existing marijuana facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County, based upon zoning
districts:
• Light Industrial (LI or LI/C) – 7 marijuana facilities, all in the Glen Cove Industrial
area;
• Rural Residential (RR1:5) – 3 marijuana facilities;
• Agricultural (AP20) – 1 marijuana facility; and,
• Forest Resource (CF80) – 1 marijuana facility. A complete list of the marijuana facilities in Jefferson County is attached as Exhibit 1. Of the four marijuana facilities in the Rural Residential and Forest Resource zoning districts, only one (Auntie Onolicious) has been approved under the 2015 Ordinance with a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) and a cottage industry permit for the production (grow) and processing facilities. Below is an overview of the four marijuana facilities in the Rural
Residential and Forest Resource zoning districts:
• Rural Residential
o Discovery Garden, 409 Lane De Chantal, Port Townsend, WA. Zoning RR-
5. Approximately 5.04 acres.
Tier 2 producer with processing.
Production use appears to have been established prior to 2015
Ordinance and is likely a non-conforming use. A CUP and cottage Industry permit was granted for the processing facility in 2014.
o Auntie Onolicious, 144 Milo Curry Rd, Port Townsend, WA. Zoning RR-5. Approximately 2.46 acres.
Tier 1 producer with processing.
A CUP and cottage industry permit was granted for the production and processing facility in 2018. o Rocky Brook Ranch, 71 Mustang Ln Area C, Suite 2, Brinnon, WA. Zoning RR-5. Approximately .23 acres.
Tier 1 producer with processing.
Only permit on file is an 8-foot fence permit issued in 2016.
Production use may be a nonconforming use; however, there is no
approved CUP or cottage industry permit for the processing facility.
On-going code compliance complaints unrelated to the recreational
marijuana facility. Unknown is the marijuana facility is operational.
• Forest Resource
Page 12 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
o The High Point (a/k/a Pen Air), 4429 Coyle Rd, Quilcene, WA. Zoning CF-80. Approximately 99.31 acres.
Tier 3 producer with processing.
A CUP and cottage industry permit was granted in 2016 for the
processing facility. Production facility is likely a non-conforming use.
Page 13 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 1 – Map of WSLCB Licensced Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County
Page 14 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 2 – Map of WSLCB Licensced Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County Glen Cove Industrial Area
Page 15 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Analysis: Economic Impact from Marijuana Producers and Processors in Unincorporated Jefferson County
The economic impact to Jefferson County from marijuana production and
processing facilities in Rural Residential zoning districts is relatively small. Reported 2020
year-to-date (“YTD”) (January – November 2020) sales of wholesale marijuana from Rural
Residential zoned producers and processors was approximately $103,022 (1.8% of all
wholesale producer and processor sales within the County). The majority of producer and
processor sales came from the Light Industrial zoning district. Below is an overview of the
YTD wholesale sales of producers and processors based upon zoning districts:
• Light Industrial (LI and LI/C) - $3,743,254 / 66%
• Agricultural (AP-20) - $1,089,263 / 19.2%
• Forest Resource (CF-80) - $738,964 / 13%
• Rural Residential (RR-5) - $103,022 / 1.8%
Page 16 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Jefferson County ranks 25 out of 39 counties for total number of producers and processors and number 26 out of 39 counties for total sales of wholesale marijuana product from producers and processors.6
In Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2020, Jefferson County received $49,049 in local tax revenue
from its share of the marijuana excise tax.7 The City of Port Townsend received $17,303.8
Washington levies a 37% tax on the retail sales of marijuana within the state. This tax is
collected by the state with a share going to jurisdictions, based upon a formula, which
includes the amount of marijuana retail sales. Jefferson County ranks 19 out of 39 counties
for amount of excise tax returned to the county. The excise tax is not levied on producers
or processors.
Unsuccessful Conditional Use Permit and Cottage Industry Permit Applications for
Marijuana Producers and Processors in the Rural Residential Zoning Districts
Since the 2015 Ordinance, Jefferson County has conducted four public hearings, through the Office of the Hearing Examiner, determining whether or not to grant a CUP and cottage industry permit for marijuana production and processing facilities in the Rural Residential zoning districts. Three of the four applications were denied (three applications were received, with one application being heard twice by the Hearing Examiner). The only application to be approved was for Auntie Onolicious, 144 Milo Curry Rd, Port Townsend, WA. Auntie Onolicious is a Tier 1 Producer (the smallest) and processor.9 The primary test for approval of marijuana production or processing facility in the Rural Residential zoning district is the CUP approval criteria. The JCC requires CUP
applicants to demonstrate that their application is consistent with the following approval
criteria:
(a) The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character
and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of
development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical
characteristics of the subject property;
(b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and stormwater control; (c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
6 Source 502data.com available at https://502data.com and WSLCB Frequently Requested Lists available at https://lcb.wa.gov/records/frequently-requested-lists. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 A tier 1 producer is a producer with less than 2,000 square feet; A tier 2 producer has 2,000 square feet but less than 10,000 square feet; and a tier 3 producer has 10,000 square feet but less than 30,000 square feet.
Page 17 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
(d) The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel; (e) The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences,
and screening vegetation for the conditional use will not unreasonably
interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties;
(f) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use
will not be hazardous to existing and anticipated traffic in the vicinity of the
subject parcel;
(g) The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and
standards of this title and any other applicable provisions of the Jefferson
County Code or state law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC;
(h) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an
incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield; (i) The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval; (j) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole; (k) The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and (l) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar actions in the area.10 While the CUP approval criteria are stringent, they provide applicants flexibility in
meeting their burden of proving compliance. During the recent Williamson production and
processing marijuana application (MLA18-00102), the Hearing Examiner found that the
applicant failed to carry their burden of proof on several of the CUP approval criteria,
including: (1) noise; (2) odor management; (3) on-site residency; (4) compatibility with
other allowable uses, such as forest resource, residential, and agricultural uses; and (5)
failure to prove compliance with all JCC sections, such as traffic, wastewater, and lighting.
In another example, the Hearing Examiner found that Austin Smith (MLA17-00019) failed to carry his burden of proof on several of the CUP approval criteria, such as: (1) noise; (2) odor management; (3) community compatibility; (4) water and wastewater; and (5) on-site residency. The Austin Smith application was heard twice by the Hearing Examiner, as the Hearing Examiner denied the first application without prejudice. Both hearings were denied.
10 JCC 18.40.530(1).
Page 18 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Further, unforeseen environmental factors, such as increased water use, on-site wastewater treatment, and light pollution have become issues during public hearings on proposed marijuana production and processing facilities in rural residential zones. In conclusion, significant environmental concerns have been raised by the public and project
opponents during the four public hearings which call into question whether the 2015
Ordinance adequately protects the environment from all known marijuana production and
processing facility impacts in rural residential zones.
All Applications Since the 2015 Ordinance Have Proposed Indoor Facilities
All three applications received for marijuana production and processing facilities on
Rural Residential zoned properties received since the 2015 Ordinance have proposed
indoor production and processing. Indoor production and processing generally involves
mechanical equipment systems, such as heating ventilation and air conditioning, odor
management fans and filters, lights, etc. to maintain the operations and meet the CUP approval criteria. However, these indoor facilities may cause community compatibility issues, such as increased noise, light, glare, runoff, and commercial development within residential or forest resource zoning districts. Below is an overview of the significant environmental concerns that were raised during the hearing for these indoor facilities. Odor Management Odor management has been an issue raised at all the public hearings and generally
the Hearing Examiner has required extensive expert witness testimony to establish odor
impacts and the mitigation requirements. This has proved costly to both applicants
(mitigation measures and expert witnesses) as well as project opponents. Usually, the
Hearing Examiner will weigh this expert witness testimony in findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Noise
Noise has been a significant environmental issue in all applications. Jefferson County Resolution 67-85 establishes EDNA classifications based upon zoning. Rural Residential is considered residential zoning. It is very challenging for applicants to meet EDNA noise requirements when they are proposing a marijuana production and processing facility on Rural Residential land that is adjacent to Rural Residential land. In this example, the emitting property would have to have a dBA of 60 or less at the receiving property line.11 From 10pm until 7am, the noise level must be 50 dBA or less.12 For example, a
11 WAC 173-60-040(2)(a). 12 Id.
Page 19 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
household refrigerator emits noise at approximately 55 dBA.13 Compliance with EDNA noise limitations are a consistent issue for applicants. Typically, noise requires expert witnesses.
