Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112403 District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of November 24,2003 Chairman Dan Titterness called the meeting to order. Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers were both present. Discussion and Possible Decision re: Parks Advisory Board Recommendation for Request to Fund Fort Worden Parking Fees: (See also Minutes of November 17, 2003) Chairman Titterness noted that the Board received a new proposal last week from the Fort Worden Advisory Board regarding their request that the County contribute to parking fees at Fort Worden for 2004. In the new proposal, the City, Fort Worden Management, Centrum, and other committed parties would partner with the County to eliminate parking fees at Fort Worden, Old Fort Townsend, Anderson Lake, Mystery Bay and Shine Tidelands State Parks. A maximum County contribution for 2004 and 2005 would need to be negotiated with the State Parks Department. Chairman Titterness stated that parks are an integral part ofthe County and free parking at Fort Worden generates an economic benefit for county-wide tourism. In his opinion, the County's portion of the funding needs to come from the Hotel/Motel Fund. All 3 Commissioners stated that they received a lot of input from their constituents over the weekend. The Chair asked for comments from the audience. The people in favor of having the County contribute to the parking fees felt that fewer residents and tourists will visit Fort Worden if there is a parking fee; local businesses will suffer; employment at the Fort will be at risk; senior citizens with limited incomes and low income families can't afford to buy a $50 pass and won't be able to use the park; the Chamber of Commerce expects to sell more than $10,000 in parking passes over the year; and free parking at the Fort is an invitation that will encourage more people to use the park and facilities. The people against the County's contribution to the parking fees felt that it is unfair to all the other State parks in the County that currently have parking fees and will continue to have them; some people still go to these parks, but park their cars on the side of the highway where it creates a hazard; and local businesses in the rural areas of the County have documented a decrease in business because fewer locals use the parks off season. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he appreciates the fact that the County Parks Advisory Board offered to contribute $5,000 from their Community Parks Grant funding. He is still concerned about the other parks in the County. The Fort Worden Advisory Board has worked very hard and been very up front about the Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 Als ,~J ~~Y' commitment to be made. He feels that Fort Worden is the State's responsibility and they will probably continue to increase the amount for parking fees each year and expect local governments to come up with the money. He is concerned about how much more money the County will have to contribute if the other State parks in the Fort Worden Advisory Board's latest proposal are included. The County budget for 2004 isn't finalized. At this point, programs may have to be cut and it is difficult to justify a new expense. Trail advocates are actively raising funds right now to continue a grant that would help build a mile of the Larry Scott Trail in 2004. Using Parks funding for parking fees reduces the amount of matching grant funds that the County can contribute. It is a matter of priorities. Commissioner Rodgers stated that this proposal has merit. All the State parks in his District have parking fees. He is concerned about how the County's limited resources are allocated and the equity for the other State parks. David Goldsmith explained that there is funding in the Hotel/Motel Fund reserves if the Board chooses to fund the parking fees. Last year the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee voted to allocate funds for the parking fees because they felt it was an appropriate expenditure. Chairman Titterness moved to have the County make a $10,000 commitment to free parking at Fort Worden because it increases tourism and the economy throughout Jefferson County. He would also like to see free parking available to all the State parks in the County. Commissioner Huntingford seconded and then amended the motion to approve funding in 2004, with no additional funding in 2005 unless there is a resolution that addresses the parking issue for all the State parks in Jefferson County. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he opposes the funding coming from the General Fund. The Board agreed to have David Goldsmith poll the L T AC to see if the parking fees can be funded from the Hotel/Motel fund. Later in the Day: Chairman Titterness's earlier motion and Commissioner Huntingford's amendment were reviewed. David Goldsmith reported the results of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee poll. All ofthe members were contacted and a majority of the Committee voted to contribute to the parking fees, with one no vote. Commissioner Rodgers reiterated that this is not treating the citizens throughout the County equally. He knows that the County has a serious budget situation and he sees this request coming forward each year with an increasing amount. Commissioner Huntingford concurred and stated that he is concerned about taking on additional financial burdens. Chairman Titterness reminded the other Commissioners that there is a purpose for L T AC funds and this fits the criteria. The Chair called for a vote on the amended motion. Chairman Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion failed. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 ~:ni~.'Iì) ~17 ' ~' COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator David Goldsmith reported on the following: · He welcomed Pat Rodgers, the new Commissioner for District 3. · He presented the Board with a draft letter to the residents on Marrowstone Island regarding the County's policy on seawater intrusion and how this will affect their property if a public water system isn't available. · Gabriel LaRoche, Marine Resources Committee Chair, reported that the Navy is in the scoping phase of a proposed project to expand the their underwater testing area in Dabob Bay and Hood Canal. The MRC is requesting that the Board send a letter to the Navy establishing the MRC as the point of contact for the County to review future phases of the proposal. As the "agency of record" on behalf of the County, the MRC will bring forward comments on the project. The Board agreed to designate the MRC as the point of contact for the County and directed that any information the Committee receives needs to be shared with the Planning Commission/Shoreline Commission and the Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce. · The Port Hadlockllrondale UGA open house at WSU Extension last week was a success. The information that County staff provided helped to clarify the proj ect and timelines, and there was positive input and feedback from the residents. · There was also a meeting with the Glen Cove property owners to discuss high speed broadband access to the light industrial park. At that meeting, representatives from Millennium and Qwest agreed to provide service as soon as possible. This is a temporary solution until the County's fiber optic project is up and running. · The Community Investment Board is scheduled to continue hearing presentations on proposed projects. They have asked for more information about the number of people that will be employed ifthe County's fiber optics project is approved. This project affects approximately 34 Glen Cove businesses and he estimates that 2 to 4 more people per business could be employed. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: several people welcomed and congratulated Pat Rodgers as County Commissioner in District 3; the parking fees at all the State parks in the County need to be free; the poverty in the County is getting worse and approximately 5,000 people a month use the 3 food banks in the area; the Navy's current testing area in Hood Canal has devastated the boating industry in South County and any expansion of the area needs to be monitored closely; Fort Worden provides a lot of good jobs, the new facility will play an important role in economic development; and the County should contribute to keep free parking; the Commissioners need to be good stewards of existing revenues; the State needs to take care of the State parks and free parking is not a necessity at Fort Worden; the Olympic Forest Coalition has joined the Hood Canal Coalition in their opposition to the Pit to Pier project; a column in the Bremerton Sun pointed out the potential for damaging the environment from the Fred Hill project; and the current UDC needs to be reviewed and revised. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 ~[l~ ~yl APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-03 re: Establishing Centralized Purchasing of Information/Communication Technologies; Central Services Department 2. RESOLUTION NO. 72-03 re: Standard Vacation ofa Portion of Station Prairie Road; Eagle Eye, Inc. Petitioner 3. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Amendment to Exhibit 'A' of the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance No. 11-1214-98; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 8, 2003 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 4. HEARING NOTICE re: A Proposed Resolution Setting the 2004 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County for Levy in 2003 and Collection in 2004; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 8, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 5. CALL FOR BIDS re: Repair Existing Temporary Transfer Station and Fire Damage to the Permanent County Transfer Station Building; Bids Accepted until 11 :00 a.m., Monday, December 15,2003 and Opened and Read Publicly at 11 :30 a.m. in the County Commissioners' Chambers 6. AGREEMENTS (2) re: Emergency Road Repair Services for 2004-2005; Jefferson County Public Works; 1) Seton Construction, Inc. and 2) Winney Construction, Co. 7. AGREEMENT re: E-911 Communications Technology Management Services for Sheriff/DispatchlEOC Project No. CC1543; Jefferson County Public Works; ADCOMM Engineering Co. 8. AGREEMENT NO. G0400023 re: Coastal Zone Management (CZM31 0) Grant Funding for Northwest Straits Project - Year 5 Administration; Marine Resources Committee; Washington State Department of Ecology 9. AGREEMENT NO. N08084, Amendment No.2 re: Drinking Water Joint Plan Non-Community Water System; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Health 10. Appoint Two (2) New Members and Reappoint One (1) Alternate Member to Represent Jefferson County on the Olympic Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council for a 3 Year Term; New Members: Martha Anthony and Ian Napier, Terms Expire November 24, 2006, Alternate Member: Adrian Dronkert, Term Expires April 21, 2006 HEARING re: Franchisefor Private Water System; Mats Mats Beach Homeowners Association: Terry Duff, Public Works, explained that an application to provide water to several lots at Mats Mats Beach has been received. This hearing is to take testimony on whether the County should grant the franchise for the installation of the water system. No public comment was received, although DCD noted that the Homeowners Association is required to submit an land use permit application for a small utility. Chairman Titterness opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed franchise,athe Chair closed the hearing. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 ::Ø."~) l::ì"~ n \~{,-~ "'~ David Goldsmith stated that the franchise agreement doesn't specify the water line depth and this can be a risk management problem ifthe County road crew is doing maintenance work in the right-of-way and damages a line. Terry Duff replied that this is usually addressed in the permit. David Goldsmith recommended that the requirements of construction be added as an appendix to the franchise agreement. Terry Duff answered that she will incorporate the language from the ordinance into the agreement. Commissioner Huntingford moved to direct Public Works staff to finalize the franchise agreement with the Mats Mats Beach Homeowners Association with the necessary changes. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DISCUSSION re: Unified Development Code (UDC) Housekeeping Omnibus for Permit Efficiency: Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that the UDC implements the Comprehensive Plan. It was adopted December 18,2000 and the effective date was January 16, 2001. It includes the Shoreline Master Program, the Building Code, the Master Plan Resort and the Telecommunications Ordinance. Projects submitted after the effective date are vested under this ordinance, but hundreds of projects submitted previous to that date are vested under standards in a variety of separate and cumbersome documents. This can slow down permit processing and affects both current and long range planning. Associate Planner Josh Peters gave a presentation on how to achieve the best possible balance between the speed of permit issuance and the quality of permit review on behalf of the applicant and the public. The staffhas developed a list of items for potential inclusion in a UDC Housekeeping Omnibus. This presentation is to give the Board an overview of some of the suggested changes including: · Correction of typographical and grammatical errors · Providing for complete consistency in references and formatting · Improving regulatory language identified by Development Review Division Planners as problematic when applied to development applications Integrating previously issued DCD administrative code interpretations Incorporating new timelines and procedures in references to the State statute or code if they have been amended Augmenting Section 2: Definitions Updating outdated references in the context of County projects Reasonable Economic Use Variance - removing language requiring denial of a permit prior to applying for a reasonable economic use variance Clarifying how Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area provisions apply to marine shorelines Codifying qualifications for persons/agencies preparing geotechnical reports Codifying that Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) applications for areas under preliminary plat approval from a previous application are considered under the densities of the previous application Considering additional incentives for the PRRD process · · · · · · · · · Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 ~.."'~.' ~.~" "~'<\ ,,,-"'-/_1 "{~'/ · Amending Section 4.16 on Conversions of Land to Non-forestry Use as a step in the process to assume jurisdiction over Class N forest practices from DNR, as required by statute · Improving Section 4.24 Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarrying and Reclamation · Addressing vague language in Section 4.26 Nonconforming Legal Structures and Uses · Clarifying Section 4.30 Recycling Collection Facilities and Recycling Centers and Section 4.36 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal Facilities · Adding concise regulations for espresso stands · Clarifying density exemptions in Section 6 · Revisiting Sections 6.6 and 6.7 to ensure consistency with 2001 Stormwater Management Manual · Re-thinking parking standards under Section 6.10 according to latest planning theory · Clarifying exemptions under Section 7 Land Divisions · Revising the Boundary Line Adjustment section in view of permit efficiency · Adding a new Section 7.7 Plat Amendments · Adding an expiration timeline for pre-application conferences · Moving SEP A thresholds to the upper limits of the categorical exemptions in WAC 197-11-800 · Eliminating administrative appeal of SEP A threshold determinations for Type V (legislative) decisions · Adding an exception to the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle for editorial or grammatical errors · Adjusting Section 9 language regarding BOCC action on final docket per Prosecuting Attorney's suggestion · Reviewing Section 10 Enforcement in light of newly adopted compliance policy with County Code · Incorporating reference to the International Building Code in place of the Uniform Building Code · Developing "ownerlbuilder" regulations where a landowner building a structure on his/her own property is not required to meet UBC or IBC specifications as long as the County is indemnified from future liability associated with the safety of that structure · Incorporating or referencing newly adopted procedural rules for hearings before the County Hearing Examiner A workshop will be scheduled within the next few weeks to go over the changes in more detail and get further direction from the Board. HEARING re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Chairman Titterness called the hearing to order. Al Scalf presented the Board with a packet of information that is also available on the website including the Planning Commission's recommendations, the preliminary docket established in conjunction with the Planning Commission and staff in May, 2003, the projected schedule for the final docket dated July 16, 2003, the final staff report and SEPA addendum for site specific applications dated August 6, 2003, the staff report and SEPA addendum for the suggested amendments dated September 17, 2003, and the applications for MLA03-182, MLA03-189, MLA03-209, MLA03-21O, and MLA03-231. Copies of written comments are also part of the record. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 Ø:. ..;¡;'-~ (;~~.'\. ~~- ~- - .~" '{t~ Al Scalf explained that the decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendments is a legislative decision. The Board can either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the amendments. A decision is required by the 2nd week in December. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the legal notice published in the newspaper stated that the close of the public hearing is also the deadline for written comments. Al Scalf added that the Board has the option to extend the deadline for written comments if they want. MLA03-182 This amendment was submitted by the Northwest School of Wooden Boat Building, PN 901 013 016. The request is to amend the land use map and designate the entire parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center. Currently, approximately half of the 5 acre parcel is in the RVC and the other half is designated rural residential, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Josh Peters stated that the Staff recommendation is to approve the proposal because that location meets the criteria for a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD.) Tom McNerney, Planning Commission Chair, stated that they held a public hearing on this amendment, there was extensive discussion, and the Planning Commission vote was 5 members in favor of the amendment and 3 members opposed. The Chair opened the public testimony part of the hearing on MLA03-182. Bill Curry, Director of the Northwest School of Wooden Boat Building, stated that the school has been in business in Jefferson County for 24 years and has an opportunity to grow and to relocate to a perfect site for their activities. They feel that their proposal meets the principles, the goals, and several of the strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. Hearing no further comment for or against MLA03-182, the Chair closed the public comment on this Comprehensive Plan amendment. MLA03-189 This amendment was submitted by ANE Forests ofPuget Sound, PN 901 364012. The request is a land use map redesignation for approximately 40 acres from the current rural residential, 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres, to rural residential 1: 1 O. Josh Peters stated that the staff recommendation is to approve MLA03-189 with 2 conditions: 1) that land division must occur through the Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD) process with the provision that 75% ofthe 40 acres be preserved as open space, and 2) as part of fulfilling the open space requirement in the PRRD land division process, the entire portion ofthe area west of SR19 will be reserved as open space. Page 7 ~~ ~~I Tom McNerney stated that, after Planning Commission's public hearing and extensive discussion on the proposal and the added conditions, they voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application with the two conditions recommended by staff. Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 The Chair opened the floor for public comment. Hearing no comment for or against MLA03-189, the Chair closed the public comment on this Comprehensive Plan amendment. MLA03-231 This amendment was submitted by the Phillips Family of Qui1cene, PN 702 224 003, 702224010, 702 224 011, 702 224 012, 702 224 023, 702 224 024, 702 224 025, and 702 224 026. The request is to establish a Mineral Resource Land (MRL) overlay district for approximately 37 acres in a land use district currently designated rural residential with a density of 1:5 and 1 :20. Josh Peters explained that staff altered their preliminary recommendation after the Planning Commission's public hearing. The original application was for approximately 37 acres and this has been adjusted down to approximately 32 acres. It is adjacent to an existing MRL of 19 acres that was established in 1997 as an existing quarry operation. The staff and Planning Commission concur on their recommendation to approve the amendment with the following conditions: 1) a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) process is required to combine parcel 702 224 011 and 702 224 012 and the northeast corner of 702 224 003 so that each parcel is 5 acres which is a UDC requirement that any parcel adjacent to an MRL be at least 5 acres; 2) a restrictive covenant is required for parcels 702 224 023, 024, 025, 026, 003, and 010 to provide that every parcel in the new MRL overlay be at least 10 acres; 3) submittal of a proposed reclamation plan to the State Department of Natural Resources that encompasses the entire operation including the current site shall be concurrent with submittal of mineral resource extraction/stromwater management land use permit applications to the County; 4) mineral extraction shall not occur in the new MRL overlay district without a reclamation plan approved by DNR or an updated Sand and Gravel General Permit from the State Department of Ecology, if deemed necessary by that agency; 5) If County mineral extraction and stormwater management permits are issued for the new MRL overlay district, the UDC conditions for Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarry and Reclamation will apply to the entire Penny Creek Quarry operation, including the existing operation site and the area previously under County ownership. These conditions include: hours of operation and noise, performance standards and BMPs for mining and quarrying within designated Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas. Tom McNerney, Planning Commission Chair, explained that after several meetings and work with staff, many adjustments were made and on September 17,2003, the Planning Commission voted 5 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention to approve the MRL overlay district with the conditions that have just been reviewed. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 ~,..,~ /~...~}) '..~·"'I f " ~~ Commissioner Huntingford asked for clarification about the process used for developing the conditions. Tom McNerney answered that the conditions were the result ofthe Planning Commission's public hearing process and work by the staff and Planning Commission. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that a key issue is operating hours. Tom McNerney replied that the hours are specified in the UDC on MRLs, but when the proponent applies for a permit, DCD will set the conditions for actual operations according to the UDC. Chairman Titterness opened the floor for public comment on MLA03-231. Margie Arnold. Quilcene, stated that her home is situated about 250' from the source of some of the loudest equipment at the quarry and she opposes the MRL overlay designation. When she bought her property, she was told that this was a "mom and pop" mining endeavor and there would be little disturbance except for occasional blasting. About 1 Yz years ago, the quarry operations were expanded and a large part of the hillside was logged. Now there are days when there is machinery screeching for 5-6 hours. Some nights up to 2 weeks after a blast, there are landslides still occurring. The Penny Creek Quarry owners say that they are in control of these slides. In her opinion the quarry is operating outside of State and County laws. She asked the Board to read through the notebook submitted by Mike Whittaker. The County staff has accepted verbal explanations from the quarry owners about responses to complaints. She has been told that if she tries to sell her home, she will not get full market value because of the noise. If the MRL is approved, the neighbors will be the "nuisances" if they complain, the County will be obligated to protect the quarry, and no law suits will be permitted. It is extremely short-sighted to think that the quarry will create more jobs in the County, and most people don't move here to work, they move here to enjoy the beauty and serenity. She would like to see the entire operation shut down. Mike Hughes. Qui1cene, said that he lives about 1/8 of a mile from the quarry and during normal operation hours, he hasn't heard the noise that Mrs. Arnold mentioned. He hasn't been restricted to his house because the quarry was too loud. He thinks the quarry is a benefit to the County. Karalee Monroe. Quilcene, said that she and her husband live directly across the street from the quarry and the quarry operations have never stopped them from enjoying their property. The quarry is a benefit to the County and provides jobs in Quilcene. The quarry owners always call them when they are going to blast. Her husband bought a decibel reader so that he could register the noise and it doesn't exceed the noise standards. Highway 101 can generate more noise at times than the quarry does. Rick Olsen. Quilcene, stated that a neighbor's dog woke him up this morning and that's part ofliving in the country. He thinks the Interstate 5 corridor is much uglier than any clear cut at the quarry. The rock quarry is already there and operating. It makes no sense to take a successful business that is an asset to the community and shut it down because some of the neighbors complain. Neighbors are people who help each other and work out their problems without lawyers. Skip Urling. Ecological Land Services in Longview, said that he is representing Mari and Gary Phillips. There are six items that the Board needs to consider when looking at this MRL expansion. This is a Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 (iJ'''~ ;:....~}) ,., .' ~y Comprehensive Plan amendment and has nothing to do with the existing operations at the quarry. The quarry was established in 1997 and the Phillips are operating according to the standards in place at that time. The amendment is consistent with the criteria regarding MRLs and the County has issued a mitigated determination of non-significance which means that there is no adverse environmental impact. Surface mining is an essential activity and makes a contribution to the State and local communities. When a surface mine is created, the design needs to mitigate any impacts. Mining is best located in a rural area and Quilcene is a rural area. He asked the Board to support the expansion of the MRL overlay district. Mari Phillips. Qui1cene, explained that her Father and Grandfather came to Penny Creek in 1929 and were road builders. The property on Penny Creek Road was owned by a logging company and they kept all their heavy equipment in a large shop. Her parents bought it, and they also bought the Penny Creek Pit from the County at a land auction, but the County asked for it back, so they sold it back to them. Through the years, logging companies continued to use the Penny Creek property, including her husband's logging company that employed 50-75 people. In 1993, they had to shut down their logging business and they began doing business as Canal Construction, doing business from the same shop. Their son also does some of his larger heavy metal fabrication projects there. There has always been heavy equipment in the yard and it has been used as a staging area. She and her husband have made efforts to mitigate noise from the quarry, planting trees every year and building berms to screen and buffer. They clearcut 15 acres of their property, but the other land that was c1earcut is owned and clearcut by DNR. She and her husband bought the Penny Creek Pit from the County at auction this year. The majority of their neighbors support them. They are constantly trying to improve their working environment and the products they sell. They employ 7 people and have invested in a company that will provide their family with a future. Their house is located 400' from the largest crusher and it can get noisy at times, but it is short-lived and within the allowable limits. Gary Phillips. Quilcene, pointed out that this is a zoning decision, but he wants to comment on some of the things people have said about their current operation. Whether the expanded MRL is approved or not, they will submit a surface mining permit application and current UDC standards will be applied. For the most part that isn't a problem except for the hours of operation in the UDC because they would like to retain the ability to load trucks from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. and from 8 a.m. to noon on Saturday. All the other quarries in the area have these operating hours and County and State trucks start work at 6 a.m. He compared the sound monitoring logs submitted to the Planning Commission that show the noise levels with no quarry operation and with the impact crusher running. They cannot exceed 85 decibels on site. Crushing is the main source of noise. From January through October they worked 1,800 hours, crushing for 288 of those hours. They had a dust complaint from a blast that was investigated by the Olympic Clean Air Agency the next day. They have had several seismic complaints and now they do seismic tests on each blast and are far below the minimum thresholds set by the Bureau of Mine Standards. Mark Beaufait. Seattle, explained that he helped the Phillips with some of their legal paperwork and was asked to comment on some of the legal elements of the application. The MRL overlay requirements state that an MRL tract has to be a minimum of 10 acres. In this case, it is an addition to a 19 acre existing MRL. The applicants will be locking 30 acres in this designation that cannot be separated. This was the recommendation and he has provided a draft covenant to the Prosecuting Attorney. He feels that a 5 acre Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 ...;<.'~. '.' ;'~s ~ ftf fS"'\'Y tract could be added to an existing MRL as long as the whole section is over 10 acres. In the Phillips letter to the Planning Commission, they have requested that the hours of operation for truck loading be extended. The County and DOT trucks arrive at 6:30 a.m. and they won't wait until 7 a.m. to load. Hours of extraction and reclamation activities that generate excessive noise will be limited to the hours as specified in the UDC. The County and the neighbors benefit from the operation coming under the UDC regulations and losing the grandfathered status. Mike Whittaker. Quilcene, stated that he has testified at several public meetings that he is concerned about the noise from the quarry. Noise has always been an issue and the County has never dealt with it. The Phillips told him that they would make berms and plant trees to reduce the noise. Resource lands and residential land can exist in the same area, but there needs to be a balance. In 1997, when Penny Creek Quarry was given MRL status, there were 5 conditions listed, and one condition was to have an explosive management plan for any blasting. Noise generated from operations was never addressed. There is a critical aquifer recharge area on one of the parcels but there are no specific conditions about how to protect it. The 1995 Mineral Lands Ordinance required an active mining permit from DNR and there is no record of a permit. It also required that an MRL be 10 acres, and the original MRL was 19 acres. When the original MRL was approved, one of the Commissioners asked how the neighbor's concerns would be addressed and staff replied that it would be done through SEP A. The County doesn't do anything when they get a complaint except call the quarry owners and they say there isn't a problem. Before the Planning Commission had their meeting, he called Gary Phillips and asked that the interested parties meet and discuss the issues. They wanted to have someone representing the County and there wasn't anyone available, so they agreed not to meet. In their Master Land Use Application, the Phillips wrote that no noise issues had been mentioned by neighbors. He testified at the public hearing that noise is an issue and the County has received many complaints. He doesn't think that any reclamation plan has ever been addressed. The crusher and rock storage is on a parcel of property that is designated rural residential. He urged the Board to reject the application until the County has adequate resources to make sure that the operations are in compliance. Ron Nowak. Quilcene, stated he is not sure if2 specific parcels are included in the expanded MRL. Al Scalf replied that they are not and their designation is rural residential. Mr. Nowak asked if storage of material and a scale will be allowed there? Al Scalf answered that the County will address these development standards during the permit application process and the MRL designation is a separate issue. Commissioner Huntingford asked why these uses are currently allowed? Al Scalf explained that the 1997 MRL designation has pre-existing and/or grandfathered uses that are allowed. Ron Nowak stated that the noise was buffered by a bluff until the stock piles and scale were moved to this area and the loading is loud at his house. In his opinion, someone from the County will need to make sure the operation is in compliance. The quarry needs to stay within the operating hours specified in the UDC regulations. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 ~."'.'."'.. ~~s) ~~ Mike Whittaker. stated that DNR oversees reclamation and once a quarry has a permit, they don't have resources to oversee the work and make sure it gets done. Mark Beaufait. stated that the Phillips didn't find out for several months about their neighbor's complaints. They do run a compliant operation. There will be permitting issues that relate to operations on the new MRL. The County needs to let them know as soon as possible about any complaints. When the Master Land Use Application was filled out, the Phillips had not received copies of the complaints. Hearing no further comments for or against this Comprehensive Plan amendment, Chairman Titterness closed the public comment portion of the hearing on MLA03-231. MLA03-209 MLA03-209 is a proposal to simplify agricultural lands designation categories and criteria as part of the process to complete the planning tasks outlined in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. It is sponsored by the County. Josh Peters stated that the proposal was drafted by staff and the Planning Commission's subcomittee on agricultural lands. The full Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. Parts of the Comprehensive Plan will be rewritten regarding agricultural lands as the result of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. A voluntary redesigation of certain parcels of agricultural land that meet the criteria is also proposed during the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, with the County as the sponsor. Tom McNerney explained that the Agricultural Lands Subcommittee had a lot of discussion on the proposal and the full Planning Commission discussed it at 3 meetings and voted unanimously in support of it. MLA03-21O This amendment, sponsored by Jefferson County, is to add policy language to the Comprehensive Plan related to compliance with the Growth Management Hearings Board order concerning groundwater protection against seawater intrusion. Josh Peters stated that the staff recommendation is to adopt the proposal and the Planning Commission has concurred. The policy was adopted by resolution of the Board in 2002 and development regulations that resulted have already been amended. There were two new elements that came from the Planning Commission's deliberations on the seawater intrusion issue which included specific tests that might be appropriate to determine degradation. This amendment compares the 2002 policy with the UDC table and regulations and the existing Comprehensive Plan language. There are also a few recommended policy items in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24,2003 B2f.. "'''...~.. (>~:) o Tom McNerney stated that the Planning Commission unanimously supported the changes that were made as a result of recommendations by the Hearings Board. This latest revision will be sent to the Hearings Board where it will be reviewed for compliance, and the hope is that it will not have to be redone in February, 2004. Chairman Titterness opened the public comment portion ofthe hearing on MLA03-209 and MLA03-210. Hearing no comments for or against these 2 Comprehensive Plan amendments, he closed the public hearing. The Board concurred that no further public comments, written or verbal, will be accepted on these 5 Comprehensive Plan amendments after the close of the public hearing. Letter In Response to Questions Regarding Port Ludlow Drainage District: Commissioner Huntingford moved to have the Board sign a letter to Bert Loomis and Ron Gregory in response to their questions regarding the responsibilities of the County and the Port Ludlow Drainage District. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. There was discussion about the Port Ludlow Drainage District Commissioners' request that the County Commissioners adopt the Port Ludlow Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. David Alvarez advised that the plan was adopted by the Drainage District Commissioners and does not require an action by the County Commissioners. It will be used as guidelines by the County, just like any other management plan. The Board met in Executive Session with the County Administrator, the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the Director of Community Development, and an Associate Planner from 2:15 p.m. to 2:35 p.m. regarding actual litigation. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT; Port of Port Townsend: The Board came out of Executive Session. Commissioner Huntingford moved to have the Chair sign the Second Settlement Agreement with the Port of Port Townsend after staff makes the necessary changes on the signature page. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session with the County Administrator, the Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the Director of Community Development, the County Engineer and the Environmental Health Director from 2:45 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. regarding potential litigation. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 24, 2003 Æ'~" f~s ,~ '{~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of November 10, 2003 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers abstained from the vote. Chairman Titterness seconded the motion which carried. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday from 9 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m. to continue a workshop on septic issues that was begun on November 12, 2003. All 3 Commissioners were present. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: , I '.# -' , , '.".'.-'- ) .. ' 1.' . , . .. '-j <~:; , . ",_. - .. í " , \. , , J Íi. ¡! ATTEST: ut ;j!i{. --:1ttttfv,ß-< ¿c/Jì( 0 ¿,fulie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 14 . Department of Public Works -Gensel It Agenda Page 1 of 2 IO:IJ5 tú'Yì Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Agenda Request From: Board of Commissioners David Goldsmith, County Administrator Frank Gifford, Public Works Director ¡fJ;ß7 F:- Fe; November 24, 2003 To: Agenda Date: Subject: Franchise Hearing - Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association Water System Description: Preliminary Staff Report for the Public Hearing on the application for a franchise by Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association for a water system with the following attachments: · Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association Application · DRAFT Non-Exclusive Franchise to Maintain a Water System · Map of Franchise area · Department of Community Development Comments Statement of Issue: The purpose of the public hearing is to take testimony on the issue of whether or not the County should grant a franchise to the applicant to use County rights of way for the installation and maintenance of a water system. The franchise will be non- exclusive and does not authorize any specific construction or maintenance of the system until all permits are acquired. The franchise process that Public Works is recommending below is based on giving interested parties the opportunity to express their issues before the franchise is finalized in order to take these issues into consideration, and is the reason that a draft typical franchise is included with the Preliminary Staff Report. ~ s Analysis/Strategic Goals: Department of Public Works C9F1SGAt AjcAEta Page 2 of 2 /o:05CÅh1 Non-exclusive franchises for water systems are common throughout the County. Alternatives: . Proceed with developing this non-exclusive franchise based on the public hearing testimony, any comments received and approval by the Prosecuting Attorney. . Deny the franchise. Fiscal Impact: A bond will be required to ensure completion of construction of the water system per Jefferson County Ordinance No. 01-0103-00. The amount will be determined by the Public Works Director. Permit and inspection costs will be covered by the applicant through existing ordinances and codes. Revenue Budget Line: 322.40.60/311.10.00 Amount: $2.498.100.00 Expenditure Budget Line: 544.40.10 Amount: $ 106,409.00 Future Budget Impact: At time of Franchise Re-neaotiation Recommendation: Public Works recommendation is to proceed with developing a final non-exclusive franchise based on the public hearing testimony, the comments received and the industry standards for these types of franchises. The final franchise will be presented for approval to the Board of County Commissioners after it has been developed and reviewed by Risk Management and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Reviewed By: ~~~rntnistrator PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT FRANCHISE APPLICATION by Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association fora Community Water System AGENCY RESPONSES: 1. The Jefferson County Public Works Department made the following comments: a. At this time there is no water system within the Boundaries as described in the Notice of Hearing. b. In accordance with Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0103-00, a surety bond, assignable savings account, or other collateral shall be provided to Jefferson County for the duration of the franchise, with the amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works. c. The proposal needs to be reviewed for compliance with regulations regarding approval of water systems. 2. The Jefferson County Department of Community Development commented that the proposal must meet Section 3 of the Unified Development Code and apply for and receive the necessary land use permit(s). 3. The Jefferson County Health Department made no comment. 4. No public comments have been received as of this time. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS: 1. The proposed franchise is in conformance with Ordinance 01-0103-00. 2. The proposal is reflected in the application filed by Michael S. Szatlocky, PE, representative for the Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association on September 5, 2003. 3. A public Hearing is scheduled for November 24, 2003 at 10:05 a.m., in the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners chambers to take testimony on the application. Further, notice of said public hearing has been carried out in accordance with applicable law, having been published twice in the Leader on November 1ih & 19th, 2003. Additionally, notices were posted at the Jefferson County Courthouse, the City of Port Townsend City Hall, and the Port Townsend and Port Ludlow Post Offices. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is to approve this non-exclusive franchise as proposed. Attachments: Application DRAFT Non-Exclusive Franchise to Maintain a Water System Map of Proposed Franchise Area Department of Community Development Comments APPLICATION FOR FRANCHISE TO: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON BY: Michael Szatlocky, PE, c/o Cedarwood Group FOR: Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association ADDRESS: 1670 Dexter Avenue North, #1A, Seattle, WA 98109 Application to the County Commissioners of Jefferson County, Washington, for a franchise to construct, operate, and maintain consisting of A water distribution pipeline upon, under, over, across, and along the rights of way of the county roads of Jefferson County, Washington, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: That portion of Mats Mats Beach Road commencing at the easterly boundary of the intersection of Mats Mats Beach Road and Bayshore Drive and running a distance of six hundred feet westerly; and that portion of Bayshore Drive commencing at the prolongation of the northerly boundary of Mats Mats Beach Road and running a distance of two thousand feet, more or less, to the intersection of Mats Mats Bay; said roads being within Section 33, Township 29 North, Range 1 East, W.M., in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. None of the roadway over which this franchise is requested is located within the limits of any incorporated city or town. The Applicant hereby requests that the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS fix a time and place for hearing this application and cause the Auditor of said County to give public notice thereof in the manner provided by law, and that upon such hearing the Board make and enter a proper order granting to this Applicant, its successors and assigns, the franchise rights herein applied for. . . DATED this 5th day of September, 2003. Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association (Applicant) ~te~3'~ð By: Michael S. Szatlocky, PE Cedarwood Group (Print name) ProiectEngineer (Title) Phone: 360-452-9655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON In the matter of x Granting a Non-Exclusive Franchise x On County Road Rights of Way to x Maintain a Water System x WHEREAS, an Application for non-exclusive Fr Beach Homeowner's Association, a true copy of which . in the said application, and WHEREAS, hearing on the said appl Commissioners of Jefferson County, Washington, on a.m., pursuant to the provisions ofRCW 36.55, after notice WHEREAS, it appears to request, based on the following blic interest to gr onclusions: 3) unty Comprehensive Plan; pplicati filed by Michael S. Szatlocky, P .E., each Homeowner's Association on September 5, . the Jefferson County Ordinance 01-0103-00. rovide for maintenance and repair of the county nance and operation of the water system for the FORE S HEREBY RESOLVED that a non-exclusive franchise be and it e app ant named above (GRANTEE) for a period of twenty (20) years from lution, to construct, operate, maintain and repair a water system and all es in, along, under and across the right-of-ways, authorized under Title 56 e common under Title 56 and 57 per 56.20.015, consisting of installation and s upon, under, over, across and along the rights of way of the county roads of ty, Washington, more particularly described as follows: That portion of Mats Mats Beach Road, County Road #558009, beginning at the westerly boundary of Section 33, Township 29 North, Range 1 East, thence easterly to, and including, the intersection Bayview Dr.; thence southerly along S. Bayview Drive, County Road #558909. S. Bayview Dr. is located within the plat of Mats Mats Beach recorded in Book 3, Page 21, Section 33, Township 29 North, Range 1 East, records of Jefferson County, Washington. Mats Mats Beach Rd. is located along the north boundary of the Plat of Mats Mats Beach. This non-exclusive franchise is granted upon the following express terms and conditions: (1) The said GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, shall have the righ 0 enter only upon the above-described rights of way for the purpose of construct' cilities and for operating, maintaining, repairing and using those facilities. (2) The terms and conditions of Jefferson County Ordinanc prescribing terms and conditions for franchise agreeme are incorporated herein by reference and mad GRANTEE, for itself, its successors and/or ass' GRANTEE understands and acknowled permit from the County Engineer befo and performing other actions relating . g Department prior to exclusive of all service will be granted upon the ty comprehensive plan. under this non-exclusive franchise ive franchise and all its terms and conditions e, by the GRANTEE, in writing, is to be filed with oar 0 Commissioners of Jefferson County and shall be a ent to its taking effect, and unless the non-exclusive franchise is uch time, this grant shall be null and void. the term of this Franchise any County roads, rights-of-way, the perty r portions thereof designated in such franchise shall be eliminated urisdiction of the County jurisdiction by reason of the incorporation or to a city, then all the rights, privileges and franchises so granted shall (7) any time during the term of the Franchise the County shall vacate any County roads, rights-of-way, County property or portions thereof subject to the rights granted by this Franchise and said vacation shall be for the purpose of acquiring the fee of other property interest in said County roads, rights-of-way, County property or portions thereof for the use of the county in either its propriety or governmental capacity, then the Board may at its option and by giving ninety (90) days written notice to the Grantee, and after granting an alternative route (where such grant is reasonably possible in the sole consideration of the Director of Public Works), terminate this Franchise with reference to such county road, rights-of-way or other County property so vacated, and the County shall not be liable for any damages or loss to the Grantee by reason of such termination. Further, the County shall make its best efforts to assist the Grantee in obtaining a permanent easement for any existing water line. (8) The County in granting this Franchise, does not waive any r' may hereafter acquire with respect to County roads, rights portions thereof and the Franchise shall not be constru powers, rights or privileges which it now has or may use of and to control the County roads, rights- ay, ty pro thereof or other County property covered by chise, This Fran subject to the power of eminent domai in y proceeding un domain, the Grantee acknowledges this F hise itself shall have no va e Grantee, for itself and its ty harmless from any liability of destruct' n done or suffered to be d any other facilities of unty roads, rights-of-way, s paragrap all be construed to mean that . nferred there under for the use and -way, County property or portions ees to ume responsibility for any damage parties by the County in the maintenance and/or ounty upon any of its roads, rights-of-way, ould not have occurred but for the presence of appurtenances and any other facilities of the y such damage or loss is directly caused by the onditions, regulations and requirements herein contained shall successors, assigns of an independent contractors of the Grantee, hts an privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of the Grantee to its successors, assignees and contractors equally as if they were mentioned herein wherever the Grantee is mentioned. s franchise is subject to, and the Grantee shall comply with all applicable ral, state or the county laws, regulations and policies (including all applicable elements of the County's Comprehensive Plan & Unified Development Code) and as they may be amended affecting performance under this Franchise. Further, notwithstanding any other terms of this Franchise appearing to the contrary, the Grantee shall be subject to the police power of the county to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the safety and welfare of the general public in relation to the rights granted in this Franchise. (12) No privileges or rights granted hereunder shall exempt the Grantee from any future uniform rent, license, tax, charge, fees, or import which may hereafter be required by the County, for revenue or as reimbursement for use and occupancy of public ways, roads, streets, rights-of-way, or other County property, and failure to timely remit any sums properly due thereby, shall be cause for rfeiture of rights hereunder. (13) If any portion of this franchise is deemed invalid t effect. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF tingford, Member SEAL: ATTEST: Patrick M. Rodgers, Member Lorna L. Delaney Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Alvarez Civil Deputy Prosecutor ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE TERMS AND CONDITIONS I hereby accept the terms and conditions specified under Ordinance Non-Exclusive Franchise granted to Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's As operation, maintenance and repair of a water system along and across described in Resolution No. , approved by the Commissioners on the day of , 2003. day of Dated this Grantee Title Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's A ......................................................... COUNTY OF , to me known to be the the within and foregoing instrument as his free and , 2003. .JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COiVlIVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 AI Scalf, Director ~.·I j L. DATE: November 6, 2003 TO: FROM: Department of PUblik?0rkS AI Scalf, Director þð- DCD Comment Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association Water System SUBJECT: Per Section 3 of the Unified Development Code Table 3-1 pages 62 & 63 attached, this will require a land use permit. Please inform applicant that prior to construction they must apply for and receive the necessary land use permit(s). Building Permits/Inspections Development Review DivIsion Long Range Planning (:360) 379-4450 ascalftID.co.iefferso n. wa. us FAX: (360) 379-4451 :Þ :3 CD :::s ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ II> :::s (') CD ð= .Ct) ....CD cr>£:§= ~g;¡¡ ....t..)<b Cf Q. C·..... ~b;"è¡¡' II> :::s ;¡¡ ~Q.Õ" ~&;:~ ~CÞ(þ ~&-=t ~S-() ¡- ('). 0 2~~ + (» N (") C -¡ ::0 "U -¡ -¡ en CC ::0::0 <::0 C CD CD CD (J> => CD C ~~ 0 => ë2. 0 w ;¡. 3 3 w !& ¡¡¡ => .., 3 :, ~ ~II) ~ ëñ "0 "0 en w- S2.CD 3 w y> w 0 0 0 3 -::0 CD w 3 20 => => -"" 0 CD ñì ñì !!!.. CD CD CD Q, CD "U "U 0- 0- ~ ;J>O < 0- !!a. c:: <2 -< -< è1 en -¡=> CD !!!.. !2: <!!!.. Õ -¡ ::T ë=;' 0- 0 " 3 !!!. -0 (") ñì y> CD C CD II) g¡, õ' "0 !2. c.. -o~ 3 0 => "U Q b a: en => ~è CD 3 (J> ª :C' ë: en !!!.. 3 "8 <= "U ür w f;¡ => !2: CD ~~ Jñ ::I, :::¡ · ëñ . b <= ;:¡. ë=;' < c en ã) => w w ñì · c.. => < š:: ë=;. "" Q CD en sr . ~ <C O-CD !!a. 0 "" CD ::> 5' ::T ..!E, "" "U ~ · en c.. ~~ Q õ' C ::I. en <C ::I ~ " Q en w w CD_ " CD · !!a. 0 w ( ) 9.: "" (") 0 ë) ::0 ~ æ "" II) . C'" "".s ro' !& ~ 5' !!!.~ ( ) , c.. en . ci Õ' æc.. .., Ð:ªª= <= -¡ ::I. ñì æ- !2. => ( ) ¡¡¡ ro' 3- 5' ~f¡? Ö -< -< ~ ,..en ....en Cf¡? z z z Agriculture ':.. (") !& CD wCD iê:: 0 0 0 Commercial & Local WeD ( ) co CD weD ~f¡? ~ ~ (") ,..en "'f¡? ,..en z z Forest - Commercial, (") 0 0- W CD ~eD t:: 0 0 () Rural & Inholding weD rn ( ) co CD ~f¡? -< -< (") "'f¡? ,..~ ....en () () z 1 DU 15Acres () 0 CD CD 0- t:eD ~eD t=: c.. 0 weD rn ( ) () ....en 0 -< it (") ,..en "'en "'en () () z 1 DU 110 Acres ~: CD 0- t:: ~: WeD c.. 0 ( ) WeD ....en -< -< ~ ,..en ....en ,..en ~ () z 1 DU 120 Acres () ~: 0 !& CD wCD iê:: weD 0 ( ) coCD weD ~f¡? -< -< it "'f¡? ,..~ ....en 0 z z Rural Village Center () 0 CD !& t:CD ~CD t=: 5> 0 weD ( ) "'en -< it -< ,..'" "'en ,..en 0 ~ z Convenience Crossroad () .... eD 0 !& CD weD ~: weD 0 weD ( ) COCD wCD ~f¡? -< ~ -< ,..'" ,..~ ....en z z Neighborhood! . () 0 CD !& w CD ~CD t=: 0 5> 0 Visitor Crossroad WCD rn ( ) co CD ....en -< -< ~ "'en "'en "'en 0 ~ z General Crossroad () :""eD 0 CD !& w CD ~: t:: 0 WCD ( ) rn coCD . ....en -< it -< ,..en ,..~ "'en ~ z ~ Resource-Based () ~= 0 CD !»- WCD t:: rn co CD ~eD 0 Industrial Ught lndultrlallCommerci "'en -< ¡i ~ ....'" ,..en ,..~ (Glen Cove) :z z :z () ...... II> 0 CD ~: w eD t:eD 0 0 0 wCD ( ) ( ) cøCD light industrial (Glen Cove) ~f¡? 0 -< -< -< "'f¡? "'en "'en z z Z Ught IndustrlaUManufacturing () CD CD CD t:CD ~: weD 0 0 0 (Qullcene IIId EastvIew) WeD ( ) rn rn weD () ~~ 0 -< -< -< ,..~ ,..~ ,..~ z z z Heavy Industrial !& CD CD t:CD ~CÞ t:CÞ 0 0 0 weD rn rn "'en -< -< -< "'en ....en ,..~ z z Parks, Preserves () .... eD 0 !& CD CD weD iê:: t:eD 0 0 0 & Recreation weD rn ( ) coeD -f S» 5!: CD (¡,) I ...a. ~ - o ~ S» 2: CD S» ~ C. "tJ ., o ::r -. t'T -. .... CD C. c: (I) CD (I) I (') o = :t = r:: CD Q. ):.C/ C:: 3 CD ::. tt>g,¡¡¡¡ ::. O'CD I;\.::.Q. tt>wt:l Q. CD 0-',,;: -.:: r- CD O~.g- a,Q.3 ~. ~ CD ::J(þ;;t 2S2Q ~Š-~ p (')' ....¡;; c¡o .... I\) .... w ~ Q ::¡ Q. I\) ~ .... ~ ~ ~ c: z » r- » en» » » ::> c (") C .c :::r.c ee ee :b ëi! =3 C OC:::I:::I II.> CD 2; g ª- CD II.> g' g' 3:::1'CD"'(")5'g;:;:;:;: ~mcn3:""tJ(þ~S¡E; ~=iUc:"-' Stet ~ ~ In a =>. e!. c: "'tJ :::I. C:II.>II.>~C:In~ (") In::>::> _.In CD C_ CD c.. ~ Sl CD In » õ' In I/O In ë 1n»::>::>I/O»!!!. i!l g:~r-»~~ I/O 8. e!. ~ S. :I: ¡ ~~ fœ~ ~ ;:rm g ~ m=r ëi) m ~~ if ª ~ g, àS ¡a ~ <f5 s' ee o ~ In z z o 0 o m: (") z I\) 0 o ~ z o z o o ~ z o z o o ~ z o z o z -< o m z o z o z z o 0 z o z o z ~ o In z o z o z -< o m z o z o z z o 0 m: z o ~ In z o -< m -< CD In -< m z o z o z o & z o -<z m 0 o -< Z m 0 o -< Z m 0 o -< Z m 0 o m: & o z z o 0 o z z o 0 o z z o 0 o z z o 0 o z z o 0 o zzz-<zzz Ooomooo 0 zzz-<zzz ooomooo 0 z z o 0 -< CD In ~ In zzzzzzz 0000000 0) w z o z -< o m o o -I D) C'" - CD W . ~ . . » - - o ~ D) C'" - CD S» :J Co -0 ... o :T -. C'" -. ..... CD Co c: tn CD tn I ~ o ~ I:t ~ c:: CD Q. ;.l1'V¿¡IYfOV ~ M 131NI M '=' !:¡ CD œ.... ß .. :u ~ ªU~ªJ &" 'l:lCU...,cnUJ.....N... Z !! 6>-~ I( R ... ~~!S~ä I !> 5' ..m:u ~ :r " 0 -1:10 ~$" ~ ~ ~ :u CD ~ ~"'...~~ ã. 0 M :u ~ '" ~~ ~ i~ §Ë ~ rotu ,.., ~~!:!:~~f~::f .. .. o~;!;!~~iìI¡::~ '" 0 ~ ~ ~~~~~~~A-~ r- ~1'I~~~~üI~~ ~ ª ~~~:I! JD~J I¡I ;¡ ~ I I I I Q~ /I P 2""'"'' z in o~;;!~~~ iff ,.. ao?~~~ , I 1,1 ~ 411+ ... Z ..~ I I: I ;! ~6ÕÕ Pa ~ ~¡;;¡¡;~ I . \ I ~ I +++ . 1 1 1 ~ ROAO OM ..) ~~ C III ã :u ... ¡:-< ! ... ~ F . S M . Ii;> ¡ f ~ ¡;¡ I I 0 Vtn 0 0 -g ~ -: u~ ¡fœ ~3n n ,,~.§ ~~ r. !~ ~õ~ h u'! ~'" HII. 3.Õ ...~ ä'*' 1- __ \i1g. g'g !:loð II ya o .. (0)0 ..Ii;> I G sa. 11I0' -s g. il'n a! ~f 3.5' ii'" !tõ f[ g' ¡f ~ ¡;¡ ;¡ . I ~ "< Cf.t -. .... CD :!~'). If/I J I ,f '- - JJ r i I '''0 I ~'. r-¡--' I I L___ ",0 ¡,¡¡; Z;¡ ¡¡; C :J !£ <0... .¡. , ''''/ " .. \ 1 '" .....':::.:;' ~':;~ \--'<===>-,;;,;-----...--j '\ ; ...-, ~_ 1\ .. ~¿,.,/ '} ......."':.':.~b_ "'<"-ì ~ c-\ <: ,-"',A , PoL .. ,/, -=\ :,_ ,~____~v <: } !..~/ //~} , ~.._/ ,/ /',/ \ '-: ..1 /;/(rJ / ,//1 ..,1 ) ',-/,/ //:' ('/ .-:'(C~~~~;;;¿\______/ ) ~. ' ~ ..-._-"._,.,--.~ b 0 ,...;;DC:()'f!. gcc~r ~ßC~ffl ~~ ~£ :n~;':"J"" ~2 -Þo- d :S;o I c:: ~c:r [iQ ~ (":~n 0 =4( )"1 -«~j1 í f .. fo:u J _šl ~ Un ñ ",.g n .N~ ! ¡r~~ ! ¡if ~ c,n!- i2.!!, ~5'!ì i!.~ III~ -3 i- ~G i; st U ~¡¡ 2. 0 III 0 ~ r.> -; g ä § ~ ~ .:::. ~ Z M I-gg&g ~ ~.. _4 ~ ~2~ s·~ ã ~¡3'~ ~ ~Jõ~!} Q -030.& ~~~g- ;'~R~: =-õ~~g ~~~~50 i~¡-: oe..n Q .....9.,- !ìª-ls~ ~!ïH ~g,8~g J~¡~.C. =~·à -I!-- ;¡ei&. .""crg .~.. 2- ~ S'f 2. 1; !.~.;:n ~iI··! . Q.U'I~ 0[2 !tf ~~! f~& . s;cr GO. ð.i"s· e.~ n H~ !l:f 11.8.. ~~~ fff g' ,,~ i ~ õ MAY 5. 2003 MATS MATS BEACH WATER SYSTEM GROUP ""I V> ~ ~ :¡¡ TITlE: CEDARWOOD I '" .. w .... ~ ¡;; Title Sheet 105 1/2 E. First Street, Suite A '" 0 -; Port· Angeles, WA 98362 a '" 0 . 360-452-9655 '" CLIENT: .. ... IAA 15 IAA 15 BEACH HOIIEOIltiER'S ASSOCIA 1ION 360-452-9669 fox 0 b q 1607 DEXTER AIiENUE NORTH, "A cwood@ofypen.com ~ :.D ~ S£A TTlE. WASHINGTON · JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '1 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 AI Scalf, Director ( 0 P íR1 ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ (OJ NOV 1 0 2003 ;--,' JEFFERSON COUNrV B¥4RD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE: November 6, 2003 TO: FROM: Department of PUblib0rkS AI Scalf, Director ~ DCD Comment Mats Mats Beach Homeowner's Association Water System SUBJECT: Per Section 3 of the Unified Development Code Table 3-1 pages 62 & 63 attached, this will require a land use permit. Please inform applicant that prior to construction they must apply for and receive the necessary land use permit(s). Building Permits/Inspections Development Review Division Long Range Planning (360) 379-4450 ascalf@co.iefferson.wa.us FAX: (360) 379-4451 i It Q, ~ j I ~ .('¡) ....CD ~n.~ ....i:t::l I\)::¡i' ....Co)Q, ~~~ ~::;,¡ Q,Q,Õ' I\) ~~ ~(þ(þ ....r-.::;, "'if- I\)s:Q ~a:i + 0> J\) c ~ C -I ~ "rR ~ ~ f c:c: ~è' <;;0 = ~ ª- Ch~ Ii. ~ :!J ~ 3 i~ orii 3 I\) <ñ !!' ! ! ! ~ 5? CD 3 20 ~ ~I à. ~ J ;y a. æ. ~¡ < ~ -< -< r CD æ. -I c:r ~ .,... ~ õ 5' "0 ~ !i !!' ! ~ it 3 ;y ~ t I CD i ~ i ~ i æ. ~ 3 S!: gr c:: i I!. ~ õ m- . c: en !i s:::: [ ~ Ch I . I ~ g ~ ... i ~ 0 c = ¡If ~ ~ ~ .,... I f¡ . Ô ~. æ t ;;0 æ i ! I\)..s i - (II -I\) II)&. g šf ì~ it i i !/!.. 11 S- (') />0 en ë ~ "i ~ ~en ¡r ten z ~ ~ Agriculure ':. . ... CD =1 wi 0 CoInmerdaI & Local w CD (') />0 en c ~ "i ~ Gr Gr sr ~ ~ (') Forest - CommercIal, ~I Rural & Inholdlftg (') />0 en c ~ ~ Q Gi />0 en sr ~ (') z 1 DU/5Acrn ... CD =1 0 WCD (') />0 en c ~ "i Q />ocn ¡r ten ~ (') z 1 DU/10Acrn ~I =1 wi 0 (') />0 en 0 ~ ~ ~ Gi ¡i Sf ~ (') z 1 DU 120 Acres ~I 0 - />0 en c ~ ~ ~ />0 en ¡r />ocn c ~ ~ Rural VIIage Center (') ~I =1 t:1 />0 en c ~ ~ ~ />ocn Gr ,.en c ~ z Convenience Crossroad (') ~I =1 t:1 0 (') :;r c t ~ t Gi Gr Si c ~ ~ Nelghborltoodl VIsItor Crossroad (') :;i c t t ~ Gi Gr Si c ~ ~ General Crossroad . ,.en t --< . ,.en Gf Sf ~ ~ á= Resoun:e-BasecI (') ~I c i" =1 industrial UgIIt~ ,.cn i ~ ~ ,.cn Gf ,.en (G/eII Cow) (') c z ~ z ~I =1 t:1 0 0 UgJII......... (GIll Cow) (') />0 en c i t t />0 en ten Sf ~ ~ ~ UgIIt ....... n rullllnl ~I == col (QIIIIcene'" EIItvIew) (') ,.en c i i œ= Gr Gf ,.en ~ ~ ~ Heavy IndusIrIaI ~I tel (') />0 en c ~ ~ it "cn Gi ,.en 0 z z Parks, Preserves ... CD =1 tel 0 0 & Recreation WCD 1- -I I» tT ëÞ w I ..10 .. » - f 2: G) I» :J Co "U (3 ::r -. tT - rÞ G) C. c: (I) G) (I I g § ¡ Q, ! J ~~~ c~>E~cn~J:» ~ l ; iiJ ~3 c [c 8 ~ i::) i i !~ ~ :i i I Q.t.)~ ~~¡ ,. Ull~ilcl 0::)1 ~ I~ ~ fl I ~Q. i ¡. i!' r" .. ::) ;;t Ii -» flS2~ ~ .11. f L ~!. ! ~ f ~ I :.a: CjID .... c !~ Jt I\) .... I . : ~ ~ ,sa So ! Q. eft i I\) .... 5' . 10 .... ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ z ~ ~~ 0 tT - CD c~ &> ~ ~ ~~ w . ..;a. . . » c~ z z ~ ~~ - 1 DU 15 Acres - 0 0 0 ~ c~ z ~ ~ ~~ 1 DU' 10 Acres tT 0 - CD AI ~ ~~ ::J c~ z ~ 1 DU , 20 Acres C- o " a ~~ ~ z z zz ::r 0 0 o 0 - tT - .... CD ~~ z ~ z ~~ C- o 0 c: 0 CD ~~ ~ z :z ~~ 0 0 0 I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ g f zz ~ z z ~~ ¡ o 0 0 0 Q. ~~ ~ ~ z ~~ 0 ~~ z ~ z z z 0 0 o 0 ~~ ~ ~ z ~~ 0 zz z ~ z zz 0 0 0 0 o 0 0) (0) JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: 2003 Com rehensive Plan AmendmentS DATE: Monda. November 24,2003 at 11 :15 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ ¡ 'It. .... .e,r.,.,) ~o oo3æJ [g 0 OÚ3bð J ~ 0 OOg,~) g] 0 0ó3 .;;B I o 0 0 ()3 ~J).3 I ~ 0 OD~<:?81 o 0 Oó3~.;0 Œ] 0 003 /4 ~ 0 o()~ ~3J .Þt 0 0 03 ~..;\~ I ~O 003,?3i ~ 0 003' -I3d--' OOß:Y o 0 0·,;;(-31 DDD 000 Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader [legals@ptleader.com] LEGAL NOTICE Please publish one (1) time: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 BILL: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend W A 98368 (Josh D. Peters; 360-379-4450) DATE: ~onday,Novemberl0,2003 [Deadline: Monday 3:00 PM] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RE: 2003 CO~PREHENSIVE PLAN A~ENDMENT DOCKET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for Jefferson County will hold a public hearing on ~onday, November 24, 2003 to take testimony on five (5) proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on the 2003 Docket. The hearing will occur at 11:15 A~ in the BOCC Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1821 Jefferson St, Port Townsend. Brief descriptions of the five proposals follow: 1. MLA03-182; Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding; parcel 901013016; amend the land use map to designate the entirety of the subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC, a rural commercial district); cUlTently approx. half of the 5-acre parcel is RVC and half is Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per 5 acres (1:5). 2. MLA03-189; ANE Forests of Puget Sound, Inc.; parcel 901364012; land use map re-designation for approx. 40 acres from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 10 district. 3. MLA03-231; Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan Maki; parcels 702224003, 702224010,702224011,702224012, 702224023,702224024, 702224025, 702224026;es~b1ishInent of a Mineral Resource Land overlay district for approx. 37 acres in underlying RR 1:5 and RR 1:20 land use districts. . 4. MLA03-209; Jefferson County; Proposal to simplify and amend Agricultural Lands designation categories and criteria as part of a process to complete planning tasks outlined in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; 2004 tasks include reconsideration of Agricultural Lands development regulations and potential designation of Agricultural Lands of Local Importance. 5. MLA03-21O; Jefferson County; Proposal to add policy language to the Comprehensive Plan related to compliance with a Growth Management Hearings Board order concerning groundwater protection against seawater intrusion. Public Comment Period: The BOCC will accept oral comment on each proposal at the public hearing and written comment from now until the close of the public hearing. Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to the Dept. of Community Development (DCD) at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368, via email top1anning@co.jefferson.wa.us. or delivered to the BOCC at the public hearing. I ,. Availability of Information: Amendment applications, Staff Reports, and Planning Commission Recommendations for the site-specific and suggested amendment proposals are available at the County Library in Hadlock, DCD (address above), and on the DCD web pages: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment. Contact Associate Planner Josh Peters for more information: (360) 379-4466 or jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us. Legislative Decision: The BOCC is expected to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny each of these five proposed amendments on the 2003 Docket during the regular agenda on Monday, December 1 or Monday, December 8, 2003. II jllJ/ø t :.¡ ¿"'VVoJ ......VU..l'.....U...UO:H y,", .I. ..au .n.UUUal fiJ.J.IÇUWll~lll \...-YCl~ Page 1 of 4 Community Development :. Home .. :'-CoUR1y Info :. Departments :. Search Comprèhensive Plan Annual Amendment Cycle: Calendar Year 2003 Page last updated: 11/13/2003 This page contains information abòut the'2003 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle. For general information about the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, including how to apply for an amendment, click here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results I Process I Documents I For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Docket Pursuant to Section 9 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act C'SEPA" at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act ("GMA" at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and UDC Section 9, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of all proposals to review the potential for cumulative impacts. In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall Into one of two (2) categories: Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting a change In either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density. Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that that broadly apply to the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure cumulative Impact review, suggested amendments that~_. could potentially result in re-designation of groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria required for formal site-specific amendments (i.e., UDC 9.8.1.b and c). Following are brief descriptions of each of the seven (7) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) for reference. There are three (3) site-specific applications and four (4) suggested amendments. Site-specific applications: ~ http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentl2003%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20...11124I2OO3 -~~~ ......v£ut'£..............,,~...... .L ~uu .t1UUUCU r1.1UCllWllClll '--Yl:lt: Page 20f4 1. MLA03-182; Northwest School of Wooden Boatbulldlng; parcel 901013016; amend the land use map to designate the entirety of the subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC, a rural commercial district); currently approx. half of the 5-acre parcel is RVC and half is Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per 5 acres (1: 5). 2. MLA03-189; ANE Forests of Puget $ound, Inc.; parcel 901364012; land use map re-designation for approx. 40. acres 'from RR 1:20 to RR 1:10 district. 3. MLA03-231; Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Krlstan Maki; parcels 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026; establishment of a Mineral Resource Land overlay district for approx. 37 acr~s in underlying RR 1:5 and RR 1:20 land use districts. ~. Suggested amendments: 4. MLA03-209; Jefferson County; simplify and amend Agricultural Lands designation categories and criteria as part of a procesS to complete planning tasks outlined in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; 2004 tasks include reconsideration of Agricultural Lands development regulations and potential designation of Agricultural Lands of Local Importance. 5. MLA03-210; Jefferson County; add policy language to the Comprehensive Plan related to compliance with a Growth Management Hearings Board order concerning groundwater protection against seawater intrusion. 6. MLA03-232; Port of Port Townsend; Comprehensive Plan and UDC language addressing Essential Public Facilities designation and airport overlay district for the Jefferson County International Airport. 7. MLA03-244; People for a Rural Qulmper; proposal to remove reference in the Comprehensive Plan to a noise overlay district for the Airport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results Results are expected by the second regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in December 2003. In its legislative capacity for Jefferson County, the BOCC will approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny each of the proposed amendments on the 2003 Docket. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments were due May 1. There were eight (8) proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on the 2003 Preliminary Docket: four (4) site-specific applications and four (4) suggested amendment applications. The BOCC with guidance from the Department of Community Development (DCD) and the ~ http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentJ2003%2OComprehensive%20Plan%20...11/24/2003 "'-VVJ ......VU~l'~~U~U~1 V~.I. lau ~uuuaJ. nWCJ1WllCIU \"'YC1t~ Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission decided to keep all the proposals on the Preliminary Docket for the Final Docket. The projected schedule for reviewing the Final Docket Is available in a table format under Documents. The Planning Commission holds public hearings on the 2003 Comprehen~lve Plan Amendment Docket. The first public hearing was held on August 20 and concerned the site-specific amendment applications. Se~ the legal notice under "Documents" below and the August 6 DCD Staff Report for details. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 1 for two of the suggested amendments, MLA03-209 concerning Agricultural Lands and MLA03-210 concerning seawater Intrusion policy. See the September 17 legal notice posted below. The Planning Commission has formulateçf a recommendation for the three site-specific applications on the Docket and a recommendation for two suggested amendments on the Docket. See Documents below. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 17 at 11: 00 AM in the BOCC Chambers to take testimony on removing two (2) suggested Comprehensive Plan text amendments from the 2003 Amendment Docket. The two applications proposed for removal are MLA03-232 (Port of Port Townsend) and MLA03-244 (People for a Rural Qulmper). See Docket above for descriptions. The BOCC has scheduled a public hearing for Mondaý, November 24 at 11:15 AM to accept comments on five amendment proposals on the Docket (three site-specific and two suggested amendments). See Documents below for the legal notice. . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documents · Notice for BOCC public hearina November 24 on five Comprehensive Plan amendment Dfoposals (November 12, 2003) · Planning Commission recommendation fOf two suggested amendments (November 10, 2003) · Notice for BOCC Dublic hearina November 17 on removal of two sugaested amendments from Docket (November 5, 2003) · Plannina Commission recommendation for site-specific aDDlications (October 15, 2003); attachments available at DCD · 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff ReDort and SEPA Addendum for Sugaested Amendments (September 17, 2003) · Intearated GMA/SEPA Leaal Notice re: sugQested amendments (September 17, 2003) · 2003 ComRrehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum for Site-Specific ADplications (August 6, 2003) · Site Map for MLA03-182 (Boat School) · Site Map for MLA03-189 (ANE Forests) · Site Map for MLA03...:.225 (Pall) -- · Site Map for MLA-º"~-231 (Philllps/Maki) http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2003%2OComprehensive%20Plan%20...11/2412003 ¿'VV;J ~Ull1pICm~IlSIVe rIan f\ßnUaI i\II1enament CYCle Page 4 of 4 · InteQrated GMA/SEPA LeQal Notice re: site-specific applications (August 6,2003) · Table: Projected Timeline for Review of 2003 Final Docket (July 16, 2003) · 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (eight proposals) · Planning Commission Recommendation to establish the Final Docket from the Preliminary Docket (June 26,..2003) · DCD Recommendation to establish the Final Docket from the Preliminary Docket (June 13, 2003) . Background information for two of the four suggested amendments is available on these web pages: t ~. · MLA03-209; AQricultural Lands Planning . MLA03-210; Seawater Intrusion Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . For more information, please contact: Long-Range Planning Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend W A 98368 Phone: 360-379-4450 Fax: 360-379-4473 HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH. Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later ø Windows - ~ -- http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2003%2OComprehensive%20Plan%20...11/24/2003 TO: Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader (legals@ptleader.com] LEGAL NOTICE Please publish one (1) time: Wednesda~,. November 12, 2003 BILL: Jefferson County Depàrtment of Community Development 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend W A 98368 (Josh D. Peters; 360-3794450) Monday, Novemtier 10, 2003 [Deadline: Monday 3:00 PM] DATE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RE: 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for Jefferson County will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 24, 2003 to take testimony on five (5) proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on the 2003 Docket. The hearing will occur at 11:15 AM in the BOCC Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1821 Jeffersón St, Port Townsend. Brief descriptions of the five proposals follow: 1. MLA03-182; Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding; parcel 901013016; amend the land use map to designate the entirety of the subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC, a rural commercial district); currently approx. half of the 5-acre parcel is R VC and half is Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per 5 acres (1 :5). 2. MLA03-189; ANE Forests ofPuget Sound, Inc.; parcel 901364012; land use map re-designation for approx. 40 acres from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 1 0 district 3. MLA03-231; Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan Maki; parcels 702224003, 702224010,702224011,702224012,702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026;e~lishŒnent of a Mineral Resource Land overlay district for approx. 37 acres in underlying RR 1:5 and RR 1 :20 land use districts. 4. MLA03-209; Jefferson County; Proposal to simplify and amend Agricultural Lands designation categories and criteria as part of a process to complete planning tasks outlined in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; 2004 tasks include reconsideration of Agricultural Lands development regulations and potential designation of Agricultural Lands of Local Importance. 5. MLA03-210; Jefferson County; Proposal to add policy language to the Comprehensive Plan related to compliance with a Growth Management Hearings Board order concerning groundwater protection against seawater intrusion. _- Public Comment Period: The BOCC will accept oral comment on each proposal at the public hearing and written comment from now until the close of the public hearing. Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to the Dept. of Community Development (DCD) at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368, via email toplanning@co.jefferson.wa.us. or delivered to the BOCC at the public hearing. Availability of Information: Amendment applications, Staff Reports, and Planning Commission Recommendations for the site-specific and suggested amenclment proposals are available at the County Library in Hadlock, DCD (address above), and on the ])CD web pages: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.usIcommdevelopment. Contact Associate Planner Josh Peters for more information: (360) 379-4466 or jpeters@coJefferson.wa.us. Legislative Decision: The BOCC is e~ to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny each of these five proposed ~endmeñtS on the 2003 Docket during the regular agenda on Monday, December 1 or Monday, December 8, 2003. \, -- '. JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 " (360) 379-4450 ~ To: From: Date: Subject: Board of County Commissioners Planning Commission November 10, 2003 Recommendation for two Suggested Amendments included on 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.Docket The Planning Commission is pleased to transmit its recommendations for two suggested amendments on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: 1. MLA03-209; Jefferson County; Proposal to simplify and amend Agricultural Lands designation categories and criteria as part of a process to complete planning tasks outlined in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; 2004 tasks include reconsideration of Agricultural Lands development regulations and potential designation of Agricultural Lands of Local Importance. 2. MLA03-210; Jefferson County; Proposal to add policy language to the Comprehensive Plan related to compliance with a Growth Management Hearings Board order concerning groundwater protection against seawater intrusion. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the suggested amendments on Wednesday, October 1,2003. MLA03-209 ~- After a favorable report from the Planning Commission Agricultural Lands Committee to the full Planning Commission, the Planning Commission voted unanimously on October 15,2003, to recommend approval of the proposal, as recommended by staff and presented in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community Development (DCD) Staff Report and SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments, dated September 17, 2003. MLA03-210 On November 5, 2003, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal, as recommended by staff and presented in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments, dated Septembçr 17, 2003. This was after extensive review of the staff proposal by the Planning Commission Seawater Intrusion Committee and a report prepared for the full Planning Commission. The Committee report was withdrawn due to the favorable response from the Hearings Board, which was received just prior to the Planning Commission meeting on November 5. The Planning Commission also ünanimously voted to review the matter in February 2004, which would be after the vote for/against public water on Marrowstone Island to detennine if additional work might be needed on the matter. In support of these recommendations for two suggested amendments, the Planning Commission enters the following general findings and conclusions: 1. These two suggested amendments were brought forward through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process contained at Unified Development Code Section 9.4. 2. These two suggested amendments were timely filed by the May 1,2003 application deadline and developed through the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments, dated September 17, 2003. 3. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 1,2003. No members of the public were present to provide comment related to the two proposed amendments, nor did the Planning Commission receive written comment. 4. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments at their regularly scheduled meetings on October 1, October 15, and November 5, 2003. 5. Pursuant to UDC section 9.5.4(b) [page 9-5], any recommendation regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be based upon an inquiry into the listed growth management indicators. 6. For these two suggested amendments, the Planning Commission concurs with the DCD recommendations and adopts the fmdings and conclusions proposed through the September 17,2003 integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. Based upon formal deliberation concerning these suggested amendments on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, the Planning Commission submits these recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. -::- Thomas C. McNerney Planning Commission Chair Cheryl Halvorson Pfanning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Recommendation: Suggested Amendments 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket 2 November 10.2003 ". JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street , Port Townsend, WA 98368 0\ (360) 379-4450 To: From: Date: Subject: Board of County Commissioners Planning Commission October 15,2003 Recommendation for Site-Specific Applications included on 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.Docket The Planning Commission is pleased to transmit its recommendations for the three (3i site-specific applications on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: 1. MLA03-182; Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding; parcel 901013016; amend the land use map to designate the entirety of the subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC, a rural commercial district); currently approx. half of the 5-acre parcel is RVC and half is Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per 5 acres (1 :5). 2. MLA03-189; ANE Forests ofPuget Sound, Inc.; parcel 901364012; land use map re-designation for approx. 40 acres fi:om RR I :20 to RR 1: 1 0 district. 3. MLA03-231; Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan MaId; parcels 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026; establishment of a Mineral Resource Land overlay district for approx. 37 acres in underlying RR 1:5 and RR 1 :20 land use districts. -- The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the site-specific applications on Wednesday, August 20, 2003. I MLA03-225 was formally withdrawn by the applicant, Donna Pall, on September 3, 2003. MLA03-182 On September 3,2003, the Planning Commission voted five (5) in favor and three (3) opposed to recommend approval of the application, as recommended býstaff. MLA03-189 On September 3, 2003, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application subject.to conditions proposed by staff in the August 6 staff report. The conditions are as follows: 1. Land division must decur thfbugh the Planned Rural Residential Development (pRRD) process per Sectioi13.6.13 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), including the provision that 75% of the 40 acres be reserved in open space [UDC 3.6. 13.4.a(2)]. 2. As part of fulfIIling the open space requirement in the PRRD land division process, the entire portion of the area west of State Route 19 will be reserved as open space. MLA03-231 On September 17,2003, the Planning Commission voted five (5) in favor and none opposed, with one (1) abstention, to recommend approval of a Mineral Resource Land (MRL) overlay district in the Penny Creek Quarry area. The Planning Commission recommends the staff recommendation as presented on September 17. The revised staff recommendation amends and augments the original staff presentation in the August 6 staff report. The recommended MRL is depicted in Attachment "c" (attached), which was presented by staff to the Planning Commission on September 17 for the purpose of deliberation. The recommended MRL is subject to the following conditions: 1. A Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) process is required under Sections 7 and 8 of the UDC involving the combination of parcels 702224011,012, and the northeast comer of 003 such that a parcel is created equivalent to five (5) acres, the purpose of which is to fulfill the UDC criterion that an MRL overlay be surrounded by parcels no smaller than five acres in size on 100% of its perimeter. 2. A restrictive covenant is required for parcels 702224023, 024, 025, 026, 003, and 010 for the purpose of providing that each and every parcel in the new MRL overlay be at least ten (10) acres in size. 3. Submittal of a proposed reclamation plan to the State Department of Natural -. Resources (DNR) that encompasses the entire operation, including the current Quarry site, shall be concurrent with submittal of mineral resource extraction/stormwater management land use permit applications to the County. 4. Mineral extraction shall not occur in the new MRL overlay district without a reclamation plan approved by the DNR or an updated Sand and Gravel General Permit from the State Department of Ecology, if deemed necessary by that agency. Planning Commission Recommendation: Site-Specific Applications 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket 2 October 15,2003 5. Upon issuance of County mineral resource extraction/stormwater management permits for the new MRL overlay district, should that occur, UDC conditions for Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarry and Reclamation, found at Section 4.24, shall apply to the whole of the Penny Creek Quarry operation, including the existing operation site and the area prçviously under County ownership, to protect the general health, safety å:nd welfare of the public. The conditions address, among other issues, hours of operation and noise (UDC 4.24.6) and performance standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining and quarrying within designated Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas (UDC 4.24.8 and 6.17). Permit application review may result in additional conditions. ~ < : The result of MRL overlay designation would be an additional 31.79 acres to the existing 19.34 acres under a 1997 MRL overlay designation. The total MRL overlay district for the area would be approximately 51 acres (51.13 acres). In support of these recommendations the Planning Commission enters the following findings and conclusions: 1. These three formal site-specific amendments were brought forward through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process contained at Unified Development Code Section 9.4. 2. All three site-specific amendments were timely filed by the May 1, 2003 application deadline. 3. These amendments were formally brought before the Planning Commission on June 4, 2003 at a joint workshop with the Board of County Commissioners. Comprehensive Plan amendment applicants were invited to attend this meeting to discuss their proposals. 4. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2003. Public comment related to the three proposed amendments was taken during the public hearing. 5. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments at their regularly scheduled meetings on August 20, September 3 and September 17, 2003. 6. Pursuant to UDC section 9.5.4(b) [page 9-5], any recommendation regarding - amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be based upon an inquiry into the listed growth management indicators. 7. For all three site-specific amendments, the Planning Commission concurs with the Department of Community Development recommendation and adopts the fmdings and conclusions proposed through the August 6, 2003 integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum and amended either orally or in writing thereafter. Planning Commission Recommendation: Site-Specific Applications 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket 3 October 15,2003 ~ Based upon public testimony and based upon fonnal deliberation concerning the site- specific applications on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, the Planning Commission submits these recomme~dations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. " \ ~ Thomas C. McNerney Planning Commission Chair Cheryl Halvorson Planning Commission Secretary Attachment: Background information for MLA03-231 submitted by DCD to the Planning Commission on September 17, 2003; includes cover page and Attachments "A," "B," and "C." Planning Commission Recommendation: Site-Specific Applications 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket 4 October 15,2003 ;:.,,- ftW~ ...J AACvto 3- 2.3 ( JEFFERSON COUNTY DI!PARTMIINT OF COMMUNITY DEVILOPMIINT 8211htr1dan 8troet . Port Tgw~ . WMhIngton .. 3101I1$o446O · BOOI831-2878 · :ø:t/87Ø-1M61 F_ www.oo.jefferton.wa.UtIcommdevelopment ....tar Land U.. Perm" Appl~tlon lIorm .: ..... I ,. : I , ~ ì ': _'.' '.. :) I I r . I. .;, ... ,- ". I' '. ", : !: ~ .~ í ,j! ::1 U.tV _1 2D03 :...J <41 .,.. ~ : i 1-.... "__". ,. , ~. . ~ ...' . ..~J '. .....'..., r;.~ .' ,"- " . ~~7JdN TøPI"*NumbeI': ODD CI 0 0 ODD (See Attacheð) SUbdMalcm N8me: Lgt NI.InÞer: Property 81ze: 3e. 79 M=u (tøN/lquue felt) IxIItInG u.. of PIapedy. PoI:M .. AddrMa IndIor DIMtIonI to PI'OpIRy: Adjecent to 450 PMny Cnek B.Oað, Qull~. AI'fI'&Jl:ANT& ~~,. IUchard MakJ. JÞ., I(:r:ietan MitJd., AppUaant (If IPpUoaÞIe):. Mard.lee 6i GUy Phill.t.pa, X.l~y PhUUpa TeIIpttoM: (3ðO' 765-3413 A~CI.....: 4SO Penn Creek Roaå City: Qu.i:laene ~ Cade: 98376 ImIII Add,," ~ Â'Å- AppIIoant'. c:¡.~~~.. ~ olympua.nec PIo'" OWnIr(a) T~ Addrøa: City: 8tIte: ZIp Cå: !mill Add..... . ..knOwledge that.. ....1OanC IÞOve .. appI,ing far. building pennlt on., ......,. Owner.IIgnIbn: aot .. "" ",In RIIIIIMI...... to .8ppJlaaIJC)n for pwrnIt(I). an .d.!:i aurt.ce mine. rrHII 1.C'nON FOR OFFICI uti ONL'1 Refer to .... "fie MOtIone of the UDC ......... below fir men InformIIIDn and úther requIrwMnta. An u1Irf. M tncloltea th...,P~.~orCl"""'may~~ Tv... I .......... Cc hpCIo ~u.tJan ofExlIl/ng 8yåm (Ee8) SulIdInølDernølltlan PermIt o AlIowM *ru- U.. CONIat8ncy An8~ C Home....... C 8tormwtIter MInagIrnn · tJ ROIId N::tJaA. ~~~ C _n~ . C .. '1M AppronJ Adv-. DItMnInItIon (8~ § 8hottIIne MUter Praþn ~1ITnIt RIVIIIDnI . R...... tœ UDC 8tcIIoneA.1 _ CMpW 8.15 JCC UDC 8IciIaft 3.2.1. TIÞIe 1-1 UDC 8IaIIon a.z.1 Md Tibia 1-1 T8bIe Soilnd UDC ..., 4.20 UDC 1IdDne., UDC ....U UDO IICIIIDR 1.2 UDC'" U13.15 UDC .....1.111 UDC 8eOIIOn '.7 UÞC.... . ...ae ... 4.81 fQr' Gd WeISS : SiB œæ Ø£ '..¡cj,1::I Sla£6Þti:'Ø9£: ·ON XI::I.:I : wœI.:/ c' DL.6.lI8y "D" Of' unn.m.d U. a-alfadlon C CotIqe IncIUatry C Short Plat. PreIírIfMIy Ind FfnII* C ~PIIm* B COnctIØonIII ~)~ =- o VII1Inoe. MInor* g ==,T:n..~ (JIrImIry UN> for........... C Forøt PracIIoa Aatifte..... of_V.., MèntcWIum _......... ,....,~ 1:1 ApPMI 1'.ne IU ........... C CondIIIcneI "C'" u.. C ~ PIIIt, P,"" C ......... ~ ReIIdiI.... ~ PNIInItwry ApprovW C s:u.=:.... o V....:. c "...0.... lib" Ute YarIInot9 o WhIII,TeIeaormu1IcIIon . t:I ~ ~ 8ubñInIIII DftIllaplMnt. 8IcondII¡y Ute C ....~CordIØI..UW C 8hi:InIIIne MIl....... v.t..... C Appell ""IV~ o Løna PfIt. PNI C PRIfD. IIInII ,.".. V ........ C 8ØIdII Ute (EaentftII PubIc F~ 13 .-._, CoUnty CoIripnQIIIIve DCAAInd ... DJIIrIcIt NIp Amenc......r C JeII'trIan ~ 8hcn1nl MIItIIr Pragœm ~ o AppN cflEPA .t UDC ..... 1.2.1. a.21_T8bIe a.1 UDC IIM:IIan 7.a 8nd TIIbIe 1-1 UDC ..... 7.3 UDC 8MIOn 7.1 UDe TØt 8-,. 8eotfGn U UÞC TaIIII 101nllclan U (ÞIIG~ FecmIt RevIIw ProcIII~by~ UDC 8ecIIon... ~0N'71M8 (U)CAppenclxC) UDC 8ecIon. UDe 8ecIIon4.1e,Ø(o) t.IÞC a.cøan 1.4.2 81M 8.10.t2(b) UDC IIcIIIon U UDC IIIêIon 7 A UDC..... 1.8.11 (mull be In ~wfth ., ==-~~appIodon) UDØ ........ ~.=.o,~ UÞCÞøtncIx c UDC.... .. UDCSIdfonO UDC..... . UDC 8IOIIOn 8.4.8 SIPA 8.10.12 (at UDC 8IaIIoft 7 A UDC IIdIon U 11 ;! : I, ~ .. ¡, ':., 'J . " r' " . . , ,.., ,,-., ......... uoc 8IctIon W UÞC 8ecCIon 8 . UDC 8IGIIan I ' UÞC 8ecIIon 1.10.11(d) , MAY - 1 2003 j ., ~............,..... ~... C .............,..., 0IIIIr 1øcIf.... ortlldnl "'"* ...... for.. fIi-.-_' fawn: .........lIfh .,......1HA,........__... 11 == .. Ipplallrlt¡ -.n. .. IPPIUoL.. .......... t11bm..... ...... ....... II iut ... aantOt to .. .. of.. tcnoJJ . 1- __ _IIIIIII'PIIOIk.I II ........ ... .. III ~... ...... of...... of III ...... PftIPII'Ir. Ant maIIIMt........ or ." onllMlon of. mlllrllllIIat IIIIdI by" ~__ WIllI .... tit "1J pIJOIIIOI\", _ ..... at 11II ,..,.. bIIng nul end VDti.. , , --... to ... ..1111'/ ... hold MImI... .......... ~ ..... II ...... )........ 0IIUIt.... ...an_1IIIcImIYI tIMe "'~"',""M '" MIJ........ 16....n 0aünIJ......., "1n~Gf".....arWlI*mIL I ..... lID prawIdII_... .... a:::to~ c:aune,.. ......~þ .._~....... før.. 10ft...... of nMIw IfICI ........ "'In I. TNt .... of., .... ... .. CDIIIIr (IInIigft .. AdlIÜfI. « ItII ...- do _......... '4'" ."...,to "'- /Â~ .~ 1II.l't OWNM. ... ... j ,.,.. .... or IICIIIcIIIi ...... at.... - .. 01 ..... ......__....... _..... tnØIßICI CIt.~= _ CIDIId _lit. __...... 01 ...................... ....,..·..IIcInIIIIW..... h __ AI1#! at'...... ...... 0IIWItW tIIIIIII no ...... III ... ."111 fhIt.. ..,. ... wi tleUllCIIItI.fII.ô --- I*IIIIt .. .. ...... lilt...... leA. Þøt Ind¥IIfuII. gRIIp 01 CIn III..... an ....,01 lit ......... ~ JIIUI' 8IIIIon(.) ......"".. in OIl.... wIIb tile .. . TIw 1GIa~ that hil, ... .. . ,.. bl¥frlUlllIId to.. ~... ttIt HI ..... . ..-- Þd Wd6S : æ œæ 0£ ...&dt::t : .JœI.:I 'i J Penny Creek Quarry MRL Expansion Property Owners Gary and Marilee Phillips 450 Penny Creek Road Quilcene, W A 98376 Parcel No. = 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, Kelly Phillips 450 Penny Creek Road Quilcene, WA 98376 Parcel No. = 702224024 Richard A Maki, Jr. 450 Penny Creek Road Quilcene, WA 98376 Parcel No. = 702224025 . Kristan N. Maki 450 Penny Creek Road Quilcene, W A 98376 Parcel No. = 702224026 , .¡ . . MAY - 1 2003 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend· Washington 98368 3601379-4450·800/831-2678· 3601379-4451 Fax Application for Formal Slte-Speclfic Comprehensive Plan/UDC Amendment1 I MIA. PROJECTf.......,.,.......: Marilee ':'Á~ Phillips ~~ Applications must be completed and submitted to the Deparlment of Community development by M.y 1 of the current calendar year In order to be considered, during this year's amendment process. Completed epp/icBt/ons that are received after May 1 will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year. AppI1œtIons that are/ncomp/ete (I.e., that do not Include all of the Information required below) wfI/ be retumed to the applicant P.... note that tonnal slte-8peclffc amendment applications requesting expansion of existing commercial aNaS are subject to a November 22, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board decision which pIOblbb the County from .xpandlng .xlstlng commerc.lal....... The County Is currently appealing thfa decision to Superior Court. In the ev.nt that this appeal Is unsuccessful. applications requesting COImwclal ..... ...nston may not be acted upon. Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Land Use App/IcaIIon and SEPA CheddIst (If appIœbIe). RepresentsIIve auIhorfzafJon is requhd If appliœllon Is not signed by owner. 2. A completed and signed State EnvIronmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. 3. ComprehensIve PIan/UDC Amendment application fee (as appIœbIe). .. set 10rIh In the JefrerIon County Fee Ordinance, as amended. 4. Any additionai information deemed necessary by the AdmInistraIor to evafuate the proposed amendment. 5. Please prepare and I8beI as -Exhibit A,- a vicinity map showing the following: a. The location of the area proposed to be redesignated; b. The lend use designation of 811 property within five hundnJd (500) feet of the site; and c. The Uses of an properties located within five hunchd (500) feet of the sh. 6. Please prepare andlabe' as "Exhibit B,- a description of the proposed PIanIUDC amendment and any associated devetopment propoea'(s). If apptfcabfe. Appßcations for project-refaled 10rmIt .....pecIftc nJdeIIgnatJons must Include plans. and Information or studies accurately depicØllg existing and propoeed usea and Improvements. AppIfcatIons for such redesfgnatlons that do not specify proposed uses amd potenIfaI irnpects are assumed to have maximum Impøct to the environment and public facltftfes and aervIœs. _~ ' 7. Please pntpale and labet as -ExhIbIt "C." a map'" depIcIs existing condlllonl on the site and wIIhIn the genera' vfcfnfty (i.... wiIhIn a tine hundntd (3OO)-foot radius). The exhibit must depfct topogrephy. wetlands and buffers, easel118l1ts and their pwpoae, and means of access to the site. The Intent of the eXhibIt Is to ctearty Illustrate the physicet opportunities and constraints of the site. , See UDC Sec:tJon 9.4. ; ¡,~' ::: F-.;; . ..~.., - --~-ì II' ;j' i ~ i MAY - 1 2003 I ! i I! ! . ,41 ¡ I ... .,. J ,,' ".,." . 8fTE 8I'I!CFIC APP.DOC REV. 1CWt2OO1 ~1 -1 8. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach 8dditional sheets, if necessary.) See Attached 9. The current lend use desIgnationIzonlng of the site is: RR- 1 - 20, 1 - 5 10. The proposed land use designationlzoning of the site Is: MRL. OVerlay 11. The current use of the site Is: Forestry 12. ~¡,¡ ~\~ ~ 14. .. ...---.----...~.. .--.., 1 ...........~~-,.... . .... ~.. b. . ,....... ....~ ,.~ ,~. ,..... , , ~M__..__·,' ~.__._..__u__. . .. ,.. - .... . '-.. ,-; I \ ..::::, ( ~ . ...., ! 1:" > ::.~: d. - "'.:' ,- ~ .; '. . .... ... .. ~ <:i.í, '< 1''-:·,·'. -.. ,.' , ::Ii t ~I! :.~~ > :: ; J ...., ~~}: f. ~~~~~E~~~ _·._u.Jj:.! . . .. . . ,~ . . r .. ..' The proposed use of the site Is: Surface Mine If ct.ngea to Compfehenaive Plan or UDC text are required. pIe8Ie pntpeI'8 end label .. -Exhibit D: amendatory language (Le., to affected text of both the Compfehenaive Plan end UDC) shown In ,.. fonnat. with t to be added Indicated with undertining (e.g., underIinina), and text to be deleted lncIcaIed wiIh s1rikeouts (8.g eCFikee....). PIe8Ie pntp8I'8 and label as "Exhibit E,- a thorouah explanation of how the pn:»poMd f8designationIr a al80Ciated development proposals, If any, meet. c:onfUct with, or relate to the following inquiries: a. Have the cIrcum8tances related to the propOMd amendment and/or the .... In which It Is Iocat aubetantialy changed ainœ the adoption of the JeffeIson County Compfehenaive Plan? Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Compfehensive Plan no longer Valid;':: has new Information become available that waa not c::onsic:knd cUing the process of adoption of Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subaequent amendment? . I How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of JeffeIIon County? Does the proposal meet concummcy requirwnents for tranIportation? Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level 0I18IVice It8ndaIdI for public facilities end aervices than tr8nIpOrtaIion (e.g., Iheriff,· Ire end emergency medic8I I8IYIceI. parD. fire ftøw, and general governmental aervicea)? Is the proposal consiItent with the goeIs, policies and Implemeulation Ä'8t8gi8I 01 the various elements of the Jefferson County Compfehenaive Plan? WII the proposal result in probable aigniftcant adverIe inp&cta to the CDWIty's tnpspoftation network, capital . facilities. utilities, parks, and envirolvnental features that cannc:Jt be miIig8ted? ...,- WIll the propouI place ~ burdens upon existing or....... 88I'V1ce capebllitie8? How Is the subject parœl(s) physically Ie"'" for the AMP"" land &lie designation and the anticipated lend UIe development including, but not limited to the tiIowIng: (I) Access; (Ii) Provision of utiIItiea; and (ill) CompatibiIty wiIh existing and planned surrounding land uses? WIll the propoaaI,lf adopted, creete a pntSStn to change the land &lie deIIgnatJon of other properties? If the ...... Is yes, how would such change of land &lie deIIgnatJon on other pI1)p8fIies be In the tong-tenn best Interests of the county as a whole? c. e. g. h. l j. SITE IPICI'ICAfIIÞ.DOC RI!V.1CIIIIIIIOt Paae 2 . . Ie. Does the P'DPO"d .-.JpecIftc emenctnlnt mtterIIl1 afrKt the Int UN IIId populltlon growth ptOjIcUon, Ut8t 11I'8 tile .Nt of'" ~ PIe"? f. If the PI'OPOI8d redellgnetIanIrezone fa Iocnd WIItfn In Unlncafpal1!ted Utben GIO\oVIh ..... (UOA), woutd me pmpoMl mñtrIaIIy aft'8C:t tie ~ or evaII-"I1Ity of urtHIn fleflltill Ind HNIoeI to thllmmedJatt ...... end the ovnII UOA? m. Is the propoIId 8r1'IIftdmInt consistent with the Growth Marl8Qement Act (Chapter 36.7OA RCVY). the pPun~~ ~Q_ Patþ;y tal' ..fftwllOft OnunhI, end other epplk:eble Inter-Jurledlctlonal poftoIn or 19"""", Ind Q other toc8t, Ibde or fItden!If ,..1 7?Jt tpp/IOMtt hMby 0fIft/fIN """ 1M ...... I10ItIeInId lit tIIII ...." .. Irw IfId þIOV/rJt 1ft IOØfftte ~.,tItfJ ~ emM:6..-t¡ Ind 11M ~,...,. .IOM. thlt MY apptDVII/autd on INs.",..."", mey". ~ "MY 1UCh·"'''''''''' t."1bunf to be ... ..u.b..~ ""~t~...-,.I'¡~ <-~ It~\:~ D\TI ~.. I _. (')3 ......~tÞ"'\ D\,. [NOTE: f::or ., requfred .Ignatures. ......."tItIve luttIorIzItIon 18 required If IppIIoetfon Is not I,nlld by the owner.) 18. iJð!ð) M . S I 0'3 DATI H~(ð :J ~ . '....--...... : If\' I"·;,·,-·~·· ...... ......., t.~ 'I '. // .. ;! i..lJ ~;-y iI :1 ,..~t :j" ._-~.._-.._--___ "'::::., ! ;1 ; : , ·1 .-12003 ...--- ; :FF:Ri-' . XiW i -. ,,'1"'. IIIQ oPa/I'IQN'I',aoo ..,......, 8d Wdt9:9121 œæ 0£ ...&dt; SŒ6ÞtPe9£: ·ON Xt:I.:I p_a : wœJ.:I Penny Creek Quarry MRL Expansion Application 8. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. Marl and Gary Phillips are owners and operators of the existing 19.34 acre Penny Creek Quarry which was designated with the Mineral Resource Lands zoning overlay in 1997. The Phillips, along with their children, also own 36.79 acres of land immediately adjacent to the north and east of the existing MRL overlay area. Included in this contiguous ownership is a 3.75 acre parcel once operated a surface mine by Jefferson County. Based on the basalt formation visible at the existing quarry as wen as at the old county quarry, on mapped geology of the area, and data ftom wen logs in the vicinity, the vast majority of the subject 36.79 acres is believed to contain commercial quantities of highly valuable mineral resources. Approval of the MR.L overlay is required before the Phillips can submit a Type 1 application to expand the existing family operated Penny Creek Quarry operation. M ,~.f - 1 2003 .-: 'I '. " ¡ I I j ; I , I ¡ i I ¡ " ~ '); I J .' ~.rr .... , " ~s~; iMi 'n'M '~ 'N1.U 'æ UO 08S O UOßJOd ~) èeo.<&wed ~ .(JJeno ) èeo Auuøct V J.J81HX3 ~'IMaI ~ 1:IddY ___ 'HMO '1i!æIr ;uw ~.(œØ:ø:l u.£~-tl9(OIE) zœeeVM'~ ~~e_""'''~eee~ ÐNlNNV1cI 0NV1 ONV ÐNLL'1nSNOO 30~~ 1WIUVN 'ON! 'S:ÐWf:1S 0NV11'V01Ð01OO3 --;:1 :: I d lit II Ii I dOff I III J I I I 1 !I ! II ~ ~ .1 I II I_ I I elll 'I!f J III!ilt 1ft ~UjJU 'I) -!-. I iiI!; ~ ê ~ ~ ~ ~ x o 0:: D- o 9t llil!; ~ Ildll :tillf I,dl I ! 'ili IfUj EÐ l l J- ~ I!d 9- EÐ ¡;; I 'I I! 'I·,J· !Ii J ¡ !¡If JJ'II j:jJJI! ~ °dj:J I "II ! .,,!J. Ii 5111 j 'I I "I'!)' ¡ 3'11 J.Cr .NIqIIIIIN 08faJd EXHIBIT B PENNY CREEK QUARRY PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT TO EXPAND MINERAL RESOURCE LAND ZONING OVERLAY The proposed plan amendment is to add the mineral resource land overlay to 36.79 acres abutting the current Penny Creek Quarry MRL area and existing surface mine. Subsequent to approval, the applicants will submit application for a Type 1 approval to expand the existing quarry. The MRL overlay covers 19.34 acres. The subject 36.79 acres is undeveloped and bas recently been partially logged. Adding the MRL overlay to this additional property will increase the total MRL coverage to 56 acres. Included in that coverage is a 3.75 acre parcel that was once a county-owned quarry which has been granted "grandfather" status. :'ì ::.: ;:'; ~:., U \d \¡~~ .-<\: :;; '\ C --··-··..--1 \ \¡ \ ; . \ \: 1\ UAY _ 1 ZOO3 \:) ! II ;. ¡ j 1ft ;,.1 . L.",,__. ,. :-::....,.:..: ;\. j I '-'" ! ,.:>·~~.:_C~·' "~;..J :.....: .-.. ......., , ; '~ ì .: ~ i .. æv ()(J¡, ., 'VfM 'fN):j 'N.tU 'æ UOß:I8SjO UOßIOd ""I2I'IIFr"SWRI !lClEll-nt' (08£):>aI:I U£~1LII (09£) œi8e VM ......au., ~ J tIØI:) .<uu8d ost -"g- -- ~~£ _ ·'<MV...-...oo 8££~ ÁII8IIO J tIØI:) .(wed ____ "NMCI f>NINNV1d CJNY 0N't' 8UO pIIOO IIU ¡s x; ElNl.!.1f19NO::> ~ "M:In.L't'N :> JJ8IHX3 "1iIæJf"" :u.va .:>Nt 'S~ 0NV11V:>1OO1<XI3 0 ~ 0 '" ~ )f I 1 J U) 1,- 3; g J 0 I!h h g Cf) \ f Ilf ill ~ x I I ( II 0 0:: II Q. 0 ~ II õ····· i';~ .: . :!: . . ~ l:r:... . u!;. ~ . -:o~): 1;. c.. - :.:: ~ II:: ~ ~ ~ 5 ()gg 009 ~ - -.. l I I j ~ f ~ , I " ''" >1 r :1 ,"' II "\ '~ ,,' '.~ 1 ...... ····1 ~ . 2003 I~" , J ." i I' : , ' ,:! :' EXHIBIT E iT',\¡ ,j : ~ \ MAY -. 1 ¡ 1_....._-- .j:. ! ... . . I" I ,> . . , ," . ; ¡ .... ·¡:f.J¡" PROPOSED COMPRBENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE MINERAL RESOURCE LAND ZONING OVERLAY AT THE PENNY CREEK QUARRY a. Have· the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? JejJèrson County granted the current Mineral Resource Land zoning overlay to the Penny Creek Quarry, a family operated business, in 1997. At that time, the applicants' ownership was limited to the 19.34 acres west, and at.I ,additional 1.62 acres east, of Penny Creek Road. Since that County action, the Phillips family has acquired an additional 35.17 acres north of the current MRL area. The total common, contiguous family ownership is now approximately 56.13 acres. Thus, the change in circumstances is the shift in ownership of over 35 acres of land containing large volumes of commercially valuable mineral resources to owners and operators of a historic and viable surface mine operation on contiguous property. Because of the consolidation of land ownership, the potential has increased for a coordinated and unified mining planfor the entire ownership that will be both economically viable and at the same time environmentally sensitive. The previously discrete ownership presented a major obstacle to reaching that goal. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become avaUable that was not· considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? The assumptions supporting the JejJèrson County Comprehensive Plan remain valid regarding this application, and indeed, support the application as well. It is the intent of the MRL is to provide assurance to those lands that contain mineral resources of commercial significance which can be anticipated to be extracted within 20 years that mining and processing activities will be protected from conflicts by developing land uses in the vicinity. Approval of the MRL to approximately 35 acres of land with such mineral resources adjacent to an area already designated and operating as a surface mine will provide assurance that such resources will be available to support jùture development and road and structure maintenance activities in the County. Penny Creek Quarry MRL Expansion CP Amendment Application Exhibit E Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1. 2003 !i 11 \ I II ¡I ¡ J I \ I MAY - 1 2003 i !.j.11 ¡ --'J -~ ! I I : ',..-...- ............-....... I I n...~.. ..:.i~:::':··ì:'~:'.'" 'i: \¡' I I '\,I"~r""··~i","q' ',', , , I I, '" 'I,' , .! I v ' ! ;'.' ,.! ~ 1........111. I, I, I I c. How does the proposed amendment reftect current wßë~·"eld"valûeï 'öf"thë·-J residents of Jefferson County? While following the comprehensive plan amendment process, this application is for a mineral resource overlay zone. The overlay is intended to be temporary designation while the non-renewable resource is extracted and processed The site is located in a sparsely populated segment of the County adjacent to publicly owned lands. Access is via a countY road with a short distance toa state highway which reduces the impact on local roads. Applying the MRL overlay to property contiguous with a permitted, active mine would maintain the active mining in an area where such activities have been ongoing and is well suited d. Does the proposal meet the concurrency requirements for tnuuportation? The proposed quarry expansion that would follow approval of the MRL overlay on the subject 35 acres would continue operations at the present level of intensity. Because the mineral resources would not be extracted at an accelerated rate and crushing and processing would remain constant, there would be no increase in haul truck trajJic from the site. Therefore, the transportation concurrency requirements would be met. e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire Oow, and general governmental services)? Just as the MRL overlay and resulting mine expansion would not affect existing transportation facilities, it also would not adversely affect adopted levels of service for other county services. The MRL would not cause an increase in population or housing, and thus not stimulate the demand for law enforcement or emergency services, recreational facilities, general public administrative activities, and so on. f. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferso~ County Comprehensive Plan? The proposed MRL will help fulfill numerous goals an4 directives of the county comprehensive plan. Expansion of the Penny Creek Quarry MRL would maintain a natural resource based industry in a rural area, consistent with LNG 12. O. It would merely expand a permitted, active mine in an area where mining activities have been on- going, thus helping to better manage a mineral resource activity in area compatible with that type of land use per LNG 13. O. Cßtimately, the mining plan for the expansion area would follow LNP policies 13.1 through 13.4 by maintaining rural employment opportunities, by being designed to integrate with all regulations to ensure compatibility with managed habitat in the area, would comply with all applicable regulations to Penny Creek Quarry MRL Expansion ,.,.... .. __ __ ...1__ __..... .. ~_ t! _ _.....! _ ~_ y.,__t_ !t_!...a. ,., Ecological Land Services, Inc. ! ¡-';' ¡ : I Ii j d ;~,~! . l...._.._ .._.. : f):;" ",,:.i;:r.~~:;\,..' ,',:". :...." (..:- protect environmental values and surrounding land uses, and wouiiâisô'be :destinedÚ/' be compatible with neighboring resource management activities. ¡ III MAY - 1 2003 ! ;!) .J .. .:.'iJ The subject property is located in a rural area which exhibits a wealth of natural resources. Expansion of the mine after the MRL overlay is granted would provide economic and employment opportunities consistent the rural nature of the area, thus contributing to the fulfillment of LNG 24.0, and policies 24.1 and24.2 Because of the vast quantity of commercially valuable mineral resources available on the site, the MRL overlay would help the county to fulfill NRP 1.0 by recognizing the Penny Creek Quarry mineral resources and protecting the associated extraction and processing activities from potential future conflicts caused by development in the vicinity. Recognizing that the mine plan for the expansion area must be consistent with all county and state mining regulations and approved by both the county and several state agencies, it would be consistent with policies NRP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.8. It would also help to fulfill Goal NRG 2.0. Following the process and standards for mining in the JejJèrson County Unified Development Code would lead to expanded mining operations consistent with policies NRP 2.1 through 2.4. Granting the MRL overlay would also help to fulfill Goal NRG 6.0 by recognizing the existence of the Penny Creek Quarry resources by protecting them for long-term economic use. The large deposit is of a quality that meets grade for road construction. The fact that mining has occurred for many years also attests to fact that it is within a quite reasonable distance to marlœt job sites. Penny Creek Road provides direct access to the current mine operations; State Route 101 is only % mile distant. Most of the adjacent land is publicly owned forest land, and other tracts are used for scattered rural residential purposes which present little in the way of incompatibility. Noise from current operations has not been mentioned by neighbors as a problem and expansion of mining activities subsequent to MRL approval is expected to generate a comparable level of noise. Blasting in the expansion area is anticipated to be necessary but infrequent, similar to the eXisting operations; the site is suflìciently distant to not be an i"itant to developed neighboring properties, and will not ajJèct the forestry uses to the north and west. Penny Creek Road provides direct access to the existing mine and will continue to be the access .to the expansion area. SR 101, the primary arterial serving the Eastern Peninsula, is approximately ~ mile distant and would be the main route for haul truck traffic thus sensitive residential neighborhoods would not be adversely affected by large volumes of haul truck trafflc. While mining and processing activity in the current MRL area and the expansion area is visible from Penny Creek Road and the surrounding properties, there is little development in the vicinity such that a significant number of people would not be affected Further, as mining progresses, sequential reclamation will be conducted There are no water resources-streams or wetlands-on site to be - affected. Slopes on the subject MRL expansion area are steep, but mining will be conducted in lifts to avoid triggering slides with adverse affects. While the Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species maps show the subject property as being within or in the vicinity of certain species habitat or management areas, a site Penny Creek Quarry :MRL Expansion CP Amendment Application Exhibit E Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 Page 3 d ilL;:V-,.I,.:;; J?\ ~\.'.;::, ..',~' ',:: '::. ,.,:; '.:',. ?c:-·· -:;J specific evaluation indicates that mining will not adversely affect any of the identifiedfish or wildlife species. And, mining of the site after the MRL is approved would have no effict on flooding. Goal NRG 7.0 and the supporting policies call for the provision of mitigation for impacts related to mining and processing. While this application is only for a MRL zoning overlay, subsequent expansion of the Penny Creek Quarry will require Jefferson County environmental review and permit approval. A prerequisite of such approval will be a mine plan designed to comply with county regulations and performance standards, and which follows the usual sequencing when potential adverse impacts appear likely: avoidance, reduction, mitigation. Goal NRG 8.0 and supporting polices require that county mineral resource lands are appropriately reclaimed with functions of the landscape restored from the activities of mining. This directive will be 'accomplished through the county's review of the mining permit application and environmental analysis. It is important to note that the proposed mine expansion plan and reclamation plan must be approved not only by Jefferson County, but also by the Washington Department of Natural· Resources which requires sequential reclamation by rule to ensure that the effects of mining are limited and the land is restored as mining progresses, and a substantial bond to ensure that the work is performed This dual review will ensure that the site is reclaimed after mining is completed Goal NRG 9.0 and supporting policies call for mining activities to include the preservation of water resources, both surface and groundwater. This directive will be fulftlled via a mining plan designed to meet both county and state standards. Approval of the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area either will immediately be consistent with and fulfill the goals of the comprehensive plan, or will do so through a mining and reclamation plan designed to meet all county and state performance standards, and where adverse environmental impacts are apparent, include appropriate mitigation measures. g. Will the proposal result in probable significant advene impacts to the county's transportation network, capital faclliti~, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? While approval of the MRL overlay will lead to expanded mining at the Penny Creek Quarry, it will not increase any demand for county services. Expanded mining will not be at a rate or intensity greater than the current levels. TrafJic generated from the expanded mine will be consistent with current rates. There will be no need for public capital facility expansion to serve the additional mine area. And, the final mining plan will be required to be based on a reclamation plan that restores the site to a condition comparable to that existing. Penny Creek Quarry MRL Expansion CP Amendment Application Exhibit E Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1,2003 Page 4 U UI MAY - 1 2003 I L_._... .,. ... "..0", ,!VJI i I r . , ; .. h. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? The proposed MRL overlay is intended to only to expanded mining at the Penny Creek Quarry. No services are presently delivered and none are planned or needed for the expansion. i. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to the following: (i) Access; (ü) Provision of utilities; and (ill) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? Approval of the MRL overlay (and ultimately the expanded mining operation) is an appropriate action for the County and the subject property. Mining has been approved and ongoing on adjacent properties. Penny Creek Road provides direct access to the subject property through the existing mine. No transportation improvements will be required to access the MRL expansion area, and because expanded mining will occur at the present level of intensity resulting in no increase in haul truck or employee trafflc, no transportation improvements are necessary to accommodate the expansion. Because there is no development associated with the proposal, utilities are not required Water and sanitary facilities at the existing mine would continue to adequately serve employees in the expansion area. The subject property is bounded to the north and west by state owned forest land that has been partially logged in the last two years. Forestry is perhaps the most appropriate land use to be located adjacent to a surface mine because of the sheer lack of population potentially affected by mine operations. Otherwise, the neighboring land uses are sparsely developed rural residential activities distal to the subject site. j. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? H the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interest of the county as a whole? Expanding the MRL designation to the entirety of the Phillips' Penny Creek Quarry ownership is not expected to create or increase pressure to change the land use designations of other properties in the vicinity. Planned uses to the north and west bordering the subject property are for continued forestry. The MRL overlay already exists to the south of the subject property and mining has been ongoing on that site for - several years. The only known request for amendment in the vicinity is this application. Penny Creek Quarry MRL Expansion CPAmendment Application Exhibit E Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 Page 5 k. ;' , I: j HAY - 1 2003 : ¡: ! II :U :,1.1 M ")¡ ~ . .:1;;,.,1 L_..",._ ". J I .".. . . . " ... ! j":,''' ,. ',;'" ........... ; ! ì t .'.' , ... J' ... , ,....: ..-.'. ' .' ,·oc . ... J . ," ."' ", .. .'....... I, Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed MRL overlay will not have any effect on the land use or population forecasts of the comprehensive plan. The goal of the applicants is only to provide sand and aggregate materials to the construction industry. In essence, Penny Creek Quarry does not create a market which would attract grqwth and development-it merely supplies the demand that is otherwise evident. . I. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? The proposed rezoned is not within a UGA. m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the. Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A.RCW), the Countv Wide Planninsr PoUev for Jèfferson Countv.. and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local state or federal laws? The Growth Management Act calls for counties to designate mineral resources lands (in addition to timber and agricultural resource lands) of long-term commercial significance as a means of providing for their on-going economic viability. Because the subject property exhibits the characteristics required by UDC 3.6.3, granting the MRL overlay to the Penny Creek Quarry expansion area would be consistent with this aspect of the GMA. The only countywide planning policy applicable to this application is the policy regarding resource lands stating that urban growth areas should be separated by rural or resource lands, topographic features and open space. The subject property is far separated from the nearest urban growth area or urban village, and because of that distance while not helping to define an urban area, certainly meets the criteria of not being within such boundary, and is thus consistent. Because the site is exclusively within the land use regulatory jurisdiction of Jefferson County, there are no inter-jurisdictional policies or· agreements applicable to this proposal. Designating the subject property with the MRL overlay would have no effect on other local, state or federal regulations. Mining the property subsequent to the MRL designation will be required to be permitted by both the county and state· agencies responsible for mining and reclamation, water quality, air quality, land use compatibility and other environmental considerations. Because of the characteristics of the subject property and its secluded location, the mining plan is antjcipated to be capable of meeting all state and local standards. Penny Creek Quarry MR.L Expansion CP Amendment Application Exhibit E Ecological Land Services, Inc. May I, 2003 Page 6 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENt . . ;j ". . --.......-. ._', .. .., . . !. . '. ¡ Î '; .ll MAY - J æœ : ¡ I . !; ~ 621 Sheridan Street . Port Townsend . Washington 98368 3601379-4450 . 8001831-2678 . 3601379-4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopment L-. !.~...::,-~:_::..:;.,-:"".__"_. ,. ,J ~ L":. ~ ¡ ¡',,: ¡~. :. . : ,. " ~. !:. ~ . , . ...", .~. .: . '. . ~.';., '';\!"(_J Master Land Use Permit Application Checklist This packet contains materials to help you make application for permits and approvals under the Unified Development Code. The list below detaiIa those documents that constitute a complete application. Ves No 19"" 0 8" 0 Gr'"o o 0 ^^ ~o o 0 o 0 Gr 0 NlA o Pre-Appllcatlon Conference held. If the project application is made for a Type U or Type III permit or a Type I appUcation proposing ånpervlous surfaces of ten thousand (10.000) IqtI8Ie feet or men and/or non-eingIe family structures of five thousand (6,000) square feet or more a cont'entnce. is I8qIired. 0IheIwise. this does not apply. A completed Master Land Use Pennlt Application Fonn (aUached) ThIs application must be signed by the property owner(s) and the agent, If an authorized agent Is designated. The applicable fee. as set forth In the Jetfer80n County Fee OrdInance (see aUached). A Site Plan. AI aite plans 8haII be drawn with a straight edge and feabns 8haII be to scale. For ResIdentIal ADDIIcatlons - A aite plan printed on 11"x11" (or 11118I81) paper wIIh a graphic scale of 1"-50' for pacœIs over one acre In .... and 1"-26' for parœI$ under one acre showing the following. o North InWI o Title block wIIh the project name end adcnss. drawing title. tax perœI number. .. the narneI8ddNssIph of the perion preparing the drawing. o All PfO )8I1y boundaries, total parcel8CI88ge or square footage cIinensionI, and the land use on actoInInG pen»I8 o Bulldq fooIprint and 1qU818 footage for .. propoeed and exiItIng IIrucIIRI (for" Plan AppRMI Advanœ DeC8rmInatIon (SPAAD) applications show buildable .....1'IIher building footprfnQ o EnvfronmentJIIy I8ßIIIiVe ..... such II ravInII. MIIOn8I cneb. badIII CIf..... ......... .......... etc. o 0rHIt lepticayltem lOcatIon or sewerlinll (existing or propoeed) o WelIocaUon or __.... o ImperviouI ~ such II driveways or patios o Setback dist8nœI from property boundaIIes to structuIea, diItance between IIn.IcIIna, and distance from struc:IIns to environmentaliy sensIIve ..... such .. .........1hoMIneI. *'P ....... etc. o Location of any .......... and encumbranceI such .. utIII;y or 8CCIN ......... o MeIhod and location of stormwater diIpoaaI fact11f1111UCh .. cbInage ....... tIghtInes, dry wells, curtain drains, . o For~ on marine or river shorelines ahow onInaIy high water milk, tGp fA.... and height d....· - - For Commercial. industrial. MultifamilY and SmalI-eca1e ~ and Tourist Uaee.. .....In Table 3-1 - A site plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer, ard1ite!d. or I81dacape anMect c:ontaInfng the following Information In addIUon to the general information requk'ed above (In these Inatances. ... pIanI may be pIInted on IIIIger paper). o AI exIIting and propoeed development or use..... o ExIstIng 8Iruc:Iunts end IignIicant features on the IUbject property and on acteœnt prop8fIiIa. o propelty..... actoIniv ........ and mrnedIafeIy adjoining properIIII and their ~ o The layout fA an IntemaI vehicular end pedestrian åIœIItion system, ~ IocaUon end dimenIIons of existinG and propoeed impnMmanIa on public righta-okvay such ..1OIds, ~ and curbI. o Comer gracIM and existing contows of topogr8phy at five.foot contour InIefvaIs. o ExiItIng and prapoeed grades and volume and dIIIpoeiIton of 8XC8VIdId mIIIIIIIII, IIPPIcatJIt o Natural draInIge chction and storm dfaInage fadIIIiM and Improvements. o LocatIonI of II exJstq and proposed utility connecIions o ParkIng.... and driveways. o Propoeed landscaping. o A Sta18 environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist (unless project is SEPA exempt) [9'"' EvIdence of available and adequate water auppIy. If applicable. as requInKI by the JdeI10n County Department of Health and the CoordInated Water System Plan. (B" EvIdence of ...... availability, eeptIc approval, or eeptIc auItabIIIty. If applicable. as required by the Jefferson County Department of Health for wastewater disposal. o Supplemental application aheeta. If applicable. MASTER LAHO USE PERMIT.DOC REV.07f.W20Q2 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Applieation No. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Zoning Overlay Expansion 2. Name of applicant: Gary and Mari Phillips, Kelly Phillips, Richard A. Maki, Jr., and Kristian N. Maki. 3. Address and telephone number of applicant and contact penon: Applicant: Gary Phillips Penny Creek Quarry 450 Penny Creek Road Quilcene, WA 98376 (360) 765-3413 Contact: Skip Urling Ecological Land Services, Inc. 1157 3rd Ave., Suite 220 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 ., ,', \ ¡ ': i ; : l ~ . ': ~ \ .. ; ¡ .:.t -..-........... 4. Date checklist prepared: :; '\. : . ~. . : ~,.; ¡ MAY - 1 2003 i ! April 30, 2003 l...,.. ,.. !io' s. Agency requiring checklist: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 6. Proposed timing or schedule (iDCluding phasing, if applicable): Expansion of the MRL overlay is requested as part of the Comprehensive Plan 2003 annual review cycle. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Following approval of the MRL overlay expansion, applications will be submitted to the county and the Department of Natural Resources for mining and reclamation permits. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. DNR Mining and Reclamation Plan. DOE Sand and Gravel General Permit Application. State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Services Priority Habitats and Species data searck U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services data search regarding ESA-protected species. NOAA Fisheries on-line data search regarding ESA-protected species. DNR National Heritage Information System data search for rare plants or high quality ecosystems. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: None are known. 10. List any government approval or permits that will be needed for your proposal, ü known. · JejJèrson County ~ MRL Overlay, Type 1 Permit for mine expansion · Washington Department of Natural Resources - County or Municipality Approval For Surface Mining (Form SM-6) · Washington Department of Natural Resources - Surface Mining Reclamation Permit · Washington State Department of Ecology - Sand and Gravel General Permit (NP DES) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposaL You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Mari and Gary Phillips and their children propose to expand the MRL zoning overlay to 36.79 acres abutting the existing Penny Creek Quarry for which the MRL overlay was granted to 19.34 acres in 1997. Approval of the MRL expansion will result in- approximately 56 acres of common, contiguous property for which a comprehensive Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Exparision SEP A Checklist ;.' . ¡i¡' , Page 21 :: ' \ ¡ ~ \!.,: ! i I _ Ecological Land Services, Inc. '; ¡j ,'r .. .. ~ril 30, 2003 '\ \ì , .i . .:~ . . . -_.... ,--~.~. .- "1 , I L. .' I ...1 :: ! ' I . I i ¡ I i MAY - 1 2003 , " mining and reclamation will be prepared. Current mining disturbance, including an existing quarry previously owned by Je.fjèrson County, encompasses approximately 9 acres. The project site currently contains portable rock-processing equipment that crushes and screens the aggregate to market specifications. No additional processing equipment or operational equipment is anticipated. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, ineluding a street address, if any, and section, township and range, ü known. If a proposal would oceur over a large area, provide the boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographie map, ü reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplieate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applieations related to this ehecklist. The Penny Creek Quarry is located at 450 Penny Creek Road, in the Southeast ~ of Section 22, Township 27 North, Range 2 West, w.M., 1.5 miles southwest ofQuilcene. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a) General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steeD slODes, mountainous, other. The existing quarry and proposed expansion tracts are located in a hilly to relatively steep area with sharp drops in the active quarries. There are natural rock bluffs directly above the excavated rock face and across the Big Quilcene River to the southwest of the site. .., b) What is the measurement of the steepest slope on the site (approximate pereent slope)? . .~. ~ '. :!' ,~ ~ ¡ . i ., .. ¡;{~.¡ ! I " \ ¡U ÛL"Y - 1 2003 . \ , ,,' co, ,,/ ""'," ',:,'.,:, ;,'; The steepest natural slope on the site is above the actively mined quarry face: approximately 75%. Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 3 c) What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) "Soil Survey of Jeffèrson Count Area, Washington, 1975" identifies the surface soils as Olete-Hoodsport Complex (made up of about equal proportions of Olete very gravelly silt loam and Hoodsport very gravelly sandy loam) and Olete very gravelly silt loam. The Olete series consists of well-drained, very gravelly soils underlain by basalt bedrock at a depth of20 to 30 inches. d) Are there suñace indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No instability has been observed. Quarry expansion should reduce any potential for slope instability on the interior of the site by reducing existing slope grades as part of the mining plan and subsequent reclamation. Mining at this site will utilize the cut method with progressive benches laid back from the pit floor: no backfilling is proposed r .. ----...--, ~: .-- ~::- ..',::~::,'; . """"l : ~ . .'- ~~"I , The majority of the project site is shown as a moderate to slight designated landslide hazard area on Jeffèrson County Critical Areas overlay maps. ..,. .... j ~ 't,',~ . ,\ ;':: .-- , .' ':', ?¿:J"~"'~-" .-......" . .,.. '-) : .. '. '- ,. .' , c. . .'~:=:;:-::-.::::j ð : ,. í ''', (-:1 _--... ~.' ~:~-.;.::-:..:-:.--..- e) Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Subsequent to the MRL expansion, temporary removal and stockpiling of the soils and overburden overlying the marketable mineral resources will be required during mining operations. This stockpiled topsoil/overburden will then be replaced and regraded to the final contours according to the mine reclamation Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecologic1Ù Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 4 plan. These topsoil and overburden materials will be sequentially replaced as each segment of mining is completed. f) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur along the actively mined sections of the pit where cut slopes have not yet been reclaimed Erosion could also occur from the stockpiled overburden and topsoil until they are stabilized Reclamation will follow each mining segment in a contemporaneous manner minimizing any potential for erosion, and stockpiled materials will be surrounded stabilized with vegetation. g) About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious suñaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None. h) Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: All stormwater will be contained and infiltrated within the permit boundary. During reclamation of the site, stable slopes (no steeper than 2:1) will be regraded with drainage structures (vegetated swales and infiltration cells) designed to accommodate peak- prediction runoff and thereby reduce potential erosion. As the marketable resource material is exhausted in portions of the pit, these areas will be reclaimed while active mining moves to the next segment. This phased reclamation limits the amount of exposed surface material to the actively mined segment. Erosion from stockpiled overburden will controlled with typical measures such as silt fences or straw bales .. . ., .... \ !., , ¡ ;i t, ':- Ii .',< ¡' . ;: J ~.: f !1; ! i ! ~ . .. : " ;, '.. ;! MAY - 1 2003 I I I ¡ L...._.. . ,,"'. ... , '..: ':." Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 5 until vegetation can be established to stabilize the piles. 2. Air a) What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odon, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust will be generated from mining equipment, processing equipment, occasional blasting, loading and hauling of materials. Emissions and particulate levels are not expected to increase beyond what is currently generated by the mining operation. b) Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The quarry operation is currently registered with the Olympic Air Pollution Authority and has an approved air pollution control plan on file. Equipment will be kept well maintained and in good repair, with appropriate emission control systems. The site will be reclaimed in phases to limit the amount of exposed surface at any one time. The permitted mining operation will employ the Best Management Practices of the industry to control dust, including wetting the excavation and processing area, haul roads, and stock piles as needed Both existing portable rock crushers are in compliance with the requirements of the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority. . r: ........\ ; ::.~ ¡! ¡ . ¡ ! I : . , . ~; '. "~ ¡ -, ' ; 1'1 ,I,. ... H\<~ \ ¡d UL IIAY - 1 2003 , ¡ -~j~:T,;;'::;:";,'!:¡ ';.r"J LJ'(-" "N '.' .;¡~'~::. ': .. '1 1 . il !I I . I I I I I ¡' ! ..;, Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 6 3. Water a) 1) Suñace: Is there any suñace water body on or in ,. the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site is located on the slope north of the confluence of Penny Creek and the Big Quilcene River. The proposed mining disturbance boundary is at least 1000 feet from the river or the creek and is separated from them by either or both S.R. 101 (southeast) and Penny Creek Road (south). A small seep discharges from the southwest corner of the rock face of the existing quarry. Seepage in conjunction with stormwater is collected on the working pit floor and piped to a sedimentation pond Field observations (January, February and March 2003) estimate the flow between 0.5-2.0 gaVmin. No riparian areas or wetlands are located within the proposed MRL expansion area. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. . "'" : . f"~ ( , ;/ r'! i 1\, " l . ' _ ~', .'~ n ~ :/ ¡..... I!; , \ I . ! . , ; r:" :', k:: U ·.·1/ >_; ~ /. ..' ¡: ; ~. i:·: ., MAY - 1 2003 : . l_........ .. ," ~ '. . ,/ :., ~.. .j No. 3) Estimate the amount of fIll and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from suñace water or wetlands indicate the area of the site, which would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. ,': , None. Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30,2003 Page 7 4) WiD the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b) Ground: 1) WiD ground water be withdrawn, or wiD water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, aDd approximate quantities if known. No. Water to control dust will be hauled to the site. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. :r=--.' r.-, ! I( 'I :"> ¡ r<l{ r::' r" II:~., .i./' . ):.~ " --'-"'~"'-' {' I í ! ;;;.1 MAY - 1 2003 ., .J : i Not applicable. Penny Creek Quany Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 8 c) Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Although several recent field observations over a three-month period have not found evidence of stormwater runojJ; it is reasonable to expect that runoff may occur due to the nature of the soils and slopes on site. The mining and reclamation plan for the expanded quarry will include an infiltration drainage plan with vegetated swales and a settling pond constructed for the collection and treatment of stormwater. Mining will be conducted in segments and each segment constructed to contain all potential runoff from leaving the site. A small seep from the existing rock face is currently being collected on the quarry floor and piped to a constructed settling pond, which will be maintained throughout the life of the mine. 2) Could waste materials enter ground of suñace waters? If so, generally describe. " No. See below. ¡.., \ ,i l' ~.:;'~ [1 (.'~ tl .,:,¡' ~"~ '\:,,: : .::. . ~.~ ~_..' .... .." "... i \ \ d) Proposed measures to reduce or control suñace, ground and run-off water impacts, if any: : \ \ . ¡ i .. MAY - 1 2003 " ... .., . The mining and reclamation plan for the expanded quarry will comply with all applicable requirements of the State Water Quality Program Sand & Gravel General Permit, including a stormwater management and erosion control plan. A Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures Plan will be prepared and followed while operating at this site and Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 9 should prevent any accidental oil or fuel spills from reaching ground water. Potential run-off will be contained in settling ponds and infiltration swales in a drainage system designed to not appreciably alter the natural hydrologic conditions or balance of the site. 4. Plants a) List types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous trees: Red alder, vine maple. evergreen trees: second or third-growth Douglas-fir, western hemlock shrubs: Himalayan and trailing blackberry, vine maple, sword fern, salal, Oregon grape, rhododendron. grass: various species on recently disturbed areas. pasture: none. crop or grain: none. wet soil plants: none. water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: none. other types of vegetation: mosses, lichens. ; "".. ,;,'1 t f". \ ; ::; , :1,· I .., I ',." \ ¡ : I ,\t it! ~ : ,J ij i .., fr' f;;; ; ¡ , )'j ; . :; ¡, . \.) ¡:"'i.._.::.!,......:--;¡ I :! b) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? MAY - 1 2003 L....._.. ,,__ .,...... j - .' I. ... .,::.\.... ,"! 'I' : ~ . \" ., No vegetation will be removed as part of the MRL overlay action. Approximately 40 acres of forest vegetation will be removed within the 56 acres of Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 10 mmmg area under Phillips family ownership. Approximately 15 acres to the north of the previously mined area has recently been clear-cut. (FP AIN # 2605231). Removal of the timber and understory and subsequent reforestation will occur in phases as mining progresses according to a segmented mining and sequential reclamation plan. c) List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. A data search of DNR 's National Heritage Information System resulted in no record for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in the vicinity of the project. d) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, ü any: Following the reclamation requirements of RCW 78.44, all topsoil and overburden in the proposed mine expansion area will be salvaged, stockpiled, and used to revegetate reclaimed segments of the mine site. The subsequent use of the site will be rural residential consistent with current or future zoning and reclamation will focus on the planting of native tree and grass species. s. Animals a) List any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site, or are known to be on or near the site: birds: songbirds, crows, raptors, woodpeckers, jays. mammals: deer, rodents, rabbits, raccoons, opossum f"lSh: none -, Ii', ; ," ", ¡ ¡ .. ~:' ~, ;. .~;: '.. . " ..'~ I '\ \\ \ MAY" 1 2003 L h.ì.\ L_... ~ ¡ " .¡ , . t, , :, ì I . j J~. t .' .....'.. , L. !., " ,~ Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 11 b) List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Services Data Search Regarding Habitats and Species, and U.S. Fish and Wildlifè Services Data Search Regarding Endangered Species were searched These reports concur that no breeding, spawning, foraging or nesting of Endangered or Threatened Species has been recorded on the project site. The nearest Priority Anadromous/Resident Fish Presence has been recorded in the Big Quilcene River, approximately 1,000 feet south of the subject property boundary at its nearest point. Other Priority and State-monitored species (Harlequin ducks, ospreys and bald eagles) utilize Penny Creek and the Big Quilcene River riparian areas for breeding, nesting, and foraging. A single osprey nest, located downstream of the mine site, is "well outside" the WDFW- recommended 660 feet buffer. The closest eagle roosting area is reported as being ~ mile from the project site, and the closest bald eagle nest is approximately t mile from the site (WDFW). "It appears from the site plan that all recommended buffers will be met for Harlequin ducks therefore it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant impact on this species" (WDFW). The subject property is 1.5 miles from any active spotted owl or marbled murrelet nest. The site is within two established spotted owl management circles. U.S. Fish and Wildlifè Service reports that "critical habitat" for the marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl "has been designated within the vicinity of the project." A WDFW Data Analyst has suggested that much of the area within the WDFW Spotted Owl Management Circle Established Territory is not spotted owl habitat and that the project may not result in any habitat loss. (Ann Potter, pers. comm.). ! '" ti. ,'" d ., ¡. ; ~ .. ¡. :,'< I . .I'! "i II,] ji ! ¡ ......." ··M'. t ~ MAY - 1 2003 L.._... j I l..tl:" ,:" . ~.. ..". 1"_' ,. .. '.:' . .', ;,'1 j "I' . ; . .~ '," Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 12 c) Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. Pacific Flyway. d) Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The zoningfor this site is Rural Residential 1:5 and 1: 20. Vegetation and landscape management of rural home sites tends to promote wildlife use by species that benefit from the edge effect of open space adjacent to woodlands. The reclamation plan will provide for sequential revegetation of each mined segment with native tree species and/or pasture grasses, depending on soils, slopes, and plans for subsequent development as home sites. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a) What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity from an enclosed on-site generator is used to power the operational equipment such as the jaw crusher and screening equipment. Diesel-fueled trucks and loading equipment are also utilized b) Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. . . :.: ',! ;..... II::'! I... . ) '.'.; i) :. liì; .1 I! iU W I .", ·_·...h_._.~.. MAY - 1 2003 .!.r;:....:L..-. ..)~~:·~r..~·;·,~...;: .;:, ··'f.·J . . .. i '1 ~ '~. , . .: I , '. i , ... I ., I -' Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 13 c) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 7. Environmental Health a) Are there any environmental health hazards, including· exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? H so, describe: Explosives will be used occasionally to fracture the rock formation as part of the excavation process. Generator and loading equipment are refueled on onsite from a mobile 1000 gallon. fuel truck. There are no fuel tanks on site. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards: Best management practices will be employed on the site to reduce the potential for accidental fuel or oil spills from occurring during equipment refueling. BMPs will also be used to quickly and completely clean up any spills consistent with the spill prevention countermeasure and control plan and remove soil or other spilled-on material to an approved disposal site. All blasting will be conducted by a licensed blasting contractor who will be responsible for compliance with the Department of Labor and Industry's "Safety ..~ . w", ·1.··..··... ('," I ~ \ . ;.-.. I.':~ Ii : ,. ::': \!;: I';. i1 " ,.1. .,.- .', : ..,! r -_. "... ... ¡ ¡.-,\ ; ¡ I .;¡ iJ U~AY -1 2003 " - ----,-...--....... ... ..J JEF::FPt.:W,;1 Cí If,r:)' L.~rflr :.;( {::. , , '!',Y.: t. .'.' ., ; . .: ! i , , , I ; . '...J Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 14 Standards for the. Possession and Handling of Explosives" (Chapter 296-52 WAC). b) Noise 1) What types and levels of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are no noises in the vicinity that affect the existing mining operations or could affect those proposed in the expansion area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term. or a long-term. basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Mine operation equipment, specifically wheel loaders, excavators, trucks, crushing and screening equipment are currently active during daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday). No change in operating hours is proposed Occasional drilling and blast events, supervised by a licensed blasting contractor, can also be expected based on market demand and volumes being excavated. Blasting has historically been conducted two to three times per year. County notification procedures for surrounding property owners will be followed prior to any scheduled blast. ., 1 ¡" '. 'j : ~ . I,. . ii ...............' .. '1 ; .....'- , . 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts if any: ~ \ . i i.~ -.. , MAY - 1 2003 L.. ___. . ....... .>^ .. I . . , -.I ,,' ,,'.' I 'i ,'..' '.', . "!.. Mining as proposed for this site will create a "box" cut surrounding the benched working face that will attenuate noise impacts. The noise-mujJling effect will increase with the sequentially reclaimed mined topography and the distance of the operations from the Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 15 scattered residences in the vicinity. All equipment, including the loaders, excavators, and haulers, are . outfitted with mufflers that will be 1œpt in good operating condition. Blasting will be 1œpt to minimum, with the majority of the rock material capable of being extracted with mechanical ripping (two to three blast events per year anticipated). 8. Land and Shoreline Use a) What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Mining, timber-production, and low-density rural residential. b) Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: No, c) Describe any structures on the site. Scale shack, metal pole building. d) Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not until completion of mining. e) What is the current zoning classification of the site? Rural Residential 1:5 and 1:20 t) What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural Residential ¡ ¡... ...... \ :.-~, \:" ,.~ ;1 . ~ i -. . . i···· ./ I ,.,\: ! tJI ¡ \ \ MAY - 1 2003 I' ~! , : 1 L.__ I .,; ~~ ".: ~ r· ,; Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 16 g) If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h) Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Geologic Hazard Area. i) Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Typically during active mining phases, and dependent on market demand, 1-4 people would be expected to be working on-site during normal operating hours. j) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: ; [)h¡;~: 1(·; I:"~ d '," :¡ 'I ,.. '\ \ , I ! ;; I IU U\ MAY - 1 2003 I ' I L_____ ¡ '1'" ~ r.; ¡ ';. '., >Ì :' - .' . . ,I, ..j The processing area for the existing and proposed mine expansion area will remain at the current location and is expected to operate at current levels. Mining in the expansion area will be conducted according to a mining and reclamation plan prepared to county and state performance standards and specifications. . , Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 17 9. Housing a) Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high-, middle-, or low- income housing. None. b) Approximately how many units would be eliminated, if any? Indicate whether high-, middle-, or low- income housing. None. c) Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a) What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The portable rock crushers and screening equipment are the tallest (approximately 20' high) structures on site. b) What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c) Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: A mining and reclamation plan approved by the county and WDNR will be followed to sequentially mine and restore the current MRL designated area and the expansion area... The reclamation plan will include a l ij' f::~ ~,í.. ...~; . ;' ¡ 'j i ~.-. ~:'_7 ~1~,~ . ~ :,,~} f"' , .'. ....- .~ _-..... ...... .... il·,·, ,\ I , ¡ \ \" \ MAY - 1 2003 \- .-¡ i L..,-.. r' i ',: -ì I ': i ~ ¡ ! \ ~ . f i ì . ~, , ~ : I' '",~' ¡' .. I' Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 18 design to restore the aesthetics of the site. features include sinuous slopes with topographic relief.. These varied 11. Light and Glare a) What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No lighting is proposed in the expansion area as operations occur primarily during daylight hours. b) Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or inteñere with views? No. c) What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d) Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a) What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? , ,. 'j . . '. ;. ~ .. . -.-.. ." ..ft_ .... _ ... ..... ì ¡ f ~ None. ,\ ! '¡ .; ~ ....~ . MAY - 1 2003 { J b) Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. , . ~ : ' No. Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 19 c) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, ü any: None. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation a) Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? H so, generally describe. None are known. b) Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known. c) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, ü any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a) Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on-site plans, if any. The site is located Penny Creek Road 0.5 miles southwest of the intersection of State Route. 101. Penny Creek Road is an asphalted county road that has been used by haul trucks from the existing quarry for a number of years. I'" it .....) ;1 . "'.""," -... f i! '\ "; 1 i ' ,; '.;,: MAY - 1 2003 ..-..... ... b) Is site currently served by public transit? No. Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 20 If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Quilcene, WA: 1% miles. c) How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The mine does not have formal parking spaces. d) Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e) Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f) How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Based on present levels of operation, haul truc/cs leave the site between 0 and 15 times per day. Because of the constraints and un predictability of market demand, traffic generation will vary over the life of the mine. g) Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Because mining at the current site and expansion area is expected to continue at present levels, traffic is not anticipated to increase and the level of service of the local and regional transportation facilities will not be "-. !\. ; ....., ' . i \' : . '"' ~ , \ . . "'I t: ~ , . . ........-............ , .,\ i: MAY - 1 2003 ¡ ~ \ : I .! I :: ¡ ;; \ , .: \' .,'¡ , ..,j ¡ ,...\! .... . ......-. ..' ...' ",;::' .. ,.' ",':. j '¡. : ~. ,', : . 't···· " Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 21 affected. No measures to reduce or control transportation impacts are necessary. 15. Public Services a) Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b) Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. Utilities a) Utilities currently available at the site: Electricity and telephone. b) Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. ,. .. Since the existing equipment powered by the on-site generator is expected to continue to meet the needs of the surface mine, no utilities are proposed for this project. ¡ ; .. ,', , . ..... MAY - 1 2003 i_. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion SEP A Checklist Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 30, 2003 Page 22 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; productions, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal is ultimately for an expansion of an existing quarry (to approximately 56 acres) and initially for a Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) Overlay Designation for 8 parcels now designated Rural Residential. The requested overlay would add approximately 33. 79 acres of MRL designation to 19.34 acres already designated MRL. The extension of the life of the quarry operation via an expanded MRL . .. - . . ......... ......" .' ....".. . ., ., rfr ", - 'r¡,~ C'." rr'~ ij \' 1 ¡¡.~ \ "J?verlay has the potential to produce on-going impacts to air quality \ n~ . .l,;~ b .I~:,_",~.._~ í' \ ough th. e generation of dust, impacts related to noise from rock \ Ì\ \ . I. j! rushing and blasting, and impacts to the associated critical aquifer ! Ü h \ MAY - 1 ZOO3 !, ! : " ) charge area from possible oil or fuel spills. None of these impacts is I L ",,: ";,__',, :e:, : ;èï\ "J lœ/y to increase beyo11d present levels. ! r,-:':' '.:'."'. U.:C· . :";...- e existing quarry does not discharge runoff to surface waters or store or release hazardous substances. All seepage is currently diverted to a constructed settling pond. No toxic or hazardous substances are stored on site. No change infuel storage needs is anticipated Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Dust impact will continue to be mitigated with the application of water to the active mining area and to dust-producing equipment, as needed The mine operators have registered the current operation with the Olympic Air Pollution Authority and are monitored by that agency. Noise impacts will be mitigated by reliance on a licensed blasting contractor to oversee all blasting events and to be responsible for the handling and management of explosives according to state law. No explosives are or will be stored on site. Blasting is anticipated to occur only 2-3 times per year. County notification procedures for affected property owners will be followed prior to all scheduled blasts. 2. , '''':~ ç ~....:':. ......: .~:.:. '. ,,~~ ". \ "~:'':'':/'"'~''''' ~ .' 'I .:::., :.... I ,::t::~::/:' ,I & "") ..'~> ,,~, ~ .,' '~:~.;~,; ..... /YjP" ... ¡"r: t:'-- , 1.....1.. .. "~~' ~ ¡..,:;,;:~."- "or', ~ ,i/," ..~ ~~~~J~} . ........... " "~ ..... Impacts related to critical aquifer recharge will be mitigated by compliance with ground water protection best management practices found in the mining and quarrying performance standards contained in Sections 4 & 6 of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fISh or marine life? Mining by its nature affects plant and animal life. Vegetation will be removed and soils will be stripped and stockpiled The effects of operations at the Penny Creek Quarry, however, will be minimized by the location of the site and the nature of previous disturbances (logging, mining and road-building) that have already limited the site's value 'as wildlife habitat. There is no old growth forest remaining within the proposed project boundaries, or anywhere adjacent. Most of the forested areas on-site are Douglas-flr stands ranging in age from 8-40 years. There are no wetlands or riparian areas within the proposed project boundaries. The nearest water body is the Big Quilcene River, which is approximately 1000 feet from the nearest boundary. Penny Creek is no closer than 1300 feet. The project does not infringe on any shoreline or wildlife management buffers established along riparian co"idors. Please see the fish and wildlife impacts analysis attached to the application. Proposed measure to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: A mine rec/amation plan, approved by the county and the Department of Natural Resources, will establish the post-mining site design and the methods for achieving the post-mining land-use goal (Rural Residential). In the on-going process of reclaiming the site, wildlife habitat will be rehabilitated with replacement of soils and revegetation. Regrading the site will establish topography that blends with adjacent contours and minimizes potential for erosion. Revegetation with native trees and grasses according to this plan will stabilize slopes and ultimately improve the site's habitat value. The mine reclamation plan includes a stormwater control and drainage design to prevent unfiltered runoff from reaching surface or groundwater. Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion Ecological Land Services, Inc. SEP A Supplemental Checklist April 30, 2003 Page 2 This system will be designed to keep all stormwater runoff on site: it will be directed to constructed infiltration swales or sedimentation ponds. In conjunction with the best management practice provisions of an NDPES water quality permit issued by the Department of Ecology, the mine reclamation plan will protect fish and wildlife from the impacts of uncontrolled runoff. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? '" Since mineral resources are non-renewable, the mining proposal will inevitably deplete these resources. Other natural resources, such as timber and wildlife habitat, can be renewed and enhanced through implementation of a site-appropriate reclamation plan. . , >'~~ ~~sy:~~\\ " ~:::m;::oo:;,f~W¡I~ :n::;::de:,~ ~:J':~~:X:r:;"~~"':!, .~ ~.'~' ., V .> ).':',/ mazntazn operations. ~;1? ':. ;' "\ /~>\ ·s \. ,::' ;:.\. ,- «':" ,J. ) 0, ~~ .... ,.J ,. ~'~:::5~, ~;::.> <~~ vT~;.· " , :. , "',.:' , '.. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Sequential reclamation of the site according to a county and state- approved mine reclamation plan. '.' 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposal will utilize, but is not likely to adversely affect, areas that have been designated environmentally sensitive by Jefferson County. Potential impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge area will be minimized by compliance with a NPDES Sand and Gravel General Permit) and by the use of a Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures Plan in the event of accidental fuel or oil spills. Potential impacts to Geologic Hazard Areas will be minimized by the reduction of existing slope grades as part of the mining and reclamation plan. The cut method of mining will result in progressive benching laid back from the quarry floor; benched slopes will be re-graded into the surrounding topography at no steeper than 2:1. Reclamation will be accomplished in phases as mining progresses and will result in less exposed surface area at anyone time. Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion Ecological Land Services, Inc. SEP A Supplemental Checklist April 30, 2003 Page 3 r' . '.::::::-.=---'-'-. ...) . .....ø.· .""', . : ~..-._........ . ....-....--.-- .'.~. -_..,.._~. ."- . . . !"':' :.-' '.-:...... : >~~: ¡ ~ F" . ¡r.:.:= '; ...~..). . r. r. r' :,...., : ,~-': ¡ i(;~·::::!· < J'. ["f. ; it:: í ........... .' ;C~~~.~[~~~~...:~ '" .- y::. 5. .> Sequential revegetation of mined segments will help stabilize slopes and prevent erosion. Note: a Mineral Resource Lands overlay on 20 adjacent acres with the same critical areas' designation was granted by the County in 1997 (ZON96-0042). There are no other areas on the subject property that have been established as environmentally sensitive or designated for government protection. Habitat for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet has not been established for the area within the proposed boundaries. The nearest active nest site recorded for either species is one and one-half miles from the project boundary. The Department of Natural Resources recently (April 2, 2003) issued a Forest Practices approval for timber harvest on 15 acres within the subject property. The absence of old growth forest habitat and continued logging,. plus the County land-use designation of Rural Residential, would seem to ma/œ the project site not prefirred for either species. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Sequential reclamation of the site according to a state-approved and county-reviewed mine reclamation plan, which will establish controls for stormwater runoff and will minimize erosion. The mine plan and operations will comply with the mining and quarrying performance standards for ground water protection best management practices pertaining to operation, closure and crushing contained in Sections 4 and 6 of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed project boundaries are outside of the floodplain and more than 200 fiet distant from the Big Quilcene River, and therefore outside of any shoreline designation. The Jefferson County land-use and zoning designation for this property is Rural Residential, 1:5 and 1:20. Post-mining reclamation of this site can be easily designed to accommodate a subsequent use as rural home sites. The establishment of gradual (no steeper than 3:1) slopes and grading of the reclaimed areas to blend with the contours of the surrounding Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion Ecological Land Services, Inc. SEP A Supplemental Checklist April 30, 2003 Page 4 topography will provide erosion control and minimize landslide hazards. Phased post-mining revegetation with native species will provide additional stability and aesthetics and further encourage the proposed land use. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Access to the quarry is via Penny Creek Road. Traffic from the site is currently in the range of 0-15 trips per day, depending on varying market demand for the rock resource. This traffic level is not expected to increase as mine operations continue into the proposed expanded MRL. There is currently no demand for public services or utilities generated by the mining operation. This is not expected to change while the site is utilizedfor mining. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not applicable 7. Identify, ü possible, whether the proposal may conf1ict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. For the reasons previously stated, the proposed Mineral Resource Lands Overlay Designation is not in conflict with any known local, state or federal laws or environmental-protection requirements I .. :; ..\'.' . . '"! ;.':.~ 1,: \.i/ :'~. ¡ ¡"',.'~ . ._--~-_:.... ¡I ¡ I I ¡! J ¡ MAY - 1 2003 .! ¿;.J/ I ::: .... 1.......· ._......!~ "c~::)':>;'-:;:"-~;Ñï\:-1 ,'!l Y ~_:~·\,T.i(:'t ~::'i'I'" ..-. .' "J Penny Creek Quarry Mineral Resource Lands Expansion Ecological Land Services, Inc. SEP A Supplemental Checklist April 30, 2003 Page 5 1 ¡ ~~~ r ,.. . "'":~_:~-";::lll I !~ Ul MAY - 1 2003 ;1')/ ! ; ,.-/ Ii --'-. .-....-.-..... ..J JE~:t.~),~ :.~ Ct·~.·I· ;'Y Penny Creek Quarry .?~pr l,jt= r;c·· 'j, I·j'·' '. ·"_'JH.· ::rr Mineral Resource Lands District Overlay Expansion Application' . UDC Section 3.6.3 Criteria Marl and Gary Phillips are owners of the existing Penny Creek Quarry located at 450 Penny Creek Road in Quilcene. The existing quarry covers two parcels-702224002 and 702224006--totaling 19.34 acres and was granted the designation of "mineral lands of long term significance" February 10, 1997. See File ZON96-0042. The Phillips and their children, who collectively own the property adjacent to the existing MRL overlay, wish to expand the family operated quarry and request that Jefferson County designate the "Mineral Resource Land Overlay District" to the adjacent contiguous 35.17 acres of ownership. Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial significance are those lands from which the commercial extraction of minerals (sand, gravel, rock and other valuable aggregate or metallic substances) can be anticipated within 20 years and which are characterized by six criteria. The designation criteria from Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) are presented below followed by a demonstration that the request is consistent with those criteria. . UDC 3.6.3 a. Have a known or potential extractllble resource in commercial qlUl1ltities verijied by submittal of a geologic and economic report prepared by a qualified professional The subject 35.17 acres has a substantially volume of high quality mineral resources in commercially viable quantities. Please see the attached report for a detailed analysis. UDC 3.6.3 b. The parcel is a minimum often (10) acres in size. The area requested for the zoning overlay consists of 37.79 acres (parcels 702224023, 702224024,702224025,70222426,70222403, 702224011, 702224012, and 702224010) in Section 22, 127N, R2W, WM, the Phillips own adjacent to the current permit area. It is important to note that Parcel 702224010 was until recently a surface min~ owned and operated by Jefferson County, and recently granted "grandfather" as a nonconforming use with rights to continue mining. The total contiguous, common family ownership is greater than the 1 o acre minimum for the overlay and satisfies the intent of this criterion. UDC 3.6.3 c. The subject property is surrounded by parcels no smaller than fIVe (5) acres in size on 100% of its perimeter. To the south of the subject property is the existing quarry which consists of a 9.34 acre parcel and a 10.00 acre parcel. To the west and northwest is Parcel 702221001, (229.97 acres) owned by the State of Washington. The state also owns the quarter-section (160 acres) Parcel 702221002, to the north the subject property. State Route 101 abuts the property on the east. ThUs, the request meets the requirements of this criterion. ! IJ ,\ I !i iJ: MAY - 1 2003 ¡ "'1 · Ld.... . · .... . , ;" ,', · . . UDC 3.6.3 d. The current or future land use designations will not eXCeed a reside"tial density of one dwelling unit per fwe acres. The "Quilcene Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations" map shows the subject property as RR 1 :20 and RR 1 :5. The proposal complies with this criterion. UDC 3.6.3. e. Are not within any shoreline designation or Rural Village Center or within one-half müe of any esttlblished or potential Urban Growth Area or Rural Village Center bOUlldary, as shown on the OffICÙlI Maps of the Comprehensiw! Pill". Quilcene, the nearest Rural Village Center to the subject property, is more than 1 mile east along SR 101. No urban growth boundaries are illustrated or known to exist in the vicinity of Quilcene; additionally, no potential urban growth areas of Rural Village Centers are shown as planned. Because the site is outside of the floodplain and more than 200 feet distant ftom the Big Quilcene River, it is outside of shorelines jurisdiction. Thus, the subject property meets the requirement of this criterion. UDC 3.6.3. f. Are not within. a regUÚlted wetland or .fish and wildlife habitat area pursuant to Section{sJ 3.6.8 and 3.6.9 of this Code. The subject property has been partially mined and a portion has been recently logged (FPA #2605231, issued April 2, 2003). There were no comments 1Ì'Om any of the state or federal resource agencies to the Department of Natural Resources during the review of the application for that logging permit. Previous logging activities have resulted in the site being partially covered with multiple age stands of timber ranging ftom 5-8 to approximately 40 years. Approximately 40 acres of state land north of the subject property has been clear-cut within the last two years (Timber Sale: Four Penny, Agreement No. 30-071007). There were no resource agency comments to that timber sale as well. Correspondence fÌ'Om the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and a copy of WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species Map for the project vicinity indicate the presence of several fish and wildlife species in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed expansion of the MRL overlay to the subject property and subsequent mining is . not anticipated to adversely affect any of the identified species. Please see the attached analysis for further detail. Penny Creek Quarry MRL Expansion UDC Section 3.6.3 Criteria Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1,2003 Page 2 . . !!. ! >1 ! i .J I . ¡ J ':" ,GEOLOGIC AND ECONOMIC REPORT .. FOR PROPOSED PENNY CRE.EK QUARRY MINERAL RESOURCE LAND EXPANSION Q,uil~ene,. Was".,n J¥..rsQj1C~: . f;'¡~~ 'r;: '¡'~' r~"-n· \:f·¡;· U1':· ",<l ¡! i )), ¡:,,~. :"!:"'''Y'-~:''-'~:ll f¡ I,' 11;,'". .·I)¡ ! ¡! \ ¡. UAY - 1 2003 !! <.- i ~L i-\ M '~ :_1 . L...___ ......"..u...·.__..._.. .... j i ' ,jEF~~: qso; ~ ~>:·¡._·¡.,:ry .': ~'¡.¡"_J ¡ ~,;.- ~' : ,t'. .' ;:..: i';"';,' :.; \ ':. 1. ' ¡. ".. i·. P.,.al~ed,Fot: P~nny Creek~~ 4SOPenny·CFeek~d t¡¡\.a;:.I:-·e·n·e ,~~7.Á~6 "",~.IIJo' .. , . U;Q, .. .... , Phone: (360r1(j~34>l,3 P:r,p~Fed,B!: ECOlogiCS¡I'I;ålta ·Sørrices,lnc. 1339 ~QmmerceAve.,Sttite. 311 Lotlpiew, WA:tJ(j32 .(~"".'. " ~' ··.·~·1,~1· , OB\f'" :J':rO~'3"~:¡:~ " . ," " '." April 29, 2003 -' CONTENTS Geologic and Economic Report For Penny Creek Quarry 1- INTRODUCTION 2 - SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 - Site Location 2.2 - Background ;¡:ì··..~· -'rG {I;;· r;·;·····rj··r t··;i~: 1.: I ¡ I I ,L!:o .>." .!S t -.'1 ',~ I r'\ '! ¡ j ¡.:, ¡ ¡' -".._..... -.¡: ¡ ;! I ; ¡! 1l; MAY - 1 20 03 ; ~ . .> I :.J '" ..., ¡ 1.._............ ... ................... .......J ¡ ..J~~!:.····::·~t;i C,,:,! :-.' , ,.. .... ,..! 3 - GEOLOGY , ~ . t"', I ... 3.1 - Regional Geology 3.2 - Site Geology 4 - ECONOMICS 4.1 - Accessibility 4.2 - Permitted Surface Mines With In Jeft'erson County 4.3 - Size of Basalt Deposit 5 - CONCLUSION REFERENCES LIMITATIONS FIGURES FIGURE 1 - Site Location Map FIGURE 2 -1997 Aerial Photograph FIGURE 3 -Property Ownership Map FIGURE 4 - Pre-Mining Topography Map FIGURE 5 - Geologic Map I ì J I;., I:·,~\ . ' ¡ ¡ J '.>. \,., '[ II '.'/ '."" I r ' .~. I., . '; '. : '.~, '. I ·-----,1 ! !!; : ., . MAY - 1 2003 1 -INTRODUCTION ~¥.... Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS) has prepared this Geologic and Economic report to support an application for a Mineral Resource Lands zoning overlay (MRL) on approxixnately 36 acres adjacent to the Penny Creek Quarry, an existing surface mine with the MRL overlay. This report, including the maps and figures, is intended to satisfy requirements as stated in Jefferson County Unified Development Code, Section 3 - Land Use Districts section 3.6.3(1a) (tIDC). 2 - SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 - Site Location The subject property is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Quilcene, Washington, north of the existing and county permitted Penny Creek Quarry at 450 Penny Creek Road (Figure 1). A 1997 aerial orthophotograph also identifies the site (Figure 2). The existing MRL overlay covers two parcels--702224002 and 702224006- totaling 19.3 acres (Figure 3). The area requested for the expanded zoning overlay consists of 36.79 acres (parcels 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 70222426, 70222403, 702224011, 702224012, and 702224010;) we note that the last parcel was the site of a county operated surface mine and has recently been granted "grandfather" status. The legal description of the existing quarry and proposed MRL overlay area where the mine would be expanded is the NW Y-i of the SE Y-i, NE Y-i of the SE Y-i, in Section 22, Township 27 North, Range 2 west of the Willamette Meridian. 2.2 - Background Marl and Gary Phillips are owners of the existing Penny Creek Quarry located at 450 Penny Creek Road in Quilcene. The existing MRL quarry covers approximately 19 acres and was granted the designation of "mineral lands of long term significance" February 10, 1997. See File ZON96-0042. The Phillips and their children own approximately 37 acres adjacent to the current MRL designation and existing mine site and propose to expand the quarry and request Jefferson County designate the "Mineral Resource Land Overlay District" to the contiguous family owned tracts. Approximately 20 acres of this additional property was left to the Phillips and their children by testamentary provisions and the Phillips purchased approximately acres ftom Jefferson County in late 2002. The Phillips already owned the remaining 2.59 acres. Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial significance are those lands ftom which the commercial extraction of minerals (sand, gravel, rock and other valuable aggregate or metallic substances) can be anticipated within 20 years and are characterized by six criteria found in UDC 3.6.3. This report addresses one of those land use criteria found in "UDC 3.6.3 (la). Have a known or potential extractable resource in commercial quantities verified by submittal of a geologic and economic report prepared by a qualified professional. " Geologic & Economic Report Penny Creek Quan-y 2 Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 29, 2003 L'" The basalt material extracted trom the current surface mine is located within a volcanic deposit and is utilized for a variety of local and state road and construction projects. Mining typically involves removing a relatively thin layer of topsoiVsubsoil (18 inches) before extracting the basalt deposit Mining activity has occurred at this site since the 1940's. The Phillips have been mining the Penny Creek Quarry for the last 7 years. ¡ U u 1 MAY - 1 DB II ,.. ...--. ..... .:....... ..- '...J' ;" ~ ..'. ~_ 0,,, ;"~' :. , ;.. . ; The Phillips' ownership lies at the base of steep pitching topography that slopes east to a narrow valley where the Big Quilcene River flows easterly to Quilcene Bay. The Big Quilcene River is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the subject property and active mine (Figure 4). State Route 101 and Penny Creek Road are located between the river and the existing mine site and subject property. Penny Creek is located over 1,300 feet south of the proposed mining boundary. No streams or critical habita~ are located within or immediately adjacent to the existing mine or proposed MRL overlay property. The site and surrounding area consist of evergreen and deciduous forest stands of various ages. DNR property to the north was clear cut within the last two years and portions of the subject property were just recently clear cut. 3-GEOLOGY 3.1 - Regional Geology The existing mine and proposed MRL expansion area is located on the eastern slope of the Quilcene Range, approximately 2.5 miles west of Quilcene Bay. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Geologic Map of Washington -Northwest Quadrant, describes the geologic units in the region as being Volcanic Deposits (Eve) and Unconsolidated Sediments (Qgt) (Figure 5). The volcanic deposits are described as the Lower-Middle Eocene Crescent Formation, consisting of basalt. The Unconsolidated Sediments are described as glacial till, comprised of coarse-textured gravelly and stony materials. 3.2 -8iteGeology The project site is characterized by steep timbered slopes with elevations of 120-800 feet above sea level. The existing Penny Creek Quarry and recently acquired county quarry adjacent to Penny Creek Quarry reveal significant mineral resources. A survey of the site found approximately 180 feet of basalt exposed on the existing Penny Creek Quarry highwall (elevation 123 to 304 mean sea level msl). In addition there is approximately 159 feet of basalt exposed (141 to 300 feet msl) in the recently acquired county quarry. Both of these quarries reveal basalt material consistent with the geologic units described on the DNR geologic map referenced above. Based on geomorphic features located on site and immediately to the north, west and southwest of the existing Penny Creek Quarry, it appears that the volcanic deposit is predominate throughout the area. Further evidence of this basalt formation is revealed by outcroppings within the proposed and surrounding area. Rock is also observed Geologic & Economic Report Penny Creek Quarry 3 Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 29, 2003 i'"ì" I , ! ;; MAY - 1 2003 ; '.;, : ! , 1 : ! ... i I i . .,'. I ,J , , approximately 1.5 feet below groWld smface in road cuts withih~tlìe'proposed 'MRi " expansion area. 4 - ECONOMICS 4.1 - Accessibility The existing quarry and proposed MRL expansion area fronts on Penny Creek Road approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection with State Route 101. Penny Creek Road is a COWlty road with an asphalt surface to the existing quarry. 4.2 - Permitted Suñace Mines With In Jeffenon County DNR's Directory of Washington Mines, 2001, Information Circular 94, identifies 14 permitted surface mining operations in Jefferson COWlty. Only 4 of these mines are basalt or "shot rock" (hard rock) quarries; the others are sand and gravel pits. Three of the basalt quarries are located between 10 and 12 miles ( direct line) northeast of Penny Creek Quarry. The fourth is located near the mouth of the Hoe River approximately 4 miles east of the Pacific Ocean coast. Mining has been ongoing by various operators at the Penny Creek Quarry since the late 1940's providing a important source of basalt material to eastern Jefferson COWlty and as far north as Port Angeles and west to Poulsbo. 4.3 - Size of Basalt Deposit There appears to be a very large deposit of basalt in vicinity of the subject property. It is estimated with the 37 acre expansion area that the proposed Penny Creek mine would be capable of producing 8-14 million tons of marketable product. The mining operation would extract basalt in benches using a cut slope method of mining to a maximum depth ranging 100-150 feet below groWld surface. These volumes are based on the assumption that only 46 acres would be mined; the remainder of the site would be used for perimeter setbacks, overburden and topsoil storage for reclamation, processed material storage, and the processing area. These volumes are only estimates; they will fluctuate with variations in specific density of the rock, depth and method of mining. 5.0 - CONCLUSION Based on geologic information, physical inventory and economic factors presented above, it is our opinion that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area contains a sizable volume of valuable basalt and other mineral resources that can be economically extracted, processed and delivered to job sites in the historic market area in a commercially competitive fashion. We believe the expansion area meets the criteria to be considered a "highly desirable" deposit per Jefferson COWlty Comprehensive Plan, Matrix for Assessing Lands for Designation as Mineral Resource Lands. Due to the quality of the geologic deposit on the site and access to State Route 101, the product can be marketed to assorted projects in the county. The Penny Creek Quarry has been in Geologic & Economic Report Penny Creek Quarry 4 Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 29, 2003 operation for over 50 years demonstrating that there is a market for the materials produced at the mine. The potential volume of materials that can be produced 1Ì'om this site is sizable and will continue to provide a valuable resource throughout the county. ., '. ....... - '. .; I" . . ~ ' .. '. , : :.~ \ ;.~ i.::, ç:~ i\ '.'i '.'~, \ \. \ \ \\i ì \.. ,'.' :':.,....'_:.·_~.·····1,\ \ \ \ \< ~~,,: \1 i j I \ \J\ II \ ". U A'( -, 2.003,' '·--;'1 ~ \ _II m . \ ·L . ....J , , --::". '.:'~-:~.~;'--;:.:~ :,..··i i,~ ; .JtF~~::~I"':!:\4j~"f :·I\,\.~ o(.\;·~ ¡:~fr \ OFp-I. ~"r¡:"C.~·\· >'. I: .'.:' ..;- . Geologic & Economic Report Penny Creek Quarry 5 Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 29, 2003 REFERENCES Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Geologic Map of Washington -Northwest Quadrant, Washington Department of Natural Resourcess, Directory of Washington Mines, 2001. Information Circular 94. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & DSEIS, 2002. Matrix for Assessing Lands for Designation as Mineral Resource Lands. Jefferson County Community Development, Unified Development Code, Adopted 2000, amended 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey Jefferson County Area, Washington, 1975. !i;~ ': I,> fiJ ':'ii:; I! IiI Ii ¡¡I J\\I MAY - 1 2003 \:; ~::.) o. ~)IT":rŠ\}~I;¡;}f,; 'IH Geologic & Economic Report Penny Creek Quarry 6 Ecological Land Services, Inc. Apri129,2oo3 LIMITATIONS The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices. There are no other warranties, express or implied. The services preformed were consistent with our agreement with our client. This report is prepared solely for the use of our client and may not be used or relied upon by a third party for any purpose. Any such use or reliance will be at such party's risk. The opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when services were performed. Ecological Land Services, Inc. (ELS) is not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations after the date of this report. ELS does not warrant the accuracy of supplemental information incorporated in this report that was supplied by others. . .' ..' ....... ,...., ., ,.... I'" ,.¡. \" r¡ ,;-" c·' . . ¡ ¡ ", ì ::, t r ¡¡;~ ~ .if :.::.~ 'I~\ '\ t 'I r . ..- ······..·_·........~··,····~··l " 11 ¡. 'I , t . i ,\\. . I ¡ t i i \" 1\: II ~J I..;\'¡ MAY - 1 2003 : ¡~) I ¡ '\" ~j~,~-~~!\7;:!;ç~·Š:~·:::Œ.:·I~' '.:¡U Geologic & Economic Report Penny Creek Quarry 7 Ecological Land Services, Inc. April 29, 2003 ~LWfj J1 SAH~~~I !~ :; _TCOM __ :: ) - ~~ :..-~ ~ ~ ~___ _~ rr~GlTr--- I ~ -,- -"'-I 7i~ :;-- \ -.:..- '~ -- ~7:: ..:: . .~".: 2";: II ~ .~~( I. ~ =-' T~ PlERœ4 --I ..~;.. ~tRAT'o,.: ~ ¡c.=¡ ~ ¡;;;;:¡ ~LEWIS(þ th'\.£'! I , té..5. . >r- HoI ë : PACIFIC !'Go ¡~;:j: ~ æ~;.~ ~ SI<MWM ; ~;JU!. "")~; 'T"' ~ .... COWI.I1Z &1&& ¡~-, .--1 ¡ --- . . " . ,---J . .....~__ ~ rp:::;.rC .1 ¡ PROJECT - ~} . . ~---=-::::r·-·-~··i VICINITY MAP .I.. ( _1- ......--..- ..'. ,... ~ iil " ~~ .......- - ~ ~...::.-/ /'//.) 15 )~./)jn~2,;·..~~z.¡~/)1.\\ ,I.'~J'-:' IO- '" ~... : ~.iill k\."'=-~', %/ " f ( (~ 1:_44, I', - .' . I '-'-,:'\..\&...... 13 13 )1"- . .'ì lí% ,./// . .;'( ':::::' 11 J.~) Ì\)î I ).. ",:,~ .:'. ~~. .!,-:-... l' .~". . I(¡ ¡ "', / \.' " ,.2. '?'J. ... . . I :~-~,p :::-.... ¡ . \1.\ ~ I r"'¡ l .',' J ." · ~'M . . ...""- i, (\" ~ .J1 .... '.. ' ~. : I' ~ ~I \ / i ~-ì \. "-" I ~ os il ~.:. _ i .......;:...~ . . I . i', ~ ( \ .-' \ '" '" .... ~ I)) ...,-;>., I~l:· - I _.-.,. , ' : ' / '.\....¡..., / I '. -'. '1)\ \ .." ....'11,. \ ' -' i .- . . I ...r.?!/ ~ {'h:~~:<~ 1 '~~~=::.) 1 \¿"~í "œr-. ":"¡~-: to"" ( '--.. =:,.::::=:/\~._~. ~l\ .: .~ l: x Lt..~. .;' . \ ~ r : : ...,...l"" ~-- A;:-'\ '~:- ..!i ~ '. 'I: þO \j= _: -. leene: I' ~~,,\._ .. \; . . \ .'\) "-- .. . ............ . , ;:-\;. ',,- C) . . \ ¡ j -.." ... ~ , .- .. ~ ~"-~~. .. _-.J I..; . j .... I_!'T ..... .--,: " -". .....-~ \.,/ . . -~. .! .... . ~"~' .~ ~.~ ~~~ r"J' ' ,..::--. ..~ ~ . 2~· ,.: "t .... ~ ~ "\ 1\ ~. -',\< I rVf:~f. . ", ... t1.;¡ 'ì. ~ \ t. ,\'l'-~~ 0 . ~ 1.',17.'., ,: , ':':(~Z;: 1\ ,\\~'\.., ~~, . ~ ,II'." ~ ."!". . , \'.J\ IV", '~" ;.., f,\'ift! "'- .. r. IO;:""'~ "i,.'" '...:" ~ }~~" '\\JJ"\~\~j""\::>:~~~' /'. . {¡ \~\:1~lLJ ':? ,~:.···:...:T< ..A"~:':·:"'··{·::'· '.; :,. ....., .::::::-.: \~}- - "'"';:;¡¡ "., ,..... .. , \1.# ~.' It::: ., ;;-.-:. . \\ '1...... -:"', ~'''~'.. ....;...., '.: . ".~' 1 \~. I j I \ ,I': . -~ ~ ~.' ._.... ;;~.., .~~)X,:;:. . :',' .1/7. I\.\ ~ I I I "I ..-. ----,.,:-\ ;:::;::--~. \ ..~Io. ....) '~""':~' ".,....'. ",,,'. . .' .'1 I',:"" ~. ~~:\\' ~-=-~~~ ~~ I"'ç;:...-o ~ 'i.:'''',7· ':'. ·...,.i.·::·,···'". ¡ t 1\, ¡' Ii I, /,.' ~.. ~~.... \'\~~\ r------~~",:~~':-...~', .\'\.. c::..,) /0 .~!} ,\;,~ ".:' ;.-;,:;.... '.,. 1'1 Ji!.' ',I' : /1' '.J, ~.,'. \ ~~-~. ..~'\ \ \ s::.,-...:: I} I .., ,. ) ........,. .. .. \, 1\ \"4 (( :"/1//'/ \:::IJ/f/J; r\\:, (t"\~'''~~'~>,\~'I\\(~ ~-',,-....J)' -. .'~. . ~,.¡::'::;'" \1 11" 1 .',i,ff:1r"I'flìÎY.J?;jI-)..\\v;;. ;'l~1 . -..) t,,'\~:~-t:.&.::: II "..'- v..~{;.\\ .'.';,;.",.- .'~I '}iir../,·/'/f~i. u i¡;3'j/.,,~.j//.111 ...\£...>~'lji \..l~"",,d~::';'~~ j _ ..;~ ',:,;\\ '.\., ' iM~ I~. , Ni.l\'l.. ,_ '~:Z;1 ''//I/';':.N. i I-:;ØA~"'''' ..:i6 ~ ',.~, ,~. " f I ¡d:)' '-;.:' ~ \~HINGTON .... 47d 48' 53' Latitiude 122d 54' 34- Longitude LOCATION MAP If- .. .....__. ,. "'n'~ ......- .. . HZ" tJ J T 8? N . 3J 3tJ ECOLOGICAL LAND SERVICES, INC. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING AND LAND PLANNING 1339 Commerce Ave., Suite 311 Longview. WA 98632 (360)578-1371 Fax:(360)414-9305 DATE 412003 DWN. MM APPR. PM REVIS, 4-29-03 Figure 1 Site Location Map Penny Creek Quany 450 Penny Creek Road Portion of Section 22, T27N, R2W, W.M. \\SERVER\CompanyUefferson CountylPenny Creek QuarrylSite VICinity Map.dwg. 0413012003 02:01:35 PM. 1:1 , \.1 ' " r"· ! ¡ ¡i : i 1 : , ' "I ' ' i ,I 0 1200 2400 .¡ MAY 1 2003 :. ;1 I I II I I "I " APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET j Project Number 897.01 ECOLOGICAL LAND SERVICES, INC. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING AND LAND PLANNING 1339 Commerce Ave., Suite 311 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 DATE 212003 DWN. MM APPR. PM REVIS. 2-11-03 Figure 2 1997 Aerial Photo Penny Creek Quany 450 Penny Creek Road Portion of Section 23, T27N, R2W, W.M. 'VfM 'MDJ 'NJ.ZJ. ·ZZ UO OIIS o UOJIIOd )Iq ) MIO hIued 09t' .<ueno ) MIO .<uuecI d8w d L IueuMo .(¡.oedcu., e U1ðr:l "liI'R'J''SWN -mr- 'HdcIV ___ 'NM( "'fj ¡ W'" i.1VO ~t(œe):a.I U£~1.LS(OII£) zaeaVM'~ H£...·...V-.uaoIlŒ~ ÐNINN'f"1c ONYI ONV ÐNlJ.1OSNOO ~ "MIn.LVN 'ONI'~ 0NYI1WIÐO"'IOO3 II II I~ 1.11 )f I IIJ J II! liJlil 11111ll!1 I II I '11 I I . .-:--, !:~2:.~·; I::;·; ~.:~: :.:~..ø i ~ ¡. .:~.: ¡t.=:; _ :" .~: ~ ~ l...·.:- ; I ..): ~ .~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.. o ~ - . ....--.-... . ..; ::~::-v-;:::~ .-.--.... .__.__n_ -. -..,. .~ ... Jifill " JIIII I_I.. I i I¡I; I · ; i II!!I.... I ! sUI '.1 - J' ! I ! I "} I ~, I' ..¡' 'ie'III.,' Ihl!' I',l.' If,zJ' 1,lh dU" dd d!h '1 it d 1:111 '¡II' ,.~ ~ ,. &IIi;; jit3 I 1¡11Ii I I Fi III lit I:i ¡-!i! !Il ,-in 51ll ,-11, !'"'J f, ,-tl! !¡l I-,i! 5-'1 I, Ulll I-UI! ¡lIf ¡'ilel I.! IUI. I IIIIi 1: I i jp ! ~ lId) I Ip t !Ii lI,a. A II ¡!IIi ! I UIII ! j W l88 *fIØIN OII 'aI, ¡Ifill ¡¡!il! :L~~': )~.r:..!fi :~~-:! I c=-¡ 'VfM .~ 'Na,L .~ UOIP8S jO IIOIIIOd ~ JfMIO oÚ.I8d 0St ÁUIII10 JfMIO .<uu8cI .(¡¡dIuðodoJ. ~ .. eII'IðI:I "'1IRIFJ''SIt\aY -"g- -- -..r- "NMCI 1!IJIIl1F"" ilL va r~--f! )f I I IllIh I I ( ~ ~ CP !IIJI8'tI.,,(aIIe):-.t US~1IlS (aile) "VM'~ ~J.e IIIß8 '"eNrt -:> fI£I:~ ÐNINNV1cI CJNYI ONV E>NU.1nSNOO ~ "M:JfUVN 'ON 'S3OWBS CJNYI1Y.)IOO1OO3 11111. III J;I ~ ê, 3: g II) o o N ¡ 'X o a:: CL. ~ o -ã- ~' · · · · · . . I /" I· I · / . 1·( . J . ( . I . \ ·Ob ~. I ~:& ~: " . I . I · J . I w:: ~;:j ~:: l-~ . '. -~... ;;:-.. . J Le . r. o~ ,'/' ~ ¡ :> I ; J I , ,~ 0; l h .' ! ° . , I Evc = Crecent Formation Basalt (project location) Qgt = Glacial Till Qgo = Glacial Outwash, undifferentiated Qa = Nonglacial Alluvium Em2 = Marine Sedimentary Rocks ~._-'. ., / ~. , ':/T DATE 412003 OWN. MM APPR. PM REVIS. 4-30-03 ECOLOGICAL LAND SERVICES, INC. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING AND LAND PLANNING Figure 5 Geologic Map Penny Creek Quarry 450 Penny Creek Road Portion of Section 23, T27N, R2W, W.M. 1339 Commerce Ave., Suite 311 Longview, WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360) 414-9305 \\SERVER\Company\Jefferson County\Penny Creek Quarry\Flgure 5 Geologic Map.dwg, 04130I2OO3 02:23:50 PM, 1:1 ... .. ., . ;~ ~i.~' a \~. , ; !! .' j r' '1' ;: 1 111 ." q :.. , , . ¡ ~: . .- ~_.. ·r...·__..,h . ! ~! \.. : 'I :: MAY - 1 3m Penny Creek Quarry ì 'J ;t : ~ Mineral Resource Land Overlay Expansion: L_... .--..;......:; ',:: .1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment .... :. ;.' .. ;;,,!¡.~ '.::: ".;:J>'.:':: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) 3.6.3.1 frequires that all proposed Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay Districts ''Are not within a regulated or fish and wild/ijè habitat area pursuant to Section 3.6.8 and 3.6.9 of this Code". Wetlands The proposed Penny Creek Quarry MRL overlay area is not located within or adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands. ELS staff visited the site January, February and March 2003 and detemûned that no jurisdictional wetlands are located within the proposed MRL area. These findings are consistent with the National Wetland Inventory and Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County which indicate no wetlands or hydric soils are located within the proposed expansion area or adjoining property. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) maps and reports were obtained from Washington Deparbnent ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) on March 13,2003. In addition, a letter trom Jeff Davis - WDFW Area Habitat Biologist to Jefferson County expressed concerns for a number of species that are thought or known to exist in the vicinity of the existing Penny Creek Quarry andMRL expansion area. Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis): Habitat Needs: Northern spotted owls generally reside in old forest habitat with an abundance of snags and downed logs. The subject site is not within a "spotted owl special emphasis area" (SOSEA) as defined in WAC 222-16-086. Northern spotted owls are listed as a threatened species in Washington. Potential Impact From Mining: WDFW has identified the subject site as being within spotted owl management circles - established territory based on a 2.7-mile radius drawn around an established site center. Not all of the land within a management circle is automatically considered spotted owl habitat, the land must meet certain criteria specifically applicable to spotted owls. According to WAC 222- 16-085, suitable spotted owl habitat is categorized into (1) old forest habitat, (2) sub- mature habitat and young forest marginal habitat, and (3) dispersal habitat. There is no old forest habitat within or adjacent to the subject site. It appears that portions of the site may have (by definition) sub-mature habitat, young forest marginal habitat, and dispersal habitat. Most of the site has been logged within the past 40 years resulting in the oldest stand of timber aged at 35 to 40 years. Adjacent properties · I 1 ." . , . '/ ji! ¡.¡ MAY - 1 2003 :iUJ¡ ! L...;:.. ;:_/ I I r'i i . ,/, I ..,.:";::;~: -- ! have also been actively logged including clear-cuts immediately no~ ~fth~·:~~bj~~·<Jj¡:·· (;;'iJ site and a more recent clear-cut on the subject property. Based on past and projected timber harvest activities, adjacent properties will likely continue to be managed for timber production with 40-year average harvest rotations. State Route 101 State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road) are located between the subject site and documented habitat east, west and south of the subject site. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that expansion of the MRL zoning overlay to the subject 37 acres abutting the existing Penny Creek Quarry will impact populations of northern spotted owls. Bald Eavle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Habitat Needs: Bald eagles generally nest in live trees within direct sight distance of water (Watson, 2001). One documented bald eagle nest site is located approximately ~ mile southwest of the proposed MRL expansion area (WDFW, 2003). There are also three documented roost sites within a mile of the expansion area, with the closest approximately 1/3 mile southwest of the subject site (WDFW, 2003). Bald eagles are listed as a threatened species in Washington. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed MRL expansion and anticipated mining area does not have habitat (open water forage areas or potential nesting trees) preferred by bald eagles. Most of the site has been logged within the past 40 years resulting in the oldest stand of timber aged at 35 to 40 years, with a recent clear-cut of the eastern portion. Adjacent properties have also been actively logged including recent clear-cuts immediately north of the subject site. SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road) are located between the subject site and documented habitat east, west and south of the subject site. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood of the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area impacting populations of bald eagles. Marbled Murrelet rBrachvramphus marmoratus): Habitat Needs: Marbled murrelets generally nest in mature old-growth forests with a multi-layered canopy near saltwater where they feed on small fish and crustaceans (WDW, 1991). A documented marbled murrelet occupancy site is located approximately 7,200 feet (1.4 miles) south of the subject site (WDFW, 2003). Marbled murrelets are listed as a threatened species in Washington. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area does not have habitat (old-growth coniferous forest) preferred by marbled murrelets. WAC 222-16-010 states that suitable marbled murrelet habitat Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.1.f Page 2 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 .,¡ il \\1 J U. MAY - 1 3m I If! Jt! ',./} J ". I . ~. ". - ".- ! ". '.-1 v means a contiguous forested area containing trees capable of providing nesting opportunities with all of the following: 1. Within 50 miles of marine waters; 2. At least 40% of the dominant and codominant trees are Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western red cedar or Sitka spruce; 3. Two or more nesting platforms per acre; 4. At least 7 acres in size, including the contiguous forested area within 300 feet of neSting platforms, with similar forest stand characteristics (age, species composition, forest structure) to the forested area in which the nesting platforms occur. Forest habitat within and adjacent to the ~ject site does not meet the four criteria listed above. Most of the site has been 10ggQ within the past 40 years resulting in the oldest stand of timber aged at 35 to 40 years, with portions recently clear-cut. Adjacent properties have also been actively logged including clear-cuts immediately north of the subject site within the last two years. SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road) are located between the subject site and potential murrelet habitat west and south of the subject site. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood of the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion impacting populations of marbled murrelets. Osprev rPandion haliaetus): Habitat Needs: Ospreys generally nest near water where they feed almost exclusively on live fish they capture near the surface of the water (WDW, 1991). Osprey nests are made from sticks placed atop trèes, snags, utility poles, wooden piles, or any other structure that provides unrestricted access to nearby waters. A documented osprey nest is located approximately 2,700 feet southeast of the subject site (WDFW, 2003). Ospreys are not listed as a threatened or endangered species in Washington. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area is physically removed from habitat preferred by osprey. No ponds, lakes, streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the project footprint. The nearest potential habitat for osprey is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated from the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which serves as the main thoroughfare on the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood of the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion and anticipated mining impacting populations of osprey. Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.1.f Page 3 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 , i : ¡ ~ ,. -'., , \; . .! ~:' MAY - 1 2003 l . þ ....... ._~. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa): ... . '. !",\:4._~. ", ~ . ~ . . . . j '_:.1 :~.., ~. .";': ij ;¡", '. ....... . . Habitat Needs: Wood ducks prefer wetland areas associated with streams or rivers with adequate cover, nesting opportunities, and forage (Bellrose, 1994). Another important habitat for wood ducks is small ponds, including beaver ponds and livestock ponds if adequate cover and forage is available. Generally wood ducks nest, feed and reside in areas within one mile from water sources· including streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. Wood ducks have been documented using areas in the vicinity of the subject site (WDFW, 2003). Wood ducks are not listed as a threatened or endangered species in Washington. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area is physically removed from habitat prefetted by wood ducks. No wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the subject property boundaries. The nearest potential habitat for wood ducks is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated from the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the primary thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion and anticipated mining would impact populations of wood ducks. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus): Habitat Needs: Harlequin ducks winter along the Pacific Coast, preferring fast flowing streams with forested riparian areas lacking human disturbance (WDF 1991). Harlequins nest on the ground and are highly susceptible to disturbance, generally leaving areas once they are disturbed. Adults usually reside and forage along rocky shorelines feeding on crustaceans, aquatic insects, and mollusks. Harlequin ducks have been documented using areas in the vicinity of the subject site (WDFW, 2003). Harlequin ducks are listed as a species of concern in Washington. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek MRL expansion area is physically removed from habitat preferred by Harlequin ducks. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the project footprint. The nearest potential habitat for Harlequin ducks is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated from the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.1.f Page 4 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 :.. ."",! ¡r,';í i: ':1 :- ... i .->/ I I .j ... .... !I ¡ :J I MAY - 1 2003 j!! ; 1/ ~ : ':; I . "I I I ,. . - suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood of the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area and anticipated mining impacting populations of Harlequin ducks. -' Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawvtscha): Habitat Needs: Chinook salmon are the largest anadromous salmon along the coast of Washington. Adults spawn from late summer to late fall in larger streams with adequate gravel and well-oxygenated water. Generally streams must be clear and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Juvenile Chinook begin migrating to sea in the spring but can stay in freshwater up to a year before entering saltwater. Chinook salmon have been documented in Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek (WDFW, 2003 and Streamnet, 2003). The Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit of Chinook salmon is listed as threatened. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek MRL expansion area is physically removed from habitat preferred by Chinook salmon. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the subject property boundaries. The nearest potential habitat for Chinook Salmon is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated from the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well- established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the. main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion and anticipated mining will impact populations of Chinook salmon. Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus /åsutch): Habitat Needs: Coho salmon are very important to the commercial and recreational fishing industries in Washington. Adults spawn from late summer to late fall in small streams with adequate gravel and well-oxygenated water. Generally streams must be clear and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Juvenile coho stay in freshwater for over a year before entering saltwater. Coho salmon have been documented in Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek (WDFW, 2003 and Streamnet, 2003). The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Evolutionary Significant Unit of coho salmon is listed as a candidate population. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area is physically removed from habitat preferred by Coho salmon. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the subject property boundary. The nearest potential habitat for Coho Salmon is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated from the subject site by either or both SR Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.1.f Page 5 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 ,-' .. ,. . ~. ¡ II ",j t I i I ! i .: I! i .. .......1 ¡ I oj MAY - 1 2003 . , :. ". ',-.., .... 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both ofthese'roàdways are well-established and travel~ especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion or anticipated mining would impact populations of coho salmon. Chum Salmon (Oncorhvnchus keta): Habitat Needs: Chum salmon adults spawn from late summer to late fall in the lower reaches of coastal streams with adequate gravel and well-oxygenated water. Generally streams must be clear and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Juvenile chum stay in freshwater for only a short period of time and are usually gone from freshwater before June I. Chum salmon have been documented in Big Quilcene River (WDFW, 2003 and Streamnet, 2003). The Hood Canal Evolutionary Significant Unit of chum salmon is listed as threatened. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area boundary is physically removed from habitat preferred by Chum salmon. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the project footprint. The nearest potential habitat for Chum Salmon is Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). The Big Quilcene River is separated from the subject site from SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and travel~ especially SR 101 which us the primary thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area and anticipated mining would impact populations of chum salmon. Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha): Habitat Needs: Pink salmon adults return to spawn at the age of two years and in Hood Canal only return on odd years. Pink salmon need streams with adequate gravel and well-oxygenated water. Generally streams must be clear and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Juvenile pink salmon stay in freshwater for only a few months before eqtering saltwater in the spring. Pink salmon have been documented in the Big Quilcene River (WDFW, 2003 and Streamnet, 2003). Pink salmon are not listed as an endangered or threatened species in the state of Washington. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area is physically removed from habitat preferred by pink salmon. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the MRL expansion boundaries. The nearest potential habitat for pink salmon is the Big Quilcene River Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.1.f Page 6 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 : j \ ~ . i' ! ... ° J. I, MAY - 1 2003 : .. I I í . .. . .. (1,000 feet south of the site). The Big Quilcene River is separated ftomthe subject site by either of both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area and anticipated mining would impact populations of pink salmon. '. o. OJ ; . . ..J Searun Cutthroat Trout (OncorhYnchus clarld clarld): Habitat Needs: Searun cutthroat trout are the anadromous form of the resident cuttbroat trout found throughout Washington. After hatching, juveniles reside in fteshwater for up to three years before migrating to saltwater. Generally streams must be clear and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Searun cutthroat trout have been documented in the Big QuilceneJUver (WDFW, 2003). Searun cutthroat trout are not listed as an endangered or threatened species in Washington State. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek mining area is physically removed ftom habitat preferred by searun cutthroat trout. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the expansion area boundaries. The nearest potential habitat for searun cutthroat trout is the Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). The Big Quilcene River is separated ftom the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area and resulting mining would impact populations of searun cutthroat trout. Resident Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarld): Habitat Needs: Resident cutthroat trout are found throughout small clear streams of Washington. Generally streams must be clear 'and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Resident cutthroat trout have been documented in the Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek (WDFW, 2003). Resident cutthroat trout are not listed as an endangered or threatened species in Washington State. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek MRL expansion area is physically removed ftom habitat preferred by resident cutthroat trout. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the MRL expansion area boundaries. The nearest potential habitat for resident cutthroat trout is Penny Creek Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.l.f Page 7 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 MAY - 1 2003 :! j! 1 j :~..¡ I . . ....i ¡ . .' :'" I ; '.' i ..'; . . .J :1 i·! .. (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated ftom the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion area and anticipated mining activity would impact populations of resident cutthroat trout. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mylciss): . Habitat Needs: Steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout and are highly valued by sport anglers. Adults spawn in streams with adequate gravel and well- oxygenated water. Generally streams must be clear and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Juvenile steelhead can stay in freshwater up to three years before entering saltwater. Steelhead have been documented in Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek (WDFW, 2003 and S1reamnet, 2003). Steelhead are not listed as a threatened or endangered species in the Puget Sound area. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek MR.L expansion area is physically removed from habitat preferred by steelhead. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the expansion area boundaries. The nearest potential habitat for steelhead is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated ftom the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MR.L expansion and resulting mining activity would impact populations of steelhead. Rainbow Trout (Oncorhvnchus mvldss): Habitat Needs: Rainbow trout are a resident fish valued by sport anglers. Adults spawn in streams with adequate gravel and well-oxygenated water. Generally streams must be clear and cold with well-established riparian areas that provide shade and large woody debris. Rainbow trout have been documented in Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek (WDFW, 2003). Rainbow trout are not listed as a threatened or endangered species. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek MRL expansion area is physically removed from habitat preferred by rainbow trout. No streams or rivers are Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.1.f Page 8 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 ..¡, ": I:. . ! ¡! MAY - 1 2003 ';, ,I . I . , (:, ! ;_. "., r" . . located within or immediately adjacent to the expansion area boundaries. The nearest potential habitat for rainbow trout is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site) and Big Quilcene River (1,000 feet south of the site). Penny Creek and Big Quilcene River are separated from the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well-established and traveled, especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MRL expansion and resulting mining activities would impact populations of rainbow trout. ~ Channel Catfish (Ictalurus ounctatus): Habitat Needs: Channel catfish are found in clear lakes, reservoirs and streams throughout Washington. Adults spawn in sheltered areas under logs or low hanging banks. Channel catfish can live more than 14 years and weigh more than 25 pounds at full maturity. Channel catfish have been documented in Penny Creek (WDFW, 2003). Channel catfish are not listed as a threatened or endangered species. Potential Impact From Mining: The proposed Penny Creek mining area is physically removed ftom habitat prefened by channel catfish. No streams or rivers are located within or immediately adjacent to the project footprint. The nearest potential habitat for channel catfish is Penny Creek (1,300 feet southwest of the site). Penny Creek is separated from the subject site by either or both SR 101 (State Highway) and Penny Creek Road (County Road). Both of these roadways are well- established and heavily traveled, especially SR 101 which is the main thoroughfare serving the eastern Olympic Peninsula. Given the physical setting of the subject site and the absence of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, there is a very low likelihood that the Penny Creek Quarry MR.L expansion and resulting mining activity would impact populations of channel catfish. Referenees Bellrose, F.C. and D.J. Holm. 1994. Ecology and Management of the Wood Duck. Stackpole Books. 588 pages. Pollard, W.R., G.F. Hartman, C. Root & P. Edgell. 1997. Field Identification of Coastal Juvenile Salmonids. 32 pages. Streamnet. April 28, 2003. Internet Website: www.streamnet.org. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 13, 2003. Habitats and Species Report in the Vicinity ofT27R02W Section 12. Report and Map. Penny Creek Quarry MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-UDC 3.6.3.l.f Page 9 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 Washington Deparbnent of Fish and Wildlife. Marine Fish Identification Guide - Volume 1, Anadromous Sport Fish Identification Guide - Volume II, and Freshwater Sport Fish Identification Guide - Volume III. Washington Deparbnent of. Wildlife. 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitat and Species. Watson, J.W. and E.A. Rodrick. 2001. Volume IV: Birds - Bald Eagle. Washington Deparbnent of Fish and Wildlife. _4.. . ..... .. .. ."" i¡ ri j ,. :~:~ , ' u", ~~~ f¡ ~'ll'~i;.~ (r'<,',: . . .... -~.::~. . ..:~ " \ I, IIAY - 1 3J03: :Jj ! t ......... .ì .". ,. . ... . , , .. . .,.; I Penny Creek Quany MRL Overlay Expansion Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts-DOC 3.6.3.I.f Page 10 Ecological Land Services, Inc. May 1, 2003 ·or..;_ ....,.. .~ . JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street rt Townsend, WA 98368 MLA 03-231 Penny Creek Quarry Background information for the Planning Commission I Scalf, Director September 17, 2003 ~ See maps ATIACHMENT "A" . 1979 - Phillips purchase parcel 702224011 from WDOT - Pit Y -86. 1990 - Phillips parcel 702224002 - mining area opened up - disturbed area. 1996 - Phillips apply for building permit to construct scale shack and truck scales on parcel 702224092. " December 5, 1996 the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner denied a appeal of the building permit and concluded: "that the mineral extraction activity was nonconforming at its level of activity (below 3 acres of disturbed area), and that the truck scale was an exempt accessory use to the nonconforming mineral extraction activity." (page 15, Findings, Conclusions and Decision of Hearing Examiner) ATIACHMENT "B" August 9, 1996 - Phillips petition Jefferson County for Mineral Resource Land under ordinance 09-0525-95 on parcel 702224002. August 28, 1996 - Permit Center returns application to the Phillips because parcel is 4.46 acres in size and must be a minimum of ten (10) acres. Additionally, application is returned in that the petition doesn't meet criteria for "the subject property to be sUITounded by parcels no smaller than five acres in size on 100% of its perimeter". December 5, 1996 - Phillips submit boundary line adjustment (EXM96-OO60) and reconfigure parcels surrounding mined area. December 9,1996 - Phillips submit petition for designation as Mineral Resource Land (ZON96-0042) January 21, 1997 - Jefferson County Hearing Examiner conducts open record hearing and recommends approval of a 19.3 acre MRL. July 14,1997 Jefferson County BOCC grants final approval of the MRL. August 28, 1998 - 19.3 acre MRL mapped in comprehensive plan. ATI ACHMENT "c" MLA 03-231 draft map for possible boundary of a MRL consistent With UDC requirements. . Would require a BLA and restrictive covenant. Scale Shack and scales remain legal nonconforming. ~ Building Permits/Inspections Development Review Division Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 (360) 379-4450 r=z ;<~ :t > .::0 . '::0 ~ ¡¡¡ I (SW 1/4 22 - 27N - 2W) 151.504- 486.52 ~ "'A'~è:I ;ÞO~~ !:3:a a ~~~ p}~i ~ fI ~ z:. ZN ~ NC,, Z ~ ~ :IE , to ~.... ~ f't (,.XO : -fo N -fo1Tl.... a N~ 01 N ioNO . O-fo to:IE~ g aNN 01 · Z ~ I"~ è:I NN z-fo ~~ ~ :IE U! 314.e6 ~ ITI 01=:.... · NO ~~~ ~ o N r< 492.76 "' :3N $~ ... .0 N ~~ p t: g ... · Z~ NN J ~h~ ..., Z01 S;zz! ~ =: p~(II ~ i !'\ a!~ · ~~ >.t,... 01 ITI.... o NO ...-1.... C,, T ~ !:J p:>o a N r gXN Z~ N~ NN fI"'~ g ZOI Z 0 :IE N ... :; ~ !'\ 8 I"~!iè:l ~I ~ z: ";)£1 ..~t p§~~ ~ ~ (\ I ".... .s:~ ~z $ . ~ '0,1 8 J ~§~ ;~~ (') JI ~ .. ~ ~ ..... ...- IØTI 1.14.. œ (SW 1/4 23 Ö =2: ¡¡¡ f., (SW 1/4 22 - 27N - 2W) .. 151.54 ~~è:! ~R'~~ ~:E~ ~ ONN !:3:11 . ~ p~¥I§ ZN I 1! N(, Z é ~ :E ~ ~ -ª ~ ~ ",,1"'1'1 , · NO '" ¡g:E~ ~ N ONN · Z ~ NN Z"" r :E ~ 314.M (JI:E'I · NO gl"'1~ .0 N N So' (: ~ · Z~ :!~ a NN ~ (JI p t: g Z :E .., (/) 1"'1 (JI 1"'1 'I o NO (, 1"'1 ~ o NN ., · Z~ NN J ZCI :E (/) 1"'1 t () Efg~~ -¡ ~ <: p§~~ ~ ~~ I~ ~z ~ ~~ . I 1'0 7 ~~§ 8 ;il ~ ~ ...... ~ ¿L.. ---0: ~ ~ ~ ~r .~~ ~ F t:r:j ~ I ;:0 -I () G) :if fT f11 \J ç J :0 ~ I ~ :0 :0 :>.' e ij (SW 1/4 22 - 27N - 2W) 151.54 488.52 ~~~ 183.7' "R'Z§ ~~~ ~ ;~;§ o N N · ¡!; ZN (II N", i Z ! ~ g ~ ~ ~ !O ~~ ~ ~"'''' "'XN · NO f ~ N ØI ¡g~~ o NN ... . O~ o N 0 · Z ¡!; 0 01 NN Z~ 8~§ ~ (J) P~$ ", 314.56 ~ ()I~'" . NO o N -"'N ... ~ 492.76 "? N~ =~B Zo NN ~ (}I p t: 9 Z ~ .... ~ ~ i (}I ",..... o NO '" ", ~ -~..... o NN p~S . Z~ o N NN Z- °NN ZOI ? ... ¡!; g ~ T 0 ... - N ~ (J) ~ ", ~ 8 »¡gz... ~ e: SB N p§~~ 2! ~ ~ ( I ...'Z N ...... ~ ~ ~'? B 1'01' ~. ~6:g 8 ~~j P", ~ ç¡- ~ ~ ...a. ~ ¿L.. ~~~~~ :::: ~ ;;.--<: 1-1 L' t?:11 ~ · JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend' Washington 98368 360/379-4450·360/379-4451 Fax htlp:llwww.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentl Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan IUDC Amendment I MlA # 03·209. PROJECT/APPlICANT NAME: JEFFERSON CouNTY Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Land Use Application. Representative authorization Is required if application is not signed by applicant. 2. Any additional information reasonably deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 3. Please prepare and label as "ExhIbit A," a description of the proposed PlanlUDe amendment and any associated development proposal(s) if applicable. Applications for projected-related amendmen1s must Include plans and Infonnatlon or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and Improvements. ApplIcations for such amendments that do not specify proposed uses and potential Impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services. 4. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment Is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adooted Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 on ADril 28. 2003. amendina the Unified Develooment Code (UDe) with reaard to the reaulation of existlna and onaoina aarlculture. amona other tooics. This Comorehensive Plan amendment aDDlicatlon is Dart of "$teD Two" of 2003 Aaricultural Lands Dlannina. Usina arant funds from Washlnaton State. the Deoartment of Communitv DeveloDment (DeD) will coordinate a DUbIlc outreach Drocess to ascertain Interest in the "Aaricuitural Lands of local Sianificance" Droaram cited In the Comorehensivø Plan. Workina with the Plannlna Commission. DeD will develoo a comorehenslve Aaricuitural Lands Dackaae that wtlVmav Include land use maD amendments. clarification In the ComorehsnsJvø Plan andlor UDe of vañous Aarlcuitural Lands desIanations. reconsideration of UDe reaulations as aDDlied to Aarlcuitural Lands (uses allowed oer Table 3-1 In oarticular). and other unfinished Aarlcuitural lands Dlannlna tasks as described In the Comorehensìve Plan. The Dackaae win be refined durina the months of Mav and June (oer the State arant) and reviewed In DUbUc oroœss with the Plannlno Commission and BOCC. 5. Please prepare and Iabei as "Exhibit B," proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDe) shown in 'bilr fonnet, with text to be added inclicated with underlining (e.g., underlinina), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., stFlke8yte). 6. Please prepare and label as "ExhIbit C," a thorouah explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the foDowing inquiries (NOTE: Simple "yes" or "no" responses are unacceptable.) a. Have the cIroumstances related to the proposed amendment andIor the area In which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that fonn the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new Infonnation become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? 7. certifies that the statements contained in this application are tnJe and provid9 an accurate representation nt; and the appIicant(s) hef9by acknowledges that any approval issued on this application may be temønt j, found to be false. EVElOPMENT MAY 1, 2003 DATE MlA03-209: 511103 Page 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend· Washington 98368 360/379-4450 . 3601379-4451 Fax http://www.co.jefferson.W8.uslcommdevelopmentl Master Land Use Permit Application Form AfLA03-209 PROPERTY INFORMATION Tax Parcel Number: 000000000 Subdivision Name: Lot Number: Property Size: (acres/square feet) ExIsting Use of Property: Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Not aDDllcable. This Is not a slte-speclftc I. APPLICANT INFORMATION 808rd of County Commissioners by and though the Telephone: (360) 379-4450 Name of Applicant: Department of Community Development Address: 621SherldanSt City: Port Townsend State: WA Zip Code: 98368 Name of Authorized Agent (if appUcable): NIA Telephone: Address: City: State: Zip Code: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OR ACTIVITY (include separate sheets as necessary) The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 on April 28, 2003, amending the Unified Development Code (UDC) with regard to the regulation of existing and ongoing agriculture, among other topics. This Comprehensive Plan amendment application Is part of "Step Two" of 2003 Agricultural Lands planning. Using grant funds from Washington State, the Department of Community Development (DCD) will coordinate a public outreach process to ascertain Interest In the "Agricultural Lands of Local Significance" program cited In the Comprehensive Plan. Working with the Planning Commission, DCD will develop a comprehensive Agricultural Lands package that wllllmay Include land use map amendments, clarification In the Comprehensive Plan andlor UDC of various Agricultural Lands designations, reconsideration of UDC regulations as applied to Agricultural Lands (uses allowed per Table 3-1 In particular), and other unfinished Agricultural Lands planning tasks as described In the Comprehensive Plan. The package will be refined during the months of Ma and June and reviewed In bllc ss with the Plannln Commission and BOCC. PERMITS REOUES'I'ED FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY Please check with Permit Center personnel before completing this section and refer to the specific sections of the UDC referenced for more Infbrmation and further requirements. An asterisk (.) indicates that a supplemental application or questionnaire is required. Tvoe I Permits Refer to: o Septic PermitlEvaluation of Existing System (EES) UDC Section 6.4.1 and Chapter 8.15 JCC o Bullding/Demolition Permit UDC Section 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 o Allowed "'(98- Use Consistency Analysis UDC Section 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 o Home Business Table 3-1 and UDC Section 4.20 o Stormwater Management· UDC Section 6.7 o Road Access· UDC Section 6.8 o Boundary Une Adjustment· UDC Section 7.2 o Minor PRRD Amendments UDC Section 3.6.13.15 o Sign Permit· UDC Section 6.15 o Site Pian Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) UDC Section 8.7 o Shoreline Master Proaram ExemDtionIPermit Revisions UDC Section 5 MlA03-209: 511103 o Temporary Use (based on use may be Type II or Type 11I)* Type II Permits o Discretionary "D" or Unnamed Use Classification o Cottage Industry o Short Plat, Preliminary and Anal* o Binding Site PIan* o Conditional (Administrative) "C(a)" Use o Conditional (Discretionary) "C(d)" Use o Variance, Minor* o Wireless Telecommunication o Shoreline Substantial Development (Primary Use) o Forest Practices ActIReIease of Six-Year Moratorium for SFR o Temporary Use* Type III Permits o Conditional "C" Use o Long Plat, Prelimlnary* o Planned Rural Residential Development Preliminary Approval (PRRD) and Major Amendments* o Plat Vacation/Alteration o Variance, Major* o Reasonable Economic Use Variance* o Wireless Telecommunication o Shoreline Management Substantial Development, Secondary Use* o Shoreline Management Conditional Use* o Shoreline Management Variance* Type IV Permits o Long Plat, Final o PRRD, Final Twe V Permits o Special Use (Essential Public Facilities) UDC Section 3.3.5 o Jefferson County Comprehensive PIan/UDCIland Use District Map UDC Section 9 Amendment* o Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment* Other Local. State or Federal Permits o Please identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: Review under the State Environmental PolIcY Act lSEPA) ,i UDC Sections 4.38 and 4.39 Refer to: UDC Sections 3.2.1, 322 and Table 3-1 UDC Section 7.3 and Table 3-1 UDC Section 7.3 UDC Section 7.5 UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 UDC Section 8.9 ,- Ordinance 06-0712-99 (UDC Appendix C) UDC Section 5 UDC Section 4.16.5(c) UDC Sections 4.38 and 4.39 UDC Section 8.8 UDC Section 7.4 UDC Section 3.6.13 (must be In conjunction with an underlying land division application) UDC Section 7.1.3(d) UDC Section 8.9 UDC Section 3.6.4(h) Ordinance 06-0712-99 UDC Appendix C UDC Section 5 UDC Section 5 UDC Section 5 UDC Section 7.4 UDC Section 3.6.13 UDC Section 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS By signing the application form, the applicant/owner attests that the Information provided herein is true and.COrrecl to the best of their knowledge. 'I aIsö certify that this application is being made with the fuR knowledge and consent of all owners of the affected property. Ally material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may result In this permit being null and void. I further agree to save, Indemnify and hold hannIess Jefferson County against all liabilities, judgments, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may In any way accrue against Jefferson County as a r: of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and i s, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later Inspections. This right of expire when the County (through the AdmInistrator or the Administrator's representatives) concludes the appllcallon h willi .. _ laws and reguI8IIons. _ and right 01 entry to , ~. properly shaI be requested a regular business hours. 5J-1-I- 0 3 ( OR AUTHORIZED A A SIGNATURE) (DATE) I hereby clesignate " to act as my ~ent In matters related to this application for permit(s). ~ ~ (APPUCANT SIGNATURE) ~ (D~ The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the Issuance of this permit may negatively Impact upon one or more threatened or e species and could lead to a potential "take" of an endangered species as those terms are defined In the federal law kno ndangered SpecIes Ad' or -ESA." Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions that will be ken use this pennit has been Issued will not violate the ESA. Ally individual, group or agency can file a lawsuit on be ngered species regarding your action(s) even if you are in compliance with the Jefferson County development code acknowledges that he, she or it holds indvidual and non-transferable responsibility for adhering to and complying . the plicant has read this disclaimer and signs and dates it below. .I / . L;;lJ O~ (APPUCANT OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV SIGNA AE) (DATE) I MlA03-209: 511103 EXHIBIT A MLA03-209 Description of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan/UDC Amendments Issue The Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1998, describes unfinished tasks with regard to Agricultural Lands planning. This application package is slated to complete some or all of the tasks. In particular, residents interested in petitioning the County for Involvement in the "Agricultural Lands of Local Significance" program cited in the Comprehensive Plan will have an opportunity to do so during the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle without having to submit a formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Background information can be found in a DCD staff memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated February 13, 2003 and located at this site: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.usIcommdevelopmentlAgrlculture.htm. Board of County Commissioners Concern On April 21, 2003, the BOCC unanimously sanctioned a placeholder Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal with regard to 2003 Agricultural Lands planning. Department of Community Development Recommendation DCD will be developing a recommended proposal together with the Planning Commission during the months of May and June. Affected CP and UDC SectIons The affected sections are undetermined at this juncture. Anticipated for amendment are the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the use table (Table 3-1) of the UDC. MlA03-209 Exh. A: 511103 Page 1 .- EXHIBIT B MLA03-209 Proposed Line-ln/Line-Out Comprehensive Plan & UDC Amendment Language To be developed during the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. MI.A03-209 Exh. B: 5/1103 Page 1 EXHIBIT C MLA03-209 Submittal Requirement #6 Please prepare and label as "Exhibit C," a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the following inquiries. (NOTE: Simple -yes" or "no" réSponses are unacceptable:) -, a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plarf/ The soec adopted Unlfled Development Code (UDC) amendments on April 28, 2003 In relation to the regulation of existing and ongoing agriculture. These amendments are the Implementation of a~reement between Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) In relation to a WEC n to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHS)with regard to the actop on of the UDC. This amendment process Is an Integral "Step Two" to 2003 Agricultural Lands planning. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new Information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? The 1998 Comprehensive Plan describes unfinished Agricultural Lands planning tasks. This amendment process Is Intended to complete some or all of those unfinished tasks. c. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? DCD will coordinate a public outreach process using grant funds from Washington State. The public process associated with the development and review of this application package should provide Insight Into this question. The BOCe, representing Jefferson County citizens, sanctioned the Initiation of this process. [END] MlA03-209 Em c: 511103 Page 1 , NA11.JRAL RESOURCES EXHIBfT B . MLA03-209 regulation of mineral extraction sites less than three (3) acres in size, and will consider regulations for protection of the environment from activities at these small sites. Apicaltaral Laads CløssifIClllltÞII ad DalglltItitJII 01 Agrlcultll1'lÚ Lmul Designations for agricultural lands are based on prime agricultural soils identified in the Natural Resources Cooservatioo Service's Soil Survey of Jefferson County, WœhbtgtOli. The following additional guidelines have been provided by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development: I. The availability of public facilities; 2. Tax status; 3. The availability of public services; '4. Relationship or proximity to Urban Growth Areas; s. Predominant parcel size; 6. Land use settlement patterns and their compatibility with agricultural practices; 7. Intensity of nearby land uses and their compatibility with agricultural practices; 8. History of land development permits issued nearby; 9. Land values under alternative uses; and. 10. Proximity to markets. Several of the above indicators were analyzed. to assess the long-term COIIIIIICœial viability of lands currently in agricultural use. Table 4-2 G1Iideliaes for ClassifieatiOll of Agriellltual Reso.ree Luds ia JeØenola Co..ty Indicator Comments L Availability of Public Facilities and Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UOAs) are intended Services and Proximity to Urban to be served by public facilities and services within a twenty Growth Areas year period. agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance should be located outside of the UOA boundaries. 2. Tax. Status Agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance should be eligible for enrollment in the Open Space Agricultural Tax Program. 3. Parcel Size Agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance should be composed of Jaige parcels. . 4. Land Use Settlement Patterns and To provide sufficient buffering and setbacks. agricultørallands Their Compatibility with of long-term commercial significance should be adjacent to Agricultural Practices large parcels. S. Proximity of Markets Agricultural lands of long-term commercial -significance should have access to transportation networks for access to - local and regional markets. Factors involved include the type - of crop and intensity of agricultural uses. In order to conserve the agricultural resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the farming industry while recognizing the diversity of agricultural Ian<! owners. Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance consist of two classes: Jefferson Cotmty eo..chensive Plan 4-8 August 28. 1998 NA11JRAL RESOURCES · Lands lying within the designated "Agricultural Production Districts" ~ · Agricultural Lands of Local Significance which are designated by the County through the voluntary action of the owner who successfully petitions to "opt-in" to the designation and receive its associated protections and benefits. Agricultural Production Districts Agricultural Production Districts should predominantly consist of those lands with the following characteristics: · More than fifty per cent (50%) of the parcel consists of Prime Farml~ as designated by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; · the parcel is nominally twenty (20) acres or greater in size; · the parcel is adjacent to parcels of at least 3 acres in size on 75% or more of its perimeter; · the land is currently being used for commercial agricultural purposes; and, · is participating in the Open Space Agricultural Tax Program. Agricultural Production Districts are areas where farming is the principal and preferred activity. To accomplish this, the primary zoning in the Agricultural Production Districts will be Commercial Agricultural Lands (AG-20). Some land is included in the Agricultural Production Districts that is not currently in agricultural production and is currently devoted either to open land, forestry or low density residenti81 uses. This land is included for the following reasons: · To prevent the "checkerboarding" that characterized the Interim Agricultural Ordinance; · To minimize the potential for viable agricultural activities to be compromised by the development of incompatible adjacent land uses; and, · To allow for potential expansion of agricultural uses. The Agricultural Production Districts include nearly all the currently farmed land in Eastern Jefferson County. These districts have been established in the following areas: · Beaver Valley Agricultural District; · Chimacum-center Valley Agricultural District; · Discovery Bay Delta/Snow Creek Agricultural District; · Quilcene River Delta AgricuJtural District; and, · Tarboo Creek Valley Agricultural District. These designated Agricultural Production Districts are represented on the Agricultural ~ of Long_ Term Significance Map included in this chapter. Agricultural.. Land of Local Signijiconce In order to stimulate agricultural diversity and to maintain a stable land base for future agricultural growth, the owner of a parcel may petition the County for designation as Agricultural Land of Local Significance. This designation should offer all the protection and benefits of lands designated as an Agricultural Production Di~ provided the parcel meets all of the following criteria: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 4-9 August 28. 1998 NATURAL RESOURCES · No part of the parcel lies within the boundaries of an Urban Growth Area Bo~ndary; · 1be parcel is a minimum of five (5) acres; · 1be subject property is surrounded by parcels no smaller than three (3) acres in size on l000A. of its perimeter; · 1be parcel meets the definition of agricultural land provided by the Agricultural Land Ordinance; and, · 1be parcel is currently used or managed for commercial agriculture purposes. TIle RqlÚlltory Frømeworkfor Agriculture The current Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance (Ordinance 08-0525-95). was adopted in 1995. A permanent Agricultural Lands Ordinance will be adopted based on a review of the interim ordinance for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The interim ordinance establishes criteria for the designation, conservation, and regulation of Agricultural Production Districts and Agricultural Lands of Long-Term . Commercial Significance. The ordinance also creates an opt-in process for the designation of Agricultural Lands of Local Significance that will be adopted in the final ordinance. Development regulations will recognize the diversity of agricultural land uses and practices and will allow compatible. non-farming uses while protecting agricultural lands from conflicting uses. Criteria should be developed to assess the compatibility of non-agriculture uses with Agricultural Lands. Residential densities will not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres. Clustering techniques will be considered in agricultural areas subject to specific criteria to ensure that the development is compatible with fanning use. In order to protect the property rights of agriculture landowners and maintain the agriculture industry. a Right to Practice Agriculture provision of the interim ordinance will be adopted as part of the final ordinance. Protections containted in this ordinance should apply to all designated agricultural land that complies with best agriculture management practiCes as described in the ordinance. Many individual farms are in rural areas where low density land uses present fewer conflicts with agriculture. Continued farming on such parcels will be encouraged through. residential zoning that maintains large lots and low densities, and treats fanning as a pennitted use. For further discussion of these issues, please refer to the Land Use and Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan. . Aqaaeulture Resources CItøslfkøtJon tuUl DeslglUltion of AqlUlCulture RØDIl1'CØ The Department of Community. Trade, and Economic Development does not issue guidelines for the classifICation of aquaculture resource lands. Although the Growth·Management Act doeS not specifically include aquaculture lands as natural resource lands requiring protection and conservation, Jefferson County has elected to do so in recognition of the importance of commercial aquaculture to the local and regional economy. The statutory basis for designation of aquaculture land as Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance is RCW 36.70A.030(2). the definition of agricultural land as: "...Iand primarily devoted to the commercial production ofhorticul~. viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary. vegetable. or animal products or berries, grain, bay. straw. tuft: seed, Chrisbnas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 8433.100 through 84.33.140. finf'ash in upland hatcheries, or livestock, and that has long-term commercial significance for agricultural production:' Shellfish are included under animal products, while finfish in upland hatcheries were·amended to the definition under ESSB 6228 in 1994. Jeftèrson County Comprehensive Plan 4-10 August 28. 1998 NA11JRAL RESOURCES The following aquaculture resources are designated as Agricultural Lands of Long- Tenn Commercial Significance in accordance with the classification and designation of Agricultural Land as discussed above: · Upland finfish hatcheries; and, · Commercial shellfish beds and their upland facilities. The owners of shellfISh beds that are not designated as Long-Term Commercially Significant may petition the County for classification as Agricultural Land of Local Significance in order to gain the protections and benefits provided by the designation. TIre RqukJtoty Frtuneworkfor AflUlClIIbue LIllI. Aquaculture Resources will be included in the final Agricultural Lands Ordinance. The Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan prior to adoption as a fmal ordinance in order to establish criteria and processes for the designation of upland finfish hatcheries and commercial shellfish beds as Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance. The interim ordinance includes an opt-in process for owners of shellfish beds to petition to be designated as Agricultural Lands of Local Significance. The regulations for aquaculture lands as designated in the final Agricultural Lands Ordinance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP). The Shoreline Management Master Program will be revised following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Plan. Aquaculture development, including but not limited to the construction of structures or bulkheads, dredging, filling, driving pil~ or any project that interferes with the normal public use of surface waters overlying tidelands, is currently regulated under the Shoreline Management Master Program within shoreline areas. Shoreline jurisdiction generally extends from the Ordinaly High Water Marie (OHWM) to approximately 200 feet landward and from the OHWM seaward to the offshore County line. During the revision of the SMMP, conflicts between inconsistent provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ordinance and the SMMP will be resolved by relying on the more restrictive provision. Development regulations will be adopted that recognize the diversity of aquaculture practices and uses of aquaculture resources. These regulations should consider allowing compatible, non-aquacu1turc uses while protecting aquaculture resources from conflicting uses. Criteria should be developed to assess the compatibility of non-aquaculture uses on Aquaculture Lands. Land-based fish rearing and marine-based shellfish facilities require high quality water to_operate. As described in the Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County should identify potential gaps in existing environmental protections and develop comprehensive regulations to further enhance an<! protect water quality, based on a watershed management approach. A comprehensive land clearing and grading ordinance will be developed to protect surface and ground water quality and quantity, control storm water runoff, and minimize potential damage to fish and wildlife habitat. For more information on a clearing and grading ordinance, please refer to the Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 4-11 August 28, 1998 IIANGI œ " _OlE NATURAL RESOuRCES /lANCE OJ If z 8 L I ~ 0 1 2 z II 3 I u 4 rn 5 6 Miles .. . I .- r&IML&IID sa _ _ to -.xø.4I _ e ..............,. .. .. "..- . _ I ............ UI. irA I . -- ".,.. CIIIIq ..., SVIIJICI' 10 \lie ,....,... _ 011II LDIITA'IIOII I AII__...._ I: ...,___...._ . ...,-~-......--~ -- ........ ....-- - -..-....-. I 411011--..-_-._....~ _........u.o___...._ PlUMB FARMLAND SOILS ......... ...... ...., .......... - . .. - ~........... wa. EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ......- I ..M I. -.- "..,....,..,.. ... _112" R.IIIG£ 01 Ir !!AlICE 01 E August 28, 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 4-25 z ¡¡¡ ~ .. 51 .. ... i NATURAL RESOURCES - II I IWIGE at w IANGE 01 W , !lANCE 01 II , - t :z a I i! - .. Ii I - .. lit I - .. . I - .. f¡ I - .. II I - AcalCVLTvaAL LANDS OF LONG naM COMMI:aCIAL ..GNI'IC,U.CI BAST1IaN ..rnasoN COUI'ITY. WASHINGTON ........ ~.- --- ...... ...... ..........,....... ....... ......... - Jeffi:tson County Comprehensive Plan 4-27 I ~ .... . ." .' ." .' .....'. ~. ..~ '. ". h." ..[ - ~ r- ~ tI ~ I- ~ - ~~ ~ - r- .I t'\.~. -r:p:~:- T , ] ~ t [JI; I.h I , I I ~ I I- - ,..h. f - ~t - ~ '. " . ::L (. - \ ---, . . . I - - ..-...--.. - ~~-==. - - - !, I . '''' , [ ~J- ~ - It . . . ~ ; . Ii,. . :; ~ ~ ¡ J jll. r ~ .'" ~ : :~" (~~ ~ '. " - . . . .L 11- þl; IWIGE V2 II" (I I RANGE 01 .11' . . Ð. 1 II ~ I· '....... , . ¡';CoP· ~. - ..: -...----- -----.,---- , IWICE 01 E August 28. 1998 ·' NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES: NRP 9.1 Regulate mining operations to prevent adverse impects to ground or surface water quality. NRP 9.2 Establish a prefeteuœ for the protection of aquifers and recharge~ ~ ftom the effects of surface mining in the event that adverse impacts cannot be avoided tbrougIì best management practices. AGRlCUL11JRE LANDS GOAL: NRG lU Coaserve ad pnMed tile agrieaIta.... .... b8se.... its "Iodated lifestyle. POLICIES: NRP 10.1 Adopt a final Agricultural Landso.._ø that includes the criteria ftom the Inœrim Agricultura1 Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Agricultural Lands for long- term commercial significance based on the class of agricultural ~ the size of the parcel, the tax status, current use, and distance ftom populated areas. NRP 19.2 Minimize confIicIs with agricultural activities by developing site and design requiremeois for land use activities adjacent to designated agricu1tura11and. NRP 18.3 Support the conservation of agricultural land 1hrougb tax incentive programs, the purchasø or transfer of developmeot rights, and other methods developed in cooperation with agricultural landowners and managers. NRP 10.4 Coordinate with state and federal agencies to encourage conservation of productive agricultural land through best management practices, including. soil and water conservation, drainage. and livestock waste management programs. NRP 10.5 Support the contiouation of farming as the primary use of Agricultural Lands by allowing a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres. . NRP 18.6 Encourage clustering b8sed upon the cbaracœristics of various types of agricultural areas and practices in the County, while preserving an overall base density on Agricultural Lands that does not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres. NRP 10.7 Prohibit the exteosion of service areas ofutility local improvement districts, fire districts, or sewer, water, or public utility disIricts into designated Agricultural Lands. NRP 10.8 Support agricultural activities such as fanners' markets and roadside stands by permitting these uses outright in nnI and agricultural areas. NRP 10.9 Encourage the preservation of family owned fanns by discomaging the conversion of these . lands to other uses. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 4-38 August 28. 1998 NA11JRAL RESOURCES NRP 10.10 Support the work of Washington State University Cooperative Extension for 1cchnicaI and marketing assistance for small-scale commercial farmers. AQUACULTURE RESOURCES GOAL: NRG 11.0 POUCIES: NRP 11.1 \ NRP 11.2 NRP 11.3 NRP 11.4 NRP 11.5 NRP 11.6 Co.em ... protect aqaaadture Iuds aad assodafed facilities ia order to e8I1Ire a .... tela COI8IDeI'daI aad recratioaal resource base. Establish criteria for designating commercial shellfish beds of long-term COI1UDeI'CiaI significance. Encourage 1he cooseMtion of aquaculture lands through 1he designation of long term COI1UDeI'CiaIIy significant lands. tax incentive programs and 1he regulation of adjacent land uses. Minimize coot1icts with acljacent land uses to protect continued productive aquaculture activities in marine waœrs associated with fish baIcheries and shellfish habitat.. Address 1he cwnulative impacts of land use activities on or adjacent to shellfish habitat through the Shoreline Management Master Program, Comprehensive Plan amendmenIs. and County land use ordinances. Minimize adverse impacts on the quantity and quality ofwater resources by ~ l8nd beseci'aod marine aquaculture opaations to utilize best maqagen¡ent ¡nctices. , , Net pens, which are not designated resource lands. shalt be regulated under the IShoreline Management Master Program under regulations for aquaculture activities. Such ~ wiD be updated dwing tbe SMMP revision for c:onsistency with 1he Com~ Plan. The Plan will then be amended to incorporate tbe SMMP as an element oftbe ComPrehenSive Plan. Until1he revised SMMP is ~ where a regulatory provision is inconsiStent with other County ordinances, tbe more restrictive provision shall apply. I 4-39 +28,1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend· Washington 98368 3601379-4450·3601379-4451 Fax hUp:lIwww.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmenV Application for Suggested Comprehensive Plan JUDC Amendment , MI.A # 03-210 PROJECT/APPUCANT NAME: JEFFERSON CoUmv Submittal· Requirements 1. A completed Master Land Use ApplIcation. Representative authorization Is required If application is not signed by applicant. 2. Any additional information reasonably deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 3. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A" a description of the proposed Plan/UDC amendment and any associated development proposal(s) If applicable. ApplIcations for projected-related amendments must Include plans and Information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements. ApplIcations for such amendments that do not specify proposed uses and potential Impacts are assumed to have maximum Impact to the environment and public facilities and services. 4. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment Is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, If necessary.) The Unified Develooment Code lUDC) was adooted In December 2000 and became effective as Jefferson CountY's set of develooment raoulations to Imolement the Comorehenslve Plan on January 16. 2001. Adootlon of the UDC was aooealed bv the Shine Community Action Council and the OIvrnDic Environmental Council with reaard to Groundwater orotection and seawater Intrusion. The Western Washinaton Growth ManaGement Hearinas Board twWGMH8) issued a ComoIianœ Order lNo. 01-2-(015) on December 5.2002. which Included direction to adoot seawater Intrusion ooIicv as a Growth Manaoement Act lGMA) action. The Board of County Commissioners lBOCC) directed staff to establish a DlacehoIder Comorehens/ve Plan amendment aoolication for the 2003 amendment CYCle. This orooosal will be develooed and refined In the cominG months in combination with MLA03-202. a seawater intrusion orotecUon orooosal develODed bv the PIannina Commission and currentlY under review bv that body. 5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit 8,· proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown In "bilr format, with text to be added Indicated with underlining (e.g., underlnina), and text to be deleted Indicated with strikeouts (e.g., etÄkeo,*). 6. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit C,· a thorouah explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the foIow ng Inquiries (NOTE: Simple "yW' or "no· responses are unacceptable.) a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that foon the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new Information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? 7. The certifies that the statements contain8d in this application are tltJ8 and provide an accurate representation of the ndment; and the app/lcant(s) hereby acknowkKlges that any approval issued on this application may be revolc8d if sta nt Is found to be false. MAy 1, 2003 DATE MLA03-210: 511/03 Page 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend . Washington 98368 3601379-4450·3601379-4451 Fax http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentl Master Land Use Permit Application Form MLA03-210 PROPERTY INFORMATION Tax Parcel Number: DDDDDDDDD SubdMsIon Name: Lot Number: Property Size: (acres/square feet) ExIsting Use of Property: Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Not applicable. This Is not a slte-speclflc I. APPUCANT INFORMATION Board of County Commissioners by and though the (360) 379-4450 Name of Applicant: Deparbnent of Community Development Telephone: Address: 621 SherIdan $I City: Port Townsend State: WA Zip Code: 98368 Name of Authorized Agent (If applicable): NlA Telephone: Address: City: State: ZiP Code: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OR ACTIVITY (include separate sheets as necessary) The Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted In December 2000 and became effective as Jefferson County's set of development regulations to Implement the Comprehensive PIsn on January 16, 2001. Adoption of the UDC was appealed by the Shine Community ActIon Council and the Olympic environmental Council with regard to groundwater protection and seawater Intrusion. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) Issued a Compliance Order (No. 01-2-0015) on December 5, 2002, which Included direction to adopt seawater Intrusion polley as a Growth Management Act (GMA) action. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) directed staff to establish a placeholder Comprehensive PIsn amendment application for the 2003 amendment cycle. This proposal will be developed and refined In the coming months In combination with MLA.03-202, a seawater intrusion protection proposal developed by the Planning Commission and curren under review b that PERMn'S REQUESTED FROM .n:A-.:n&On COUNTY Please check with Pennit Center personnel before completing this section and refer to the specific sections of the UDC referenced for more information and further requirements. An asterisk (*) Indicates that a supplemental application or questionnaire Is required. TVDe I Permits Refer to: o Septic PermltlEvaluatlon of ExIsting System (EES) UDC SectIon 6.4.1 and Chapter 8.15 JCC o BuildlnglDemolition Pennit UDC SectIon 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 o Allowed "Yes- Use Consistency Analysis UDC SectIon 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 o Home Business Table 3-1 and UDC Section 4.20 o Stonnwater Management * UDC SectIon 6.7 o Road Access* UDC Section 6.8 o Boundary Une Adjustment* UDC Section 7.2 o . Minor PRRD Amendments UDC Section 3.6.13.15 o Sign Pennit* UDC SectIon 6.15 o Site Plan Approval Advance Detennination (SPAAD) UDC Section 8.7 o Shoreline Master Program ExemptionlPennit Revisions UDC SectIon 5 o Tem ora Use based on use ma be T II or T III * UDC Sections 4.38 and 4.39 MlA03-210: 511m3 Tvoe II Permits Refer to: 0 Discretionary "[)" or Unnamed Use Classification UDC Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and Table 3-1 0 Cottage Industry UDC Section 7.3 and Table 3-1 0 Short Plat, Preliminary and Anal· UDC Section 7.3 0 Binding Site Plan· UDC Section 7.5 0 Conditional (Administrative) "G(a)" Use UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 0 Conditional (Discretionary) "G(d)" Use UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 0 Variance, Minor" UDC Section 8.9 0 Wireless Telecommunication OrdInance 06-0712-99 (ODe Appendix C) 0 Shoreline Substantial Development (Primary Use) UDC SectIon 5 0 Forest Practices ActIRelease of Six-Year Moratorium for SFR UDC SectIon 4. 16.5(c) 0 Temporary Use· UDC Sections 4.38 and 4.39 Tvoe III Permits 0 Conditional "C" Use UDC SectIon 8.8 0 Long Plat, Prelimlnary* UDC SectIon 7.4 0 Planned Rural Residential Development PreHminary Approval UDC SectIon 3.6.13 (must be in conjunction with an (PRRD) and Major Amendments· undel1ylng land dMsion application) 0 Plat Vacation/Alteration UDC SectIon 7.1.3(d) 0 Variance, Major" UDC SectIon 8.9 0 Reasonable Economic Use Variance· UDC SectIon 3.6.4(h) 0 Wireless Telecommunication Ordinance 06-0712-99 UDC Appendix C 0 Shoreline Management Substantial Development, Secondary Use· UDC SectIon 5 0 Shoreline Management Conditional Use· UDC Section 5 0 Shoreline Management Variance· UDC SectIon 5 Tvoe IV Permits 0 Long Plat, Final UDC SectIon 7.4 0 PRRD, Final UDC SectIon 3.6.13 Tvoe V Permits 0 Special Use (Essential Public Facilities) UDC Section 3.3.5 0 Jefferson County Comprehensive PlanlUDCILand Use DIstrict Map UDC SectIon 9 Amendment· 0 Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment· UDC SectIon 5 Other Local. State or Federal Permits 0 Please identify any other local, state or federal pennits required for this proposal, if known: Review under the State Environmental PoIIcv Act lSEPA) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS By signing the application fonn, the applicant/owner attests that the infonnation provided herein Is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. I also certify that this application is being made with the fuR knowledge and consent of all owners of the affected property. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this application packet may result In this permit being null and void. I further agree to save, Indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against an liabilities, judgments, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may In any way accrue against Jefferson County as a ~ of or In consequence of the granting of this pennit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County yeas, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later Inspections. This right f e s expire n the County (through the Administrator or the Administrator's representatives) concludes the appRcatio with applicable laws and regulations. Access and right of entry to the s property shan be requested a sh r only ng regular business hours. SIGNATURE) 51 (D ) to act as my agent In matters related to this application for pennit(s). ~ (APPLICANT SIGNATURE) (D~ The action or actions Applicant win undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened 0 angered species and could lead to a potential "take" of an endangered species as those tenns are defined In the federalla s the "Endangered Species Ad' or "ESA." Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions t' be u rtaken because this permit has been Issued will not violate the ESA. Any Individual, group or agency can file a lawsuit If 0 an endangered species regarding your actlon(s) even If you are in compUance with the Jefferson County developme code e Applicant acknowledges that he, she or it holds IndviduaI and non-transferable responsibility for adhering to and com I t e Applicant has read this disclaimer and signs and dates it below. I I ~' 03 ¡¡¡ IVE SIGNATURE) (DATE) I (AP Ihe MlA03-210: 511103 EXHIBIT A MLA03-21 0 Description of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan/UDC Amendments lS$ue The Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted In December 2000 and became effective-as Jefferson County's set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan on January 16, 2001. Adoption of the UDC was appealed by the Shine Community Action Council and the Olympic Environmental Council with regard to groundwater protection and seawater intrusion. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) issued a Compnance Order (No. 01-2-0015) on December 5, 2002, which included direction to adopt seawater intrusion policy as a Growth Management Act (GMA) action. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) directed staff to establish a placeholder Comprehensive Plan amendment application fOr the 2003 amendment cycle. This proposal will be developed and refined in the coming months In combination with MLA03-202, a seawater Intrusion protection proposal developed by the Planning Commission and currently under review by that body. Background Infonnation is located at this site: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelOpment/SEAWATERo/o20INTRUSION.htm. Board of County Commissioners Concern Compliance Order No. 01-2-0015 gives the County until June 5, 2003 to take action to comply with the GMA. The BOCC has directed staff to prepare a placeholder Comprehensive Plan amendment as part of the on-going compnance effort. Department of Community Development Recommendation DCD has no recommendation at this time. After June 5, 2003, the deadline for GMA compliance, DCD will prepare Comprehensive Plan amendments associated with compliance actions taken by the County. Affected CP and UDC SectIons To be detennlned. MI.A03-210 Exh. A: 511103 Page 1 EXHIBIT B MLA03-21 0 Proposed Line-ln/Line-Out Comprehensive Plan & UDC Amendment Language To be determined. MlJ\03.210 E>ch. B: 511103 Page 1 EXHIBIT C MLA03-210 Submittal Requirement #6 Please prepare and label as "exhibit C," a thorough explanation of how the proposed amendment, meets, conflicts with, or relates to the foHowing inquiries. (NOTE: Simple "yes" or "no" responses are unacceptable:) - , a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which It is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? This application Is the result of a Compliance Order from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new infonnation become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? This application Is the result of a Compliance Order from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. c. Does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? This application Is the result of a Compliance Order from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. [END] MlA03-210 E>Ih. c: 511103 Page 1 ENVIRONMENT EXH'Brr B . MLA03-21 0 ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT PURPOSE: The purpose of the Environment Element is to describe speèific criteria and review processes. and to identify regulations to achieve a balance between land development and use activities and environm~ protection, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. RELATIONSHIPWl1H OTHER ELDfENTS OFTBE PLAN The complexity of the issues associated with environmental protection requires that several other elements of the Comprehensive Plan address specific aspects of these issues and propose methods to address them. However, the Environment Element integrates the specific perspectives and methods from other elements that address environmental protection. Background infonnation on environmental conditions and issues can be found in Appendix E of this Plan. The following table summarizes the environmental protection issues identiiJed and addressed in other elements of the Plan: Element Discussion 1. Land UselRuraI Environmental features are important components of the rural character of Jefferson County. Shorelines, wildlife habitat, and water resources contribute to a sense of place and enhance the quality of life through natural ecological functions. Unmanaged, sprawling growth is the most significant threat to environmental quality in Jefferson County. In order.to protect the public health and welfare, land use regulations are developed that respect the rights of property owners and preserve environmental functions. 2. Natural Resources Natural resource lands provide important environmental functions, Con~rvation including surface water protection, habitat enhancement, and ground water recharge. Mineral lands can be reclaimed in a manner that provides enhanced environmental functions. Significant environmental features on natural resource lands should be preserved through the use of best management practices (BMPs). 3. Open Space, Parks and Open space is fundamental for environmental protection and Recreation enhancement. New policies are developed for the preservation of the County's signiilCaßt environmental features through the use of an enhanced open space network. 4. Utilities· Protection and management of water resou.rœs as a necessary public - supply is linked to water. system policies. Protection of existing water supplies and development of future supplies should be consistent with the protection of water resources and related environmental resources. Water resource protection also requires a stonn water management plan that is integrated with a comprehensive watershed h. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-1 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT S. Capital Facilities Recent population growth has raised concerns regarding the ability of surface and ground water sources to meet demand. The demands include not only public supply, but also those for habitat, recreation, and aesthetics. , . ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES Jefferson County believes that a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its citizens. While protection of the environment is a prim8fY goal of the GNA planning process, neither the text of the Act nor the decisions of the Hearings Boards define specifically how this is to be accomplished. Therefore, for the purposes of this plan, Jefferson County has adopted a working definition of nvironmental protection which is based on the relationship between four essential components: · Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy; · Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review; · Critical Areas Protection Strategy; and, · Public Education and Involvement Strategy. Watershed aad Fis. Babitat Recovery MaaagemeDt Strategy A Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy recognizes the interconnected nature of environmental resources through the hydrologic cycle, and the necessity to develop comprehensive watershed and fisheries recovery management plans as the ftameworlc for resource management. The 1998 proposed listings of salmon and bull trout species as "threatened" un<ter the Endangered Species Act, including the Hood Canal Summer Chum and the Puget Sound Chinook require that Jefferson County develop land use regulations to protect habitat based on integrated watershed and salmon habitat recovery plans. .The County expects to work with local, tribal, state and federal agencies to develop land use regulations based on these plans that protect the water resources..of the County for use by future residents and for the fish species that are threatened with extinction, as well as all other species. Watershed management of hydrological resources addresses .wetlands, shorelines, surface waters, aquifer recharge. landslide hazards, flood hazards, and frequently flooded areas. It incorporates management ofinstream flow volumes and storm water quality and quantity. It has a direct impact on and is integrally related to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The 1997 state legislature enacted laws which establish the ftameworlc for watershed and fish habitat recovery pJanning Jefferson County, a member of the Jefferson County Water Resources Council, will work with adjacent counties and other parties to develop watershed management plans on which land use regulatory decisions will be based. The goals and policies of the Environment Element reflect the County's commitment to resource management based on watersbedand fish habitat recovery planning. As watershed plans are translated in~ land use regulations, a number of programs may be affected. Table 8-1 below provides an overview of the County regulatory issues for various water uses,. and the Comprehensive Plan .elements in which some of these issues are addressed. The primary agencies and laws with regulatory authority or involvement for the various water uses are listed in Table 8-2. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-2 August 28. 1998 ENVIRONMENT Table 8-1 Water Resources: Uses, Regulatory Issues, ud ComprebellSive PI.. Elements ,~ ~r;,-:œry~ ,~~" ..:. .'.Þ ~'\;,.~... '.. . . ': ..." :.;. Potohle Water Supply: DotnaticICommercioJ and MlmicipaJ Aquifer recharge. wellhead protection, storm water. water quality. water system planning. individual wells Ground Water '" Surface Water Uses Industrial aquifer recharge. storm water. water systèm planning. welJhead protection, water quality AgrlcIIJtura/ aquifer recharge. storm water. water quality. flooding. wetIaods, fisbIwiIdIife habitat, aquifer protection (nstrea.. Flows FishlWildlife; Recreation; Hydropower instream flows. storm water. water quality fisblwildlife habitat. flood management, shorelines management. wetlands Marine FishIWiIdlife; Shellfish; Recreation fisblwildlife habitat. sbeIIfisb protection areas, wetlands. shorelines management, storm water. water quality Utilities - water systems. individual wells, wellhead protection. storm water Environment - aquifer recharge, water quality Utilities - water systems. wellhead protection. storm water Environment - aquifer recharge. water quality Utilities - storm water Ebvironment.,... aquifer rec;barge. flooding. wetlands. habitat, aquifer protection, water quality Caoital Facilities - flood management Utilities - storm water Environment - instream. flows. flooding. wetlands. habitat, shorelines, water quality Caoital Facilities - flood management Environment - habitat. shellfish. wetlands. shorelines. water quality. ~ities - storm water Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-3 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT Table 8-2 Water Resoarees: RespoDSible Ageaåes ucI Applieable Laws· . ".' w.... . . Wa......·· !*;:..:. ~:~::(.\:::.~~~:#; ::. Gre.'" Water & s......ee Water Uses lutrea_ Flows Mariae Potable SUDDIv: Ground Water QNaIIty/QIItmti ~", ,....... AIdIaerity.....: . . State AIItItority alld .. ~~"'Wa' '. Laws '';';''''!~:' . ... '.:~'..' ·t.;:~_~.4 /?, Allcncies -Envùonmental Protcc:tioD Agency .Ia!t Clean Water Act. Ground water guidcliacs, Safe DriDting Water Ad. Potøble Suoolv: AIlcncies -.Environmental DrlIrJJng W.,.· Protec:tioD Agency !&&!! - Safe Drinking Water Act llfilløtrltll AgricIIItIuYIl PWtIWUIVe llet:f'ØllM ~ PWtIWUIVe SMlIJIM :flM:IwtdtM Allcncies -J~Dvironmental Protec:don Apocy I&&!!l- Clean Water Act Allcncies - Eovironmental Protcc:tioD Agency; U.S. DepertoÌcot of Agric:uIturc; Natural Resource CoDserv8tion Service !&&!l-: CIeaø Water Act A2encies - Eøvironmeøtal Protec:don Apocy; U.S. Dept. of the Interior; U.S. Dept. ofFish IIftd Wildlife; U.s. Fon:st Service; Bureau of Indian Aftàirs; National Park Service; Federal Energy Regulatoly Commission, Anny Corps of Eøgineers. Bureau of R-11Hn!ttioD !&&!! - ctean Water Act; Endangered Species Act; Indim Treaty Rights A2cncies - Eøvironmcøtal Protection Agcøcy; U.S. Dcpørtmaat ofthc Interior; U.S. ~tmcat ofFish IIftd Wildlife; Bureau oflndian Aftàirs; National Marine F"1Sberies; Army Corps of Engineers !&&!! - Clean Water Act; Endangered Species Act A.Ilencies - Depts of Ecology IIftd Health !&&!l- Ground Water Quality SIaodards. Surface Water Quality SI8ndards. Water Code A.Ilcncies - Dcpertment of Health A.Ilencies - Department of Ecology Js!t NPDES regulations. Water Code AI!CIICÌes - Departmcøt of Ecology; Departmcøt of Agriculture I&&!I.:: Water Code, Surface Water Quality SIaødards A.Ilencies - Depørtment of Ecology; Departmcøt ofNMuraI Raoun:es; Depertmcnt of Fish IIftd Wildlife J&al:. Water Code AIlcncics - Dcpertment of Ecology; Department ofNMuraI Resources; DepIrtmeDt offish IØd WiIdIif« Departmcøt of Health !&&!! -SbcUfisb Ccrtific:ation, Surface Water Quality S1andards , ~.... , . A2encic:s - Planning DepaabQçßt; Pubtic Works; County Health Dcpartmcnt ls!I- Critical Areas Ordinaocc; Coontiøated Water System Plan A.Ilcncies - County Health Depar1meøt; Planning Dep..bøent ls!I- Critical Areas Ordinance; Coordinated Water System Plan AIlencies - Planning Departmcøt A.Ileocics - Planning Depertmcøt; Public Works; Wasbiøgton State University Cooperative Extension; Conservadon District Allcncies - Planning Dcpartmeot; Public Works 1siI- Critical Areas Ordinanc:e; SborcIinc Master Program AIlcocics - .Planning Department; Public Works; County Hc8Itb Depertmcot !&&!! - Critical Areas Ordioancc; SboreIiøc Master Program *1bis list of laws and agencies is not all.inclusive, but lists those most ftequcntly encountered on the Ioc:aIlevel. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-4 August 28. 1998 ENVIRONMENT Regulatory Strategy for CODSOUdated Environmental Review A Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review is an approach that combines various state and local environmental protection programs within a single regulatory framework. By encouraging inter-agency cooperation and integrating these programs into a -'unified- implementation strategy, the review process is simplified and made more efficient, thereby making environmental protection more comprehensive, effective and predictable. Environmental review concentrates on those land development and use activities that have the greatest potential to have significant cumulative impact on the natural systems of the County. As a response to the current deficiencies of the local regulatory ftamework in regard to environmental protection, the County's regulatory strategy includes the adoption and implementation of the following: 1. A Clearing and Grading Ordinance that provides criteria and defines a threshold to CI1S1ft adequate protection of critical areas and associated buffers for all types of significant land uses and land-disturbing activities. 2. An amended Storm Water Ordinance that will adequately address the important issues of storm water management and conservation. 