Water and Wastewater
It is alleged that marijuana production and processing facilities use considerable
amounts of water and that wastewater treatment for the excess chemicals is necessary.
Some applicants have proposed using recycled water and hand spraying of the plants;
however, there have been significant environmental concerns with the excess wastewater
will be disposed of in accordance with all regulations.
Summary on Indoor Marijuana Facilities in Rural Residential Overall, the community generally has opposed new marijuana production and processing facilities in the Rural Residential zoning districts, with the exception of the Auntie Onolicious (MLA17-00055) application. These hearings have proven costly to both the applicant and the community opposing the application. This item was docketed, in part, due to the community opposition to marijuana production and processing facilities within the Rural Residential zoning districts. In conclusion, the following significant environmental concerns have been consistently raised during these applications: (1) noise; (2) odor management; (3) community compatibility; (4) water and wastewater; and (5) on-site residency.
Required Minimum Buffer Distance of Marijuana Facilities to Certain Uses
The 2015 Ordinance does not implement that required minimum buffer distances
from certain uses, such as schools and public parks. Under RCW 69.50.331(8), marijuana
producers, processors, or retailers must be at least 1,000 feet from:
• Elementary of secondary school;
• Playground;
• Recreation center or facility;
• Child care center;
• Public park;
• Public transit center;
• Library; or,
• Any game arcade (where admission is not restricted to persons age 21 or older).14
13 Decibel Level Comparison Chart available at https://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/decibel-level-chart.pdf. 14 RCW 69.50.331(8).
Page 20 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Since the 2015 Ordinance does not incorporate the required minimum buffer distances, DCD staff recommends that the regulations be updated to include this performance standard.
WSLCB Prohibits New Licenses on Residential Parcels, but Cottage Industry Performance
Standards Require an On-site Full-Time Bona Fide Resident.
“The WSLCB will not approve any marijuana license for a location where law
enforcement access, without notice or cause, is limited. This includes a personal
residence.”15 However, the 2015 Ordinance requires that processing facilities located on
Rural Residential or Forest Resource zoned lands must have a “at least one full-time, bona
fide resident in a single-family residence of the parcel on which the proposed use is being
requested.”16
Under the 2015 Ordinance, marijuana processing is classified as a cottage industry. The purpose of a cottage industry is “to provide for small-scale economic development activities on residential parcels, subordinate to the primary residential use”.17 The cottage industry requires that the applicant prove their full-time residency on the parcel by the time of the application approval.18 The full-time residency requirement has been a primary factor in the Hearing Examiner denying at least two CUP and cottage industry permit applications for marijuana production and processing facilities on Rural Residential zoned properties. Cottage industry uses on rural parcels are a form of a limited area of more intensive rural development (“LAMIRD”).19 Counties “may allow isolated small-scale businesses
and cottage industries that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected
rural population and nonresidential uses, but do provide job opportunities for rural
residents”.20 Cottage industry requirements must be consistent with the county’s rural
character.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, through its goals and policies reinforces
the requirement that cottage industries are an accessory use to the primary use of single-
family residency.
15 WAC 314-55-015(5). (emphasis added). 16 JCC 18.20.170(5)(a). 17 JCC 18.20.170(1). 18 JCC 18.20.170(5)(a); JCC 18.40.530(1). 19 RCW 36.70a.070(5)(c)(i)(C)(iii); WAC 365-196-425(6)(c)(iii); Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1-50. 20 WAC 365-196-425(6)(c)(iii).
Page 21 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Policy LU-P-27.1 Permit home-based business and cottage industries that are accessory to the residential use of the property throughout the unincorporated portions of the County, subject to permit review procedures.21
The Jefferson County cottage industry requirement of a full-time bona fide resident
is a key requirement of implementing the Comprehensive Plan’s Rural Character and its
implementing goals and policies.22
Given the conflict between WAC 314-55-015(5) and the cottage industry permit’s
requirement of a full-time bona fide on-site resident, DCD staff recommends that
processing not be permitted as a cottage industry use.
WSLCB Does Not Have Any New Production or Processing Permits Available
The WSLCB does not have any new marijuana production or processing permits available and does not plan on opening up any new permits in the near future.23 Forest Resource Land Issues The 2015 Ordinance allows production facilities in the Forest Resource zoning districts as a CUP. There is no size limitation on outdoor production facilities in the Forest Resource zoning districts. However, the 2015 Ordinance imposes size limitations on any all permanent or temporary production facilities limiting the structures to 5% of the gross parcel size up to a maximum of 21,780 gross square feet. Further, an additional 5,000 gross square feet could be obtained for a processing facility as a cottage industry permit.
GMA Planning Goals require the conservation of forest resource lands. The
Planning Goal states “maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including
protective timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of
productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible
uses.”24 Allowing conversion of resource lands to other uses, or allowing incompatible uses
nearby, impairs the viability and productivity of resource industries.25 Counties “shall
adopt development regulations … to assure the conservation of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170.”26
21 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan at 1-106. 22 See Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan at 1-48 – 49; 1-106. 23 See https://lcb.wa.gov/mjlicense/marijuana-licensing and https://lcb.wa.gov/mjlicense/mj_licensing_faq. 24 RCW 36.70A.020(8). 25 Richard L. Settle, Washington’s Growth Management Revolution Goes to Court, 23 Seattle U.L. Rev. 5, 22 (1999). 26 RCW 36.70A.060.
Page 22 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Allowing up to 26,780 gross square feet of temporary or permanent grow structures and processing structures on forest resource lands may allow for the conversion of the forest resource lands into another use.27 Further, any processing facilities on Forest Resource zoned lands must obtain a cottage industry permit, which requires an on-site full-
time resident. As discussed above, the cottage industry full-time resident requirement is in
conflict with WAC 314-55-015(5). For these reasons, DCD staff recommends that
marijuana production or processing should not be a permitted use in Forest Resource zoned
(CF80, RF40, and IF40) lands.
Surrounding County Treatment of Marijuana Production and Processing Facilities
Kitsap County is the strictest nearby county in terms of allowable zoning districts
for marijuana production and processing. Kitsap County generally allows marijuana
production and processing in industrial and business park zoning only.28 Kitsap County
does not permit any production or processing in rural residential. Clallam County generally permits marijuana production and processing in industrial, forest resource, and some commercial zones with a conditional use permit.29 Clallam County does not permit marijuana production or processing in rural residential. Mason County is the least restrictive. Mason County does not permit outdoor marijuana production in rural residential, but they do permit indoor production with at least 5 acres for a tier 1 production facility and at least 10 acres for a tier 2 or 3 production facility. Mason County generally allows it in industrial, commercial, and forest resource lands.30
Land Availability Analysis Supporting Recommendations
To ensure that there is adequate land available for future marijuana production and
processing facilities, DCD staff analyzed vacant land within the Rural and Urban Industrial
(RBI, LI, LI/C, HI, and ULI) zoning districts. The analysis demonstrates that there are 100
vacant Rural and Urban Industrial zoned properties in the County. The parcels total 184.97
acres, with an average of 1.85 acres per parcel. Further, this does not include properties with existing improvements. Often marijuana production and grow facilities in the Rural Industrial zoning district changes the use of existing structures. Below is a map of the vacant Rural and Industrial zoned properties in the County.
27 See Lake Cavanaugh Improvement Association v. Skagit County, WWGMHB, 04-2-011, Order on Dispositive Motion (September 21, 2004) (holding that the construction of a gun range, including parking lots and supporting structures, was the improper conversion of forest resource lands). 28 See KCC 17.520.030. 29 See CCC 33.52.030. 30 See MCC 17.17.005.
Page 23 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 3 – Vacant Rural and Urban Industrial Zoned Properties
Page 24 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
The majority of the vacant Rural and Industrial zoned parcels are in the Glen Cove industrial area. Of the 100 vacant Rural and Industrial zoned parcels in the County, 87 are in the Glen Cove industrial area with a total of 59.35 of the 184.97 vacant acres. While the parcel average is smaller in the Glen Cove industrial area at 0.68 acres compared to 1.84
acres for the County as a whole, there appears to be ample available land for reasonable
expansion of future marijuana production and processing facilities on these parcels.
Further, marijuana businesses aren’t limited to vacant land. Existing marijuana businesses
in the Glen Cove industrial area often lease existing space and modify the space to their
needs. Below is a map of vacant Rural Industrial zoned parcels in the Glen Cove industrial
area.
Page 25 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 4 – Vacant Rural Industrial Zoned Properties in the Glen Cove Industrial Area
Page 26 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Allowing Marijuana Production and Processing Facilities on Vacant Conforming RR1:10 and RR1:20 Will Not Add Significant Amounts of Available Land All of the CUP and cottage industry permit applications requesting marijuana
production or processing on Rural Residential zoned lands that DCD has received since
the 2015 Ordinance have been on vacant parcels. While the property has been vacant, the
applicants did or had plans to establish full-time bona fide residency on the properties.
Since the application trend has been on vacant Rural Residential zoned properties,
DCD staff analyzed how much additional lands would be available if marijuana production
and processing was allowed as a CUP and cottage industry permit on vacant conforming
(meeting the minimum zoning lot size requirements) Rural Residential 10 and 20 zoned
properties. The analysis found that there are 58 RR1:10 and 67 RR1:20 vacant conforming
parcels in the unincorporated County. While these vacant conforming RR1:10 and RR1:20 properties represent 125 additional parcels, there are still significant community compatibility, noise, and RCW and WAC compliance issues if marijuana production and processing were allowed on these properties as a CUP and cottage industry. Below is a map showing vacant conforming RR1:10 and RR1:20 parcels within the County. For these reasons, DCD staff recommends against allowing marijuana production or processing on these RR1:10 and RR1:20 parcels.
Page 27 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 5 – Vacant RR1:10 Parcels At Least 10 Acres in Size
Page 28 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 6 – Vacant RR1:20 Parcels At Least 20 Acres in Size
Page 29 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Recommendations: Given the issues described in this Staff Report, including community compatibility issues, environmental issues, permitting issues, and forest resource land compatibility
issues, DCD staff recommends the following amendments to the 2015 Ordinance:
1. Incorporation of RCW 69.50.331(8), which requires at least a 1,000-foot
buffer distance from certain uses, such as schools from marijuana production,
processing, or retailing facilities;
2. Change marijuana production and processing from a conditional
discretionary use in Rural Residential (RR1:5, RR1:10, and RR1:20) and
Forest Resource (CF80, RF40, and IF40) zoned lands to a “no” use under
JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1;
3. Remove cottage industry performance standards for marijuana processing;
4. Continue to allow marijuana production and processing as “yes” use on the Rural and Urban Industrial (RBI, LI, LI/C, HI, and ULI) zoned lands;
5. Continue to allow marijuana production as a “yes” use on Agricultural (AP20 and AL20) zoned lands; and,
6. Continue to allow marijuana processing and retailing as a conditional discretionary use on Agricultural (AP20 and AL20) zoned lands.
The proposed amendments, in line in and line out format, are in Appendix 1.
Planning Commission Recommendations:
On February 17, 2021, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of
MLA19-00019. The Planning Commission included one amendment, clarifying that
marijuana production and processing facilities are prohibited in all other zoning
classifications, unless expressly listed. DCD concurs with this amendment.
Consistency with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
DCD staff recommended amendments, as contained in Appendix 1 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the GMA, and the GMA and County enhanced rural character. While marijuana production and processing facilities provide economic development and placed based jobs for Jefferson County residents, the now known environmental and community impacts on surrounding Rural Residential zoned property
Page 30 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
makes the use incompatible with the County’s rural character and Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-P-15.1 and 16.2. DCD staff recommend changes improves the compatibility of uses within both the Rural Residential and Forest Resource zoned lands and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. MLA20-00116 - Text Amendments to Support Sewering the Brinnon
Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development.
Docket Item: Comprehensive Plan and UDC text amendment to support future sewer hookups of the Brinnon LAMIRD to the existing Dosewallips State Park sewer system.
Background: In October 2020, the BoCC docketed an annual comprehensive plan
amendment to create development regulations allowing the extension of sewer facilities to
the Brinnon Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (“LAMIRD”). However,
extending sewer facilities to rural areas is a complex topic.
Generally, the GMA precludes extension of sewer facilities to rural areas unless it
can be shown that the sewer is: (1) necessary to protect public health and the environment;
(2) the sewer services are financially supportable at rural densities; and (3) the sewer services do not permit urban development. However, the GMA may allow sewers in LAMIRDs if it can be demonstrated that the sewer is necessary to support the LAMIRD and the extension is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. In 2016, the Dosewallips State Park, located in Brinnon, WA, opened a wastewater treatment plant (“Dosewallips Sewer”) replacing its aging on-site sewage (septic) system. The Dosewallips Sewer was constructed to improve the ecological functions and environmental quality of the Hood Canal and Puget Sound Watershed. The Dosewallips Sewer was purposefully designed to allow for future hookup of properties within the Brinnon LAMIRD. The Dosewallips Sewer was constructed north of the Brinnon
LAMIRD with its sewer lines running through the core of the Brinnon LAMIRD, south to
the Dosewallips State Park. During the planning of the Dosewallips Sewer, Jefferson
County investigated the feasibility of allowing properties within the Brinnon LAMIRD to
hookup to the Dosewallips Sewer. After community outreach and feasibility analysis,
Jefferson County decided not to take action allowing properties within the Brinnon
LAMIRD to hookup to the planned Dosewallips Sewer.
In 2019, Washington State Parks commissioned a study, with partial Jefferson
County funding, analyzing available capacity of the Dosewallips Sewer. The 2019 study demonstrated a capacity of 130 ERUs in the Dosewallips Sewer, assuming the installation
Page 31 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
of an additional rapid infiltration basin.31 As a result of the study, the BoCC directed DCD to analyze and draft development regulations allowing properties within the Brinnon LAMIRD to hookup to the existing Dosewallips Sewer as a part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan docket amendments.
Prior to adopting development regulations and Comprehensive Plan revisions
potentially allowing future hookup of properties within the Brinnon LAMIRD to the
Dosewallips Sewer the following questions should be analyzed to guide the decision-
making process: (1) does the GMA allow new sewer connections within LAMIRDs; (2) if
the GMA allows new sewer connections within LAMIRDs is there a necessity showing
and if so, what is the necessity showing; and (3) if Jefferson County permits sewer
connections for properties within the Brinnon LAMIRD to the Dosewallips Sewer, does the Comprehensive Plan have to be amended?