3. Special Environmental Overlay Districts created for areas of Jefferson County that are characterized by unique environmental protection needs. For example, Marrowstone Island has been designated a "Sole-Source Aquifer Mea'" by the Department of Ecology, and, as such, requires specific policies addressing its unique features and concerns, such as salt water intrusion. The regulatory strategy for consolidated permit review is presented in the Comprehensive Plan through goals and policies that provide guidelines for types and thresholds of protection for each resourœ area. The action items under the regulatory strategy address the ordinances that will need to be written, revised, or amended, as well as the collection of scientific data on which to base permit decisions. Coordination with state and local agencies is included in order to strèamline the multiple jurisdictional levels of review for many activities. Critical Areas ProteetiOD Strategy The Critical Areas Protection Strategy describes the regulations and methodologies used to protect the critical environmental areas found throughout Jefferson County. Protection and enhancement of critical areas were determined by the state legislature to be essential to the maintenance of public health and safety. The designation of Critical Areas in Jefferson County was guided by OMA requirements, state guidelines, and a extensive IQcaI review process (see Appendix E). In 1994, the Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted. The ordinance was amended on June 26, 1995 to add provisions for the protection of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The ordinance incorporates by reference the Jefferson County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance ##1-89) for the regulation of &equèntly flooded areas, with language added that identifies these critical areas according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) tOO-year floodplain designations. The Interim Critical Areas Ordinance designates and regulates the following critical areas as required under RCW 36.70A.030(5): Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-5 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT · Wetlands; · Aquifer recharge areas; · Frequently flooded areas; · Geologically hazardous areas; and, · Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and pursuant to the proVISIODS of RCW 36.70A.060(3), the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan prior to its adoption as a fibaI ordinance. Provisions may be revised based on the review, for example, of regulations protecting fish and wildlife habitat that may need to be revised in light of the proposed listing of fish species under the Endangered Species Act. .The regulatory protection of critical areas will improve as the data base of information is deveJoped over time. Action items under this strategy include continuing to inventory and map environmental conditions, which will increase the efficiency and the level of proteetion over the 2o-year period of this plan. Critical Areas maps will be updated as new scientific information bëcomes available. Public EdaeatioD aad lDvolvelDeDt Strategy A Public Education and Involvement Strategy has been included in the Environmental Element in recognition of the importance of public awareaess and involvement to the success of an environmental protection program. Education regarding measures·and regulations designed to protect property owners from environmental hazards will improve compliance with these regulations. In addition, when property owners of existing development are educated regarding natural processes and resource protection, they are likely to better manage their property, to seek assistance early, and to avoid taking actions which may cause problems on their own or nearby land. A public involvement approach is also far more cost-efficient for both property owners and the County, in that addressing problems in advance is generally less costly than being forced to address them after they have become critical. Jefferson County's commitmeot to public education and involvement through the action items of this strategy wilt result in more effective proteetion of resources, the protection of tife and property, and a population of residents who are more informed about, supportive of, and individually active in environmental-protection. COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEcrION In order to address the environment in a comprehensive manner, Jefferson County has developed additional environmental goals and policies for protection of the following: · Shorelines · Air quality · Natural heritage vegetation and landforms · View and noise conditions The implementation of this Plan through a revision of County ordinances will be guided by the goals and policies for these areas. .Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-6 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT Shorelines Jefferson County contains significant shoreline resources, with approximately 202 miles of saltwater shoreline, 367 miles of streams, and 14 miles of lake shoreline. Over 80 percent of the shorelines in Eastern Jefferson County are privately owned., while most of the shorelines in the West End along the Pacific Ocean are managed by the National Park Service. In addition to provìdiñg fish, shellfish, and wildlife habitat, the shorelines of Jefferson COunty have value for residential and economic uses. Shorelines of the State are regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). Amendments to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program must Ix; approved by the Department of Ecology and must comply with the State law. Shoreline permits issued by the County are reviewed by the State for compliance with State law. The County's Shoreline Management Master Program will be . revised in the next several years to comply with the Growth Management Act, based on a review for consistency with this Comprehensive Plan and on guidelines currently being developed by the State. The revised Master Program will be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. During the interim period prior to adoption of a revised Shoreline Management Master Program, where shoreline regulations conflict with other ordinances, the more restrictive regulations shall apply. The marine shorelines of Eastern Jefferson County have been developed at a rapid rate in some areas over the past several decades. In some areas, adverse impacts to the environment have occurred in terms of fish habitat damage, water quality degradation, altered patterns of sediment transport, and landslides where drainage and construction m~ures have exacerbated the instability of bluffs. Because activities in one area of the shoreline can have significant impacts in other shoreline areas, permit review processes must recognize the interdependence of shoreline landfonn stability and habi1at with shoreline transport systems, drainage systems, and geologic conditions. The goals, policies, and strategies for shorelines address the regulation of the shoreline for the protection of environmental functions, and the coordination of permitting decisions with state agencies responsible for environmental protection. In addition, because of the potential property damage that can result for a landowner and nearby properties if natural processes are ignored, the goals and policies of this plan include protection of property ftom the individual or cumulative effects of shoreline development. Public access and public education are also included as components that. promote shoreline protection and enjoyment. Air Quality Air quality throughout Jefferson County is generally good. The Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, with regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act, attributes air pollution on the Olympic Peninsula to motor vehicles, outdoor burning, industrial emissions, and residential wood. stoves. Air . quality in East Jefferson County is more of a concern than that of the West End, given the higher concentrations of development and population. Occasional burning bans which include the use of wood-burning stoves are declared when regional weather conditions result in a decrease in regional air quality. Over the next 20 years the population growth in East Jefferson County may contribute to a decrease in air quality, in particular along major transportation routes. The Environment Element proposes policies and strategies to address the long- tenn air quality of the County. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-7 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT Natural Heritage VegetatioD aDd Laadforms Jefferson County's natural environment includes native vegetation, ecosystems, and landfonns which have value to the community as the basis of its natUral heritage. It is the intent of the County to protect areas of native ecosystems and to promote the use of native vegetation. Naturallandfonns and geologic outcrops with ed~naI and scientific value, are included as having natural -heÄtage value, and protection of these areas is encouraged for the education and enjoyment of future residents. View aDd Noise Coaditioas - The mountain, water, and valley views found in Jefferson County have signiïlCllJ1t value for County residents and visitors. County residents depend on these scenic resources for enriching their quality of life and maintaining economic vitality. Tourist activities and real estate property values reflect the high value placed on this aesthetic amenity. There are currently no regulations for the protection of views and viewsheds. A public discussion during the prOcess of developing ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan can be used to determine the extent to which citizens feel that view protection should be regulated. Given the rural nature of the County, there is very little light or glare "pollution" of concern to residents. Protection of the rural cbaracter of the community includes protection from excessive light and glare that may accompany development. In rural Jefferson County the noise of a neighbor's chain saw is generally an accepted -part of life, and noise conditions have not generally been considered a problem. Resolving the impacts of growth in a changing rural area may require a level of noise regulation -that will be determined in public processes for development of ordinances following approval of the Comprehensive Plan. CRITICAL AREAS MAPS Maps are provided on the following pages that depict the location of critical areas identified by Jefferson County. Not all critical areas have been mapped. Jefferson County will continue to improve the infonnation on which permit processing is based, in order to protèct the public from inappropriate development and to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-8 August 23. 1998 ,.,. .. JEFFERSON COUNTY 'f6~~-¡C-~TI~lff'm1 DEP~RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN APR1 0 3J03 l1lJ 621 Sheridan Street· .Port TownSend, . Washington 983 360/379-4450·800/831-2678·360/379-4451 Fax JEFFERSON COUNTY OEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Application for Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan/UDC, Amendment1 MLA # .ML41o 3 - .,<CJ ~ . ,. PROJEcr/APPUCANTNAME: ANE Forests' of Pu et Sound Applications must be completed and submitted to the Department of Community development by May 1 of the curren calendar year in order to be considered during this years amendment process. Completed applications that are receive after May 1 will be placed on the 'docket for the lo/Iowing calendar year. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do not include all of the information required below) wIll be returned to the applicant. Plea.8 note that formal slte-speclfic amendment applications reqUNtlng expansion of existing commercial areas are subject to a November 22, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board decision which prohibits the County from expanding existing commercial areas. The County Is currently appealing this declsJonto Superior Court. In the event that this appeal Is unsuccessful, applications requesting commercial area expansion may not be acted. upon. Submittal Requirements t: A completed Master Land Use Application and SEPA Checklist (If applicable). Representative authoñzation is required If application Is not signed by owner. , 2': A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. 3. ' 'Comprehensive PlanlUDC Amendment application fee (as applicable), a8 set forth I" the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance, as amended. i. ,. 4. Anyaddltiohal information deemed necessal)' by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. -ð. Please prepare and label as -Exhibit A: a vicinity map showing the foUowing: a. The location of the area ,proposed to be redesignated; b. The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and c. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site. Please prepare and label as -exhibit B,· a description ·of the proposed PlanlUDC amendment and any associated development propOsal(s), if applicable. ApØlièations for project-reJated fonnal site-specific redeSlgnations must include plans, and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and improvements. Applications for such redesignatfons that do not specify proposed uses and potential Impacts are assumed to have maximum Impact to the environment and public facilities and services. _~"'. ' '( Please prepare and label as -ExÄibit -C, - a map U\at depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity p.e., within a three hundred (SOO)-foot radius). The exhibit must depict topography, wetiands ana buffers, easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site. The Intent of the exhibit is to clearly Illustrate the physical opportunities and constraints of the site. 1 See UDC SectIon 9.4. SITE SPeCIFIC APP.DOC REV. 101e12001 Page 1 . .. c· ..~ ~, 1~' ....... . 8. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, If necessary.)' . . To change the zoning from 1 dwelling per 20 acres t~ 1 dwelling pèr 10 acres. toŒ 0 ~h~ would be consistent with the . zoning that .a1r.eady exists N'orth . along the Beaver Valley road.·' -'1so. the property is currently being. taxed at 28 time the'va~ue C?f forest.lan~, and is båKed·as if it were deveJ.opable. 9. The current land use deslgnatlonlzonlng ofthe site Is: Rural reÅidentia~. 1 dwel~in~ per 20 acres. 10. The proposed land use designationlzonlng of the site Is: Rural residential, 1 dweJ.l;1ng per 10 acree 11. The current use of the site Is: forestry Rural residential 12. The proposed use of the site Is: 13. If changes to Comprehensive Plan or UDC text are required, please prepare and label as -Exhibit D: proposed amendatory language (I.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown In -bllr format, wIth·text to be added Indicated with undertlnlng (e.g., underJintna), and text to be deleted Indicated with strikeouts (e.g., etFIkeøl:lts). 14. Please prepare and label as -Exhil?lt E.· a thorouah explanation of how the.proposed redeslgnatlonlrezone and associated develop~nt proposals, If any, meet, confJid with, or .relate to the following Inquiries: a. .Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the ·area In which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid. or has new Information become avaßable that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values· of the residents of Jefferson County? Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and· services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parkt,fIre flow, and general governmental services)? . , Is the proposal conilstent With the goals, policies and implementation atrategle8 of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? . VVlII the proposal result In probable significant adverse Impacts to the county's tnt~atIon netwotk. capital . facilities,. utilities, parks, aAd environmental features that cannot be mitigated? .' _ ....r. VVlII the proposal place UQCOmpensated burdens upon existing or plannèd service capabilities? How Is the subject parceJ(s) phy$lcallysultatjle for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development Including. but not limited to the following: (I) Access; (II) Provision of utilities; and (iiI) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? Will the proposal, If adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best Interests of the county as a whole? b. c. d. e. f. g. h. I. - j. SITE SPECifIC APP.DOC REV. 1011II2OO1 Page 2 .,..-:.:. ~:, k. Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the lalid use and population growth projeCtiòns that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? I. If the proposed redesignati9n/reZone Is located within an unin~ted urban growth area (UGA), WO the prop~1 materially affect thE! adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA? . m.. Is the proposed amendment cOnsistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Countvwlde Plannina Policv for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies Or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws? 15. The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained In this appllcaUon.are troe and provide an accurate representation of the proposed amendment; and the appllcant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approvellssued on this application may be revoked If any such statement Is found to be false. / ß7/;Ø;x?;> /fhI!' ~t:J ~ ðt= ~¿:,. DATE". / "../,; ..r~o /i1C . / 2'l2Oð..J' DATE PROPERTY OVIINER'S SIGNATURE DATE PROPERTY OVIINER'S SIGNATURE OATE . [NOTE: For all required signatures, representative authorization· is required if application is not signed by the owner.) '~-~-:R-~ ~:~-~ JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . . -- . -. .. . SITE SPECIFIC APP.ooc ~ Page 3 . ~.. m 0 ¡ . ~..~. q~.~ ,- ~,"'\ ~ '" 04..... tt',..... J! .... .... ·,. . < ¡;[f~··~·-iG·_··~·-··Ü-WJ -~···1F\1 N'R". ~. ~EFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPME 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend' Washington 98 8 360/379-4450 . 800/831-2678 . 360/379-4451 Fax JEFFERSON COUNTY DfPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of ch6CkJist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decision,. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your·proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and çarefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the. answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does riot apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. . The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal _. or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ..... . " - . 2. Name of applicant AN! Fares ts .9.f ;Puge t Sound» Inc.. 3. Address and phone number of appJiCänt and contact person: Jim Wick C/O.Woodland Management Inc. 5285SW Meadows Rd Suite 468 Lake Osweg~» OR 97035 4. Date checklist prepared: 1/24/03 . . . . . 5. Agency requesting checklist Jeff~rson County Dept. of Commun~ty Development 6. Proposed timing or scI1edule (including phasing, if applicable) Start July 2003' with surveying and road Duilding. SEP A ErrvironmentaJ CheclcJist Page 1 . \ , ' " ., , . 'J . 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, e:¡<plaln. tIIITlble~ be tþe sale of one or· two larger lots to the east. ........ ~. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. . None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property cov~ by your proposal? If yes, explain. . No application pending 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Permits would be needed for. the Building of 4 homes,· including septic, driveways, and provid:f1ng power to sites. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, Including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site.. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead .agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) We would be subdividing 40 acres into. 4 separate. parcels. Orientation will be east and west crossing the. Beaver highway. The access rQad and building sites will be on the east side.of dthe . highway, thus' p~otecting wet::areas west of the road. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. VVhile you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Property is located NE 1/4 SE 1/4' (Gov lot 1)- Sac 36 T29N R 1W on both sides of Beaver Valley Road. ... .... ~~ - B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth . a. General description of the site (circle one): FW~hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. This site is flat on tne west and-~ getting steeper on the east side of the paved road. SEPA Environmental Checklist . Page 2 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? I~~~-~ :~1- ~ Steepest slope would be approximately 30% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, g If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any The west side is a peat area and to the east as the ground rises becomes more sand and gravel. COUNTY ¡i¡ITY DEVELOPMENT it d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No~:_ e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.· . There is np grading or filling except for .the normal road building and excavation at the home sites. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally ~ribe. No, other sites developed on the same slopes north of the site ate stable. g.About what percent of the site will be covered with Impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Less then 2% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None a.Alr a. VVhat types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, indusbial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. . There will be minimal emissions during and after the· construction and would mainly be limited to home. owner '.s automobiles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Pro~ me~ures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any; ~ . oa_"' " 3. Water -,. NONE a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the inmediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, weUands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a.i1i:termittent stream on the North edge of the property. The west edge of the property is wet as it approaches the east fork of the Chimicum creek. There would be no development done West of the Beaver Valley road. SEP A Environmental Checklist Page 3 .k "',' ; am 21)'Ñi1l f;aþroject require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, ple~ describe and attach available plans. . N~~, except for the access road which will leave Beaver Valley road 7$,'feet South of . the in·termittent s·tream. .. .3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) ·wm the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposalliewithin a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site. pían. . No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) WII ground water be withdrawn, or win water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The water fo.r the 4 home sites will néed to be provided from deep wells. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Domestic Sewage will be needed for the 4 home sites. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). VVhere will this water flow? WII this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Homes will be built on high ground away from the. streams, so runoff will be of no signifacance. .... . . .. :"':" 2) COUld waste materials enter grou~ or surface waters? If so, generally desCribe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The road construction will include cross drainage onto forest soils and would not go into the streams. Runoff from houses ~ill be very minimal and would not be near the streams. SEP A Environmental Chec/clist Page 4 .. 4. Plants ~ ^ ~~~~-~-~ ~ -~ a.' Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ~ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. VVhat kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Removal of small trees and brush. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY OEYELOPMEN-:" c. List threatened or endangered spec~ known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or. enhance vegetation on the site, if any: There would be the use of native plants except for the use of ornamental plants around the homes arid the lawns. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animåls which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the~· ; birds: aŸi'~ heron, eagleLSongbirdi) other: mamma : Øëëb bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, Sã1iñòn, trout, heliing, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: We would not have development near· wet areas on the west side of the site. . " ~ . .4;; . . 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity would need to be accessable to the building sites.· SEP A Environmental Chec/dist Page 5 -:..... , . b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, tC<6 .Q9~~~escribe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are Included In the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, 'includlng exposure to toXIc chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this propo$al? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) wm types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, QPel'8tJon, other)? . ' There is already a considerable amount òf traffic_~noisefrom Beaver Valley road. additional noise will be' of no consequence. 2) wm types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short- term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation; other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. . There would be the normal.home' construction noise from approxi8.11).etly 7am to 5pm. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. Land and 8ho~lIne use None .., .. - a. What is the current use of the site ancf adjacent properties? North of· the site there are small rural home sites. West of the site there àre home sites on. marginal agricultural ground and east of the site in forestland. This site is ourrently being used as forestland. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No SEP A Environmental CheclcJist Page 6 '~. c. Describe any structur~s on the site. None ._. .. ".'''''. ..--.......-..---.-...., ¡~~ æA~R~: :~ ~I d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY OEVELO~~t!!.. No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Rural Residential with ldwelling unit per 20 acres f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural Residential with 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" or critk:al area? If so, specify . No i.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? . Plan is for 4 .families. to reside in .the completed project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement Impacts, if any: None I. P~posed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: There would be no, development west of Beaver Valley .road and a 200 foot·set back from the property to the east. 9. Housing . , --:...... a. Approxin'iately how many units wouk!be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. There would be 4 middle income houses. b. Approximately how many units,. if any. would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None SEP A Environmental Checklist Page 7 "';'":.. 1 O. Aesthetics . tCtl ~t i8'th.,tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal eXterior building material(s) proposed? Hëight would be 35 feet with a wood exterior b. VVhat views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c.' Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. 'Light and glare a. VVhat type of light or glare will the proposal produce? VVhat time of day would it mainly occur? Lightlng:would be mostly evening lights above Beaver Valley Road. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. VVhat existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the Immediate vicinity? There is fishin~. hunting and boating the the area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Nq'" c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed 91', or proposed for, national, state, or local preservatIon..._ . registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. .. : --, No b. Generally descnbe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None SEP A Environmental Chec/clist Page 8 ,. " . 16. UtIlities ! ILJ) Œ:tr;iEllrffr.~1 UÙ APR 1 0 æœ lW a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, re se servlÇ !fFERSON COUNTY telephone. sanitary sewer, septic system, other. OEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Currently there is none at the site, but there is electricity, re use se telephone available along'Beaver Valley Road. b. Describe the utilities that are propoSed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction·activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. There will bea need for electricity, well water, telephone and septic. ~ ~. J.. w ~ ~ t-- fttJe ~~ ~ ()~ C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true nd complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its deciSion. . . \ ~ )".. ~ .i\. ~ ~. {t¡Pâ ;¡ ~..£ C>'"'a""" ..., Signature: Date Submitted: .............. ª..::.:?. k:..f?..~...... ...................... .... ................................... ............................ ............. ... . - " SEP A Environmental ChecIcJisl Page 10 ··..-A. , . , ;=.Offit. rTtanspOrtatJon . a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Beaver Valley road serves this site, and theacce$s road will be east of Beaver Valley road and 75 feet South. of the small in~ermittent stream. ((J Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest ../ transit stop? . Not to our knowledge c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or Improvements to existing ~ or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. WII the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If knowh, indicate when peak volumes would occur. We can only estimate 20 to 30 sparatic trips per day for all 4 sites. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes. There would be increased public service for the 4 new homes. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None . , ..::....... SEP A Environmental CheclcJist Page 9 ," ; JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTM'ENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend· Washington 98368 360/379-41450· 800~31-2678· 360/379-4451 Fax www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Master Land Use Permit Application Form PROPERTY INFORMATION I DE?T. OFJEFFEASO,N COUNTY I Tax Parcel Number: rzJ Q I1J IJJ ~ Ell [QJ [¡J gJ Subdivision Name: Lot Number: Property Size: 40 (acres/square f(tet) , existing Use of Property: Fores tr Site Addressand/or Directions to Property: NESE' (Gov Lot 1) Sec 36 T 29 N R 1 W ApPUCANT & O~ER IINFORMATlON Applicant (lfapp,lcable): AN! Forests of Puget, Sound, Inc. Address: C 0 Wo6dland Mana ement,Inc. 5285 SW ,Meadows, Rd. éity: Lake' OswegQ State: OR Zip Code: 97035 Appllcanr. Signa......' .~ I~ ..::> .:i. ~;¡ b- 0,,,,,,,,- Property Owner(s) of Record.: ANE Fo.rests ,of Puget sounc:;-1Ii6Rone: 503-684-4004 Address: same as above Telephone: 503-684-4004 Suite 468 ' Emall AddresåWoodland@Woodlandm City: I acknowledge that the applicant above I Zip Code: Emall Address r a building pennlt on my property. ~M!T/t>t'G.t/:t' Or , ~øl"",ø-~ /h'<=': Owner's Slgnatur . of Woodland M t InctG act as my agent In matters relating to this appliCation for·permit(s). ' ~/I'/¡rt>t'e:I// ~1 ,P~#T V'CVþf() Øt. (DATE) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OR ACTIVITY (Include sej)arate sheets 8S' necessary) To subdivide site into. 4 building sites. [THIS SECTION FOR OFFICE USE C;>NL Y] Refer to the speçlflc sections of the UDC referenced below for more Information and further requirements. An asterisk (.) indicates that a supplemental application or questionnaire may be required. Tvpe , Permits o Septic PerrnitlEvaluation of existing System (EES) o BuildlnglDemolltlon Permit '0 Allowed "Yes· Use Consistency Analysis o 'Home Business o Stormwater Management · o Road Access· o Boundary Une Adjustment· o Minor PRRD Amendments o Sign Permit· o Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) o Shoreline Master Program ExemptlonlPermit Revisions o Tem ora Use based on use ma be T 1\ or T e III · Refer to: . , UDC Section 6.4.1 and Chapter 8.15 JCC UDC Section 3.2.1 and TablE! 3-1 UDC Section 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 Table 3-1 and UDC Section 4.20. UDC Section 6.7 UDC Section 6.8 ' UDC SectIon 7.~ UDCSection 3.6.13.15 UDC Section 6.15 UDC SectIon 8.7 UDC Section 5 UDC SectIons 4.38 and 4.39 µ TVDe II Permits o Discretionary "D" or Unnamed Use Classification o Cottage Industry . o Short Plat, Preliminary and Flnar o Blndlng'slte Plan· o · ;~dltldnal (Administrative) "C(at Use o Conditional (Discretionary) "C(d) Use o Variance, Minor" o . Wireless Telecommunication o . 'ShoreDne Substantial Development (Primary Use) o Forest Practices ActlRelease of Six-Year Moratorium for Single- Family Residence . o Appeal Tvoe III Perm Ita o Conditional "C" Use o long Plat, Preliminary" . o Planned Rural Residential Development Preliminary Approval (PRRD) and Major Amendments· o Plat Vacation/Alteration o Variance, Major" '. o Reasonable Economic Use Variance· o Wireless Tefecommunlcatlon . o Shoreline Management Substantial Development, Secondary Use· o Shoreline Management Conditional usè* . . . . [j Shoreline Management Verlance* o Appeal Tvoe IV Perm Ita o Long Plat, Final o PRRD, Final Tvoe V Permits o Special Use (Essential Public Facilities) o . Jefferson County Comprehensive PlanlUDClLand Use District Map Amendment· o Jefferson County Shoreflne Master Program Amendment· o Appeal of SEPA Refer to: UDC Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and Table 3-~. . ~ UDC Section 7.3 and Table 3-1 UDC Section 7.3 . UDC SectIon 7.5 UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 (Discretionary Permit ·Revlew Process Determined by Administrator) UDC ·Sectlon 8.9 Ordinance 06-0712-99 (UDC APpendix C) UDC' Section 5 . UDC Section 4.16.5(0) .-, - .. i: .. UDC Section 8.4.2 SEPA 8.10.12(b) UDC Section 8.8 UDC Section 7.4 UDC Section 3.6.13 (must be In conjunction with an . underiying land division application} UDC SectIon 7.1.3(d) . UDC Section 8.9 UDC Section 3.6.4(h) . Ordinance 06-0712-99 UDC Appendix C UDC Section 5 UDC Section 5 UDC SectIon 5 UDC Section 8:4.3 SEPA 8.10.12 (c) ÙDC Section 7.4 UDC Section 3.6.13 UDC Section 3.3~5 UDC Section 9 UDC SectIon 5 . UDC Section 8.10.12(d) Other Local. State o~~ederal Permits . o Please Identify aOy other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, If known: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [PLIAaE NOT! THAT TWO SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRID] By signing the application form, the applicant/owner attests that the Information provided herein Is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. I also certify that this application Is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affeCted property. Any ~al falsehood or any omIaaIon of a material fact made by the applicant/owner with respect to this appllclitlon packet may result in this permit belng.null and void. . I further agree to save, Indemnify and hold harmless JeffersOn County against all liabilities, judgments, court coats, reasonable attomey's feèa and expenses which may In any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or In consequence of the grantlngof1hls permit.. I further agree to provide eocess and right of entry· to Jefferson County and Ita employees,repreaentatlves or agents for the sote purpose of application review and any required later inspections. this right of entry shall. expire when the County (through the Administrator or .the Administrator's representatives) concfudes the application has complied with air applicable laws and regulations. Access and right of entry to the appIlcanfs property shall be requested and shall occur onfy during regular business hours. 1. - PftOPERTY O'M'fER ' (DATE) . The action or. actions ApplIcant wID undertake as a result of the Issuance of this. permit may negatively Impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species .and coulcllead to a potential "take- of an endangered species as those terms are defined In the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Þd or "ESA." ~n County makes no assurances to the applicant that the aétions that will be undertaken because this permit has been Issued will not violate the ESA. Any IndMdual, group or agency call file a l8wault on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(!S) even if you are· In compliance with the Jefferson County development code . The Applicant acknowledgeS that he, she or It holds Individual and non-transferable' reSponsibility for adhering to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this disclaimer and signs and dates it below. . 2. PROPERTY QlNNER (DATE) ~ ;..II -:z ~ 5 ~ (JA~ ru.. ÿ "Exhibit B" It is our intent to change from 1 dwelling per 20 acres to 1 dwelling per 10 acres. Our site is IQcated on both sides of Beaver Valley Road (NE 1/4 SE 1/4 (Gov lot 1) Sec 36 T 29 N R 1 W). In reviewing this area, dividing into 4 parcels of 10 acres would be consistent with adjacent properties as the adjacent properties to the North, on the East side of the road are currently zoned Rural Residential 1 dwelling per 10 acres. This would also be consistent with the zones 3/4 miles South of the property East of the Beaver Valley road. In completing this project we would be asking to add 2 extra homes sites to the 2 that are already allowed. In doing this there would be minimal if any real impact on Beaver valley road. We would be placing our access road east of Beaver Valley road and 7S feet from a small intermittent stream. The building of these roads would include cross drainage onto forest soils with no chance of drainage into the streams. The traffic to Beaver Valley road by this access road would be slight if even noticeable. The building sites would be placed on high ground with the need to remove only a minimal amount of small trees and underbrush, still leaving the houses fairly isolated from the road and the valley intact. There fore not having much of an impact if any on people passing by. Currently the property has had a few deer and a occasional hawk., but mostly we have songbirds. By locating the houses on the East side of the site and leaving the west side of the valley intact we feel that we would not be disturbing their habitat. Our plan is to leave most of the natural vegetation and would expect to have a few ornamental plants close to the home site surrounding a lawn area. Electrical utilities are currently along Beaver Valley road but not connected to the site. Connecting these to the site would be of minimal impact especially since they are already at the entrance to our site. The remaining utilities would be septic and well water which should have no impact to the surrounding areas. There would be a need to increase public service either way we look at this, but by adding 2 extra sites it would not put a strain or a heavy burden on any of the public services. If anything it could bring extra revenue to the community. Our goal is to have 4 quality building sites that will enhance the area and allow 4 families the ability to grow in a positive rural environment. In doing so there is a benefit to the county and the community in that the lower valley would be intact and. at the same time increase the value on the land and bring income to the community. 1Df~lë IE ~ \'U IE rñì tf11 APR 1 0 am l!1J JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ( ( .( e'lt~ . T "- . 'F.OREST p' RAe T. I C'E BASE MAP . TOW N S H I P2 '9 NORTH, RAN G [ 0 1 . A P P Lie A T ION # W [ S T (w; M . ) , o txX) SCAlI 2000 3000 1.111111111111111.11. FEET S2ØIfI) 4000 5000 11111..11111111111111 J 1Mf 11111 1IIII III1I 6000 I MAP DA 1E: ~verrber '6, 2000 CONTOUR INTERVAL: 40 Feet LEGEND:' See Instructions NAD . 27 DISCLAIMER: See Legend Water/Wetlands including their location and class may be ~ncorrectly displayed or not shown on the Base Map. Applicants are responSible for verlfication and correct.10n of all streams. wetlands. and possible water courses. . ··fE~'· i I ìI! ìI! t I ~ It ~ ~ ~~t?:t I ~ ~ ! ~ l~ ~ '-..1'0",..- - ~ '-üa..w I') I õ Ww~(!) Q) (j)(f) 0:: (]I-NIZ-I\: t/i lIS) ill . Q:: "\ ~ ./ J' ~ "" ;." \\ ~ :t \, 'l.. ... "( ~ ~ 8 Ii! ~ ~. if>" ~Ð .~ §~; ~ II!s~d I \ ~ I: !! g\ .-.::i ~ í ~ . ~. ~ ¡ ~ tt't" ...... J. ~ .,/ "-"- .,/ .,/ .,/ 1;' ..-..~~ ~I Ii", ~ I.LI Ii~n .' ¡;~ , ~! I~;i d :. bI;..i:ll ,1iiaL;1i I G 'j' . I·'" I~~i II:~; 1M (,111__-0\: t/I lIS) I I I I !II 1!.illl !. - II . ~nl I ...... Ii! 5 } I:~ . . . ¡¡jiUiI !i ~d i \...~ I h~ ~ I i.!. I'. II i 11/ . li'li ~ RtllI ~_. 11..1 Illh! i~fi g I ..llId .h~ I ~u f f I (i . ~ :~ ;--l - MJI 9 ~ I .~'" g~ =- 0 ' ~~ l!.Y - ~i g a:: ~2 ~ ....0 "'Q ~.... I!.Y 0 ,.: lC Ib 0 "", "Exhibit E" A) Major circumstances have not changed in relation to the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive plan. B) We think that the comprehensive plan is still valid and that this change can fit into the existing plan. C) The proposed amendment would enhance the visual appeal without deflecting from the rural aspect. It would bring an increase in property value and add income to the community. Also bringing this area into the same zoning as those properties to the north. D) If your talking public transportation, there is none alone Beaver Valley Road, and so that would not be an issue. E) This proposal would not have a major effect on the level of service for public facilities, if anything I think it would bring a increase in revenue to these services, giving them an opportunity to advance. F) Yes. We would be providing affordable living, bringing economic growth with out putting a strain on any public facilities or services. At the same time leaving wildlife habitat and still allowing the property to be productive. G) No. Adding two home sites would have a nominal impact if any impact at all. H) No. Again the impact would be nominal if any impact at all. I) By changing this property it would bring it consistent with surrounding properties and easily accessible by Beaver Valley Road. Utilities currently run along Beaver Valley Road, making connection to those utilities not an issue. 1) This proposal if adopted would not add pressure to change other properties. We would become the same as the surrounding properties around us that are already listed with 1 home site per 10 acres. Which is what we are proposing. K) No, this is a very small change and does not materially change land use or growth projection. L) Adding 2 more dwellings to this site would not put a major if any impact on the a~ili~offu£iliti~orilie~=m~Wm~~ . \~~~~::~~ :: ~ \ JEFFERSON COUNTY T \ DEPI Of- COi'f.MUNITY DEV£lOPMEN ~-- M) Yes. We would be consistent with adjacent properties and since there would be no development west of Beaver Valley Road and a 200 foot set back from th~ property to the east that would leave most of the natural landscape, and still be leaving the land compatible for the wildlife in the area. lbTiE (G IE 0 W IE fRì . ~ APRJOm ~ JEFFERSON COUNlY i DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .'- 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET Department of Community Development Staff Report and SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Staff Recommendation and Environmental Analysis with Regard to the Adoption of Four Proposed Site:-Specific...Amendments to the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 6, 2003 INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action: Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents .;; 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Table of Contents Page ! EnvironD1ental Summa and Fact Sheet ........................................................................................1.1 1.1 Fact Sheet. ..... ................. .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Environmental Summary.............. ........... ............................................................. ........................ 1-4 1.2.1 Introduction and Process........................................................ .............................................. 1-4 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents............................................................. 1-4 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference ...................................................................... 1-5 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis ................................................... .................................. 1-5 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement ......................................................................................1-5 1.2.2 Major Conclusions ............................ ..... ......................................... ........... .......... ................ 1-7 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................... 1-7 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations ...........................1-8 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ....................................................................... 1-9 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty............................................................... 1-9 1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved ............................................. ........................................................... 1-10 1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made............................................................................... 1-10 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 1-11 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action.......................................... 1-12 ~ Concise Analysis of the Alternatives ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Overview............................................................................................................................. ......... 2-1 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations....................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators ...... ......................................... ................................... .........2-1 2.2 final docket............................................................................................................................. ..... 2-4 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation............................................................................................. ............ 2-4 2.3 Staff Reports: Site-Specific Amendments ...................................................................... .............. 2-6 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (1).........................................................2-6 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA03-189 (ANE Forests) ............................................................. 2-7 2.3.2 Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial...............2-1O 2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA03-182 (Wooden Boat School).............................................. 2-12 2.3.3 Requests for Mineral Resource Lands Overlay District Designation................................. 2-15 2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA03-231 (phillips/Maki) .......................................................... 2-16 2.3.4 Request for Change in Forest Land Designation................................................................ 2-25 2.3.4.1 Reference Number: MLA0:3-225 .(Pal1f,-..-..................................................................... 2-26 ~ SUDOOrtin2 Record.. Analvses. and Materials ..................................................................................3-1 ~ Distribution List................................................................................................................................. 4-1 ~ A endices ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Appendix Item 1: Integrated GMNSEPA document (August 6, 2(03).......................................5-2 5.2 Appendix Item 2: Instructions and Links for Accessing Site Maps on the County Website........5-4 .. /1 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet 1.1 FACT SHEET Title and Description of Proposed Action Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) , the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is considering adoption of eight (8) individual amendment proposals to the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The eight proposed amendments, consisting of four (4) site-specific applications and four (4) suggested amendments, compose the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which is the "Final Docket" for this year's annual amendment cycle. Some of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals are accompanied by associated Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments. This document is a combined Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Addendum for the four site-specific amendment proposals. The objective is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in UDC Section 9 and potential environmental impacts as proscribed in SEP A. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under SEP A and is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEP A requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). Following are brief descriptions of each of the four proposed site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use map. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MIA) for reference: 1. MLA03-182; Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding; parcel 901013016; amend the land use map to designate the entirety of the subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC, a rural commercial district); currently approx. half of the 5-acre parcel is RYC and half is Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per 5 acres (1 :5). 2. MLA03-189; ANE Forests ofPuget Sound, Inc.; parcel 901364012; land use map re-designation for approx. 40 acres from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 10 district. 3. MLA03-225; Donna Pall; parcel 821061001; re- designation for approx. 68 acres from Commercial Forest 1:80 to Rural Forest 1:40 land use district. 4. MLA03-231; Marilee, Gary. and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan Maki; parcels 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026; establishment of a Mineral Resource Land overlay district for approx. 37 acres in underlying RR 1:5 and RR 1 :20 districts. 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Proponent Lead Agency Authors and Principal Contributors Date of Staff Report & SEP A Addendum Issuance Date Comments are Due Expected Date of Future Staff Reports Tentative Adoption Date Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on behalf of four applicants Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) Long-Range Planning 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend W A 98368 Responsible Official: AI Scalf, Director DCD (360) 379-4493 Contact Person: Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner DCD Long-Range Planning (360) 379-4466 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long-Range Planning August 6, 2003 Close of Planning Commission public hearing, (begins at 6:30 PM), Wednesday, August 20,2003 DCD expects to release the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEP A Addendum on Suggested Amendments on or around September 17. A two-week comment period and Planning Commission public hearing will follow issuance. DCD expects to transmit to the BOCC a final DCD Staff Recommendation together with the Planning Commission Recommendation for all eight proposals on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket early to mid- November. A legislative decision from the BOCC on each of the eight Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals and associated UDC amendments under consideration is expected in late November or early December 2003. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission and BOCC with regard to this Docket are available on a Jefferson County website dedicated to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This website can be accessed from the "Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan" section of the Long-Range Planning website: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/LRP.htm 1-2 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications Appeal Information Location of Background Material and Documents Incorporated by Reference Relation to Other Documents Cost to the Public August 6, 2003 Issues relating to the adequacy of a SEP A Addendum and other procedural issues may not be appealed under the administrative appeal provisions of UDC 8.10.12. Appeals of GMA actions (i.e., a legislative decision by the BOCC) are heard first by a Growth Management Hearings Board. Background material and documents used to support development of the Addendum are available for inspection from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368, (360) 379- 4450. A series of documents have been prepared by or on behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations- the Unified Development Code (UDC)-inclusive of amendments. These documents, listed in part 3 of this document, "Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials," provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental description and analysis. They are hereby incorporated by reference. The reader is encouraged to utilize existing documents in conjunction with this document for more comprehensive perspective and understanding. In this document, description of and references to the content of the proposals have been provided to the greatest extent possible, but are not inclusive of all relevant information from the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. For optimum understanding of the discussion presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted as companion information to this document. Copies of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum, or select pages, are available at cost from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD). The text and selected appendices are also available for download on the DCD website dedicated to the 2003 annual amendment cycle, which can be accessed from the "Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan" section of the Long-Range Planning website: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentILRP.htm. Copies of this document are available for inspection at DCD and the Jefferson County Public Library at Port Hadlock. 1-3 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 1.2.1 Introduction and Process Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) on August 28, 1998. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that guides growth and future land use decisions in Jefferson County. In each successive year, the County has conducted a Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle as provided by the GMA. The process for amending the Comprehensive Plan is outlined in Section 9 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The 2003 "Preliminary Docket" included eight (8) proposed amendments and associated UDC amendments. The four (4) site-specific amendments (formal applications submitted in conjunction with a fee) automatically qualified for the "Final Docket." The Jefferson County Planning Commission heard testimony on the four (4) suggested amendments (introduced either by private citizens or by County government) on the Preliminary Docket and formulated a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding the composition of the Final Docket. The BOCC then established the Final Docket, accepting each of the four suggested amendments and establishing as eight the total number of amendment proposals on the Final Docket. This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Addendum. The objective is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in UDC Section 9 and potential environmental impacts as proscribed in SEP A. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under SEP A and the analysis presented in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEP A requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). This is an integrated GMAlSEP A document that combines environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering recommended action on each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Guidance for a GMA document integrated with a SEPA Addendum is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235. The analysis in this document supplements adopted environmental documents and those incorporated by reference. 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents The following existing environmental documents have been adopted through legal notice published on August 6,2003 (Appendix Item 1): · Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEISIFEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS are dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. · Draft and Final Supplemental EIS (DSEIS/FSEIS) and addenda for the Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments, also known as Tasks ill and IV of the Tri-Area I Glen Cove Special Study. The DSEIS and FSEIS are dated June 30, 1999 and August 18, 1999, respectively, and examined the potential environmental impacts of adopting one of the identified planning alternatives for the Tri- Area of Chimacum-Port Hadlock-Irondale and the Glen Cove mixed use area. · DCD Integrated Staff Report and DSEIS/FSEIS for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The DEIS and FSEIS are dated August 21,2002 and November 25,2002 respectively. Amidst other information, the adopted documents provide background and analysis on the classification, designation, and regulation of mineral resource lands. . 1-4 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference The eight Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including all supplemental information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are hereby incorporated by reference, pursuant to SEP A rules at WAC 197-11-600 and 635. The documents listed in part 3 of this document, "Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials," provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental description and analysis. The reader is encouraged to utilize existing documents in conjunction with this document for more comprehensive perspective and understanding. Moreover, throughout this document description of and references to the content of the proposals have been provided to the greatest extent possible, but are not inclusive of all relevant information from the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. For optimum understanding of the discussion presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including the associated SEP A Environmental Checklists, should be consulted as companion information to this document. 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis This document provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts as appropriate to the general nature of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals. The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments is classified under SEPA as a non-project (Le., programmatic) action. A non-project action, such as decisions on policies, plans or programs, is defined as an action that is broader than a single site-specific project. Environmental analysis for a non-project proposal does not require site- specific analyses; instead, a document such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEPA Addendum discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC 197-11-442). The analysis in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEP A requirements (Le., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). SEP A encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are ready for decision, and to exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for decision-making [WAC 197-11- 060(5)]. Phased review is appropriate when the sequence of a proposal is from a programmatic document, such as an integrated GMNSEP A document addressing compreheI)Sive. planaIIleI1dments, to other documents that are narrower in scope, such as for a site-specific, project-level analysis (Le., a "project action" under SEPA). Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEP A Addendum will be used to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (and associated proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code). Additional environmental review of development proposals will occur as specific projects are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications). This will result in an additional incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions require a more detailed evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future project action environmental review for development applications that are not categorically exempt from SEP A could occur in the form of supplemental EISs, SEP A addendums, or threshold Determinations(s) of Non-Significance (DNSs). 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement Following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. 1-5 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 This 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum is available to agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEP A rules. Comments on the merits of the proposals shall be accepted as outlined below under "Public Comment Period." 1.2.1.4.1 Planning Commission Public Hearings The Jefferson County Planning 'Commission is scheduled to hold two public hearings to take testimony on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and associated UDC amendments. The first public hearing on Wednesday, August 20,2003,6:30 PM at the WSU Community Learning Center, pertains to the four site- specific applications. The second public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, October 1, 6:30 PM at the WSU Community Learning Center, and pertains to the four suggested amendments. DCD expects to release a Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on the suggested amendments on or around September 17. This combined Staff Report and SEP A Addendum is available at DCD and on the DCD web pages for public and agency use prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on the site-specific amendments. The Staff Report and SEP A Addendum to-be-released on the suggested amendments will be available at least 10 days prior to a Planning Commission public hearing on the suggested amendments. 1.2.1.4.2 Public Comment Period The Planning Commission will accept oral comments on the four site-specific proposals at the August 20, 2003 public hearing cited above. DCD and the Planning Commission will accept written comments on the four site-specific proposals until the close of the August 20 public hearing. Any comments submitted after August 20 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for consideration in their legislative decision. The BOCC may hold a public hearing before taking action on the final docket (fonnal notice would appear in the newspaper of record). Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368 or via email toplanning@co.jefferson.wa.us. A public comment period associated with the four suggested amendments that represent the other half of the 2003 Final Docket will be announced through legal notice (anticipated for mid-September 2003) at least 10 days prior to a Planning Commission public hearing on the suggested amendments (anticipated for October 1,2003). 1.2.1.4.3 Availability of Documents For more infonnation or to inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed amendments. the adopted existing environmental documents or other related infonnation, contact DCD Long-Range Planning at the mail or email addresses above. by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle website, where as many relevant documents and maps as possible are available in Portable Document Fonnat (pDF). The Universal Resource Locator (URL) for the website follows: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2oo3%2OComprehensive%20Plan%20Amendment%2OC ycle.htm. 1.2.1.4.4 Planning Commission and Board of Countv Commissioners Deliberation Following each of the public hearings on the Docket, the Planning Commission deliberates on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings. and fonnulates a recommendation on each proposal to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will deliberate on the proposed site-specific amendments during regularly scheduled meetings August 20, September 4, and 1-6 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 September 17, or until such time that they formulate a recommendation for transmittal to the BOCC. The Planning Commission generally meets the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W Patison, Port Hadlock. The Planning Commission is expected to hold a public hearing on the four suggested amendments on the Final Docket on October 1 and deliberate and formulate a recommendation on the suggested amendments during regularly scheduled meetings October 1, October 15, and November 5. The Planning Commission may schedule additional meetings for deliberation on the 2003 Docket. Following the Planning Commission public hearing on the suggested amendments and subsequent recommendation, DCD will formerly transmit the Planning Commission recommendation to the BOCC for the whole of the 2003 Final Docket (site-specific as well as suggested amendments), in conjunction with the DCD final staff recommendation, based on continuing review, comments submitted during the public comment period, and the Planning Commission deliberation and recommendation. In making a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BOCC considers the Planning Commission recommendation, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission, the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney's office, and any written or oral comments provided to the BOCC before or during a BOCC public hearing on the Docket (should one be held). If the BOCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A legislative decision from the BOCC on each of the eight Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under consideration and any associated UDC amendments is expected in late November or early December 2003. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission and BOCC with regard to the 2003 Docket are available on a Jefferson County website dedicated to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This website can be accessed from the "Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan" section of the Long-Range Planning website: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentILRP.htm. 1.2.2 Major Conclusions The summary conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in Part 2 of this Staff Report and SEP A Addendum are presented here for the reader's convenience. A reading of the analysis in Part 2 in addition to any supporting material referenced in the text is encouraged. Generally, information presented elsewhere is not reprinted here. 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for mitigation measures and conditions are within the individual staff reports for each of the proposed amendments and amendment category cumulative impacts synthesis found in part 2 of this document: "Concise Analysis of the Alternatives." Summary statements presented in the Summary Matrix are, in some cases, considerably abbreviated from the full discussion in part 2 and lack explanations of terminology. Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues of interest in part 2, and to consult the amendment applications themselves and supporting materials listed in part 3, to formulate the most accurate impression of impacts associated with the Proposed Action, Staff Recommendation, and No Action alternatives. "Significant" as used in SEP A means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable text. WAC 197-11-794. 1-7 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 # APPLICATION POTENTIAL PROPOSED MITIGATION I NUMBER & ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS DESCRIPTION IMPACTS 1 MLA03-182 Not significant. Boat School project requires Boat School Conditional Use Permit. Other RR to RVC for ~ of 5- commercial uses also governed under acre split-zoned parcel UDC. 2 MLA03-189 Not significant. Planned Rural Residential ANE Forests Development (pRRD) required with RR 1:20 to RR 1:10,40 75% open space maintained, including acres all of area west of SR 19. UDC regulations at time of Land Division application. 3 MLA03-225 Not significant. Modification to proposal. At time of Pall approved Land Division application, CF 1:80 to RF 1:40,68 two parcels would be created, the acres smaller being Rural Residential 1:20 and the larger being Rural Forest 1:40. 4 MLA03-231 Not significant. GMA criteria; application of UDC PhillipsIMaki regulations to entire operation (existing MRL overlay district and new area) through future permit for 37 acres in RR review; including hours of operation, district noise standards, and appropriate protection for wildlife habitat and aquifer recharge area; DNR reclamation plan; updated Ecology Sand and Gravel Permit. 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations The following table displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use district (from the Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information System database, and other sources), and the proposed change in the number of acres under each district under the proposals as submitted and the staff recommendation. Please understand that these numbers are approximations for planning purposes only. They do not necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the ground. They are, however, the best approximation available at this time. The purpose of the table is to set a context for the legislative decision before the Board of County Commissioners for this year's amendment cycle. 1-8 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 C oIDDarison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Desismations (approximate acrea2e) LAND USE DISTRICT CURRENT ACREAGE PROPOSED ACREAGE STAFF RECOMMENDATION Rural Residential 1 :20 53,000 - 40 - 17 (RR 1 :20) Rural Residential 1 : 10 9,800 +40 +40 (RR 1:10) Rural Residential 1 :5 (RR 27,000 -2.5 - 2.5 1:5) Rural Village Center 192 + 2.5 +2.5 (rural commercial) Mineral Resource Land 1,290 + 37 + 37 overlav district Commercial Forest 1:80 330,820 - 68 - 68 (CF) Rural Forest 1 :40 (RF) 12,000 + 68 +45 Net change to Forest N/A 0 - 23 Lands 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found in the Summary Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan future development proposals in a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how mitigation measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none of the potential impacts of the future development scenarios evaluated in this document would meet all of the parameters (significant and unavoidable and adverse). The staff recommendation includes recommended mitigation measures that go beyond the regulatory framework currently in place. For more information on the relationship of plan and policymaking to future review of development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures below at section 1.2.4.2. 