31 Approximately 130 ERUs is based up the projected availability of 31,962 GPD with an average of 245 GPD/ERU. The average of 245 GPD/ERU is based upon the average of Port Townsend’s 260 GPD/ERU and Port Ludlow’s 230 GPD/ERU.
Page 32 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 7 – Map of Brinnon LAMIRD
Page 33 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 8 – Location of Dosewallips Sewer and Routing of Sewer Lines
Page 34 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Analysis: Question 1 – Does the GMA Allow New Sewer Connections Within LAMIRDs?
Difference Between Septic and Sewer Systems
Sewer and septic systems are similar in that they treat human waste. The difference
comes in how they collect, convey, and treat that waste. Sewers are usually large, publicly
owned and operated systems that collect the waste at the source and convey it to a remote
location for treatment. On-site septic systems are typically privately owned individual
stand-alone systems that require a holding tank to separate the effluent into sludge and
water, allowing the water to infiltrate back into the aquifer through an on-site drainfield.
Sewers permit higher density development as there is no requirement for on-site treatment.
Septic systems require significantly larger lots with a minimum residential lot size ranging
from 12,500 – 87,120 square feet depending upon the soil and water supply type.32 Under the GMA, sewers are used for urban development and septic systems are used for rural development because of the difference between the density potential.33 Overview of Differences Between GMA Rural Area and Urban Growth Area Planning The GMA segments its planning into urban growth areas (“UGAs”) and rural areas.34 “Each county … shall designate an urban growth area … which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.”35 Generally, rural areas are those areas that are not UGAs and include designated agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands.36 Under GMA, development within rural
areas is limited to “a variety of uses and residential densities … at levels that are consistent
with the preservation of rural character and the requirements of the rural element.”37 The
GMA limits rural development, in part, to concentrate urban development and prevent
sprawling, low-density development of rural areas.38
Washington recognizes the need for commercial development and a stable job base
in rural areas.39 To this end, the GMA authorizes three types of LAMIRDs in rural areas,
which allows for more intensive development than what would otherwise be authorized in
32 WAC 246-272A-0320(d). 33 Large on-site septic systems are considered a septic system and a rural governmental service. See ARD/Diehl v. Mason County, WWGMHB, 06-2-0006, Order Finding Non-Compliance at 12 (November 14, 2007). 34 Resource lands is a distinct planning group; however, resource lands are usually included within the rural land planning group. 35 RCW 36.70A.110(1). 36 RCW 36.70.A.070(5)(b). 37 RCW 36.70A.030(21). 38 RCW 36.70A.020(1-2). 39 RCW 36.70A.011.
Page 35 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
the rural area.40 Under a Type I LAMIRD, usually an existing hamlet or rural crossroad areas, infill, intensification, and limited new development is permitted within the logical outer boundaries of the existing development as of July 1, 1990.41 A key principle of LAMIRDs is that their development regulations must “minimize and contain the existing
areas or uses of more intensive rural development”.42 The GMA also authorizes two other
types of LAMIRDs, which are generally site-specific. A Type II LAMIRD consists of site-
specific small-scale tourist and recreation uses.43 A Type III LAMIRD consists of site-
specific small-scale businesses and cottage industry uses.44 For the purposes of this
memorandum, only a Type I LAMIRD will be discussed and it will be referred to as a
“LAMIRD”.
To accomplish GMA planning goals, including prevention of sprawling, low-
density development of rural areas, new sewers or new sewer connections generally are
prohibited in rural areas:
In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development.45 The GMA defines urban governmental services as:
[T]hose public services and public facilities at an intensity historically and
typically provided in cities, specifically including storm and sanitary sewer
systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police
protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities
associated with urban areas and normally not associated with rural areas.46
The GMA defines rural governmental services as:
[T]hose public services and public facilities historically and typically delivered at an intensity usually found in rural areas, and may include
40 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). 41 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(v). 42 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv). 43 WAC 365-196-425(6)(c)(ii). 44 WAC 365-196-425(6)(c)(iii). 45 RCW 36.70A.110(4). (emphasis added). 46 RCW 36.70A.030(24). (emphasis added).
Page 36 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
domestic water systems, fire and police protection services, transportation and public transit services, and other public utilities associated with rural development and normally not associated with urban areas. Rural services do not include storm or sanitary sewers, except as otherwise authorized by
RCW 36.70A.110(4).47
The Washington Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has adopted regulations
interpreting the GMA through the Washington Administrative Code (“WAC”).48 The
WAC adopts the three-part test under RCW 36.70A.110(4) for new sewer service in rural
areas under “rural governmental services”, which states:
(4) Rural governmental services.
(a) Rural governmental services are those public facilities and services
historically and typically delivered at intensities usually found in rural areas,
and may include the following: (i) Domestic water system; (ii) Fire and police protection; (iii) Transportation and public transportation; and (iv) Public utilities, such as electrical, telecommunications and natural gas lines. (b) Rural services do not include storm or sanitary sewers. Urban governmental services that pass through rural areas when connecting urban areas do not constitute an extension of urban services into a rural area
provided those public services are not provided in the rural area. Sanitary
sewer service may be provided only if it:
(i) Is necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the
environment;
(ii) Is financially supportable at rural densities; and
(iii) Does not permit urban development.49
Exceptions to the Prohibition of New Sewers or Connections in Rural Areas
The GMA allows for four exceptions for new sewer or sewer connections in rural areas. First, master planned resorts and major industrial developments allow new sewers or connections when the sewer is contained to that development (not at issue here).50 Second, new sewers or connections are allowed in rural areas when: (1) it is necessary to
protect public health and the environment; (2) the sewer services are financially
47 RCW 36.70A.030(22). (emphasis added). 48 Chapter 165-196 WAC. 49 WAC 365-196-425(4). (emphasis added). 50 RCW 36.70A.070(3). Note sewers within a master planned resort or major industrial development will not be discussed in this analysis.
Page 37 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
supportable at rural densities; and (3) the sewer services don’t permit urban development.51 The majority of litigation (discussed below) has occurred under Exception 2. Third, new sewer systems or connections may be permitted for a school supporting both urban and rural students, when certain factors are met.52 Finally, there is a fourth exception,
which allows new sewers or connections when they are “necessary public facilities”
supporting a LAMIRD.53 Exception 4 has not been tested in Washington courts, but there
are favorable decisions from the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(“GMHB”). For the purposes of this memorandum the first exception (MPRs) will not be
analyzed.
Exception 2 – Necessary for Protection of the Public Health and Environment
RCW 36.70A.110(4) and WAC 365-196-425(4) adopt a three-part test which allows
new sewer or connections in rural areas under very limited circumstances. As described in
detail below, it is unlikely that Jefferson County can prove with the data required that sewering the Brinnon LAMIRD is necessary to protect basic public health and safety of the environment. Factor 1 - Necessary to Protect Basic Public Health and Safety of the Environment The Washington Supreme Court has adopted a “strict necessary to protect standard” when extending sewer connections in rural areas. 54 In Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass’n (“Cooper Point”), the court held that Thurston County did not meet the requirement that the sewer extension to the rural area was “necessary to protect basic public health and safety of the environment.”55 The court noted that of the 998 septic systems in the proposed
service area, only 96 of them had failed and that all of the failing septic systems had been
corrected by an environmentally sustainable on-site solution.56 The court stated that since
none of the septic systems were currently failing, the proposed sewer system was for the
“betterment of the health or environment” and that the proposed system was not
“necessary” to protect basic public health and safety of the environment.57 The court
heavily relied on the GMA planning goals of reducing low-density sprawl and the
prohibition of urban governmental services in rural areas.58
51 RCW 36.70A.110(4). 52 RCW 36.70A.213. 53 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). 54 Thurston Cty. v. Cooper Point Ass'n, 148 Wn.2d 1, 13, 57 P.3d 1156, 1162 (2002). (“Cooper Point”). 55 Id. 56 Id. at 5. 57 Id. at 13-15. 58 Id.; See also Campbell, et al. v. San Juan County, WWGMHB, 05-2-0022c, Compliance Order and Final Decision Order (June 20, 2006). (holding that extension of sewer line and connections in rural area, which was planned to be a LAMIRD, violated RCW 36.70A.110(4) because the county failed to prove any that there were any failing septic systems and that it was necessary for the protection of public health and the environment).