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty Following is a table summarizing key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers: # APPLICATION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY NUMBER & DESCRIPTION 1 MLA03-182 Rural commercial districts, such as Rural Village Center (RVC), are "Limited Boat School Areas of More Intensive Rural Development" (LAMIRDs) under GMA with RR to RVC for ~ specific criteria for establishment. Involves review of built environment as of of 5-acre split- July 1, 1990 and analysis of "logical outer boundary".(LOB). Parcel split- zoned parcel zoned in 1998 Comprehensive Plan. In 2002, the Hadlock-Irondale area was designated an Urban Growth Area (UGA). Rural standards remain in effect while sewer and internal UGA district planning is underway. 1-9 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 # APPLlCA TION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY NUMBER & DESCRIPTION 2 MLA03-189 Limited access available to State Route (SR) 19, according to State Department ANE Forests of Transportation. Portions of parcel west of SR 19 contain wetlands and RR 1:20 to RR riparian zone for Chimacum Creek. Portions of parcel east of 19 contain steep 1:10,40 acres slopes. Parcels to north on east side of SR 19 are in RR 1: 10 district, but other surrounding parcels have 1 :20 density or less. 3 MLA03-225 Parcel appears to meet either Commercial Forest (CF) or Rural Forest (RF) Pall criteria. RF district, however, will not allow for land division since RF density CF 1:80 to RF is 1 :40 and parcel is not equal to or greater than 80 acres in size. GMA and 1 :40, 68 acres Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan discourage re-designation of Forest Land. 4 MLA03-231 Operation and reclamation activities may affect the quiet use and enjoyment of PhillipslMaki adjoining properties. Neighbors have informed the County of noise impacts MRL overlay due to blasting and operations on early mornings and weekends. Potential district for 37 acres impacts to US 101 from increased truck traffic. Protection of aquifer recharge in RR district area. Reclamation plan required. Steep slopes. Combination of existing use (established prior to creation of a mineral extractionlstormwater management permit through adoption of UDC) on limited area with proposed use on adjoining area. 1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved 1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made The Comprehensive Plan states that, "a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its citizens" and further provides four essential components for environmental protection: · Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy · Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review · Critical Area Protection Strategy and · Public Education and Involvement Strategy Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact environmental quality. The Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations in the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC was developed such that protective measures are incorporated into permit decisions. (For more discussion on how this process functions, refer to 1.2.4.2 below.) The four site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals, as well as the four suggested amendments, on this year's Docket have the potential, if adopted, to affect the environment. For this reason, each proposal must be carefully analyzed for potential impacts and, if necessary, either denied or conditioned appropriately. 1-10 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures The legislative adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A). A project action would be a decision on a land use or building permit reviewed under the general policy framework offered by the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations. SEP A review is required for project actions, unless those actions are categorically exempt from SEP A review when the proposal is compared to the list of exemption thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental review such as the analysis contained in this document is useful and essential at the non- project level in order to set up a regulatory framework that protects the environment. Mitigation for non- project actions in this sense is essentially the extent to which the established regulatory framework is effective when applied to future development proposals. Generally, mitigation measures would not be required for the programmatic action of adopting a Comprehensive Plan or development regulation amendment, but may be useful and appropriate to address probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified at the non-project level. It is often the case that project action environmental review is where specific mitigation measures can be applied to condition a proposal such that the approval and execution of the proposal does not present a significant adverse environmental impact. With regard to environmental review of this year's Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle docket, it is helpful to understand that Jefferson County has in place a regulatory framework that follows the guidance established in Washington State laws, such as SEPA, GMA, and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the adoption of the UDC, the Comprehensive Plan was implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Controls Ordinance proscribed allowed uses in the land use districts of the Comprehensive Plan land use map and the Land Use Procedures Ordinances outlined the permit process and related administrative matters. The UDC replaced these and other previously existing ordinances. Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for what are now called "environmentally sensitive areas" are contained at UDC section 3.6.4, et al. Environmentally sensitive areas are protected through the application of overlay districts. Examples of such overlay districts include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (UDC 3.6.5), Frequently Flooded Areas (UDC 3.6.6), Geologically Hazardous Areas (UDC 3.6.7), Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (UDC 3.6.8), and Wetlands (3.6.9). The County maintains data from a variety of sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal government, in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create maps depicting the en"ironmentally sensitive areas overlay districts. Development Review Division planners utilize available GIS information when reviewing land use and building permit applications and apply the protective measures accordingly. Oftentimes, an applicant is required to submit a Special Report, such as an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan, Habitat Management Plan, and Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are governed by UDC section 3.6.10. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and building permit approval, but whenever possible to augment existing data for the County GIS database on environmentally sensitive areas. Sometimes the existing regulations are not strong enough to effectively protect the environment when examined in the context of a particular project. Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation measures above and beyond the protections provided by the established development regulations may be needed to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions may employ "SEP A substantive authority" to further condition approval of a -development application. These mitigation measures are generally developed through project action SEP A review and established as permit conditions through an EIS or a threshold Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS). Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of anyone of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year's cycle is not as clear as placing a condition on a permit. The 1-11 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 legislative decision to adopt a modified version of the original Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal can be considered a form of mitigation, for example. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) may be effectively mitigating the potential environmental impact of adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified proposal or even deciding not to adopt the proposal based on environmental considerations. For formal site-specific amendment applications, the BOCC could apply a mitigation measure that affects future use of the land in question. In any of these cases, mitigation as applied to a non- project action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct from mitigation as applied to a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action review that established protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas and other development standards are applied to proposals for on-the- ground development. Judging the effectiveness of mitigation measures in this context requires on-going vigilance. 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action The four site-specific proposals under review in this amendment cycle are relatively minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction from implementation of the 1998 adopted Comprehensive Plan. Some actions are corrective in that development densities and zoning designations have been clarified or informed by public processes during the years since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The urban growth area (UGA) analysis has been ongoing for over ten years, being one of the original requirements demanded by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Population projections for this County have not been attained. The economy is sagging. Cost of living is inflating. The resource land debate is characteristic of issues raised during the early years of GMA compliance for this County. Ultimately, after legal challenge and mediation between petitioners Jefferson County classified and designated 330,000 acres of forest lands of long term commercial significance, which included a secondary right to conduct mining activities. Long-term viability of agricultural lands is becoming paramount in view of the sometimes-competing interests of farming and environmental protection. These become fundamental in view of the public interest to live in a rural setting of such high quality as that which is enjoyed in Jefferson County. The County will continue to designate lands in a matter that reduces pressures to convert land into sprawling low-density development. 1-12 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2 Concise Analysis of the Alternatives 2.1 OVERVIEW Pursuant to Section 9 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A" at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act ("GMA" at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and UDC Section 9, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of all proposals to review the potential for cumulative impacts. In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2) categories: Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting a change in either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density. Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that that broadly apply to the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure cumulative impact review, suggested amendments that could potentially result in re-designation of groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria required for formal site-specific amendments (Le., UOC 9.8.1.b and c). This document addresses the four (4) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments on the Final Docket. The four (4) suggested amendments are to be addressed in a document released later this year. This document further divides the four proposed site-specific amendments into sub-categories. 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in Section 9 of the UDC and, in turn, evaluates the potential for adverse environmental and cumulative impacts. Each amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made based on those criteria. Tables are for summary information only; consult the staff report for each proposal for greater comprehension. 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators Pursuant to UDC section 9.8.1.b, all recommendations regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must be include an inquiry into the seven (7) growth management indicators listed at UDC section 9.5.4.b. These growth management indicators address: · Growth and development rates · Ability to provide services · Availability of urban land · Community-wide attitudes towards land use · Consistency with state law and local agreements These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of Jefferson County's status during this 2003 amendment cycle. This section will serve to promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators and is intended to be a starting point for broader community consideration before the Planning Commission and the BOCC. While this review of the growth management indicators provides some basic analysis related to County demographics, 2-1 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 it is not intended to measure progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that task is reserved for the State-mandated Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for completion in 2004. Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 9.5.4.b - growth management indicators Each of the growth management indicators is discussed as listed in Section 9.5.4.b of the UDC. (1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is faiUng to materiaUze. Discussion: The Office of Management is the State agency responsible for compiling population projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The most recent OFM Population Determination for Jefferson County, based on a corrected Federal Census count, shows a year 2001 population of26,299. The 1996 "base year" population estimate used in the Comprehensive Plan (see page 3-3) was identified as 25,756 residents. This represents an increase of 545 individuals over that five-year period between 1996 and 2001 or a 2% growth rate over the lastfive years. Should this trend continue over the nextfive years, Jefferson County would see a 2006 population of 26,824 - a number that falls below the 2006 projected population of 32,116 adopted by the City and the County based on the Watterson Report (see Jefferson County Resolution 17-96). OFM projects an intermediate series population of 28,308 for Jefferson County by the year 2005. That being said, growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington and its counties have tended to exhibit growth spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even decline. For example, the "rural rebound" growth trend experienced by most western states in the early 1990s - at the time ofGMA adoption - was the result of an exodus by nearly two million people leaving California during a severe regional economic recession. Rural and non-metropolitan growth in Washington, and Jefferson County, during the 1990s was far greater than anticipated but slowed as California's economy recovered in the mid-1990s ("Washington State County Population Projections For Growth Management," Office of Financial Management, March 2002). YEAR 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 County Population 8300 6420 8346 8918 11618 9639 10661 15965 '20406 26299° Port , Townsend 4181 2847 3970 4683 6888 5074 5241 6067 ·"7001 8430 Percent in :.",:~.. Port 50% 44% 47% 53% 59% 53% 49% 38% 34% 32% Townsend Jefferson County Population 1916-2001 Source: United States Census, Washington State OjJice of Financial Management As reference to the table above indicates, an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the percentage of residents living in the city of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of residents living in the city has dropped from 59% to 32%, with County residential units accounting for nearly 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this shift towards residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demandfor services outside of Port Townsend. (2) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased. Discussion: The number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the County, with the exception of policy decisions made as a result of economic conditions, continues to be equipped to provide 2-2 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 the same level of services available at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. Completion of capital facilities and provision of services analysis related to the 2002 designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) at the Tri Area could result in a situation whereby the level of service available in the County increases. (3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. Discussion: Based on the current population allocation contained in Joint County and City Resolution No. 17-96 and the fact that current and projected growth rates are less than anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan it is assumed that sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. As an unincorporated area, Jefferson County is comprised of rural and natural resource lands - no urban population was allocated to the unincorporated area. Based on the City of Port Townsend "2002 Annual Comprehensive Plan Assessment" dated April 15, 2002, there appears to be adequate vacant land in all zoning categories to accommodate future anticipated urban growth. (4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer found to be valid. Discussion: Five years following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the majority of assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments to GMA and other laws made by the State Legislature and precedent-setting decisions made by the Growth Management Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA. In the five years since Comprehensive Plan adoption, Jefferson County has completed a "Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast" (Richard Trottier: January 26, 1999) that suggests that the County has a deficit that exceeds 200 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land. This analysis. which was referenced and anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan, provides general direction for the County regarding the designation of rural commercial lands and/or Urban Growth Areas. (5) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement. Discussion: The most effective way to judge whether changes in countywide attitudes have occurred, aside from reference to local election results, is through statistically significant public opinion surveys. The last such survey in Jefferson County took place in 1991 through the "Jefferson 2000 Public Opinion Survey" conducted by Elway Research. Many of the opinions. expressed through this survey are reflected in the policy assumptions that form the basis for the Comprehensive Plan. That said, the opinions expressed through the Jefferson 2000 survey were not intended to predict the future and an updated survey would be the most effective way to gauge whether changes in countywide attitudes have actually manifested. (6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments. Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption in August of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective, these changing circumstances include: issues surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered Species Act, County adoption of final development regulations which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act, Growth Management Hearings Boards clarifications through case law related to specific provisions of the GMA, the adoption of Unified Development Code amendments establishing a process for locating Major Industrial Development, and the completion of the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study. Changes in circumstance such as these suggest that components of the Comprehensive Plan may need to be amended. 2-3 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6,2003 (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: While the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policy. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act. the County is in the process of conducting a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management Act. Per the GMA, this review must be completed in 2004. 2.2 FINAL DOCKET Following are brief descriptions of each of the eight (8) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) for reference. There are four (4) site-specific applications and four (4) suggested amendments. The site-specific applications are: 1. MLA03-182; Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding; parcel 901013016; amend the land use map to designate the entirety of the subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC, a rural commercial district); currently approx. half of the 5-acre parcel is RVC and half is Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per 5 acres (1:5). 2. MLA03-189; ANE Forests of Puget Sound, Inc.; parcel 901364012; land use map re-designation for approx. 40 acres from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 10 district. 3. MLA03-225; Donna Pall; parcel 821061001; re-designation for approx. 68 acres from Commercial Forest 1:80 to Rural Forest 1:40 land use district. 4. MLA03-231; Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan Maki; parcels 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026; establishment of a Mineral Resource Land overlay district for approx. 37 acres in underlying RR 1:5 and RR 1 :20 land use districts. The suggested amendments are: 5. MLA03~209; Jefferson County; comprehensive Agricultural Lands planning, including designation of parcels as Agricultural Lands and refinement and completion of related goals, policies, and regulations. 6. MLA03-21O; Jefferson County; goals and policies related to protecting groundwater against seawater intrusion; related to a GMA compliance process begun at the time of UDC adoption. 7. MLA03-232; Port of Port Townsend; Comprehensive Plan and UDC language addressing Essential Public Facilities designation and a noise overlay district for the Jefferson County International Airport; 8. MLA03-244; People for a Rural Quimper; proposal to remove reference in the Comprehensive Plan to a noise overlay district for the Airport. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each amendment as proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version, or deny adoption. 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommendations for each proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each individual proposal in part 2.3. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. In transmitting the Planning Commission to the BOCC later this year, staff will have the opportunity to adjust these preliminary recommendations. The preliminary staff recommendations, including modifications and mitigation measures, are summarized in the following table: 2-4 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Summary of Staff Recommendations # APPLICATION NUMBER I MLA03-182 2 MLA03-189 3 MLA03-225 ~ - -- 4 MLA03-23I APPLICANT Northwest School of Wooden Boat Building Assessor Parcel: 901013016 located in lower Port Hadlock ANE Forests of Puget Sound, Inc. Assessor Parcel: 901364012 located on Beaver Valley Road immediately north of Egg and I Road Donna Pall Assessor Parcel: 821061001 located on Swansonville Road in the .. Port Ludlow area ':'~ . -~,"'. ~n ~ c Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan Maki Assessor Parcels: 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026 located on Penny Creek Road south of Quilcene GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re-designation for approximately 5 acres from a Rural Residential 1:5 Land Use District to Port Hadlcok Rural Village Center (RVC) Commercial District Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re-designation for approximately 40 acres from a Rural Residential I :20 Land Use District to a Rural Residential I: 10 Land Use District Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re-designation for approximately 68 acres ~ from a Commercial Forest 1:80 Land Use District to a Rural Forest I :40 Land Use District Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re-designation for approximately 37 acres from a Rural Residential Land Use District to Mineral Resource Lands Overlay 2-5 STAFF RECOMMENDA TION Adopt. Change the land use map such that the entire parcel in question is within the RVC. Amending the split-zone parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with a pending proposal to establish a Lower Hadlock Heritage Campus for the School. Adopt with conditions. Land division at I: 10 would occur only with a Planned Rural Residential Development (pRRD) application with 75% open space. Development east of SR 19. Open space west of SR 19. Adopt with modification. Approx. 23 acres would become RR I :20 and approx. 45 acres would become RF 1:40 contingent upon a land divIsion application under the UDC. Adopt with conditions related to mineral resource extraction operations. 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS 2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (1) Requests for changes in Rural Residential density are subject to criteria contained at Land Use Policy 3.3 (page 3-67) in the Comprehensive Plan. These criteria attribute one of three residential densities to all residential parcels in Jefferson County: one dwelling unit per five acres (1 :5), one dwelling unit per ten acres (1:10), or one dwelling unit per twenty acres (1:20), subject to the following criteria: POLICIES: LNP 3.3.1 LNP 3.3.2 LNP 3.3.3 A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1 :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record; b. parcels of similar size (i.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels along the coastal areas; c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village Centers; and d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed "suburban" platted subdivisions. A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10 acres) ; b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a "transition" adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and, d. critical area land parcels. A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acres (RR 1 :20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 20 acres) or larger; - b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size; c. areas serving as a "transition" to Urban Growth Areas or the [port Ludlow] Master Planned Resort; d. critical land area parcels; e. agriculture resource designated parcels; f. publicly owned forest lands; and g. lands adjacent to forest resource land. The Unified Development Code (UDC) defines the term "buildable lot" and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in size or greater will typically be adequate to meet health standards related on-site wastewater disposal (i.e., septics) and individual water systems (i.e., well) [UDe page 2-12]. Since 1996, the maximum density that can be achieved through subdivision in Jefferson County is one dwelling unit per five acres. In January 2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site design through residential "clustering." These provisions are contained at UDe Section 3.6.13 (planned Rural Residential Developments). - The proposal for residential density change will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for the proposal is given below. 2-6 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA03-189 (ANE Forests) Applicant: ANE Forests of Puget Sound, Inc. Assessor Parcel Number(s): 901364012 Location: Beaver Valley Road, immediately north of Egg and I Road 2.3.1.1.1 General Descriµtion and Site-Specific Environmental Information The proposed amendment would re-designate 40 acres from Rural Residential 1 :20 to Rural Residential 1: 10. The practical result of this re-designation would be the potential to subdivide the 40-acre parcel into four (4) discrete parcels-two (2) additional parcels-allowing for the creation of one dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) per lO-acre parcel. The land use designation for the parcel would continue to be Rural Residential. The site is located on either side of State Route 19 just north of the junction with Egg and I Road. The legal description is the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter (Government Lot 1) of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 1 West. The site is flat on the west and gets steeper on the east side of Beaver Valley Road (SR 19). The steepest slop is approximately 30%. The east side of SR 19 is mapped as moderate and slight landslide hazard in the County environmentally sensitive area Geographic Information System (GIS) database. The west portion of the property is wet (peat) as it approaches the east fork of Chimacum Creek. The west edge of the property is mapped as wetlands in the GIS database. There are no mapped wildlife habitat areas from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) databases provided to Jefferson County. There is Type 5 intermittent stream (as determined by the Washington Department of Natural Resources-DNR) stream on the north edge of the property that becomes a Type 4 stream on the west side of SR 19. The proponent states in the application that all residential development is planned for the east side of SR 19 and that only one road access point will be designed for all future residences. Note: It was learned on August 6, the publication date for this document, that parcel number 901364012 was effectively divided on January 27, 2003 per standing policy addressing parcels split by roads that existed prior to 1969. The Assessor's database was updated on August 6 to reflect the change. The newly created parcels are the aforementioned parcel number, which is now 22.56 acres and located entirely on the east side of SR 19 and parcel number 901364013, which is 15.99 acres and located entirely on the west side of SR 19. In terms of providing analysis, thissecnon dealswiththe.subject area as if it were one 40- acre parcel, which is how the area was characterized in the MIA submitted by the proponent. DCD may alter the staff recommendation at a later date to accommodate the complication. 2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC Section 9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria. and staff evaluations, are as follows: Whether circumstances related to the oroposed amendment substantiallv chane:ed since the adootion of the Comorehensive Plan Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the interpreta~on and application of the criteria related to residential density have been refined since Plan adoption to address issues related to appropriate residential density. 2-7 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Whether the assumptions u\>on which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no lone:er valid. or whether new information is available The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based continue to be valid. However, since Plan adoption, the interpretation of the residential designation criteria contained at Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal (LNP) 3.0 [page 3-67] have been refined to address issues related to residential density. Whether the prooosed amendment reflects current widely held values This consideration will become evident through public hearing and testimony before the Planning Commission. At this point no specific public comment related to this proposal has been received. In addition, pursuant to UDC section 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings for formal site-specific amendment proposals. Those findings, and staff evaluation, are as follows: The proposal meets concurrency requirements for trans\>ortation and other public services Two additional potential residential development units (plus potential accessory dwelling units) does meet concurrency requirements and would not be likely to affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services. This issue would be further addressed at the time of formal land division application. Don Clotfelter, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Olympic Region Area 3 Maintenance and Operations Superintendent, reports that a WSDOT decision on a petition for SR 19 access would likely not be affected by an addition of two residences. The proponent will be required to obtain approval from WSDOT for road access at the time of land division. In this case, it is probable that only one access point would be permitted by WSDOT, which reviews the access application under a set of specific criteria, including site distance and stormwater management. Each home is estimated to contribute 10 trips per day to the traffic count. Mr. Clotfelter added that an additional 16 proposed homes would raise concerns. The proposal is consistent with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan Consistent with the criteria contained at Land Use Goal 3.0 in the Comprehensive Plan, the subject parcel and the area in which it is located is characterized by an established pattern of smaller sized existing lots of record and a greater residential density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (1: 10) located to the north of the subject parcel on the east side of SR 19. However, lesser or equal densities are found in other adjacent parcels surrounding the subject parcel through Rural Forest 1 :40, RR 1 :20, and Commercial Agricultura 1:20 designations. Based on this pattern, a designation of Rural Residential 1:10 is appropriate for the subject parcel, subject to conditions, as detailed below. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA, this action continues to provide for a variety of rural residential densities throughout the County. The prooosal will not result in probable sie:nificant adverse impacts to capital facilities The creation of an additional five residential development units is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to the County's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. These issues would be further addressed at the time of formal application for land division. The parcel(s) is physically suitable for the requested desie:nation ree:ardin~ access. utilities. and compatibilitv with surrounding uses Required review under the UDC Land Division provisions will ensure that access and provision of utilities can be located in an appropriate fashion on the subject parcel. The proposed designation is compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Utilization of the UDC clustering provisions would allow for flexibility related to access, utility provision, and compatibility. The pro{)Osal will not create a pressure to change the designation of other properties Assigning a designation of Rural Residential (RR) 1:10 for the subject parcel has the potential to create a pressure to change the land use designation for surrounding properties, specifically for the RR 1 :20 parcels to the west, but that is not a necessary result of this action. 2-8 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 The proposal does not materially affect land use and population growth proiection assumptions The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an urban growth area CUGA). the proposal does not materially affect the adeauacy of facilities Not applicable in this situation. The proposal is consistent with the GMA and the Countv- Wide Plannine: Policy The proposed amendment would be consistent with the Growth Management Act and the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. Staff is unaware of any applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, or any other local, State or Federal laws with which the proposed amendment would be inconsistent. Implementation Requirements Approval of the proposed amendment would require a change to the Jefferson County Land Use Map. 2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation Based on reference to the Comprehensive Plan criteria contained at LNG 3.0 and review of the criteria contained at UDC Section 9, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment subject to the condition that land division occur through the Planned Rural Residential Development process in the UDC (3.6.13), including the provision that 75% of the 40 acres be reserved in open space [UDC 3.6.13.4.a(2)] and that the entire portion of the subject parcel west of SR 19 be reserved as open space. This is consistent with the desires of the proponent as expressed in the application. Additionally, the west portion of the parcel contains wetlands and riparian area associated with Chimacum Creek. Residential development on the west side of the area would also require an additional road access point in an area of SR 19 with limited site distance. 2-9 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6. 2003 2.3.2 Requests for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial Requests for changes for a rural residential land use designation to a rural industrial or rural commercial designation are subject to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG) 5.0 on page 3-70. GOAL: LNG 5.0 POLICIES: LNP 5.1 LNP 5.2 LNP 5.3 LNP 5.4 LNP 5.5 Establish and maintain the location and size of the County's Rural Crossroads to provide access to a limited range of non-residential uses. All rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the provisions of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). Establish logical outer boundaries based upon the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). Concentrate and contain the existing area of predominantly pre-July 1990 built environment through development regulations for infill development within the boundary. Designate the following historic crossroads as interim Convenience Crossroads (CC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Nordland, Beaver Valley, and WaWa Point. LNP 5.4.1 Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following additional criteria: a. Consists of a single commercial property; and b. Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling public with basic consumer goods and services. LNP 5.4.2 Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary of each of the Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic consumer goods and services, including: convenience grocery/general store, gas/oil, espresso, video, caféldeli. LNP 5.4.3 The Nordland Convenience Crossroads designation and boundary may be modified through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on a study developed under the Shoreline Management Master Program revision, consistent with LNP 14.7. Designate the following historic crossroads as interim NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroads (NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay, Four Comers, Gardiner, and Mats Mats. LNP 5.5.1 Designation is based on the criteria of LNP 5.1 and the following additional criteria: a. Multiple commercial properties; and 2-10 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Site-Specific Applications LNP 5.5.2 LNP 5.5.3 LNP 5.6 LNP 5.6.1 LNP 5.6.2 LNP 5.6.3 LNP 5.7 LNP 5.8 LNP 5.8.1 August 6, 2003 b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services; and c. Serves the local rural population and the commuting/traveling public. Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of each of the designated NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroads to those involving basic consumer staples with a limited range of goods and services and/or serving the commuting/traveling public such as: convenience grocery/ general store, gas service stationlw garage, espresso, farm and garden supply, video rental, restaurant, tavern, bar, antiques and collectibles, café, and limited specialty goods and professional services. Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of limited multifamily housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units and manufactured/mobile home parks. Designate the following crossroads as interim General Commercial Crossroads (GC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Ness' Corner, Irondale Corner, and SR 19/20 Intersection. Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following additional criteria: a. Location at a major highway intersection near high density population in the Tri-Area; and b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and multiple community levels of service. Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the designated General Commercial crossroads to those involving an expanded range of commercial goods and services such as: mini-storage, hardware, groceries, bakery, antiques, tavernlbar, restaurant, RV repair and sales, building supply, farm and garden supply, motel, auto and vehicle repair with subordinate auto retail, appliance sales and repair, clothing and accessories, an expanded range of specialty goods and professional . services, and limited public and social services. Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of limited multifamily housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units and manufactured/mobile home parks. Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads commercial infill development with the surrounding rural area through the creation and implementation of community based design and development standards. Uses within Rural Crossroads shall be scaled and sized to protect the rural character of the natural neighborhood. Revisit interim Rural area boundaries following the completion of the Glen Coveffri-Area Special Study and establish final. boundaries through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with LNP 1.4. Boundaries for Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers shall be established consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5) and other applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act. 2-11 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Growth Management Act Criteria In addition to these Comprehensive Plan criteria, specific provisions of the Growth Management Act guide the designation of "limited areas of more intensive rural development" (LAMIRD) outside of Urban Growth Areas. Pursuant to the GMA [see RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv)] Jefferson County must adopt measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within LAMIRDs and those areas shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of LAMIRDs. While LAMIRDs must be delineated predominantly by the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment, they may also include undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The GMA sets out four issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition to respecting the predominance of the pre-1990 built environment: · The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities; · Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and contours; · The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and · The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl. The proposal for rural commercial land use designation will be reviewed consistent with these criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for the proposal is given below: 2.3.2.1 Reference Number: MLA03-182 (Wooden Boat School) Applicant: Northwest School for Wooden Boat Building Assessor Parcel Number(s): 901013016 Location: Port Hadlock waterfront 2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Infonnation The proposed amendment would designate the whole of the 5.36-acre subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC). Currently, the parcel is split-zoned, whereby about half of the parcel lies within the RVC and the other half is designated Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per five acres (1:5). The site forms a bowl leading from Curtiss Street to the north and the Kivley enter commercial plaza to the southwest down to Lower Hadlock Road and is an abandoned gravel pit. There is a mobile home on the uppermost terrace of the property. Adjacent property uses include residen al to the northwest and west, the Ajax Café restaurant to the northeast, and Kivley Center to the south and thwest. The Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding (School) has begun the creation of a "H ritage Campus" on the Lower Hadlock waterfront through the purchase of buildings and shoreline property to the northeast of the subject property. The School has a purchase agreement on the subject property an plans to construct buildings and dormitories for use with the function of the School. For detailed descripti ns of the School's vision, refer to the Master Land Use Application (MIA) submitted April 8, 2003. The School has elected to pursue RVC designation for the subject parcel, despite on-going Urban Growth Area ( GA) planning for the Hadlock-Irondale area. Preliminary UGA intemalland use districts include the w ole of the subject parcel in a commercial district. In the meantime, according to the use table in the , the whole parcel needs to designated as RVC in order for the School to apply for land use and building rmits to construct buildings associated with a college or technical school that is not State-owned. Even with RVC designation, the land use application would be a Conditional Use, requiring the proposal to meet the criteria at UDC Section 8.8 for approval by the County Hearing Examiner. ! In terms of mapped environmentally sensitive areas, the County GIS database shows an intermittent (Type 5) stream that runs down the southwest side of the property, which is consistent with a st nnwater easement held by the County Department of Public Works. There are no mapped wetlands on the property. There is correspondence between the WDFW wildlife databases and the property. Any c ncems would be addressed through in the land use application by applying County and WDFW regulatio s and management 2-12 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 recommendations. There are mapped Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas on the property. Concerns would be addressed at the application stage. The MLA submitted on behalf of the School states that the School intends to create a public trail from Kivley Center, through the subject parcel, and out to a path along Lower Hadlock Road that eventually will lead to the waterfront and the School's waterfront facilities. Also, the School's preliminary plans include public parking along Lower Hadlock Road (in the portion of the subject parcel currently designated RVC) that would accommodate boat trailers. 2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC section 9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Additionally, staff incorporates as findings the contents of Exhibit E of the Master Use Application (MLA) submitted by the proponent, and in particular the information presented therein with regard to impacts to transportation and public services. Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Circumstances related to the proposed amendment and area in which it is located have changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in that the Northwest School for Wooden Boatbuilding has taken steps toward moving the campus from the Glen Cove area to the Lower Hadlock waterfront. The School has entered into a purchase agreement for the subject property and intends to use the area for School buildings and dormitories. Also, Jefferson County continues to work towards establishment of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Irondale-Port Hadlock area and the subject parcel lies within the outer UGA boundary adopted in 2002. The subject parcel has been proposed for commercial designation. Planning for internal UGA land use districts and sewer service districts is underway. Whether the assumptions u~n which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no lone:er valid. or whether new information is available The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based continue to be valid. Land use planning consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan continues to analyze this area in light of the 2002 Hadlock- Irondale UGA designation. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values This cons.Îdenitiol1wiIlbêèome evident· thl-ough public hearing and testimony before the Planning Commission. At this point no specific public comment related to this proposal has been received. In addition to the criteria above, pursuant to UDC section 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings for formal site-specific amendment proposals. Those findings, and staff evaluation, are as follows: The proposal meets concurrency reauirements for transportation and other public services It is not anticipated that a transition from rural residential to rural commercial for half of this parcel would result in substantial reduction in the ability to provide public services. See Exhibit E of the MLA. The proposal is consistent with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan Designation of this parcel as commercial would not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In retrospect, the parcel should not have been split-zoned. It forms a topographic break from the upland area on Curtiss Street, which runs through the northwest part of the parcel. Curtiss Street was platted on January 20, 1887 in the plat of Port Hadlock and has been on the official County road log at least since 1985, clearly before the July 1, 1990 LAMIRD review date. Also, the parcel forms a distinct Logical Outer Boundary. A land use district of Rural Residential for the upper benches of the property does not make as much planning sense as inclusion of the full parcel in the Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC). RVC designation would 2-13 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 all the School to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a technical school. The Conditional Use process will allow a Hearing Examiner to evaluate a proposal along with pubic testimony in an open record hearing against the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations of the UDC. Although this parcel is proposed for UGA commercial designation, the School's purchase agreement and work plan require a shorter timeline than what the UGA planning process will provide. Designating the other half of the subject parcel will not affect sewer planning in Hadlock core. The proposal will not result in probable sie:nificant adverse impacts to capital facilities It is not likely that RVC designation for the whole of this parcel would result in significant adverse impacts to the County's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. See Exhibit E of the MiA The parcel(s) is physically suitable for the requested designation ree:arding access. utilities. and compatibility with surrounding uses The topography of the parcel creates a distinct bowl that would better served by a consistent land use designation. Compatibility with surrounding uses is supported by the geographic isolation of the parcel. See Exhibit E of the MLA. The proposal will not create a pressure to change the desimation of other properties Assigning a designation of RVC for the whole of the subject parcel should not create a pressure to change the land use designation for surrounding properties. The land use in the Curtiss Street area is already rural residential, while the land use at Kivley Center is already commercial. Lower Hadlock Road and a portion of the Lower Hadlock waterfront is already designated RVC. See Exhibit E of the MLA. The proposal does not materially affect land use and p09ulation I!fowth proiection assumptions The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. See Exhibit E of the MLA. If within an urban lUowth area (UGA). the proposal does not materially affect the adeauacy of facilities The proposal does not materially affect the adequacy of facilities. See Exhibit E of the MLA. The proposal is consistent with the GMA and the County-Wide Plannine: Policy The proposed amendment for rural commercial designation would be consistent with the Growth Management Act per the Logical Outer Boundary (LOB) criterion and other general GMA criteria for LAMIRD designation, rural character, and rural economic opportunities. Staff is unaware of any applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, or any other local, State or Federal laws with which the proposed amendment would be inconsistent. ;"~"" .~"'!-:" .;ox'~'~" Implementation Requirements Approval of the proposed amendment would require a change to the Jefferson County Land Use Map. 2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation Based on reference to the criteria discussed above and contained in the UDC, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment for rural commercial designation (Hadlock Rural Village Center) for the whole of the subject parcel. 2-14 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2.3.3 Requests for Mineral Resource Lands Overlay District Designation Requests for designation of a Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) overlay are subject to criteria contained at UDC 3.6.3 and governed more broadly by goals and policies in the Natural Resource Conservation Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, which were developed to fulfill the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and associated Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The UDC criteria are reprinted here. For more detailed information on mineral resource land designation in Washington state under GMA and in Jefferson County pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, consult two of the adopted SEP A documents: the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & DSEIS and FSEIS. UDC Section 4.24 is entitled Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarrying and Reclamation and contains regulations that govern these types of activities. In the prelude of this section, it states, .... .Any proposed mineral extraction which would create disturbed areas in excess of ten (10) gross acres shall require an MRL designation in accordance with Section 3.6.3 of this UDC." The applicants who have chosen to apply for the MRL overlay designation are presumably doing so in order to submit an application at a later date for mineral extraction or a related activity governed under UDC 4.24 that would create a disturbed area greater than 10 acres. Following is the complete verbatim text of UDC 3.6.3, which outlines the criteria for MRL designation: Mineral Resource Lands District (MRL). Designation Procedures. A Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay District may be applied based upon the following criteria, only upon acceptance by the County of a complete application from a property owner and upon approval of a redesignation in accordance with Section 9 of this Code and processed as a comprehensive plan amendment. MRLs of long-term commercial significance are those lands from which the commercial extraction of minerals (sand, gravel, rock, and other valuable aggregate or metalIic substances) can be anticipated within 20 years and which are characterized by all of the following: a. Have a known or potential extractable resource in commercial quantities verified by submittal of a geologic and economic report prepared by a qualified professional; b. The parcel is a minimum of ten (10) acres in size; c. The subject propertY is surround.eif6fparcets no smaÏler than five (5) acres in size on 100% of its perimeter; d. The current or future land use designation will not exceed a residential density of one dwelling uni~ per five acres; e. Are not. within any Shoreline designation or Rural Village Center or within one-half mile of any establ1sbedor potential Urban Growth Area or Rural Village Center boundary, as shown on the OfficiafMaps of the Comprehensive Plan; and - ...- f. Are not within a regulated wetland or fish and wildlife habitat area pursuant to Section 3.6.8 and 3.6.9 of this Code. Allowable and Prohibited Uses. Allowable and prohibited uses within Mineral Resource Lands Overlay Districts are specified in Table 3-1 for the underlying designation. All uses must comply with any applicable performance standards in Section 4 and development standards in Section 6 of this UDC, unless otherwise specified in this Code. Nuisance and Disclosure Provisions. a. Nuisance. The following shall not be considered a nuisance: Mineral resource extraction and processing activities, operations (except between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and on weekends), facilities or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial mineral resource 2-15 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 extraction and processing purposes on land designated as Mineral Resource Land (MRL), regard- less of past or future changes in the surrounding area land use or land use designation. b. Disclosure. The Disclosure statement in Section 3.6.3.b(2), below, shall be used under the following circumstances and in the following manner: (1) Approval of any land division, land use, building, or development of lands adjacent to or within five hundred (500) feet of lands designated as Mineral Resource Land (MRL) shall be conditioned on the execution by the applicant of a statement of acknowledgment containing the disclosure statement on forms provided by the Department of Community Development. However, if a disclosure conforming to the provisions of this section has been provided for a prior permit, subsequent disclosures shall not be required. (2) The required disclosure statement is as follows: "If your real property is within five hundred (500) feet of real property within an area designated as Mineral Resource Land (MRL), you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operations, including but not limited to noise, tree removal, odors, fumes, dust, smoke, the operation of machinery, and the storage and disposal of aggregate products. One or more of the inconveniences described may occur as a result of extraction and processing operations which are in conformance with existing laws and regulations. Jefferson County has determined that the use of certain real properties for mineral resource extraction and processing activities is necessary to ensure resource availability in the County. The County will not consider to be a nuisance those inconven- iences or discomforts arising from extraction and processing operations, if such oper- ations are consistent with commonly accepted best management practices and comply with local, state, and federal laws." The proposals for MRL overlay designation in this year's Docket will be reviewed consistent with the preceding criteria. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation is given below. 2.3.3.1 Reference Number: MLA03-231 (PhillipslMaki) Applicant: Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan Maki Assessor Parcel Number(s): 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026 Location: Penny Creek Road south of Quilcene 2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Site-Specific Environmental Information The proposed amendment would establish a Mineral Resource Land (MRL) overlay district over 36.79 acres with underlying Rural Residential 1:5 and 1:20 land use districts. An MRL overlay provides for a range of resource extraction and processing uses. The underlying land use designation for the parcels would continue to be Rural Residential. The site is located just south of Quilcene on Penny Creek Road near the intersection with US Highway 101. Mari and Gary Phillips are owners and operators of the existing 19.34-acre Penny Creek Quarry, consisting of two parcels-702224002 and 702224006. The existing Quarry, in operation for over 50 years, was designated as a Mineral Resource Lands overlay district in 1997 (case no. ZON96-0042), prior to the adoption of the UDC, under the then-effective 1995 Mineral Lands Ordinance. The Phillips, along with their children, also own 36.79 acres of land immediately adjacent to the north and east of the existing MRL overlay area. Included in this contiguous ownership is a 3.75-acre parcel once operated as a surface mine by Jefferson County. Based on the basalt formation visible at the existing quarry as well as at the old County quarry, on mapped geology of the area, and data from well logs in the vicinity, the vast majority of the subject 36.79 acres is believed to contain commercial quantities of highly valuable mineral resources. An Economic and Geologic Report with specific information on the potential existence of mineral resources at the site accompanies the Master Land Use Application (MIA). Approval of the MRL overlay is required 2-16 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 before the operators can submit a land use application to expand the existing Penny Creek Quarry operation. The Phillips' ownership lies at the base of steep pitching topography that slopes east to a narrow valley where the Big QuiIcene River flows easterly to QuiIcene Bay. The Big QuiIcene River is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the subject property and active mine. Highway 101 and Penny Creek Road are located between the River and the existing mine site and subject property. Penny Creek is located over 1,300 feet south of the proposed mining boundary. No streams or critical habitat are located within or immediately adjacent to the existing mine or proposed MRL overlay property. The site and surrounding area consist of evergreen and deciduous forest stands of various ages. DNR property to the north was clear- cut within the last two years. The subject 36.79 acres are undeveloped and have recently been partially logged under a Forest Practices Application (FPA) with the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Adding the MRL overlay to this additional property will increase the total MRL coverage to 56 acres. Included in that coverage is the 3.75-acre parcel that was once a County-owned quarry and which is considered a legal, nonconforming use (i.e., has "grandfather" status). The DNR reports that a reclamation plan is needed for the current Penny Creek Quarry operation and that since a reclamation plan has not been submitted and approved, the current operation is not in compliance with the surface mining laws of Washington State. DNR also reports that a reclamation plan that encompasses the entire projected mining site would be more effective and therefore is copasetic with waiting for this legislative process involving the potential designation of additional MRL overlay acreage to unfold. Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial significance are those lands from which the commercial extraction of minerals (sand, gravel, rock and other valuable aggregate or metallic substances) can be anticipated within 20 years and which are characterized by six criteria. The designation criteria from UDC are presented below followed by a comment regarding consistency with those criteria. UDC 3.6.3 a. Have a known or potential extractable resource in commercial quantities verified by submittal of a geologic and economic reportpreplUed by a qualified professional. The subject approximately 37 acres have a substantial volume of high quality mineral resources in commercially viable quantities according to the submitted geologic and economic report. DNR has not commented on the submitted report or on the geology of the subject area, but reports generally that, "...Crescent Formation (basalt) does not pervasively produce rock with high durability and high strength characteristics. The paucity of durable and strong rook is primarily due to the Crescent's submarine origins and associated mineral alteration. The Crescent basalt may contain anomalous rock bodies with higher strength and durability characteristics, but such prospects must be drilled and analyzed for favorable engineering and economic characteristics. More commonly Crescent Basalt has been used as a lower grade, abundant, and accessible rock source for timber harvest road base, riprap, and jetty rock" (email from Chris Johnson, August 1,2003). UDC 3.6.3 b. The parcel is a minimum often (10) acres in size. The area requested for the zoning overlay consists of 37.79 acres (parcels 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 70222426, 70222403, 702224011, 702224012, and 702224010) in Section 22, T27N, R2W, WM, the Phillips own adjacent to the existing operation. Parcel 702224010 was until recently a surface mine owned and operated by Jefferson County and is considered a legal, nonconforming use with rights to continue mining. The position of DCD is that a Boundary Line Adjustments (BLA) process would be required prior to review of a mineral resource extractionlstormwater management- application whereby each parcel within the MRL overlay would be at least ten acres in size. The proponent would propose a pattern of parcels within the MRL overlay boundary, so long as internal land use district boundaries are maintained. The BLA requirement is a contingency intended for fulfillment after the BOCC renders a decision on the subject application and before the County reviews an application for mineral extractionlstormwater management and DNR approves a reclamation plan. 2-17 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 UDC 3.6.3 c. The subject property is surrounded by parcels no smaUer than five (5) acres in size on 100% of its perimeter. To the south of the subject property is the existing Quarry, which consists of a 9.34-acre parcel and a 10- acre parcel. To the west and northwest is Parcel 702221001 (229.97 acres) owned by the State of Washington. The State also owns the quarter section (160 acres), Parcel 702221002, to the north of the subject property. Highway 101 abuts the property on the east. UDC 3.6.3 d. The current or future land use designations will not exceed a residential density of one dweUing unit per five acres. The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the subject property as RR 1:20 and RR 1:5. The BLA requirement will ensure that no resulting Rural Residential parcel be less than 10 acres in size. UDC 3.6.3. e. Are not within any shoreline designation or Rural Vülage Center or within one-half müe of any established or potential Urban Growth Area or Rural Vülage Center boundary, as shown on the Official Maps of the Comprehensive Plan. Quilcene, the nearest Rural Village Center to the subject property, is more than one mile east along Highway 101. The closest designated UGA in Jefferson County is in the Hadlock-Irondale area, a considerable distance from the subject site. Because the site is outside of the floodplain and more than 200 feet distant from the Big Quilcene River, it is outside of shoreline jurisdiction, as established in the County Shoreline Master Program. UDC 3.6.3. f. Are not within a regulated wetland or fish and wüdlife habitat area pursuant to Section[s] 3.6.8 and 3.6.9 of this Code. The subject property has been partially mined and a portion has been recently logged (FP A #2605231, issued April 2, 2003). According to the proponent, there were no comments from any of the State or Federal resource agencies to the DNR during the review of the application for that FP A. Previous logging activities have resulted in the site being partially covered with multiple age stands of timber ranging from 5- 8 to approximately 40 years. Approximately 40 acres of State land north of the subject property has been clear-cut within the last two years (Timber Sale: Four Penny, Agreement No. 30-071007). According to the proponent, there were no resource agency comments on that timber sale. Correspondence from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and a copy of the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Map for the project vicinity indicate the presence of several fish and wildlife species in the vicinity of the subject property. The proposed expansion of the MRL overlay to the subject property and subsequent mining is not anticipated to adversely affect any of the identified species. The proponent submitted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts report with the MLA for this proposal. Any mineral extraction project action proposal would be subject to County regulations and State resource agency review and would be conditioned appropriately. Below is staffs application of Table 4-3 from pages 4-35 and 4-36 of the Comprehensive Plan to this specific proposal. The text appearing in bold type in each row represents staff's categorization. For some categories, the characteristics of the proposal are such that text in more than one column is selected. Comments are included afterwards for some selections. 