Page 38 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Under Cooper Point, Jefferson County must have the necessary data to prove that the Brinnon sewer connections are strictly necessary to protect basic public health and safety of the environment. This likely requires a showing that the septic systems are failing
in the area, that the failing septic systems currently impacting both public health and the
environment, and that on-site solutions will not remedy the failures. While there are
favorable facts for Jefferson County, such as previously failing septic systems in the
Brinnon LAMIRD, often closed shellfish beds near the Dosewallips River due to effluent
contamination, and the 100-year flood zone status of the Brinnon LAMIRD, these factors
alone are not likely enough to meet the “strict necessity” test announced in Cooper Point.
The strict necessity test demands a direct correlation between currently failing septic systems and public health and the environment. For example, a well-executed dye trace study, which demonstrates that the effluent from the Brinnon LAMIRD septic systems is leaching into the Dosewallips River, the groundwater, or the shoreline would likely fulfill this requirement, along with an analysis that the existing septic systems cannot be repaired on-site. Based upon initial conversations with Jefferson County Environmental Public Health, the septic system at issue in the Brinnon LAMIRD likely do not meet the Cooper Point “strict necessity” test, without further study and analysis.59 It is recommended that further conversations, research, and potential studies continue on this factor to allow for further investigation. Factor 2 - Sewer Services are Financially Supportable at Rural Densities The Dosewallips Sewer is an existing facility. The system, which cost
approximately $3.2 million to construct likely can be extended to the Brinnon LAMIRD
with minimal capital costs. The system will have approximately 130 ERU connections
available in the future, assuming the installation of an additional rapid infiltration basin at
an approximate cost of $40,000.60 Overall, we believe Jefferson County will be able to
demonstrate that the extension of the Dosewallips Sewer to the Brinnon LAMIRD is
financially supportable at rural densities, given that the capital facility cost of $3.2 million
has been absorbed by the state and the additional capacity will cost approximately $40,000.
However, further study on this factor is likely required.
59 The information provided by Jefferson County Environmental Public Health was preliminary and further study may demonstrate compliance with the strict necessity test. 60 Parametrix, Engineering Report: Dosewallips Design Criteria and Capacity Rerating 3, 10 (November 2019). Approximately 130 ERUs is based up the projected availability of 31,962 GPD with an average of 245 GPD/ERU. The average of 245 GPD/ERU is based upon the average of Port Townsend’s 260 GPD/ERU and Port Ludlow’s 230 GPD/ERU.
Page 39 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Factor 3 - Sewer Services do not Permit Urban Development A key requirement of LAMIRDs is that they “minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development”.61 For example, the logical outer
boundaries of the LAMIRDs must follow historic development patterns, existing as of July
1, 1990.62 In addition, the zoning of the area generally must reflect the development
patterns allowable as of July 1, 1990. A key point of LAMIRDs is to allow the more intensive
rural uses to continue and to expand through infill development but stay within their
existing boundaries. Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations
limit the development of the Brinnon LAMIRD to that of a rural area through the Rural
Village Center (“RVC”) zoning classification. Further, the RVC zoning district is tightlined
to the logical outer boundaries as of July 1, 1990. Given the tightlined RVC zoning and
limitation of sewering only the Brinnon LAMIRD, it is likely that this extension will not
permit urban development in the rural area.
Exception 3 – Sewering Schools in Rural Areas Serving Both Urban and Rural Student Populations In 2017, the Legislature enacted amendments to the GMA allowing schools in rural areas, serving both rural and urban student populations, to be sewered under limited circumstances.63 The plain text of the statute appears to only authorize sewering of schools that serve both rural and urban students, as opposed to a school that only serves rural students. Given this limitation, it is unlikely that the amendment authorizes schools which only serve rural students, such as Brinnon Schools, to be sewered. However, this amendment may be helpful for the Chimacum High School, which is located in a rural area
and serves both rural and urban student populations. For this reason, DCD staff
recommends including the 2017 GMA amendment in the County’s Comprehensive Plan
and UDC.
Exception 4 – Necessary Public Facility to Support a LAMIRD
LAMIRDs may be sewered if the sewer is a “necessary public facility” supporting
the LAMIRD. “[T]he rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited
area”.64
61 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv). 62 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(v). 63 RCW 36.70A.213. 64 RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). See also WAC 365-196-425(6)(c) (“Counties may allow for more intensive uses in a LAMIRD than would otherwise be allowed in rural areas and may allow public facilities and services that are appropriate and necessary to serve LAMIRDs subject to the following requirements”).
Page 40 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
GMHB Decisions Expressly Allow LAMIRDs to Be Sewered if Necessary to Support the LAMIRD The view that LAMIRDs may be sewered as a “necessary public facility” has been
endorsed by the GMHB in two cases. In Gain v. Pierce County, the Central Puget Sound
GMHB dismissed a petition for review with prejudice which, in part, challenged Pierce
County’s Comprehensive Plan policies allowing LAMIRDs to be sewered finding it
consistent with the GMA.65 The comprehensive language at issue in Gain was whether
“sewer service will serve only a rural area of more intensive development in accordance
with the County-Wide Planning Policies.”66 The GMHB held that:
Petitioners argue that “RAIDs [LAMIRDs] are not within UGAs and should
not be served with sewer service.” Gain PHB, at 4. The GMA does not
support this argument. “Limited areas of more intensive rural development”
are permitted by the GMA, “including necessary public facilities and public
services to serve the limited area.” RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). The Legislature
explicitly determined that these areas (called RAIDs in the County’s Plan) are “not urban growth”. … Providing sewer service to RAIDs does not amount to “an inefficient extension of urban services and contribute[s] to urban sprawl”; providing sewer service to RAIDs is explicitly permitted by the GMA.67 In addition to Gain, Pierce County was also challenged by the City of Tacoma regarding delineation and sewering of its LAMIRDs. In City of Tacoma v. Pierce County, the Central Puget Sound GMHB held that Pierce County’s sewered LAMIRD was
inconsistent with their county-wide planning policies because the county-wide planning
policies only allowed sewer extensions outside of urban growth areas when: (1) sewer
remedied a health or environmental problem; or (2) a formal binding agreement to service
an area [LAMIRD] was in place prior to the establishment of the UGA.68 The GMHB did
not reach the issue of whether the comprehensive plan policy at issue in Gain was
consistent with GMA, as the argument was abandoned by Tacoma.69 However, the GMHB
did quote and reiterate Gain’s holding that “providing sewer service to RAIDs is explicitly
permitted by the GMA.”70
65 Gain v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB, 99-3-0019, Final Decision and Order at 8 (April 18, 2000). 66 Id. at 5. 67 Id. at 6. (emphasis added). 68 City of Tacoma v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB, 99-3-0023c, Final Decision and Order at 7 (June 26, 2000). (“Tacoma II”) 69 Id. 70 Tacoma II at 9 (quoting Gain v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB, 99-3-0019, Final Decision and Order (April 18, 2000)).
Page 41 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
No other GMHB cases have directly reached the issue of sewering LAMIRDs. However, the GMHBs and Washington courts have reached the conclusion that sewering rural areas [other than LAMIRDs] is prohibited by the GMA unless the three-factor test in RCW 36.70A.110(4) and WAC 365-196-425(4) is demonstrated by a strict necessity test
or another exception applies.71
Washington Courts Have Not Expressly Addressed the Issue of Sewering a LAMIRD
There are no published Washington court opinions on whether LAMIRDs may be
sewered. However, Cooper Point may provide some guidance. As noted above, the
Washington Supreme Court upheld a strict necessary to protect the public health and the
environment standard when analyzing whether sewer extensions in a rural area meet the
RCW 36.70A.110(4) and WAC 365-196-425(4) exception.72 In Cooper Point, Thurston
County argued that a lower “necessary” test should be established when sewering rural
areas because the Legislature allows for “necessary public facilities” within LAMIRDs.73 The court noted that the area at issue in Cooper Point was not a LAMIRD and further that RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) [LAMIRDs] “requires a showing of necessity … [b]ecause that provision does not define ‘necessary’ it is not helpful in ascertaining the meaning of that term [necessary under RCW 36.70A.110(4)].”74 This dicta could be read to indicate that the court understands that LAMIRDs may be sewered, but they are still subject to a “necessary” test and that the LAMIRD necessary test may be a lower threshold than RCW 36.70A.110(4). Sewering Rural Areas Must be Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies
Countywide planning policies (“CPPs”) are policy statements, developed by the
county and its incorporated cities, which establish a common framework for which the
jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans are based.75 Comprehensive plans must be consistent
with the CPPs.76 A review of the Jefferson County CPPs reveal that sewering the Brinnon
LAMIRD may be supportable if there is a threat to the public health or welfare or to protect
an area of environmental sensitivity. Below is a review of the CPPs at issue.
Policy # 2 – Policy on the Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and the Provision of Urban Services to Such Development
71 Cooper Point at 13; See also Director of the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB, 03-3-0017, Final Decision and Order (March 8, 2004). (holding that extension of sewer services to churches in rural areas violated RCW 36.70A.110(4)). 72 Id. at 13-15. 73 Id. at 13. 74 Id. 75 RCW 36.70A.210(1). 76 Id.
Page 42 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
4. Urban services and facilities will not be extended beyond UGA boundaries unless needed to mitigate a threat to the public health or welfare, or to protect an area of environmental sensitivity. To avoid encouraging the
spreading of urban development outside of UGAs, this policy shall apply only
to threats caused by existing development, and only those existing uses
requiring the service or facility to mitigate the threat will be allowed to hook
up to any extended services.77
Policy # 8 – Policy on Rural Areas
1. The rural element of the comprehensive plan will be designed to recognize
and maintain the unique character of individual rural areas without degrading
the environment or creating the need for urban level of services.
3. Level of services standards will be adopted which identifies the type and scale of public facility and infrastructure improvements anticipated for rural areas and rural centers.
5. Rural centers are those existing unincorporated places which serve the retail commercial and service needs of the local area. These areas will be delineated and recognized in the comprehensive plan consistent with level of service standards.78
Unlike RCW 36.70A.110(4) which adopts a “strict necessary to protect standard” when extending sewer connections in rural areas, Jefferson County CPP Policy # 2 adopts a “threat” standard. This distinction may be important in the context of sewering the
LAMIRD, as the County can likely demonstrate that sewering the LAMIRD meets the
“threat” test under Exception 4.
Question 2 - If the GMA Allows new Sewer Connections Within LAMIRDs is There a
Necessity Showing and if so, What is the Necessity Showing?
Under Exception 4, the GMA may allow new sewer connections within LAMIRDs
if: (1) they are a “necessary public facility”; and (2) if the County can demonstrate that sewering the LAMIRD is consistent with its CPPs, specifically that the sewer is necessary to remedy a threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
77 Jefferson County Washington, Resolution No.128-92 at 7, December 21, 1992. (emphasis added). 78 Id. at 21-22.
Page 43 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
The Necessity Test Under Exception 4 is Lower than the Strict Necessity Test in Cooper Point.
Under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) and Gain, LAMIRDs may be sewered if the sewer
is a “necessary public facility” supporting the LAMIRD. This likely requires a showing
that the LAMIRD needs a sewer to support development at the density allowed under the
RVC zoning classification. The Brinnon LAMIRD is located within a 100-year flood zone,
within close proximity of the Hood Canal (approximately 630 – 3,000 feet from the
OHWM of the Hood Canal), within close proximity of the Dosewallips River
(approximately 150 feet from the OHWM of the Dosewallips River), and has soil types
which are not ideal for septic systems. Because of these environmental factors, Jefferson
County Environmental Public has reported that septic systems are more difficult to
construct and more difficult to effectively operate without impacts to public health and the environment within the Brinnon LAMIRD. Further, certain existing developments within the Brinnon LAMIRD, such as the Brinnon School, generally require sewers to effectively operate. Given these facts, it is likely that a sewer is a necessary public facility to support the current and future development of the Brinnon LAMIRD. Further, any extension of sewer services to the Brinnon LAMIRD must be consistent with the Jefferson County CPPs, specifically Policy #2, which adopts a threat to public health, welfare, or the environment standard. Jefferson County must demonstrate that the sewer is needed to mitigate a threat to public health, welfare, or the environment. Further,
CPP Policy # 2 requires that the threat be caused by existing development. As stated above,
the Brinnon LAMIRD is located in a 100-year flood zone, in close proximity to the Hood
Canal and Dosewallips River, has types of pre-existing development which usually require
sewers, and there has been a long-established history of effluent contamination closing the
shellfish beds adjacent to the Brinnon LAMIRD. These facts are likely enough to meet a
threat standard.
Question 3 - If Jefferson County Permits Sewer Connections for Properties Within the
Brinnon LAMIRD to the Dosewallips Sewer, Does the Comprehensive Plan Have to be
Amended? The Comprehensive Plan Must Be Amended to Incorporate and Plan for the Dosewallips Sewer and Amened to Ensure Consistency Prior to Any Hookups Yes, if the BoCC decides to allow the Brinnon LAMIRD to be sewered, the Comprehensive Plan must be amended to incorporate the Dosewallips Sewer and ensure consistency. However, at this point an initial Comprehensive Plan policy, amendments to the narrative, and development regulation are proposed to ensure that future work to sewer the LAMIRD can occur. Existing language in the Land Use Element and Capital Facilities
Page 44 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Plan must be amended to: (1) create a clear comprehensive plan policy for the extension of sewer facilities to rural areas; and (2) improve consistency among the Comprehensive Plan with the CPPs and governing law. Future amendments may be required to actually incorporate the Dosewallips Sewer plan and its facility elements into the Comprehensive
Plan.
Further, the GMA requires a capital facilities element consisting of:
I. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing
the locations and capacities of the capital facilities;
II. A forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities;
III. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
IV. At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and,
V. A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan are coordinated and consistent.79
The GMHB has interpreted RCW 36.70A.070(3) as requiring capital facility planning for all facilities that are “streets, highways, sidewalks, … domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.”80 Even if the public facilities are provided by a non-county or private provider, they must still be integrated into the capital facilities element.81 Therefore, since the Dosewallips Sewer
meets the definition of a public facility, it must be incorporated and planned for in the
Capital Facilities Plan if sewer services are to be provided to the Brinnon LAMIRD.82 It is
recommended that this occurs at a later time.
79 RCW 36.70A.070(3). 80 RCW 36.70A.030(18); West Seattle Fund v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB, 94-3-0016, Final Decision and Order (April 4, 1995). 81 Durland v. San Juan County, WWGMHB, 00-2-0062c, Final Decision and Order (May 7, 2001). 82 If development regulations are adopted without the necessary capital facilities planning and Jefferson County enters into any agreement or other binding authority to provide sewer to the Brinnon LAMIRD, it may be deemed a de facto comprehensive plan amendment under Ronald Wastewater District, et al. v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB, 16-3-0004c, Final Decision and Order (January 25, 2017).