2-18 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Table 4-3 (from Comprehensive Plan page 4-35 and 4-36) Matrix for Assessing Lands for Designation as Mineral Resource Lands NOT SUITABLE CONSIDER FOR DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION FOR DESIGNATION DESIRABLE mGIll.Y CRITICAL DESIGNATION DESIRABLE QUALITY OF Low grade Variable but Deposit made Grade meets the Concrete quality. DEPOSIT deposit. located near use economical to requirements for area or processing mine by upgrading road construction plant. material. or can be uD2raded. SIZE OF Small deposit. Small deposit (less Medium-size Large deposit Very large DEPOSIT than 2,000 tons). deposit. (7.5 million tons). deposit (10 million tons). ACCESS More than 20 Distance from use Less than 10 miles Large deposit Within 5 miles of DISTANCE miles from use area is minimized of the use area; presently beyond uses area. FROM area. due to access to alternative access economical Adjacent to MARKET interstate. route available. hauling distance to highway with present use areas. access for trucks. Near highways: access can be provided. COMPATmLE Adjacent land use Scattered Adjacent land Imminent No incompatible WITII NEARBY presently development suitable for incompatible land uses existing AREAS incompatible with within outer development and development on or likely in the mining range of impacts within commuting adjacent lands. foreseeable future (appreciable of mining; distance of use (adjacent land in residential owners may not area. national forest, development object to mining. operator's within range of ownership, excessive noise, agricultural land dust, blasting, use.) vibrations, etc.). IMPACT OF Noise level in [Between left and Noise level in Noise at adjacent NOISE adjacent presently right column.] adjacent residential areas developed areas undeveloped areas less than 50 dB (A) would clearly would exceed due to distance or .. exceed standards if standards for .".,.... topographical mining occurred. likely use, but use barrier, berm can of these areas can be constructed be easily delayed easily. or economical mitigation can be provided by barriers. IMPACT OF Too close to [Between left and Blasting not BLASTING existing right column.] required; subdivision. permanent open space between quarry and other uses; topographical barrier between quarry and other land uses; only occasional light blasting; blasting compatible with adiacent uses. 2-19 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 NOT SUITABLE CONSIDER FOR DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION FOR DESIGNATION DESIRABLE IDGln. y CRITICAL DESIGNATION DESIRABLE IMPACT OF Only access is Slightly longer Alternative truck [Between left and Adjacent to TRUCK local road through alternative route route can be built right column.] freeway with TRAFFIC residential area. exists. at reasonable access to site. expense; alternative transportation (conveyor, etc., can be used past residential streets). VISUAL Mining would Mining activity Some activity Mining activity Activity screened IMPACT destroy or create. cannot be visible from can be easily by topography or screened and residential areas, screened by berms vegetation, or would but no permanent and!or vegetation. appreciably permanently alter deterioration of reduced by Iandscaoe. landscape. distance. SURFACE & Potential adverse Water resources Limited water No water GROUND impacts to water on site and can be resources on site resources on site. WATER resources on site avoided. and can be IMPACTS DÙtigated. WETLANDS High quality High quality Lower quality Wetlands can be No or minimal IMPACT wetlands wetlands only on a wetlands on site avoided on site. wetlands on site throughout the site portion of site and and can be and oflow quality. can be avoided. mitigated. SLOPES Site located in Potential or Unstable slopes Minimal slopes Level grade active unstable historical unstable on site can be throughout the mining site with slope area. slopes. avoided. site. minimal slopes. BIOLOGICAL Rare and Site includes Species of Special Minor or No significant IMPACT threatened! priority wildlife Concern habitat temporary loss of biological endangered plants habitat that would located on site. fish and wildlife resources; or animals on site. be permanently habitat. rehabilitation of removed by site would replace mining. or create habitat. IMPACT OF Mining would Mining would Mining would FLOODING cause erosion of create erosion create flood adjacent property; hazard for roads, control channel could be prevented bridges, and utility and would not only at great lines; however, damage adjacent expense. these structures land. could be strengthened at reasonable costs. Quality of Deposi c Notes on Cateeories , Size of Deposit: MRL overlay area capable of producing 8-14 million tons of marketable product (Geologic and Economic Report prepared by Ecological Land Services, Inc.). Access Distance from Market: Good access to Highway 101; access to South Jefferson and North Mason County markets; market distance varies. Compatible with Nearby Areas: Moderately compatible; neighbors report noise issues related to blasting and hours of operation. 2-20 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Impact of Noise: Neighbors report noise issue related to blasting and hours of operation. Impact of Blasting: Stephen Cain, Supervisor with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), US Department of Labor, informed the County that an investigator "found no violations of the Mine Safety and Health Regulations (ref: 3OCFR)" during an investigation at Penny Creek Quarry (email August 1, 2003). MSHA regulations deal with the safety and health of miners rather than the sound level of blasting in relation to the surrounding community. A mining company that incorporates blasting must follow Federal safety rules with regard to loading of explosives, handling of explosives, security of blast site, and the blast to ensure that any fly rock does not leave the blast site area and endanger persons. Additionally, MSHA regulates the storage of explosives on the mine site. According to Mr. Cain, A copy of the inspection report is available through the Freedom of Information Act by contacting Marianne Boyer at (707) 447-9844. Impact of Truck Traffic: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan reviewed impacts and level of service for State highways and County roads as described in Chapter 10 or the Transportation Element. For roadways, level of service (LOS) typically relates to congestion, measured by speed and vehicle density. Six levels of service were defined and adopted through the Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board. These levels of service are consistent with the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Rural roads outside of urban growth areas were given an LOS rating of C, meaning stable flows and selection of speed is affected by interaction with others in the traffic stream. Rural corridors carrying an urban level of traffic were given an LOS D, meaning stable flows and speed and freedom to maneuver may be restricted. As the intensity of the operation is not anticipated to increase, no increase in truck traffic is anticipated. Traffic impacts will be analyzed in more detail at the time of mineral resource extraction permit application review. Visual Impact: Moderate. Cleared area visible from Highway 101 and surrounding properties. Surface & Ground Water Impacts: The Big Quilcene River is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the subject property and active mine. Penny Creek is located over 1,300 feet south of the proposed mining boundary. No streams or critical habitat are located within or immediately adjacent to the existing mine or proposed MRL overlay property. Scott Morrison, Sand and Gravel Permit Manager at the Southwest Region offices of the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) reports that Penny Creek ,Quarry operates under a current Sand and Gravel General Permit that addresses water quality and stormwater management issues. The permit number is W AG-50-1403. Mr. Morrison inspected the site last October and provided guidance for proper handling of petroleum products. The Sand and Gravel General Permit would be updated with a mineral resource extraction proposal in a new MRL overlay area. Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area in Penny Creek Road area according to County GIS database; applicable UDC protective measures to be incorporated as permit conditions. Wetlands Impact: There are no mapped wetlands on the site, according to the County GIS database and the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts report submitted on behalf of the applicant by Ecological Land Services, Inc. Slopes: Steep slopes; Moderate Landslide Hazard and Erosion Hazard on subject site according to County GIS database. Applicable UDC conditions would be applied at permit stage. Biological Impact: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Impacts report submitted with MLA contains information on presence and potential impacts from mining for the following wildlife species: Northern Spotted Owl, Bald Eagle, Marbled Murrelet, Osprey, Wood Duck, Harlequin Duck, Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Chum Salmon, Pink Salmon, Searun Cutthroat Trout, Resident Cutthroat Trout, Steelhead, Rainbow Trout, and Channel Catfish. References include WDFW "Habitat and Species Report in the Vicinity of T27R02W 2-21 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Section 12," March 13, 2003 and WDFW "Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitat and Species," 1991. Mineral resource extraction permits would be appropriately conditioned. Impact of Flooding: No off-site stormwater; discharge on-site only, per Ecology Sand and Gravel General Permit. Conclusion Fair source of material. Existing quarry with economic potential to expand. Environmentally sensitive areas protected through regulations and permits. Neighbors concerns should be addressed through clear permit conditions. 2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC section 9.S.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions which consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, follow. Additionally, the contents of Exhibit E of the Master Use Application (MLA) submitted by the proponent are informative and should be referenced by the interested reader. Some of the information in Exhibit E is incorporated below: Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan anticipated possible designation of Mineral Land sites based on site-specific geologic conditions. In 1997, at the time of MRL overly designation for the existing operation, the applicants' ownership was limited to the 19.34 acres west, and an additional 1.62 acres east, of Penny Creek Road. Since then the Phillips family has acquired an additional 35.17 acres north of the current MRL area. The total common, contiguous family ownership is now approximately 56.13 acres. Thus, the change in circumstances is the shift in ownership of over 35 acres of land containing large volumes of commercially valuable mineral resources to owners and operators of a historic and viable surface mine operation on contiguous property. Because of the consolidation of land ownership, the potential has increased for a coordinated and unified mining plan for the entire ownership that will be both economically viable and at the same time environmentally sensitive. The previously discrete ownership presented a major obstacle to reaching that goal. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid. or whether new information is available ",.. 'The a.ssumptiöns upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based continue to be valid. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values This consideration will become evident through public hearing and testimony before the Planning Commission. At this point no specific public comment related to this proposal has been received. In addition, pursuant to UDC section 9.S.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings for formal site-specific amendment proposals. Those findings, and staff evaluation, are as follows: The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation and other public services According to the proponent, the proposed quarry expansion that would follow approval of the MRL overlay would continue operations at the present level of intensity. Because the mineral resources would not be extracted at an accelerated rate and crushing and processing would remain constant, there would be no increase in haul truck traffic from the site or need for other public services. This issue would be further addressed at the time of formal application for land use. 2-22 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 The proposal is consistent with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan Identification and protection of mineral of long-term commercial significance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For a full comparison with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, refer to Exhibit E of the MRL. The proposal will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to capital facilities Designation of this parcel as Mineral Lands Overlay is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to the County's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. The parcel(s) is \>hvsically suitable for the requested designation rel!ardinl! access. utilities. and compatibility with surroundinl! uses Required review under the Unified Development Code provisions will ensure that access and provision of utilities can be located in an appropriate fashion on the subject parcel. Currently, although the existing Quarry is within an MRL overlay approved in 1997, the operation does not possess a permit from the County. The reason is that the County initiated a mineral resource extractionlstormwater management permit upon adoption of the UDC in December 2000. If an MRL overlay were established adjacent to the current operation, the mineral resource extraction would require a County land use permit. The permit would set clear conditions based on this analysis and the UDC. Those conditions would be useful in facilitating understanding and compatibility between the operators and adjacent rural residential landowners. The prooosal will not create a pressure to chanl!e the desil!nation of other orooerties Assigning a designation of Mineral Lands Overlay for the subject parcel has the potential to create a pressure to change the land use designation for surrounding properties but that is not a necessary result of this action. This MRL overlay request represents the extent of land ownership in the area of the Phillips and Maid families at this time. Planned uses to the north and west bordering the subject property are for continued forestry. The proposal does not materially affect land use and population growth proiection assumptions The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an urban growth area (UGA). the Pro{>Osal does not materially affect the adequacy of facilities Not applicable in this situation. The prooosal is consistent"with the GMA and the County-Wide Planninl! Policy Upon review of the submitted geologic and economic report verifying the commercial availability of minerals, staff concludes that the proposed amendment would be consistent with the Growth Management Act and the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. Staff is unaware of any applicable inter- jurisdictional policies or agreements, or any other local, state or federal laws with which the proposed amendment would be inconsistent. Implementation Requirements Approval of the propOsed amendment would require a change to the Jefferson County Land Use Map. 2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) is required under Sections 7 and 8 of the UDC prior to review of mineral resource extractionlstormwater management permit applications for the new MRL overlay district. The result of the BLA process is that each and every parcel in the new MRL overlay shall be at least ten (10) acres in size and that no individual parcel shall be within more than one land use district (i.e., RR 1:5 or RR 1 :20). 2-23 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2. Submittal of a proposed reclamation plan to DNR that encompasses the entire operation, including the current Quarry site, shall be concurrent with submittal of mineral resource extraction land use permit applications to the County. 3. Mineral extraction shall not occur in the new MRL overlay district without a reclamation plan approved by DNR or an updated Sand and Gravel General Permit, if deemed necessary by Ecology. 4. Upon issuance of County mineral resource extractionlstormwater management permits for the new MRL overlay district, should that occur, UDC conditions for Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarry and Reclamation, found at Section 4.24, shall apply to the whole of the Penny Creek Quarry operation, including the existing operation site and the area previously under County ownership, to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the public. The conditions address, among other issues, hours of operation and noise (UDC 4.24.6) and performance standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for mining and quarrying within designated Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas (UDC 4.24.8 and 6.17). Permit application review may result in additional conditions. The result of MRL overlay designation would be an additional 36. 79 acres to the existing 19.34 acres under a 1997 MRL overlay designation. The total MRL overlay district for the area would be approximately 56 acres (56.13 acres). 2-24 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2.3.4 Request for Change in Forest Land Designation The following is excerpted from the NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS chapter of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. GOAL: NRG 1.0 POLICIES: NRP 1.1 NRP 1.2 NRP 1.3 FOREST LANDS GOAL: NRG 3.0 POLICIES: NRP 3.1 NRP 3.2 NRP 3.3 GOAL: NRG 4.0 POLICIES: NRP 4.1 Encourage the conservation of resource lands and the long-term sustainable use of natural resource-based economic activities throughout Jefferson County. Designate lands where the preferred and principal land uses are resource-based economic activities as Natural Resource lands. Require land use activities adjacent to resource lands to be sited and designed so as to minimize conflicts with resource based economic activities. Provide up-to-date and accurate information to the public concerning the location of resource lands and the nature of land uses and activities to be expected within such areas. Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term economic use. Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Forest Lands for long-term commercial significance based on the quality of the forest environment, the size.of,theparcel, the·tax status, current use, and distance from populated areas. Encourage the continued diversity of forestry by designating classes of long-term commercially significant forest land that allow the continued existence. of a range of approaches to forest management. Parcels designated as Forest Land in common ownership separated by a public right-of- way shall be considered as a single parcel. Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands. Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Allow one dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law. 2-25 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 NRP 4.2 NRP 4.3 \ NRP 4.4 NRP 4.5 NRP 4.6 GOAL: NRG 5.0 POLICIES: NRP 5.1 NRP 5.2 NRP 5.3 Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth Management Act and the interim ordinance for conditional uses in Forest Lands. Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing site and design requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated forest land. Minimize dangers from natural disasters such as fire, through siting and design criteria for structures on designated Forest Lands. Minimize conflict between primary and secondary forest production facilities and related developments and forest management activities through siting and design requirements. Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Forest Lands except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Encourage the continuation of forestry on lands which are not designated as commercial forest resource lands. Evaluate proposals for conversion of forest land through a public process to assess the long-term economic impact of decreasing the amount of land available for sustainable forest production and harvest. Review forest land conversion applications based on an assessment of the cumulative impact on the environment. Regulate the development of forest lands which are converted to other uses in compliance with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policy, the Growth Management Act, and the State Forest Practices Rules. Proposals to modify Forest Land designations should be viewed in the context of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies excerpted above. Specific information on MLA03-225 is found below, including the staff recommendation. 2.3.4.1 Reference Number: MLA03-225 (paIl) Applicant: Donna Pall Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821061001 Location: Swansonville Road near intersection with Beaver Valley Road 2.3.4.1.1 General Descriotion and Site-Specific Environmental Information The proposal as submitted by the applicant is to amend the land use designation for a parcel that is approximately 68 acres in size from Commercial Forest (CF) one dwelling unjt per 80 acres (1 :80) to Rural Forest (RF) 1 :40. For discussion purposes, the 68 acres can be described in two parts: the east half of Government Lot II (where the Pall residence is situated) and the whole of Government Lot 1. The Gov. Lot II portion is approximately half (say, 23 acres) that of the Gov. Lot I portion (say, 45 acres). Swansonville 2-26 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Repon & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Road runs through the southwest comer of the Gov. Lot II portion of the property. There is a developed access for the Pall residence on SwansonvilIe Road and a partially developed potential access point for the Gov. Lot II portion to the east. Aside from the PaIl residence, two shelters, and the dirt road network serving those structures, the property is almost entirely forested, according to Ms. Pall and the aerial photograph included as Exhibit C-3. Ms. PaIl does not actively practice forestry on the parcel; there is no existing commercial forestry operation that would be impacted by a land use district amendment. The applicant notes that to her knowledge the property was zoned rural residential at time of purchase. She was unaware of the impact of adoption of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan on her property. The intention of the landowner is to be able to use a portion of the 68-acre property to construct a single- family residence for her brother, who is currently in military service overseas, and his family. Ms. Pall has stated that the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) limitation of 1,250 square feet is too restrictive for her brother, his wife and two children. As the property is not 160 acres in size, under UDC Section 7 Land Division there is no possibility to subdivide the parcel into two parcels under the current CF 1:80 designation. Likewise, even if the parcel were to be designated as RF 1 :40, since the parcel is not 80 acres in size, there would remain no possibility to subdivide the property. Staff discussed this with Ms. Pall over the telephone and presented her with an alternative that would presumably meet her needs. After listening to the explanation, Ms. PaIl agreed that her desires would be met by the staff proposal. Staff asserts that the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan would be served by a modification to the land use designation for the subject parcel, contingent upon a Land Division application under UDC Section 7. The staff proposal is that, should the BOCC take action to implement the staff recommendation, the re-designation for the subject area would occur officially through and only through approval of a Land Division application. The result would be two distinct parcels, whereby the Gov. Lot II portion (112 of a full Gov. Lot) would be Rural Residential 1:20 and the Gov. Lot I portion (a full Gov. Lot) would remain as Forest Land, but would be designated RF 1 :40 rather than CF 1 :80. 2.3.4.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Pursuant to UDC Section 9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, are as follows: Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Circumstances related to the proposed amêñâiriênfirid area in which it is located have not substantially changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the interpretation and application of the criteria related to residential density have been refined since Plan adoption to address issues related to appropriate residential density. Whether the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid. or whether new information is available The assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based continue to be valid. However, since Plan adoption, the interpretation of the residential designation criteria contained at Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal (LNP) 3.0 [page 3-67] have been refined to address issues related to residential density. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values This consideration will become evident through public hearing and testimony before the Planning Commission. At this point no specific public comment related to this proposal has been received. In addition, pursuant to UDC section 9.8.1.c, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings for formal site-specific amendment proposals. Those findings, and staff evaluation, are as follows: 2-27 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 The proposal meets concurrency requirements for transportation and other public services The proposal meets these standards. The oroPOsal is consistent with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan Applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are presented above. Clearly the Comprehensive Plan discourages the re-designation of Forest Lands to some other land use district. In this case, according to the staff recommendation, about 23 acres would be re-designated RR 1 :20. Staff believes that in this case, and in the suggested limited manner, the re-designation would be fair, appropriate, and consistent. The landowner does not practice commercial forestry on the property and does not intend to clear any more land than necessary for the construction of an additional single-family residence. The majority of the 68 acres will remain forested, helping to maintain an effective buffer between rural residential land use to the west, southwest, and south of the property and commercial forestry to the north, east, and southeast. The parcels directly to the west, southwest, and south of the Gov. Lot II portion of the subject parcel are designated Rural Residential 1 :20. The parcels to the north of the Gov. Lot I portion (about 45 acres), which would be designated RF under the staff recommendation scenario, are designated RF. The parcels to the northeast, east, and south are designated CF. For all intents and purposes, the only on-the-ground impact of this zoning decision would be that the second single-family residential structure on the 68 acres in question would be larger than 1,250 square feet, the size limitation for an ADU. There would be little if any impact on Forest Lands and their use in Jefferson County. The orooosal will not result in probable significant adverse imoacts to capital facilities The creation of an additional residential development unit is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to the County's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, or environmental features. These issues would be further addressed at the time of formal application for land division. The oarcel(s) is ohysically suitable for the reQuested designation regarding access. utilities. and compatibility with surrounding uses Required review under the UDC Land Division provisions will ensure that access and provision of utilities can be located in an appropriate fashion on the subject parcel. The proposed designation is compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Utilization of the UDC clustering provisions would allow for flexibility related to access, utility provision, and compatibility. The proposal will not create a oressure to change the designation of other properties As stated earlier, re-designation of Forest Lands is discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. This is a unique set of circumstances, the addressing of which should not create a precedent. In this case, there is RR 1 :20 land use districts directly to the west, southwest, and south of the subject property. The oroPOsal does not materially affect land use and POoulation 2fowth projection assumotions The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If within an urban 2fowth area (UGA). the proposal does not materially affect the adeQuacy of facilities Not applicable in this situation. The oroPOsal is consistent with the GMA and the County-Wide Planning Policy Staff believes that the limited action represented in the staff recommendation would be consistent with the Growth Management Act and the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. Staff is unaware of any applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, or any other local, State or Federal laws with which the proposed amendment would be inconsistent. Imolementation Reauirements Approval of the proposed amendment would require a change to the Jefferson County Land Use Map, made official at the time of an approved Land Division application under UDC Section 7. 2-28 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 2.3.4.1.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a modification to the land use designation for the subject parcel, contingent upon a Land Division application under UDC Section 7. The staff proposal is that, should the BOCC take action to implement the staff recommendation, the re-designation for the subject area would occur officially through and only through approval of a Land Division application. The result would be two distinct parcels, whereby the Gov. Lot II portion (112 of a full Gov. Lot, approximately 23 acres) would be Rural Residential 1 :20 and the Gov. Lot I portion (a full Gov. Lot, approximately 45 acres) would remain as Forest Land, but would be designated RF 1:40 rather than CF 1:80. 2-29 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 13 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and information utilized for the development of this 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. This report supplements information presented in prior environmental documents prepared for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, other legislative actions, and other County decisions and activities. DATE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT EV ALVA TED September 27,1978 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Comprehensive Plan (pre- lDEIS) GMA) Januarv 2, 1979 Final EIS (PElS) Proposed Comprehensive Plan December 21, 1992 County-Wide Planning Policies (Res. No. 40-99) February 14, 1994 DEIS Draft Implementing Ordinance for 1979 Comprehensive Plan March I, 1995 Existing Conditions Alternatives for establishing GMA Comprehensive Plan February 24,1997 DEIS Comprehensive Plan - February 24, 1997 draft May 27,1998 FEIS Prooosed Comprehensive Plan August 3, 1998 Staff Resnonses to Ouestions Prooosed Comprehensive Plan Januarv 26, 1999 Land Use Inventory Report Part of Special Studv January 26,1999 Regional Economic Analysis and Part of Special Study Forecast June 30,1999 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task 1lI of Tri- Area/Glen Cove Special Study) August 18, 1999 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with Comprehensive Plan 1999 addenda Amendments (Task IV of Tri- Area/Glen Cove Soecial Study) June 11,2001 Soecial Study Final Decision Document November 200 1 Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Soecial Study November 28, 200 1 Tri Area & Glen Cove Special Study Implementation Plan August 21,2002 Integrated Staff Report & DSEIS 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket November 25, 2002 Inte2fated FSEIS 2003 Amendment Docket December 2002 Final decisions, findings, ordinances, 2003 Amendment Docket and conditions May 1, 2003 Applications and supporting materials for 8 Comprehensive Plan amendment prooosals On-going Websites for State Departments of E.g., SEP A, wildlife research and Ecology, Natural Resources, and Fish species of concern, salmon recovery, and Wildlife Summer Chum Conservation Initiative, Olympic National Forest, Forest Plan Monitoring Report 3-1 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 14 Distribution List Copies mailed or delivered to: Jefferson County: Planning Commission members (8 persons) Board of County Commissioners Prosecuting Attorney's Office Department of Public Works Department of Health & Human Services Natural Resources Division Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock State Agencies: Office of Community Development: Growth Management Program Department of Ecology SEP A Unit Notification of availabüüy emailed or maüed to: Jefferson County: All other County departments not listed above Local Agencies & Organizations: City of Port Townsend ,"",.ú·"Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 Port of Port Townsend Jefferson County Conservation District Washington Environmental Council Olympic Environmental Council Wild Olympic Salmon North Olympic Salmon Coalition People for a Livable Community Point-No-Point Treaty Council Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Skokomish Tribe Hoh Tribe Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader Peninsula Daily News Forks Forum Vigilance Notification of availabüüy emailed or maüed to: State Agencies: Department of Natural Resources (Anne Sharar & SEPA Review) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEP A Review) Department of Health (Peter Beaton) Department of Social & Health Services (Elizabeth McNagny) Department of Corrections (Linda Glasier) Department of Fish & Wildlife (Millard Deusen, Jeff Davis, & SEP A Review) Department of Ecology (GMA Review) Puget Sound Action Team (Harriet Beale and John Cambalik» Parks & Recreation Commission (Rex Bill Koss» Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Lorinda Anderson) Comprehensive Plan amendment applicants and/or representatives Other Interested Parties: 4-1 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 15 Appendices Item 1: Item 2: Integrated GMNSEP A document (August 6, 2003) Instructions and Links for Accessing Site Maps on the County Website 5-1 I 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEP A Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 5.1 APPENDIX ITEM 1: INTEGRATED DOCUMENT (AUGUST 6, 2003) GMAlSEPA JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port Townsend· Washington 98368 360/379-4450·360/379-4451 Fax http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF SEPA ADDENDUM AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET SITE-SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Jefferson County is issuing an integrated GMAlSEPA document per WAC 197-11-210 through 197-11-235 in relation to the four (4) proposed site-specific amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that constitute half of the Final Docket of the 2003 annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. Jefferson County has determined that it is the appropriate SEP A lead agency for the proposal. Adoption of any Comprehensive Plan amendment on the 2003 docket would be a non-project action under SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Following are brief descriptions of each of the proposed site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use map. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) for reference. On the 2003 final . "..e,"",.dockeLthere.are four (4) site-specific applications and four.. (4) suggested amendments....(for which legal notice will appear at a later date). The site-specific applications are: 1. MLA03-182; Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding; parcel 901013016; amend the land use map to designate the entirety of the subject parcel as part of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center (RVC, a rural commercial district); currently approx. half of the 5-acre parcel is RVC and half is Rural Residential (RR) one dwelling unit per 5 acres (1:5). 2. MLA03-189; ANE Forests of Puget Sound, Inc.; parcel 901364012; land use map re-designation for approx. 40 acres from RR 1 :20 to RR 1: 10 district. 3. MLA03-225; Donna Pall; parcel 821061001; re-designation for approx. 68 acres from Commercial Forest 1:80 to Rural Forest 1:40 land use district. 4. MLA03-231; Marilee, Gary and Kelly Phillips and Richard Jr. and Kristan Maki; parcels 702224003, 702224010, 702224011, 702224012, 702224023, 702224024, 702224025, 702224026; establishment of a Mineral Resource Land overlay district for approx. 37 acres in underlying RR 1:5 and RR 1:20 land use districts. GMA Notice: This document serves as the 60-day notice of intent to amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is being circulated per WAC 365-195-620 to State agencies on the list provided by the Washington State Office of Community Development of agency representatives responsible for reviewing proposed amendments to comprehensive plans. 5-2 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum for Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents and Notice of Availability of SEP A Addendum: The document also serves as a notice of adoption of existing environmental documents and notice of availability of a formal SEPA document, an Addendum, pursuant to SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC). After review of the docket and existing environmental documents, the SEP A Responsible Official at the Department of Community Development (DCD) has determined that existing environmental documents, augmented by the integrated SEP A Addendum, provide adequate environmental review to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-600 with regard to consideration of the site-specific amendment proposals on the 2003 Docket. A Staff Report offering recommended action on each proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment has been integrated with a SEPA Addendum per WAC 197-11-235. In accordance with WAC 197-11-630, there is no new SEPA-specific public comment period in conjunction with this adoption notice. However, DCD and the Planning Commission are accepting general comments on the merits of the proposed site- specific amendment applications as detailed below. The following existing environmental documents are being adopted: · Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS are dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. · Draft and Final Supplemental EIS (DSEIS/FSEIS) and addenda for the Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments, also known as Tasks III and IV of the Tri-Area I Glen Cove Special Study. The DSEIS and FSEIS are dated June 30, 1999 and August 18, 1999, respectively, and examined the potential environmental impacts of adopting one of the identified planning alternatives for the Tri- Area of Chimacum-Port Hadlock-Irondale and the Glen Cove mixed use area. · Integrated Staff Report and DSEIS/FSEIS for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, dated August 21 and November 25, 2002, respectively. Among other information, the adopted documents provide background and analysis on the classification, designation, and regulation of mineral resource lands. Other documents have been incorporated by reference in the combined Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. Planning Commission Public Hearing: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Planning Commission will a public hearing to take comment on the four proposed Comprehensive Plan site- specific amendments. Oral and/or written comment will be accepted as detailed below. The public hearing will occur on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 beginning at 6:30 PM at the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W Patison, Port Hadlock. In September, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the four suggested amendments that complete the 2003 Docket. An integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum will be released and a legal notice will appear at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Public Comment Period: The Planning Commission and DCD will accept written comments on the merits of the four site-specific amendment proposals until the conclusion of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on August 20 (detailed above). Oral comment may be made at the Planning Commission public hearing. Any comments on the site-specific applications submitted after August 20 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for consideration in their legislative decision. The BOCC may hold a public hearing before taking action on the final docket (formal notice would appear in the newspaper of record). Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368 or via email toplanning@co.jefferson;wa.us. Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed amendments, the Integrated Staff Report and SEP ~ Addendum, the adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact DCD Long-Range Planning at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle website, where documents and notices are posted in PDF: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2oo3%2OComorehensive%20Plan%20Amendment%2OC vcle.htm. 5-3 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Site-Specific Applications August 6, 2003 S.2 APPENDIX ITEM 2: INSTRUCTIONS AND LINKS FOR ACCESSING SITE MAPS ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE Copy and paste the following links into a web browser to access maps that display the current land use districts for the subject parcels and surrounding area. For paper site maps and associated maps, consult the Master Land Use Application (MI,A) submitted as a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal. Site Map for MLA03-182 (Boat School) http://gisserverlWebsitelesaldefault.htm?Box= 1169585.83:381903.45: 1171303. 74:382881.62&La yers= 10 100000o 11 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1 OOOOOOOO&ActiveLayer=2 Site Map for MLA03-189 (ANE Forests) http://gisserverlWebsitelesaldefault.htm?Box=II72243.3:355100.37: 1175784.88:357116.93&Lay ers=1 0 1 00000o 11 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1 OOOOOOOO&ActiveLayer=2 Site Map for MLA03-225 (Pall) http://gisserverlWebsitelesaldefault.htm?Box=1176527 .03:352040. 79: 1180723.16:354430.04&La yers=1 0 1 00000011 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1 OOOOOOOO&ActiveLayer=2 Site Map for MLA03-231 (Phillips/Maki) http://gisserverlWebsitelesaldefault.htm?Box=1127559 . 78:302377.51: 11331 04.3:305534.53&Lay ers= 1 01 00000o 11 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO1 OOOOOOOO&ActiveLayer=2 5-4 -. ) 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET Department of Community Development Staff Report and SEP A Addendum for Suggested Amendments JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Staff Recommendation and Environmental Analysis with Regard to the Adoption of Suggested Amendments to the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan SepteIDber17,2003 INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/ STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POllCY ACT DOCUMENT Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action: Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents · 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 Table of Contents Page 1 Environmental Summa and Fact 1. I Fact Sheet. ................. .......... ........................... ............................ ............................... ................... 1-1 1.2 Environmental Summary............... ............................ ........... .................. ...................................... 1-4 1.2.1 Introduction and Process...... ................................. ............................................................... 1-4 1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents............................................................. 1-4 1.2.1.2 Incorporation ofDocUDlCIlts by Reference ......................................................................1-5 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis ............................................................... ...................... 1-5 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.2 Major Conclusions ................................. .................................... .................................... ...... 1-7 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................1-7 1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations ........................... 1-8 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................1-9 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty............................................................... 1-9 1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved ........................................................................................................ 1-10 1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made............................................................................... 1-10 1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures .................................................... ........................ 1-10 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action.......................................... 1-11 ¡ Concise Anal sis of the Pro _..._..__....._......._......_._......_.........._............._._...........___.2-1 2.1 Overview........................................... ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Staff Reports. Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations....................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators ............................................................ ............................... 2-1 2.2 final docket ............................................................... ............................. ............................... ....... 2-4 2.2.1 Staff Recommendation........... ..................... ......................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Staff Reports: Suggested Amendments ........................................................................................2-5 2.3.1 Requests Initiated by Jefferson County ................................................................................. 2-5 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA03-209 (Jefferson County-Agricultural Lands) ..................... 2-5 2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA03-210 (Jefferson County-Seawater Intrusion) ................... 2-~1 ~ So Reco A and Material1:.....__.__.............................. ...._..............-...........3-1 ! Distribution List................................._.-.-................................................__.............._......____.4-1 ~ A ndices ..................................__......._____....._............._....._............................................_.....5.1 5. I Appendix Item 1: Integrated GMAlSEP A document (September 17. 2(03) .........:..................... 5-2 5.2 Appendix Item 2: UDC Section 3.6.5 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas...................................... 5-4 5.3 Appendix Item 3: DCD Administrative list of Water Conservation Measures ......................... 5-11 11 Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet 1.1 FACTSHEET Title and Description of Proposed Action Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is considering adoption of seven (7)1 individual amendment proposals to the 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The seven proposed amendments, consisting of three (3) site-specific applications and four (4) suggested amendments, compose the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which is the "Final Docket" for this year's annual amendment cycle. This document is a combined Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) Addendum for two (2) of the suggested amendments.2 The objective is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with regard to Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in UDC Section 9 and potential environmental impacts as proscribed in SEP A Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments is a non-project action under SEP A and is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEP A requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). Following are brief descriptions of each of the two suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan addressed in this document. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) for reference: 1. MLA03-209; Jefferson County; Proposal to simplify and amend Agricultural Lands designation categories and criteria as part of a process to complete planning tasks outlined in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; 2004 tasks include reconsideration of Agricultural Lands development regulations and potential designation ,of Agricultural Lands of Local Importance. 2. MLA03-21O; Jefferson County; Proposal to add policy language to the Comprehensive Plan related to compliance with a Growth Management Hearings Board order concerning groundwater protection against seawater intrusion. Pro~nent Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) 1 MLA03-225, a site-specific amendment proposal, was formally withdrawn by the applicant on September 3, 2003. 2 Two suggested amendments related to Jefferson County International Airport, MLA03-232 and 244, are to be addressed at a later date. , 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17,2003 Location of Background Material and Documents Incorporated by Reference Relation to Other Documents Cost to the Public Background material and documents used to support development of the Addendum are available for inspection from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend W A 98368, (360) 379- 4450. A series of documents have been prepared by or on behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and development regulations- the Unified Development Code (UDC)-inclusive of amendments. These documents, listed in part 3 of this document. "Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials," provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental description and analysis. They are hereby incorporated by reference. The reader is encouraged to utilize existing documents in conjunction with this document for more comprehensive perspective and understanding. In this document. description of and references to the content of the proposals have been provided to the greatest extent possible, but are not inclusive of all relevant information from the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. For optimum understanding of the discussion presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted as companion information to this document Copies of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Integrated Staff Reports and SEP A Addenda, or select pages, are available at cost from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD). The text and selected appendices are also available for download on the DCD website dedicated to the 2003 annual amendment cycle. which can be accessed from the "Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan" section of the Long-Range Planning , website: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmentILRP.htm. Copies of this document are available for inspection at DCD and the Jefferson County Public Library at Port Hadlock. . 1-3 L 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Doclcet DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference The Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including all supplemental information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting record, analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, and all other materials or documents referenced in the text within are hereby incorporated by referenc~, pmsuant to SEPA rules at WAC 197-11-600 and 635. The documents listed in part 3 of this document, "Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials," provide substantial background information and offer previous environmental description and analysis. The reader is encouraged to utilize existing documents in conjunction with this document for more comprehensive perspective and understanding. Moreover, throughout this document description of and references to the content of the proposals have been provided to the greatest extent possible, but are not inclusive of all relevant information from the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. For optimum understanding of the discussion presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves, including any associated SEP A Environmental Checklists, should be consulted as companion information to this document. 1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis This document provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts as appropriate to the general nature of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals. The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments is classified under SEPA as a non-project (i.e.. programmatic) action. A non-project action. such as decisions on policies, plans or programs, is defined as an action that is broader than a single site-specific project Environmental analysis for a non-project proposal does not require site- specific analyses; instead, a document such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEP A Addendum discusses impacts and alternatives appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC 197-11-442). The analysis in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEP A requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application). SEP A encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are ready for decision. and to exclude ftom consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for decision-making [WAC 197-11- 060(5)]. Phased review is appropriate when the sequence of a proposal is ftom a programmatic document, such as an integrated GMAlS~ A. document ad~...8 comprehensive plan amendments. to other documents that arc narrower in scope, such as for a site-specific, project-level analysis (i.e., a "project action" under SEPA). Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEP A Addendum will be used to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed aJl)ell()ments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (and associated proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code). Additional environmental review of development proposals will occur as specific projects are proposed (e.g.. land use and building permit applications). This will result in an additional incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions require a more detailed evaluation and as additional information becomes availab.e. Future project action environmental review for development applications that are not categorically exempt ftom SEP A could occur in the form of supplemental EISs. SEP A addendums. or threshold Determinations(s) ofNon-5ignificancc (DNSs). 1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement Following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket and associated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. This 2003 1-5 i:.. 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 20lH In making a final legislative decision on the Docket, the BOCC considers the Planning Commission recommendation, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission, the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the Prosecuting Attorney's office, and any written or oral comments provided to the BOCC before or during a BOCC public hearing on the Docket (should one be held). If the BOCC elects to schedule one or more public hearings on the Docket following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would be another opportunity for agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket A legal notice would appear in the Port Townsend &: Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing any BOCC public hearings on the 2003 Final Docket A legislative decision from the BOCC on each of the site-specific and suggested Comprehensive Plan amendment proposaIs under consideration is expected in late November or early December 2003. The meeting schedules and agendas for the Planning Commission and BOCC with regard to the 2003 Docket are available on a Jefferson County website dedicated to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This website can be accessed from the "Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan" section of the Long-Range Planning website: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopment/LRP.htm. 1.2.2 Major Conclusions The summary conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in Part 2 of this Staff Report and SEP A Addendum are presented here for the reader's convenience. A reading of the analysis in Part 2 in addition to any supporting material referenced in the text is encouraged. Generally, information presented elsewhere is not reprinted here. 1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for mitigation measures and conditions are within the individual staff reports for each of the proposed amendments found in part 2 of this document: "Concise Analysis of the Proposals." Summary statements presented in the Summary Matrix are, in some cases, considerably abbreviated from the full discussion in part 2 and lack explanations of terminology. Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive discussion of issues of interest in part 2, and to consult the amendment applications themselves and supporting materials listed in part 3, to formulate the most accurate impression of impacts associated with the proposals and staff recommendations. "Significant" as used in SEP A means a reasonable ,likelihood of more .than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable text WAC 197-11-794. # APPLICATION NUMBER & POTENTIAL PROPOSED DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION I IMPACTS CONDmONS 1 MLA03-209; Not significant None. Jefferson County; Agriculturfll Lands designation and policies 2 MLA03-210; Not significant None. Jefferson County; Seawater intrusion policies 1-7 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Repon & SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found in the Summary Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan future development proposals in a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how mitigation measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation assumptions, none of the potential i.m¡;)acts of the future development scenarios evaluated in this document would meet all of the parameters (significant and unavoidable and adverse). For more information on the relationship of plan and policymaking to future review of development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures below at section 1.2.4.2. 1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty Following is a table summarizing key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers: # APPLICATION AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY NUMBER & DESCRIPTION 1 MLA03-209; The main area of potential controversy with regard to the amending the Jefferson County; categories and criteria for designating Agricultural Lands is the possibility that Agricultural parcels smaller than five acres (the current limitation for consideration) be Lands designation designated in the future. Some owners of neighboring properties designated as and policies Rural Residential and used for that purpose may be opposed to Agricultural Lands designation for their neighbors. Another potential area of controversy or uncertainty is that the fact that parcels that are currently within Agriculture Production Districts, but that are not zoned Commercial Agriculture, will no longer be considered Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance. Those property owners, as well as others, however, will be offered the opportunity in the year 2004 to petition the County for Agricultural Lands zoning for their properties. Another potential area of controversy or uncertainty is that, based on amendments to the development code enacted earlier this year, existing and on- going agricultural activities practiced on either designated Agricultural Lands or _ ',,"_';u·. ..."....;:"'-,~:. . on lands enrolled in agriculture category of the Open spaCe Tax Piogram are exempt from application of the standard stream and wetland buffers in the development code. Parcels on which agricultural activities have occurred in the last five years, but which are not currently designated Agricultural Land or enrolled in the Tax Program, may qualify for this exemption by becoming designated as Agricultural Land during a future Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Rather than apply standard buffers to existing and on-going agricultural activities, the County is helping to protect streams and wetlands together with the farming community through a basin-by-basin riparian and wetland management program for agriculture. 2 MLA03-21O; The issue of compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) with regard Jefferson County; to protecting groundwater against seawater intrusion has been before the Seawater intrusion Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board since adoption of the policies Unified Development Code. A Compliance Order from the Hearings Board instructed the County to include in the Comprehensive Plan itself relevant elements of a Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy adopted by resolution in 2002. 1-9 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 (3.6.9). The County maintains data from a variety of sources, including the State of the Washington and the US Federal govermnent, in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database. The data are used to create maps depicting the environmentally sensitive areas overlay districts. Development Review Division planners utilize available GIS information when reviewing land use and building permit applicatjons and apply the protective measures accordingly. Oftentimes, an applicant is required to submit a Special Report, such as an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan, Habitat Management Plan, and Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are govcrned by UDC section 3.6.10. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and building permit approval, but whenever possible to augment existing data for the County GIS database on environmentally sensitive areas. Sometimes the existing regulations are not strong enough to effectively protect the environment when examined in the context of a particular project Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation measures above and beyond the protections provided by the established development regulations may be needed to avoid significant adverse cnvironmental impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions may employ "SEP A substantive authority" to fwther condition approval of a development application. These mitigation measures are generally developed through project action SEP A review and established as permit conditions through an EIS or a threshold Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS). Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of anyone of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year's cyclc is not as clear as placing a condition on a permit. The legislative decision to adopt a modified version of thc original Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal can be considered a form of mitigation. for example. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) may be effectively mitigating the potential environmental impact of adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified proposal or even deciding not to adopt the proposal based on enviromnental considerations. For formal site-specific amendment applications, the BOCC could apply a mitigation measure that affects future use of the land in question. In any of these cases, mitigation as applied to a non- project action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct from initigation as applied to a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action review that established protection measures for environmenta1ly sensitive areas and other development standards are applied to proposals for on-the- ground development. Judging the effectiveness of mitig~tion measures in this context requires on-going vigilance. 1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action These two suggested proposals under revicw in this amendment cycle are relatively minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction from implementation of the 1998 adopted Comprehensive Plan. Some actions are corrective in that development densities and zoning designations have been clarified or informed by public processes during the years since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The urban growth area (UGA) analysis has been ongoing for over ten years, being one of the original requirements demanded by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Population projections for this County have not been attained. The economy is sagging. Cost of living is inflating. -_..~._.. -". The resource land debate is characteristic of issues raised during the early years of GMA compliance for this County. Ultimately, after legal challenge and mediation between petitioners Jefferson County classified and designated 330,000 acres of forest lands of long term commercial significance, which included a secondary right to conduct mining activities. Long-term viability of agricultural lands is becoming paramount in view of the sometimes-competing interests of farming and environmental protection. These become fundamental in view of the public interest to live in a rural setting of such high quality as that which is enjoyed in Jefferson County. The County will continue to designate lands in a matter that reduces pressures to convert land into sprawling low-density development. 1-11 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 12 Concise Analysis of the Proposals 2.1 OVERVIEW Pursuant to Section 9 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A" at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act (''OMA'' at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. and UDC Section 9, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of all proposals to review the potential for cumulative impacts. In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2) categories: Formal Site-Speclfic Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting a change in either Comprehensive plan land use designation or density. Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that that broadly apply to the goals. policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to eDSme cumulative impact review, suggested amendments that could potentially result in re-designation of groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria required for formal site-specific amendments (i.e., UDC 9.8.1.b and c). This document addresses two (2) of the four (4) suggested Comprehensive Plan amendments on the Fmal Docket. The site-specific amendments are addressed in a document released on August 6, 2003. 2.1.1 Staff Reports, Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in Section 9 of the UOC and, in turn, evaluates the potential for adverse environmental and cumulative impacts. Each amendment proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made based on those cri~ Tables are for summary information only; consult the staff report for each proposal for greater comprehension. 