Page 45 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Sewering the Brinnon LAMIRD May Require a Sewer Plan In addition to the capital facilities planning effort, extending the Dosewallips Sewer may require further approval from the Washington Department of Ecology, including a
sewer plan.83 It is recommended that this occurs at a later time and the Comprehensive Plan
be amended once the sewer plan is approved, if needed.
Consistency Amendments to Existing Language Within the Comprehensive Plan
Below is an overview of the Comprehensive Plan policies and narrative which must
be amended if Exception 4 is selected:
• Policy CF-P-6.3 states: New urban public services will only be provided within a UGA and not be
extended beyond a UGA unless deemed to be an essential public service to
mitigate a threat to public health, safety, or general welfare. Existing sanitary sewer treatment facility capacity will not be used as a justification for expansion of a sewer system or development inconsistent with County-wide Planning Policies and the Comprehensive Plan. 84 o DCD staff recommends amending CF-P-6.3 to provide for a
comprehensive sewer policy addressing: (1) sewering rural areas
under RCW 36.70A.110(4); (2) sewering LAMIRDs; (3) sewering
rural schools serving urban and rural student populations; and (4)
sewering essential public facilities in rural areas.
o As currently written, the policy does not align with the CPPs or the
governing law.
• Exhibit 8-2 states “[d]o not extend urban public facilities beyond UGA boundaries (a requirement of GMA).” 85 Exhibit 8-2 relates the CPPs to the Capital Facility Plan.
o DCD staff recommends amending this Exhibit to align with the new Comprehensive Plan policy.
83 RCW 90.48.110 (“all engineering reports, plans, and specification of the construction of new sewerage systems … or for improvements or extension to existing sewerage systems or sewage treatment or disposal plants … shall be submitted to and approved by the department, before construction thereof may begin.”); See also RCW 57.16.010 and WAC 173-240-050. 84 Jefferson County Washington, Comprehensive Plan, at 8-30, December 2018. (emphasis added). 85 Id. at 8-6.
Page 46 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
o Exhibit 8-2 oversimplifies the GMA and the CPPs, which may allow the extension of urban services (e.g., sewer facilities) to rural areas under the exceptions described in this paper.
• The Rural Economy narrative states that “GMA allows sanitary sewer
infrastructure in rural areas if abates an environmental problem, does not
induce sprawling development, and is affordable by the community it serves.
The application of this allowance is being investigated in the Brinnon Rural
Village Center, adjacent to the Dosewallips State park’s wastewater
treatment facility.”86
o The Rural Economy narrative oversimplifies the GMA and the CPPs, which may allow the extension of sewer facilities to rural areas under the exceptions described in this paper.
o DCD staff recommends amending this Exhibit to align with the new Comprehensive Plan policy.
Recommendations: DCD staff recommends Exception #4, establishing a Comprehensive Plan policy and development regulation providing for a comprehensive sewer policy addressing: (1) sewering rural areas under RCW 36.70A.110(4); (2) sewering LAMIRDs; (3) sewering
rural schools serving urban and rural student populations; and (4) sewering essential public
facilities in rural areas. Further actions, such as the development of a “threat” finding,
improvements to the sewer, inclusion of the sewer plan in the Comprehensive Plan,
inclusion of level-of-service, and other capital facilities planning actions must occur prior
to sewering the LAMIRD. It is recommended that these occur at a later date. The
Comprehensive Plan policy and development regulation will “tee up” this future work.
The proposed recommended changes, in line in and line out format, are in
Appendix 2.
Planning Commission Recommendations: On February 17, 2021, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of MLA20-00116.
86 Id. at 1-80.
Page 47 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
C. MLA20-00102 – Text Amendments to Support the Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan Update. Docket Item: Comprehensive Plan text amendment to support the Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan Update. Background: Jefferson County Public Works has developed technical revisions to the Port Hadlock UGA Sewer which improve the proposed system’s cost-effectiveness. Public Works has or will obtain funding for the more cost-effective sewer system. The technical revisions meet the requirements of the 2008 Port Hadlock Sewer Plan. The more cost-effective sewer system uses new prefabricated, modular membrane bioreactor (“MBR”)
treatment units and a pressurized collection system to reduce initial project cost. Zoning,
population, project phasing, and level-of-service remain the same. The revised draft sewer
plan may be viewed at https://www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/1158/Port-Hadlock-
Wastewater-System.
Capital facilities planning is a stated GMA planning goal, and a capital facilities
element is a required element.87 The GMA requires that jurisdictions coordinate their
comprehensive and capital facilities planning. The capital facilities element must contain
the following:
• An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities;
• A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities;
• The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
• At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected
funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes;
and
• A requirement to reassess the Land Use Element if probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan
element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element.88
While the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan discusses the Port Hadlock Sewer and adopts the 2008 Port Hadlock Sewer Plan and 2013 Engineering Plan, the 6-year financing plan for planned public facilities states that the sewer will not be implemented within the next 6 years. This docket item revises the language in the Comprehensive Plan to indicate that the sewer may be built within 6-years, revises the 6-year financing plan for
87 RCW 36.70A.020(12); RCW 36.70A.070(3). 88 RCW 36.70A.070(3).
Page 48 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
planned public facilities, adopts the level of service (“LOS”) standard from the 2008 Port Hadlock Sewer Plan (same as 2020 update), and incorporates by reference the 2020 Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan Update.
Analysis:
• Adoption of the 2020 Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan Update – While the update
to the Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan is currently under review by the Department
of Ecology, the Comprehensive Plan should incorporate by refence the 2020
updates, as they are consistent with the 2008 Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan,
which was approved by Ecology, and are technical in nature. GMA requires that
cost and financing information from the 2020 update to be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Level of service - Performance standards in the 2008 Port Hadlock Sewer Plan have been approved by the Department of Ecology and constitute the minimum level of service standards for sanitary sewer systems. Port Hadlock’s sanitary sewer system LOS is established in its 2008 system plan and confirmed in the 2020 Port Hadlock Sewer Facility Plan Update. The adopted LOS is 132 gallons per day / estimated residential unit.
• 6-year financing plan – The GMA requires a 6-year financing plan for planned
public facilities. Currently the Comprehensive Plan states “$0” for the 6-year
financing plan. DCD staff recommends putting in the draft numbers from the revised
draft plan for the 2018-2023 planning horizon, along with details on the source of
the revenues. The total cost for the planning horizon is $25,900,139 with
$11,903,121 coming from local sources.
• Narrative – The Comprehensive Plan has statements in the narrative and action plans which indicate that the Port Hadlock sewer will not operate within the next 6years. This language is proposed to be revised and replaced with language indicating that the County may be operating the system within the next 6 years. Recommendations: DCD staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan be updated to indicate that the
County plans to implement the more cost-effective technical strategies from the 2020 Port
Hadlock Facility Plan Update, as discussed above.
The proposed recommended changes, in line in and line out format, are in
Appendix 2.
Page 49 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Planning Commission Recommendations: On February 17, 2021, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of MLA20-00102.
D. MLA20-00039 – Seton Site-specific Rezone from RR1:10 to RR1:5,
Parcel ID No. 001281002, Located at Airport Cutoff Road (SR 19) and
Romans Road. Docket Item: Site-specific amendment (rezone) of approximately 22.51 acres from RR1:10 to RR1:5 for Parcel ID No. 001281002, located at Airport Cutoff Road (SR19) and Romans Road. Background: The proposed site-specific amendment, if approved, will rezone
approximately 22.51 acres from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres (RR1:10)
to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five acres (RR1:5). The property is located near
Romans Road (at Airport Cutoff Road / SR 19) to the south and Parkridge drive to the
north. The property is surrounded to the north, east, and south by the Woodland Hills
neighborhood and commercial, residential, public purpose, and church uses to the west and
south. Overall, the parcel is in a fully developed neighborhood and is infill development.
Access is proposed through an existing easement on Romans Road to the south and an
existing easement from Parkridge Drive to the north.
The property has a mapped non fish bearing streaming. However, the applicant’s State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Environmental Checklist indicates that the mapped stream is not present and was a mapping error. DCD’s consultant visited the site on January 27, 2021 and could not locate any stream or depression areas similar to a stream. It is DCD’s initial opinion that the stream does not exist where it was mapped and that there is a mapping error. The eastern portion of the property is within the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (“CARA”); however, the proposed residential development will not likely require any regulatory compliance under the CAO for the mapped CARA.89 If the rezone is approved, the property owner’s desire is to subdivide the property
into four 5 acre lots at a later time. The total development would allow 4 single-family
homes (“SFRs’) and 4 accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”). The future subdivision and
development must comply with all applicable county, state, and federal laws and
regulations, such as the subdivision ordinance, critical area ordinance, and performance/
development standards.
89 See JCC 18.22.320(1) (holding that CARA regulates for industrial and commercial land uses with impacts to ground water and residential development using community managed sewage systems, LOSS, and planned rural residential developments).
Page 50 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 9 – MLA20-00039 Aerial
Page 51 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 10 – MLA20-00039 Aerial
Page 52 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 11 – MLA20-00039 Current Zoning
Page 53 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 12 – MLA20-00039 Mapped Critical Areas
Page 54 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 13 – MLA20-00039 Potential Building Locations and Access
Page 55 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 14 – MLA20-00039 Potential Lot Layout
Page 56 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 15 – MLA20-00039 View of Property From Romans Road (on right)
Figure 16 – MLA20-00039 View of Property From Romans Road
Page 57 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Figure 17 – MLA20-00039 View of Adjacent Development (west) of Property from Property Viewpoint
Analysis:
Review and Analysis of Surrounding Uses and Zoning
The property is an area which is characterized by similar rural development. To the
north, east, and south is the Woodland Hills neighborhood. While Woodland Hill’s zoning is RR1:10, the development pattern is 1 SFR per 5 acres. Further to the east is the Kala Point neighborhood which is zoned RR1:5, but on average has a development patter of 1 SFR per 0.5 acres, in addition to higher density condominium and commercial development adjacent to the shoreline. To the immediate south is the Calvary Community Church, which is off of Romans Road. While zoned RR1:10 this development is consistent with more urbanized areas. To the immediate west is RR1:10 zoning with commercial development (adjacent to SR19) which includes Secret Gardens Northwest and the Jefferson County Genealogical Society Research Center. To the immediate west is RR1:10 zoning with a few SFRs with a development pattern of 1 SFR per 5 acres.
Page 58 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
If approved, the RR1:5 zoning, when developed with 5 acres homesites will be consistent with the historic development patterns of the area. The property is an infill site for the Woodland Hills neighborhood.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes the following criteria for RR1:5 designation
“located in areas of similar development; areas with similar lots of record; along the coastal
area; adjacent to Rural Village Center and Rural Crossroad designations; overlay
designation for pre-existing platted subdivisions”.90 The proposed rezone meets the RR1:5
designation criteria as the property is surrounded by areas of similar or more intensive
development and with existing similar lots of record (5 acres or less).
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Narrative, Goals, and Policies
Rural Areas Policies Summarized from County-wide Planning Policies91 –
Rural areas are “characterized by low density development, open spaces, minimal public services, resource dependent activities, and industries; and outdoor recreational facilities”. 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”. The proposed rezone is consistent with the summarized rural area policies, especially considering the surrounding historic development patterns of similar or more intensive uses.
Goals and Policies –
• 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.92
• 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.93
o Policy LU-P-20.1 Identify and encourage diverse rural land uses and densities which preserve rural character and rural community identity.94
o Policy LU-P-20.2 Establish rural residential land use densities for all lands located outside of designated Urban Growth Areas. Proposed rural
90 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan at 1-19. 91 Id. at 1-34. 92 Id. at 1-98. 93 Id. at 1-99. 94 Id.
Page 59 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
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.95
DCD staff has analyzed the applicable Comprehensive Plan narrative, goals, and
policies and finds that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
the rezone: (1) is consistent with similar and more intensive land use patterns in the
vicinity; (2) that little to no vacant lots are available in the near vicinity of the rezone; and,
(3) that the rezone is consistent with the rural character of the area.
Vehicular Transportation Impacts The proposed rezone will result in 2 additional SFRs and 2 additional ADUs if the rezone is approved, the property subdivided, and the property developed. This would result in an additional 33.52 average daily trips (“ADT”).96 With full build out, a total of 67.02 ADT is estimated from the development (assuming 4 SFRs and 4 ADUs). SR19 at Airport Road has an ADT capacity of 24,000.97 In 2016, the ADT was 14,000.98 It is estimated that the ADT will be 21,350 on this road segment in 2038, which is under the segment’s ADT capacity. Other County Department Review and Comments
Public Works Review Comments –
• From the north, the site has an existing approach permitted under #RAP08-00016
from Parkridge Drive, a county road, with access through an easement between
lots 52 and 53 of Woodland Hills.
• From the south, the site has access over an easement through the adjacent parcel,
connecting to State Route 19 along Romans Road, a private road.
• Department of Public Works takes no exceptions to the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment to rezone Assessor Parcel Number 001281002 from RR-10 to RR-5.
95 Id. 96 18.88 ADT from 2 detached SFR development (based upon 9.44 ADT per SFR – per ITE Trip Generation Manual) and 14.64 ADT from 2 ADUs (based upon 7.32 ADT per ADU – per ITE Trip Generation Manual, multi-family land use). 97 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Technical Document at 31. 98 Id.
Page 60 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
Environmental Public Health Review Comments –
• At the time of the future subdivision, a septic system designer must log at least 4 soil
test pits per proposed lot and locate a primary and reserve drainfield area on each
proposed lot.
• This property is located in the current “Quimper” water service area. Applicant must
connect to the public water supply for any future development on any of these parcels.
• Health has no objections to reducing the zoning density from 1:10 to 1:5 acres with the
following above comments. Recommendation: DCD staff recommends approval of MLA20-00039, which is a site-specific amendment (rezone) of approximately 22.51 acres from RR1:10 to RR1:5 for Parcel ID No. 001281002, located at Airport Cutoff Road (SR 19) and Romans Road. Planning Commission Recommendation:
On February 17, 2021, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of
MLA20-00039.
Page 61 of 61
DCD Staff Report – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket March 3, 2021
III. State Environment Policy Act Compliance
The County published a SEPA Addendum on February 28, 2021. The SEPA Addendum and supporting SEPA Environmental Checklists provide additional information relating to the Jefferson County Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), May 27, 1998 and associated SEPA documents. These SEPA documents were adopted and the additional information was
determined not to involve significant new impacts. Jefferson County prepared a SEPA
Environmental Checklist for the text amendments (MLA19-00019, MLA20-00116, and MLA-00120) and reviewed an applicant prepared SEPA Environmental Checklist for the site-specific amendment (MLA20-00039).
An agency may use previously prepared environmental documents to evaluate proposed
actions, alternatives, or environmental impacts. The proposals may be the same as or different than those analyzed in the existing documents (WAC 197-11-600[2]). These documents are listed in response to Question 8 of the SEPA Environmental Checklist and in the Addendum and were adopted in association with the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. See the
Determination of Significance and Notice of Adoption published on February 28, 2021.