2.1.2 Growth ManagemëîifIridicåtors Pursuant to UOC section 9.8.1.b, all recommendations regarding amendment to the ,Çomprehensive Plan must include an inquiry into the seven (7) growth management indicators listed at UOC section 9.5.4.b. These growth management indicators address: · Growth and development rates · Ability to provide services · Availability of urban land · Community-wide attitudes towards land use · Consistency with state law and local agreements These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of Jefferson County's status during this 2003 amendment cycle. This section will serve to promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators and is intended to be a starting point for broader community consideration before the Planning Commission and the BOCC. While this review of the growth management indicators provides some basic analysis related to County demographics, it is not intended to measme progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that task is reserved for the State-mandated Comprehensive Plan update scheduled for completion in 2004. 2-1 I .. ......-.-,.--.. ,,-..., 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 (3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. Discussion: Based on the current population allocation contained in Joint County and City Resolution No. 17-96 and the fact that current and projected growth rates are less than anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan it is assumed that sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. As. an unincorporated area. Jefferson County is comprised of rural and natur~ resource lands - no urban population was allocated to the unincorporated area. Based on the City of Port Townsend "2002 Annual Comprehensive Plan Assessment" dated April 15, 2002, there appears to be adequate vacant land in all zoning categories to accomrnt:Jdate future anticipated urban growth. (4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer found to be valid. Discussion: Five years following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the majority of assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments to GMA and other laws made by the State Legislature and precedent-setting decisions made by the Growth Management Hearings Boards influence local government implementation of GMA. In the five years since Comprehensive Plan adoption, Jefferson County has completed a "Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast" (Richard Trottier: January 26, 1999) that suggests that the County has a deficit that exceeds 200 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land. This analysis, which was referenced and anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan, provides general direction for the County regarding the designation of rural commercial lands and/or Urban Growth Areas. (5) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan V'uion Statement. Discussion: The most effective way to judge whether changes in countywide attitudes have occurred, aside from reference to local election results, is through statistically significant public opinion surveys. The last such survey in Jefferson County took place in 1991 through the "Jefferson 2()()() Public Opinion Survey" conducted by Elway Research. Many of the opinions expressed through this survey are reflected in the policy assumptions that form the basis for the Comprehensive Plan. That said, the opinions expressed through the Jefferson 2()()() survey were not intended to predict the future and an updated survey would be the most effective way to gauge whether changes in countywide attitudes have actually manifested. (6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments. Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption in August 'Of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective, these changing circumstances include: issues surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered Species Act, County adoption of final development regulations which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act, Growth Management Hearings Boards clarifications through case law related to specificuprovisions of the GMA, the adoption of Unified Development Code amendments esttlblishing a process for locating Major Industrial Development, and the completion of the Tri Area/Glen Cove Special Study. Changes in circumstance such as these suggest that components of the Comprehensive Plan may need to be amended. (7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Mano.gement Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Poliey lor Jel/erson County. Discussion: While the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policy. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the County is in the process of conducting a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management Act. Per the GMA, this review must be completed in 2004. 2-3 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS 2.3.1 Requests Initiated by JetTerson County There are two Comprehensive Plan amendments sponsored by Jefferson County in this year's amendment cycle. MLA03-209 addresses Agricultural Lands designation and policy. MLA03-210 addresses seawater intrusion policy. 2.3.1.1 Reference Number: MLA03-209 (Jefferson County-Agricultural Lands) Applicant: Jefferson County Assessor Parcel Number(s): N/A Location: N/A (amendment influences Land Use Map; potential for future Agricultural Lands designation under amended categories and criteria) 2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 on April 28, 2003, amending the Unified Development Code (UDC) with regard to the regulation of existing and ongoing agriculture, among other topics. This Comprehensive Plan amendment application is part of "Step Two" of an Agricultural Lands planning effort initiated with discussion generated in the process leading up to adoption of the above-cited Ordinance in April. Using grant funds from Washington State, the Department of Community Development (DCD) began a public outreach process to ascertain interest in the "Agricultural Lands of Local Significance" program cited in the Comprehensive Plan.7 Working with the Planning Commission Ag Lands Committee, DCD is developing a comprehensive Agricultural Lands package that includes Comprehensive Plan narrative and policy amendments involving the categories and criteria for Agricultural Lands designation (i.e., this proposal) and that will/may include reconsideration of UDC regulations as applied to Agricultural Lands (e.g., UDC Section 4.3 on agricultural best management practices and uses allowed per Table 3-1), as well as other unfinished Agricultural Lands planning tasks as described in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC will consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan text and Land Use Map dwing this year's amendment cycle. DCD expects to collaborate with "the Planning Commission Ag Lands Committee late this year and early next year on a package of UDC amendments to implement any adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments and accomplish other goals vis-à-vis the regulation of agricultµral activities. The Planning Commission is expected to present a proposal to the public sometime in the first part of next yeár. As a result of an outreach effort conducted this past summer, a list has been generated of parcels owned by people interested in having those parcels designated as Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance. After the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments related to agriculture arc considered by the BOCC, an outreach effort will be conducted in the year 2004 to verify and review a list of parcels to be considered for Agricultural Lands zoning. This review will occur in conjunction with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, which will conclude sometime in the latter half of 2004. At the conclusion of next year's amendment cycle, Agricultural Lands planning (with the exception of planning to protect aquacuhure lands) is expected to be completed, in terms of the unfinished tasks left at adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. In this section, the reader is presented with the line-in/line-out proposal for the Comprehensive Plan, as well as explanation of the effect of the proposal, a table displaying changes to acreage in each land use district that will be reflected on the Land Use Map, cumulative impacts analysis and other information. 1 The term "Local Significance" is interchangeable with "Local Importance," which is being proposed to replace the former because of a direct correlation with WAC 365-190-050, which guides Resource Land designation under GMA. 2-5 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Doclœt DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments September 17. 2003 Table 4-2 Guidelines for Classification of Agricultural Resource Lands in Jefferson County .....--~.,_. ,.... .-...- -- Indicator Comments 1. .-\\·ailahility efPOOIie Faeilities aatl Siaee laBEls witftiR Ur9an Gæwth .'\reas (UGhs) 8f8 inteBEIeEl te ge Serviees aREI PFElximity te UFlJaø served 9Y p~lie faeilities aRE!. serviees widHR a tvJemy year peried. Qœ·.vth .'\Feas agrieulbøl laBEls of leBg teFm eeBHBefaial signitìaanee shealEl ge løeateEI aøtsiEle af the UGf.. 9aYftElaries. 2. Tim Stems :\gfieulkRl laBEls af løøg term eemmeFeial sigøitieaøee shaalEl ge -. .- - - -- . . <... ^-.... . ,.....- J. Parael SÌi!e f..gåealøal laBEls at laøg teFm e8lBlReft ial sigaifieaøee slieulEI ge . -. ._.___1. 4. LaBEl Use SettlemeBt PlKtems aREI 'Their To PFeyMle suifieieAt 9øfferiøg Md seéaelEs, agrieøltøfal laBEls af Cempææility \vidi f..grieYkut:al leRg term eemmeæial sigøitìaMee shealEl ge aEljaeem ta 18fge pareels. Praetiees 5. Proximity atMarøæ Agrieultøfal lands af 19R9 term eommet'eial sigøifiseGe slleuld h8?le 8ese&s te tRuwpeftatiaø øetwerks fer assess te laeal eEl regieBal HlØfkets. Faetefs ÌR\<ebreEl iBelude the type af et'ØI' eEl iBteøsHy af . 1. Presence of orime a2ricultural soil as A sismificant portion of orime a2ricultural soils should be defined in the Natural Resources aooroximatelv one third or more of the Darcel. Conservation Service Soil Survey of Jefferson County. Washimlton on a sionificant nortion of the Darcel 2. Historic usage for a2riculture Land which has been used for a2riculture for a number of years or can be converted back to active a2riculture. even if it is currently lving fallow should be øiven hi2h Drioritv for a2ricultural desionation. 3. Parcels ofland 10 acres or lar¡ter in Some tvDes of a2riculture are best oracticed on parcels ten acres and size should be lriven strong larlre1" and they should be lriven him t>rioritv for a2ricultural consideration however smaller parcels desimation. Smaller oarcels considered suitable for a2riculture may also be hi2h1v suitable for designation. which are adjacent to residentially designated land. may a2ricultural designation be subiect to increased re2Ulatorv oversipt for some tY-PeS of aøricultural nractices. 4. Participation bv Darcel owner in the Particioation in the Qpen Soace Tax Proszram is not a requirement for .- Ooen Space Tax Pro21"am for a2ricultural desiJZDation:-however. it is a-e:ood indication of aualifvine: Aøricultural Land land. 5. Located away from existine:land uses Some existine:land uses would interfere with a2ricultural activities that would interfere with a2ricultural such as uses that DODute. Residential usés are not considered uses that oractices would interfere with ae:ricultural oractices. The oossibilitv that a2ricultural uses oracticed accordine: to Best Manae:ement Practices may interfere with residential uses shall not be a reason to deny amcultural desismation of a Darcel. 6. Located outside of areas alreadv Areas where the public has already made a sismificant investment in served with "urban e:overnmental services suited to urban levels of development such as storm and services" which are tvDicallv orovided sanitarY sewers. street cleaning services. urban levels of fire and in cities DOlice orotection. etc. are no IonIZer suitable to be classified as a natural resource to be nrntected ftom more intense develonment. 7. Located outside of existing Master Undevelooed land with mime a2ricultural soils was not included in Planned Resort lMPR) or Urban Jefferson Countv's desimated MPR or UGA areas: therefore any Growth Area lUGA) land use additional undevelooed oarcels in those areas should be oreserved for desimations more intensive develQpment and not desi2Dllted as a2riculturallands of 10DI1 term commercial simificance. 8. Currentlv in commercial agricultural Land currently bei1l2 used for any t\1>C or scale of commercial use aøriculture should be aiven hillh DriOritv for a2ricultural desionAtion. 2-7 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 Resort (MPR) or Urban Growth Area (UGA): and . is in an area where no existing land uses are present. which will seriously interfere with the successfullon~ term oractice of a ran~e of agriculturat activities: and . does not include land currently desismated Rural Forest (RF-4Q) presently in a Darcel size 40 acres or larger. or Commercial Forest (CF-SO) or Inholding Forest (JF\. A2ricultural Land of In order to preserve and stimulate a2ricu1tural diversity Amcultural uses and Local Importance and to maintain an undeyelooed land base for future sin21e-family (AL-20) agricultural use. the owner of a Darcel may Detition the residential County for designation as Amcultural Land of Local Importance. When the owner of a Darcel or an a21p"C~ate of Darcels oetitions successfully for rezone to a2riculture the land shall be considered an Agricultural Land of Lon2-Term Commercial Significance and as such it shall be afforded the rights and orotections of natural resource land. Land desismated as Agricultural Land of Local Imoortance shall meet the followine: criteria: · the owner of the parcel currently utilizes or intends to utilize the land for lon2 term commercial amcultural DtJ11'OSCS: and · the land is located away from existing land uses that would interfere with agricultural practices: and · the land is located outside of areas already served with "urban IZOvernmentaI services" which are tvoically Drovided in cities: and · the land is located outside of existine: Master Planned Resort íPR) or Urban Growth Area (uGA) land use designations: and · the land is Dhvsically and topo8f8PhicallY ..~.._..~. ._-- '. . .,.-.....~, -,..,---.-_-- , . H. _ suitable for the oractice of commercial amculture: and · if currently desismated as Rural Forest (RF- , 40). the land is already platted into 20 acre or smaller parcels: and · the land is not currently desismated as Commercial Forest (CF-80) or Inholding Forest aF). AgFieultural P"Øduetitm fJis ..'iet9 fÁgrieultæ:al Pi:eElaetion Dimes sooølEl preàemiBaRtIy saosist af these laREIs with. the feUewing sliaEaeteristiSG: OMere thlHl fifty per seat (50%) af die pareel ea86Ì6ts af Prime Farmlaæ, as ElesigBateEI åy the Sail Conservatien Serviee af the U.s. DepartmeRt af .A.grieøkuFe; OIBe parael Ì6 æmiBally t...:eøty (~aef8s er greater ÌB size; Othe paæel is aEljaeeAt 19 pareels af at least 3 8ef8S ÌB siæ eft 75% ar meFe af its perimeter; 2-9 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 18 eTEier to proteet the profIerty riglHs ef agriealtafe laado'JJftefS aREl maiaWø the agriealtare iaEl\l&try, a Right te Pfaeâee l\grieekæ:e IIr-øvisioa of the iateÀIR Øfèißaaee will l:Ie aàepteEI 86 paft ef the fiaal er4ioo8ee. ProteetieRS ee8æ!ateå Íß this eFàiÐanee &hoalà apply te all desigøated agriealtural led that eempJies with !:lest agriealá1fe æaaageæeBt pf8sâses 86 ElesmiÐeEI iB the emiaanee. Maay iBàh<idøal farms. life i8 RJf81 aFea8 '.vhere Ie'.\, EleB6ity laœ \J5es pres8Bt feYJef eenftists with agfÍealan=e. CeBâaøeå farmiag sa saeh pareels ·.vill!:le eBÐsHfageEI throygh 1'e6ÍEleatial raeøiRg that maiBmiRB large lets aBEI Ie·...· Elensiâes, aaEl tfeats faABiBg 86 a peætitted \158. Fer fYftàer Elisell&siÐR sf these issøe8, ple86e fefer te the Land Use aœ RumJ. ElemeBt af the CemprelumsF.re Plar_ Jefferson County currently designates and regulates aszriculturallands in comoliancc with the provisions of the State Growth Mana2ement Act. Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washin~n and Washington Administrative Code 365-190-050. bv means of this Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code (UDC) for Jefferson County. adopted on December 18, 2000. together with its subseaucnt amendments. The UDC renlaced the Jefferson County AlZricultural Land Ordinance #08-0525-95. adopted effective June 5, 1995. The UDC sets forth and regulates definitions, land use districts. performance and use-soecific standards. develonment standards. land divisions. permit application and review procedures. State Environmental Policy Act implementation. Comprehensive Plan and Growth Mana2ement Act ißlt)lementin2 re2Ulations and amendment orocesses and enforcement. A¢cultural resource lands are Drimarilv addressed in sections 3.1.3 and 3.3.2. Allowable and nrohibited uses are established for Aszricultural Lands on Table 3.1. The Shoreline Mana2ement Act. RCW 98.58 and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Prouam.. adopted on March 7. 1989. with subseauent minor revisions. also re2ulate aszriculture nracticed within shoreline regulatory iurisdiction. Agricultural Lands Goals and Policies, page 4-42 of the Comprehensive Plan AGRICULTURE LANDS GOAL: -'---NRGI0;0-- CoDSérve and protect the· agrlculturalland baseäJKfitš asSOdàfêc1'êêõïaömv'-and lifestyle. POLICIES: NRP 10.1 Adopt a final Agricultural Lands Ordinance that includes the criteria from the Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Agricultural Lands for long- term commercial significance based on the class of agricultural land, the size of the parcel, the tax status, cmrent use, and distance from populated areas. NRP 10.2 Minimize conflicts with agricultural activities by developing site and design requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated agricultural land which insure that the adiacent activities shall not interf~ with the continued use. in the accustomed manner and in accordance with best mana2ement nractices. of these desirmated aszriculturallands for the oroduction of food and other aszricultural \>roducts. NRP 10.3 Support the conservation of agricultural land through tax incentive programs, the purchase or transfer of development rights, and other methods developed in cooperation with agricultural landowners and managers. 2-11 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 Proposed guideline #2 specifies historic usage for agriculture including land which can be converted back to active agriculture if it is currently lying fallow. Proposed guideline #3 places priority of agricultural lands designation on parcels 10 acres and larger, however, it also permits smaller parcels to be given the designation. Proposed guideline #4 makes participation or eligibility for participation in the Open Space Tax Program for Agriculture an indicator but not a requirement for designation as agricultural land. Proposed guideline #5 specifies that land given agricultural designation should be located away from existing activities that would interfere with the successful practice of agriculture because of pollution. Proposed guideline #6 specifies that land should not be designated Agricultural Lands if it is in an area where the public has already invested in services suited to urban levels of development. Proposed guideline #7 specifies that land which is already designated as being in a Master Planned Resort or Urban Growth Area should not be designated as agricultural land. Proposed guideline #8 specifies that land parcels of any size that arc currently being used for commercial agriculture should be given high priority for agricultural designation. Proposed guideline #9 specifies that only land that is physically and topographically suited for commercial agriculture should be given agricultural designation. Proposed guideline #10 specifies that land currently designated Rural Forest (RF-40) shall not be re- designated to agricultural unless the RF land has already been divided to 2O-acre or smaller parcels. Proposed guideline #11 specifies that land currently designated as Commercial Forest (CF-80) shall not be re-designated as agricultural. Proposed guideline #12 specifies that land currently designated as Inholding Forest (IF) shall not be re- designated as agricultural. 2. Change in designations for Agricultural Lands of Long- Term Commercial Significance - -- ."-"'",..-.,,',...-...,----. "0 ____ a.. 'Iu'::... ."~' ~,. Existinl! Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance consist of two classes: (1) Lands lying within the designated Agricultural Production District; and (2) Agricultural Lands of Local Significance designated by the County through the voluntary petition by the owner. Agricultural Production District lands should predominately consist of lands with the following characteristics: a. Consist of more than 50% of the parcel having prime agricultural soil b. Is nominally 20 acres or greater in size c. Is adjacent to parcels of at least 3 acres in size on 75% or more of its perimeter d. Is currently being used for commercial agriculture e. Is participating in the Open Space Agricultural Tax Program. f. Includes land not currently in agricultural production but devoted to either open land, forestry or low-density residential use. Included to prevent checker boarding, minimi7,C incompatible adjacent land uses and allow for expansion of agricultural uses. g. Be established in Beaver Valley, Chimacum Center Valley, Discovery Bay Delta/Snow Creek. Quilcene River Delta and Tarboo Creek Valley 2-13 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17. 2003 4. Changes in Agricultural Lands Goals and PoUdes Existing Goal 10.0: The existing goal NEG 10.0 states, ''Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and its associated lifestyle." Prooosed Goal 10.0: The proposed goal states, ''Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and it associated economy and lifestyle." . Existine: Policy 10.2: The existing policy states "Minimize conflicts with agricultural activities by developing site and design requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated agricultural land." Prooosed Policy 10.2: The proposed policy adds the wording, "which insure that the adjacent activities shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these designated agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products." Existing Policy 10.7: The existing policy states, "Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Agricultural Lands." Proposed Policy 10.7: The proposed policy states, "Discourage the extension of service areas, of utility local improvement districts, or sewer, or public utility districts into designated Agricultural Lands." Existine: Policy 10.8: The existing policy states, "Support agricultural activities such as farmers' markets and roadside stands by permitting these uses outright in rwaI and agricultural areas." Prooosed Policy 10.8: The proposed policy states, "Support agricultural activities such as farmers' markets and roadside stands by permitting these uses outright on designated Agricultural Lands." 2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Tn:q>act Analysis Pursuant to UDC Section 9.8.1.b, the Planning Commission and Board of County ,commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific criteria. Those criteria, and staff evaluations, are 'as follows: Whether circumstances related to the oroposed amendment substantiallv chan2ed since the adoption of the Comorehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan included policies and action items related to completing Agricultural Lands planning, including the establishment of an "Agricultural Lands of Local Significance" program' and development regulations specific to land designated as Agricultural Lands. These proposed amendments are intended to -be a step toward fulfilling policies and action items in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Whether the assumPtions upon which the Comorehensive Plan is based are no lon2er valid. or whether new information is available Refer to response above. , The term "Local Significance" is interchangeable with "Local Importance, .. which is being proposed to replace the former because of a direct correlation with WAC 365-190-050, which guides Resource Land designation under GMA. 2-15 . . 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 Discussion of net effect of existing and proposed Agricultural Land designation amendments The net effect of the proposed Agricultural Land district designations is to simplify the Agricultural Lands district designations by dropping the unused category of Local Agriculture (AG-5) and dropping the Agriculture Production District (APD) designation which was an overlay district that included Ag and non- Ag land and was not being utilized in any effective way to regulate the non-Ag land. The Commercial Agriculture district is proposed to be renamed "Prime Agriculture" to more clearly identify it as land classified primarily according to soil type. The existing allowable residential density was not changed by any of the proposed Agricultural Land designation amendments. By dropping the Agricultural Production District designation. 1.325 acres of land zoned Rural Residential will no longer be covered by any Agricultural Lands designation. The Agricultural Production District was set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. but not addressed or regulated under the Unified Development Code. In the Comprehensive Plan the Agriculture Production District overlaid some land designated Rural Residential for the following three reasons: · To prevent the "checkerboarding" that characterized the Interim Agricultural Ordinance; · To minimize the potential for viable agricultural activities to be compromised by the development of incompatible adjacent land uses; and · To allow for potential expansion of agricultural uses. The reasons for establishing Agricultural Production Districts were reexamined and considered to be unnecessary for Jefferson County because: · Given the geology of the county with pockets of prime agricultural soil disbursed in various narrow valleys and with other areas being designated agricultural based on current usage and owners' petition for the designation. some checkerboarding is a natural and unavoidable characteristic of the resource. The existing Agriculture Production Districts were fairly checkerboarded already. · The potential of incompatible adjacent land uses has already been prevented by adjacent residential land designated with the same development density as the agricultural designation. i.e.. one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres. No types of land designation other than Rural Residential 1 :20 were included in the production districts. · Since commercial agriculture is an allowable use on land designated Rural Residential. a farmer who seeks to acquire additional land and purchases or leases neighboring residential land can use it in essentially the same manner as he or she can use land designated for agriculture. The differences between Rural Residential 1 :20 and Prime Agriculture 1:20 or Local Agriculture 1:20 will be too slight to constitute a hindraIice toagrièUltural expansion. · The fact that some land will be effectively removed from the Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance category is not expected to produce negative consequences. Rather. any subtraction is expected to be offset by the addition of Rural Residential and other parcels into the Agricultural Lands of Local Importance category and potentially the Prime Agriculture category as a result of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. At this time. DCD is managing a list of well over 100 parcels owned by persons interested in having those parcels zoned as Agricultural Land. Following is environmental analysis presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the EnviroÎ1mental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A). Discussion of each change according to qnestions set forth In SEPA Rules Section D. Supplemental Sheet for NonproJect Actions Question #1: How would the proposal be likely to Increase c&charge to water; emiaions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? 2-17 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Doclœt DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17. 2003 The changes to Policy 10.7 provide flexibility in the provision of public water into areas with Agricultural Lands districts. Decisions involving the provision of public water are generally made in the context of the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) and not in the context of the County Land Use Map. The CWSP is managed by a group of stakeholders that includes the County and the Public Utility District and other water purveyors. The p¡:oposed amendments will not have any significant affect on the environment. The changes to Policy 10.8 may result in an addition of more small-scale farmers' roadside stands on land designated as agricultural. Because of the small scale of commercial agriculture in Jefferson County, the farm stands are projected to be quite small and therefore not of significant impact. Therefore, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments will not have any significant affect on discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, anlmalc¡, fish, or marine life? Amwer #2: For the same reasons stated in answer #1, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments will not have any significant affect on plants, animals, fish or marine life. Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Amwer # 3: For the same reasons stated in answer #1, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments would not be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. Question #4: How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, ßoodplains, or prime farmlands. Amwer #4: For the same reasons stated in answer #1, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments will not likely affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands. Future designation of Agricultural Land will be accomplished through a legislative process that includes environmental review. Future land use activities are regulated through existing development regulations in the UDC. "'''...,i Question #5: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreUne use, i,pduding whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Amwer #5: For the same reasons stated in answer #1, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are not likely to affect land and shoreline use, including allowing or encouraging land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans. Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on traDsportation or public services and utilities? Amwer #6: For the same reasons stated in answer #1, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are not likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. Question ##7: Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conßict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Amwer ##7: For the same reasons stated in answer #1, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are not likely to conflict with local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 2-19 · . 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 2.3.1.2 Reference Number: MLA03-210 (Jefferson County-Seawater Intrusion) Applicant: Jefferson County Assessor Parcel Number(s): Nt A Location: Nt A (countywide; text only amendment) 2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information The Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted in December 2000 and became effective on January 16, 2001 as Jefferson County's set of development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Shine Community Action Council and the Olympic Environmental Council appealed the adoption of the UDC with regard to groundwater protection and seawater intrusion. [Seawater intrusion (or salt water intrusion) is the underground flow of salt water into wells and aquifers.] The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) issued a Compliance Order (No. 01-2-0(15) on December 5, 2002, which included direction to adopt seawater intrusion policy as a Growth Management Act (GMA) action. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy through Resolution No. 44-02 on July 23, 2002. The Policy was amended on September 24, 2002 through Resolution No. 61-02. In response to the Compliance Order, the Board directed staff to include the incorporation of the 2002 policy statement into the Comprehensive Plan dwing the 2003 annual amendment cycle. The Compliance Order also included directions to amend the development regulations adopted in 2002 in order to comply with the GMA in terms of groundwater protection against seawater intrusion. The Board amended the UDC on June 9, 2003 through Ordinance No. 06-0609-03. Policy statements included in the Findings for the adopting ordinance are also integrated into this Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal. Background information can be found at this website: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.usIcommdevelopment/SEAWATER.%20INTRUSION.htm. The following are incorporated by reference: Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Resolut:J.òn No. 61-02 and the 2002 Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy; Findings for Ordinance No. 06-0609-03. ·-----c,..".~~~ Following are Comprehensive Plan goals and policies··from·the·Enviro~nt-Elementthat-are-directly or indirectly related to groundwater protection from seawater intrusion. Included as line-in language (underlined text) are proposed additional policies to augment existing policies. The intention of the proposed language is to represent policy statements in the 2002 Coastal Seawater IntÍÌ1sion Policy and the Findings for Ordinance No. 06-0609-03, adopted in 2003 to provide additional regulatory protections against seawater intrusion in the UDC. Comprehensive Plan, beginning on page 8-33 WATER RESOURCES GOAL: ENG 1.0 Manage, protect, enbanœ, and oouserve water resources through a oompreheDsive watershed management program that is integrated with recovery plans for fish species proposed for listing under the ESA. 2-21 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 intrusion or other contamination, and to identify technically and financially feasible measures for remediation of adverse impacts. ENP 2.9 Coordinate with the Department of Ecology in developing a reliable data base of ground water monitoring data, in complying with State Ground Water Quality Standards, and in promo~ng water rights management that is consistent with the protection of existing water rights and with comprehensive watershed plans. ENP 2.10 Establish a well monitorinl! oroe:ram. whenever DOssible in coniunction with oartners such as the Public Utility District œUD) No.1 and the Department of BcolollV. with protocols to assure quality control. and coordinate data intefJIretatíon and aoolication tbroul!h Water Resource Inventory Area CWRIA) Planninl! Units ODeratin, in Jefferson County {)ef the Watershed Planninl! Act Œ.CW 90.82). GOAL: ENG 3.0 Ensure a sustainable and safe water supply as a critical necessity for residential, economic, and environmental needs. POliCIES: ENP 3.1 Work with the Water Utilities Coordinating Committee to revise the Coordinated Water System Plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, in order to provide a safe and adequate water supply for County residènts and other uses in balance with the protection of environmental functions of water resources. ENP 3.2 Support the development and implementation of wellhead protection programs for all public supply wells, and encourage the siting and construction of individual wells in a manner which protects existing water users and the ground water supply. ENP 3.3 Preserve and protect both existing and future water supplies, and encourage activities which utilize alternative water sources that are compatible with environmental protection, in accordance with state and federal laws regulating alternative water uses. .- -·-ENP~.4- .. ---RelvinS! on technical iDDutfrom the PUD. WRIKPlarlniiuitTmtš:·Stiifð'Deöãrtiñentõf EcolollY, and others as ao\>ropriate. review well monitorins! data annually and report to the Board of County Commissioners on the status of seawater intrusion and other 2fOundwater contaminants of concern in Jefferson County. and every five years prepare a coDlD1"ehensiye analysis. ENP 3.5 Imolement an adaotive mana~ement DfOl!I'am to orotect 2fOundwater a~ainst seawater intrusion. ENP 3.5.1 Conduct analysis of the monitorin2 data as follows: . Define area of concern based on the extent of monitorins! data that indicates ootential seawater intrusion. · Use aoorooriate combination of accepted scientific metbodolollV for evaluatinl! seawater intrusion imoact. as described in Pacific Groundwater Grouo study (996). WashiDlrton Administrative Code. United States Geolo2ical Survev DfOtocol. and other contemoorarv exarqptes and awroaches. · Conduct aporopriate statistical analYSis for evaluatin2 2fOundwater usinl! methodolo2V aooroved by the Environmental Protection 2-23 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Repon &: SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 GOAL: NATURAL HERITAGE VEGETATION AND LANDFORMS ENG 7.0 POLICIES: ENP 7.1 ENP 7.2 ENP 7.3 ENP 7.4 ENP 7.S ENP 7.6 ENP7.7 ENP 7.8 Protect Jefferson County's natural heritage, including high quaDty native vege~tion and unique landfonm. EncoW'age collaboration with state programs such as the Washington Natural Heritage Program and local conservation groups to identify and protect plants, plant communities, habitats and landforms which reflect the County's unique natural heritage. EncoW'age the protection and acquisition of priority sites and habitats which protect native ecosystems. Provide information as resources allow so that land use decisions recognize and reflect protection of native ecosystems and rare landforms. Native vegetation should be used whenever possible in habitat restoration projects and linking of open space areas. EncoW'age the utilization of native vegetation and drought-tolerant species to reduce water consumption and landscape maintenance costs. Encourage public education and information to foster citizen understanding of native ecosystems and Jefferson County's unique natural heritage. EncoW'age protection of unique geologic sites. conditions, and values, including locations of unique scientific interest. such as fossil locations and special mineral and rock locations. Support efforts of the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board and other agencies to eradicate invasive species of vegetation. ".. .... -~-..... ".1'" , ".~... -. _. ." CRITICAL AREAS REGULATED UNDER THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE GOAL: Aquifer Recharge Areas ENG 13.0 POLICIES: ENP 13.1 ENP 13.2 Protect aquifer recharge areas from depletion of aquifer quantity or degradation of aquifer quality. Aquifer recharge areas should be designated and managed based on the best available science. Until geohydrologic studies provide additional information regarding the full extent of aquifer recharge areas, the County should protect aquifer recharge capability in all areas of the County. 2-25 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 B. CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REGULATORY STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for resource protection is based on an ongoing effort to inventory and collect information related to the County's environmental resources and functions based on the best available science, and to protect the resources through implementing ordinances. Action IteDL9 I. Develop a consolidated environmental review process that promotes efficient and timely permit decisions and a more comprehensive environmental review. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) 2. Evaluate and develop standards for development, where appropriate, which include incentives for the protection of environmental resources, public access to shorelines, the creation of open space, the conservation of water resources, and the protection of viewsheds. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 8.0) 3. Identify criteria and designate Special Environmental Overlay Districts for areas of Jefferson County in which environmental protection needs are identified. (Corresponding Goals: 3.0,4.0) 4. 5. Develop and implement standards for mitigation measures for land use activities that may adversely impact environmental resources. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0,4.0,5.0, 12.0, 14.0) 6. Review standards for qualified experts and for technical studies used in permit review, including procedures for peer review, to promote data and analyses that are consistent with the best available science. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0, 9.0, 10.0, 14.0) 7. Continue gathering data to identify aquifer recharge and storage areas and amend the Critical Areas Ordinance to protect the quality and quantity of the ground water in those areas. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 13.0) 8. Review land use regulations to ensure that they protect aquifers and to minimize and mitigate known areas of salt water intrusion, and participate in technical studies to identify additional affected areas requiring regulation. Work with purveyors to promote the use of unaffected upland water sources and other alternative supplies;wtrere-appropriate, tCfsupply new and existing development in affectedäi'eâS. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0, 13.0) ..",.~-~."..~..~...,~ 9. 10. 11. Review County ordinances to incorporate best management practices based on the best available science to protect surface and ground water quality in land use regulations related to septic systems, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0, 13.0) 12. Amend County development standards as needed to promote water conservation measures by allowing and, in some cases, requiring newly developed technology that meets standards for health and safety, and by promoting appropriate landscape and drainage design. (Corresponding Goals: 3.0, 7.0) 13. Amend ordinances to protect future and alternative water supplies that are identified in the course of watershed studies. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 3.0) 2-27 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 the act should define classification schemes and prepare development regulations that govern changes in land uses and new activities by prohibiting clearly inappropriate actions and restricting, allowing, or conditioning other activities as appropriate." Chapter 365-190-020pmsuant to RCW 36.70A050. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 11.0, 12.0) 10. ... 11. ... 12. Revise Critical Areas maps to identify areas important for aquifer recharge capability as information is developed through on-going study pending funding availability. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 13.0) 13. Provide standards for development in a watershed-based storm water management plan to protect the rate of infiltration of uncontaminated storm water where the creation of impervious swfaces or drainage measures may compromise aquifer recharge capability. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 13.0) D. PUBLIC SAFETY, EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY Jefferson County recognizes that strategies for environmental protection are closely related both to public safety and the public enjoyment of resource values and functions, and that the County strategy must include measures for public involvement and education. Action Items 1. Cooperatively implement, with available resources, a public education and involvement process to promote citizen understanding and support of water resource protection and conservation through watershed management. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 3.0) 2. Support and implement programs for education of the public and the development community regarding development hazards and measures required and recommended for protection of environmental resources as funding becomes available. (Corresponding Goals: 5.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0, 13.0) 3. 4. .. -..,::.......""'"..~_.. -_... 5. 6. 7. 8. Following is the Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy verbatim as modified and adopted on September 24, 2002. Included in brackets with underlined text are references to where policy statements are already included in either the Comprehensive Plan or the UDC. The remaining policy statements are incorporated as proposed additions to the Comprehensive Plan, as presented above in underlined text. Note that the Action Items under the Strategies section presented above may and often are applicable, as well, either directly or indirectly. Coastal Seawater Intrusion Polley September 24. 2002 Goal: Jefferson County intends to protect groundwater quality from further degradation due to seawater intrusion, primarily through land use regulatory authority under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 2-29 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 3. Issuance ola building permit: RCW 19.27.œ7 states, ''Each applicant for a building permit of a building necessitating potable water shall provide evidence of an adequate water supply for the intended use of the building. Evidence may be in the form of a water right permit ftom the department of ecology, a letter fro~ an approved water purveyor stating the ability to provide water, or another form sufficient to verify the existence of an adequate water supply. In addition to other authorities, the county or city may impose conditions on building permits requiring connection to an existing public water system where the existing system is willing and able to provide safe and reliable potable water to the applicant with reasonable economy and efficiency." Evidence of potable water may be an individual well, cOlll)CCtion to a public water system, or an alternative system such as rainwater catchment Whatever method is selected, the regulatory and operational standards for that method must be met, including Jefferson County Health Code and Washington Administrative Code. Public water systems shall be preferred ftom a public health standpoint to other alternatives, such as the importation of water or an individual surface or rainwater catchment system, though those alternatives aie allowable subject to appropriate and established design and operational criteria. Public water systems are subject to Washington State Deparbnent of Health (DOH) saltwater intrusion policy and all applicable safe drinking water standards. DOH and Ecology regulate public water systems to protect against water quality degradation. The Jefferson County seawater intrusion policy therefore concentrates on water supplies that are not regulated as public water systems by DOH and Ecology. Jefferson County shall encourage DOH and Ecology to consider amending licenses and water rights for public systems in areas where there is evidence of seawater intrusion in the public water source or as a result of groundwater withdrawal such that no additional connections to or expansions of the affected systems are permitted. All types of building permits that require proof of potable water use are subject to this policy, specifically building permits for new single-family residences (SFRs) or other structures with plumbing that are not associated with an existing SFR (i.e., shops or garages with a bathroom). IThis "V oluntarv and Mandatory Measures" section of the oolicv is e:enerallv related to ENP 1.3. ENP 2.8. ENP 2.9. ENP 3.2. ENP 5.4. and other policies of the Comprehensive Plan and has been implemented throu2h develooment resrolations established in the UDC via ordinances adooted in 2002 and 2003. Ordinance No. 06-0609-03mav have modified some of the soecific measures above with the intention of resoondine: to a Comoliance Order issued bv the Hearings Board. The UDC. as amended. contains the current set of develooment resrolations. See ADDCDdixItem 2.1 Proof of Potable Water on Existing Lots of Record Voluntary and mandatory measures of the Jefferson County seawater intrusion policy apply to well drilling proposals and building permit applications on existing lots of record within the coastal, at risk. and high risk SIPZ in the following manner: COASTAL SIPZ (i.e., all islands and area within 1A mile of marine shoreline, but no history of chloride concentration above 100 mgIL in groundwater sources within 1000 feet) VOLUNTARY: · Water conservation measures. · Installation of a flow meter. · On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration. 2-31 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Doc/œt DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 secondary standard (250 mgIL) under the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. 4. Installation of a flow meter. 5. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration. 6. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the County per monitoring program. IThis "Proof of Potable VI ater on Existin2 Lots of Record" section of the oolicy is generally related to ENP 1.3. ENP 2.8. ENP 2.9. ENP 3.2. ENP 5.4. and other oolicies of the Comorehensive Plan and has been implemented through develooment re~ations established in the UDC via ordinances ado\>ted in 2002 and 2003. Ordinance No. 06-0609-03 mav have modified some of the specific measures above with the intention of resoonding: to a Com1>liaoce Order issued bv the Hearin~ Board. The UDC. as amended. contains the current set of develooment re2UIations. See Aooendix Item 2.1 Other PoUcv Elements: · Continue County approval of qualifying rainwater catchment systems as an alternative to individual wells (Environmental Health regulations). ŒNP 3.3: existing: health oolicy1 · Develop policies to approve the importation and storage of water in certain problem areas (Environmental Health regulations). rENP 3.3: futln"e health policy as oooosed to Comorehensive Plan oolicv 1 · Strengthen approval and monitoring requirements for public water systems to ensure that chloride testing is an element of DOH monitoring for systems which have somces located within a SIPZ (Coordinated Water System Plan-CWSP-and DOH). ŒNP 3.1: future CWSP amendments as o\>posed to CoIQpt"ehensive Plan policv1 · Strengthen protections of aquifer recharge areas through adoption and implementation of Ecology 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, promoting on-site infiltration of stonnwater (UDC regulations; amendment anticipated 2002). rENP 13.3: 2001 Ecolo2V Manual has been adoDted as guidance for Jefferson County's stonnwater manal ement standards under Sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the UDC1 · Eliminate off-site disposal of surface or sub-surface water (stonnwater tightlines and curtain drains) unless exceptional circumstances justify off-site disposal and appropriate mitigation-is proposed and implemented; adjust current regulation so that affected area extends from 500 feet to JA mile from marine shorelines (UDC regulations). rAdoDted into UDC Section 3.6.5.d(2)ül · In order to limit well construction and protect public health, continue promotion of public water systems as preferable to individual wells.and-otheralternatìve.watersupplies; continue requirement for connection to existing public water systems when proposed development location is within approved public water service area boundaries. ŒNP 3.1: ENP 13.5: existin2 health oolicv1 · Continue application of Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) requirements with regard to low-flaw faucets and other mandatory water conservation measures. ŒNP 1.4 2eneral1V: existing: re~ation: Appendix Item 31 PubUc Outreach and Education: · Conduct education and outreach program through Washington State University (WSU) Extension; establish Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with WSU for program. ŒNP 1.41 · Encourage water conservation measures countywide; mandate water conservation measures in high risk SIPZ. ŒNP 1.4: adopted re3ulation: Appendix Item 31 · Send letter to new Jefferson County residents/property owners regarding groundwater use and protection; implement other means of public notice, as resources allow. ŒNP 1.41 Monitorinl!: · Enter into MOU with Public Utility District #1 (PUD) regarding the monitoring program. lProoosed ENP 2.10: MOU with PUD established1 · Standardize chloride sampling in a manner that assures quality control. lProoosed ENP 2.101 2-33 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Doclcet DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 Whether the assumDtions upon which the ComDrehensive Plan is based are no 10DSrer valid. or whether new information is available The proposal is to implement a Compliance Order from the WWGMHB. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widelv held values The proposal is to imple~ent a Compliance Order from the WWGMHB. Imolementation Reauirements Approval of the proposed amendment would require a change to the text of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy, as adopted September 24, 2002, should be considered a background document useful for historical perspective. The policy statements of that document are reflected in existing Comprehensive Plan policyand/or health policy, incorporated into Comprehensive Plan policy through this proposal, and/or incorporated into the UDC through previous ordinance adoption. 14 2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan policies. ,-- -~--~-"~;"',,"~ .-. 14 Ordinance No. 06-0609-03, adopted on June 9,2003, may have modified some of the specific measures of the 2002 Coastal Seawater Intrusion Policy with the intention of responding to a Compliance Order issued by the Hearings Board on December 5, 2002. The UOC, as amended, contains the current set of development regulations, which are presented in this report as Appendix Item 2. 2-35 " , 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendum for Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 /3 Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials I The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and information utilized for the development of this 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. This report-supplements information presented in prior environmental documents prepared for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, other legislative actions, and other County decisions and activities. DATE September 27, 1978 Jan 2, 1979 December 21, 1992 February 14, 1994 March I, 1995 February 24, 1997 Ma 27, 1998 Au t 3, 1998 Janu 26,1999 January 26, 1999 June 30, 1999 August 18, 1999 June 11, 2001 November 2001 November 28, 2001 August 21, 2002 November 25, 2002 December 2002 February 13, 2003 April 28, 2003 May 1,2003 August 6, 2003 Existing Conditions DEIS Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with addenda Inte ated FSEIS Final decisions, findings, ordinances, and conditions Memorandum to Planning Commission Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 and all supporting documentation for MLA03- 485 Applications and supporting materials for 8 Comprehensive Plan amendment ro sals Integrated Staff Report & SEP A Addendum (Sife-S me A lications) 3-1 ensive Plan nsive Plan ive Plan 2002 Comprehensjve Plan Amendment Docket 2002 Amendment Docket 2002 Amendment Docket Agricultural Lands policy and re ation Amendments to UDC to implement Agriculture component of settlement agreement with Washington Environmental Council 2003 Amendment Docket " 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 /4 Distribution List Copies mailed or delivered to: Jefferson County: Planning Commission members (8 persons) Board of County Commissioners Prosecuting Attorney's Office Department of Health & Human Services Natural Resources Division Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock State Agencies: Office of Community Development: Growth Management Program Department of Ecology SEP A Unit Notijkation of avaikzbility emailetl or mailed to: Jefferson County: All other County departments not listed above Local Agencies & Organizations: City of Port Townsend Jeff~rso.f1 County Public Utility District #1 Port of Port TôwíiseÌld . Jefferson County Conservation District Washington Environmental Council Olympic Environmental Council Wild Olympic Salmon North Olympic Salmon Coalition People for a Livable Community Point-No-Point Treaty Council Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Skokomish Tribe Hoh Tribe . Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader Peninsula Daily News Forks Fonun Vigilance I Notijkation of availability emailetl or mailed to: State Agencies: Department of Natural Resources (Anne Sharar & SEPAReview) Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEP A Review) Department of Health (GMAlSEPA Review) Department of Social & Health Services (Elizabeth McNagny) Department of Corrections (Nancy Winters) Department of Fish & Wildlife (Millard Deusen. Jeff Davis, & SEPA Review) Department of Ecology (GMA Coordinator) Puget Sound Action Team (Harriet Beale and John Cambalik» Parks & Recreation Commission (Bill Koss) Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (Lorinda Anderson) 4-1 " 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 15 Appendices Item 1: Integrated GMNSEP A document (September 17. 2(03) Item 2: Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 3.6.5 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Item 3: DCD Administrative List of Water Conservation Measures 5-1 I ~ ~ i" 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendumfor Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 integrated SEP A Addendum. provide adequate environmental review to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-600 with regard to consideration of these two suggested amendment proposals on the 2003 Docket. A Staff Report offering recommended action on these suggested Comprehensive Plan amendments has been integrated with a SEPA Addendum per WAC 197-11-235. In accordance with WAC 197-11-630, there is no new SEPA-specific public comment period in conjunction with this adoption notice. However, DCD and the Planning Commi~sion are accepting general comments on the merits of these suggested amendments as detailed below. The following existing environmental documents are being adopted: · Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEISIFEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and PElS are dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. · Draft and Final Supplemental EIS (DSEISIFSEIS) and addenda for the Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments, also known as Tasks ill and IV of the Tri-Area I Glen Cove Special Study. The DSEIS and FSEIS are dated June 30,1999 and August 18, 1999, respectively, and examined the potential environmental impacts of adopting one of the identified planning alternatives for the Tri- Area of Chimacum-Port Hadlock-IrondaIe and the Glen Cove mixed use area. · Integrated Staff Report and DSmSJFSmS for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. dated August 21 and November 25, 2002, respectively. Among other information. the adopted documents provide background and analysis on the classification, designation, and regulation of mineral resource lands. Other documents have been incorporated by reference in the combined Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. Planning Commission Public Hearing: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to take comment on these two Comprehensive Plan suggested amendments. Oral and/or written comment will be accepted as detailed below. The public hearing will occur on Wednesday, October 1, 2003 beginning at 6:30 PM at the WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park. 201 W Patison. Port Hadlock. Public Comment Period: The Planning Commission and DCD will accept written comments on the merits of these two suggested amendments until the conclusion of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 1 (detailed above). Oral comment may be made at the Planning Commission public hearing. Any comments on these suggested amendments submitted after October 1 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for consideration in their legislative decision.. The BOCC may hold a public hearing before taking action on the final docket (formal notice would appear in the newspaper of record). Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368 or via email toplanning@co.jefferson.wa.us. A vaUability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed amendments, the Integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. the adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact DCD Long-Range Planning at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle website, where documents and notices are posted in PDF: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.uslcommdeveloomentl2003%2OComnrehensive%20Plan%20Amendment%2OC vcle.htm. [end] [Published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader on September 17, 2003] 5-3 " 2003 Comprehensive Plan ATMndTMnt Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Suggested ATMndTMnts September 17, 2003 Section 3 · Land Use Districts 3.6 Overlay Districts. 3.6.5 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. a. Classification. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are naturally susceptible due to the existence of permeable soils or a seawater wedge In coastline aquifers. Certain overlying land uses can lead to water quality andfor quantity degradation. The following classifications define Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. (1) Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas are those with geologic and hydrologic conditions that promote rapid Infiltration of recharge waters to groundwater aquifers. For the purposes of this section, unless otherwise determined by preparation of an Aquifer Recharge Area Report authorized under this section, the following geologic units, as identified from available State of Washington Department of Natural Resources geologic mapping, define Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas for east Jefferson County: I. Alluvial fans (Ha), ii. Artificial fill (Hx), Iii. Beach sand & gravel (Hb), Iv. Dune sand (Hd), v. Flood plain alluvium (Hf), vi. Vashon recessional outwash in deltas and alluvial fans (Vrd), vii. Vashon recessional outwash In meltwater channels (Vro), viii. Vashon ice contact stratified drift (Vi), ix. Vashon ablation till (Vat), x. Vashon advance outwash (Vao), xi. Whldbey formation (Pw), and xii. Pre-Vashon stratified drift (Py). (2) Those areas meeting the requirements of Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas (above) and which are overlain by the following land uses as identified in this Code are subject to the provisions of the protection standards in this Section: i. All Industrial land Uses ii. AIl Commercial Uses iiI. All Rural Residential Land Uses A. requiring a Discretionary Use or Conditional Use Permit or B. with nonconforming uses that would otherwise require a Discretionary Use or Conditional Use Permit Iv. Unsewered Plannðd Rural Residential Developments v. Unsewered residential development with gross densities greater than one unit per acre ,- "-- .... (3) Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas include: i. Sole Source Aquifers designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523). ii. Special protection areas designated by the Washington Deparbnent of Ecology under Chapter 173-200 WAC. ill. Wellhead Protection Areas determined in accordance with delineation methodologies specified by the Washington Department of Health under authority of Chapter 246-290 WAC. iv. Ground Water Management Areas designated by the Washington Department of Ecology in cooperation with local govemment under Chapter 173-100 WAC. (4) Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones (SIPZ) are aquifers and land overlying aquifers with some degree of vulnerability to seawater intrusion. SIPZ are defined either by proximity to marine shoreline or by proximity to groundwater sources that have demonstrated high chloride readings. AIl islands and land area within * mile of marine shorelines and associated aquifers together compose the coastal SIPZ. Additionally, areas within 1000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of chloride analyses above 100 mUligrams per liter (mgll) are categorized as either at risk (between 100 mgll and 200 mgIL) or high risk (over 200 mg/L) SIPZ. IndMdual groundwater sources with a history of chloride analyses above 5-5 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report & SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 (2) Stormwater Disposal. i. In all Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, stormwater runoff shall be controlled and treated in accordance with best management practices and facility design standards as identified and defined in the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, as amended and the stormwater provisions contained In Section 6 of this Code. Ii. To help prevent seawater from intruding landward Into underground aquifers, all new development activity on Marrowstone Island, Indian Island and within % mile of any marine shoreline shall be required to infiltrate all stormwater runoff onsite. The Administrator will consider requests for exceptions to this policy on a case-by-case basis. This provision is interpreted as establishing a hierarchy in which the first and best altemative is on-site Infiltration using drywells or other methods, the second best altemative is upland off-site disposal, and the least preferred alternative Is direct discharge into marine waters through a stormwater tlghtline. In order to utilize the least preferred alternative, which is considered an exception to the policy, applicants must demonstrate through a geotechnical or similar report prepared by a licensed professional that both on-site infiltration and upland off-site disposal are not practicable or feasible. The report must Include cost ftgures for comparison. ,~~ ;:,_.~_._", (3) On-Slte Sewage Disposal. i. All land uses identified in Section 3.6.5.a and Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas that are also classified as Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas (as defined In this Section), shall be designated Areas of Special Concem pursuant to Chapter 246-272- 21501 WAC. A. Such designation shall identify minimum land area and best management prac- tices for nitrogen removal as design parameters necessary for the protection of public health and groundwater quality. B. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be adopted by action of the Board of Health. ii. As new information becomes available that would classify an area as a Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Area or an Area of Special Concem under this SectIon, said area may be designated as such by the County. Any additional Areas of SpecIal Concem designated through this process shall receive the same protections Identified in Subsection (3)i.A and B above. (4) Golf Courses and Other Turf Cultivation. In all Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, golf courses shall be deveioped and operated in a rnanner consistent with "Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation", King County Environmental DMsion (now: Department of Development and-environmehtatServices), January 1993. RecreatiôriaJ and institutional facilities (e.g. parks and schools) with extensive areas of cultivated turf, shall be operated in a manner consistent with portions of the aforementioned best management practices pertaining to fertilizer and pesticide use, storage, and dlsþosaJ. In Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones, golf courses and other turf cultivation using groundwater for irrigation shall be prohibited, unless the water source is located outside of Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones or is an approved public water supply. (5) Commercial Agriculture. Commercial agricultural activities, including landscaping operations must be operated In accordance with best management practices for fertilizer, pesticide, and animal waste management as developed by the Jeffèrson County Conservation District. (6) Åbove Ground Storage Tanks. Above ground tanks shall be fabricated, constructed, installed, used and operated In a manner which prevents the release of a hazardous substances or dangerous wastes to the ground or groundwater. Above ground storage tanks intended to hold or store hazardous substances or dangerous wastes are provided with an impervious containment area, equivalent to or greater than 100 percent of the tank volume, ~nclosing and underlying the tank, or ensure that other measures are undertaken as prescribed by the Uniform Are Code which provide an equivalent measure of protection. 5-7 · , " 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Doc/œt DCD Staff Report &: SEPA Addendum/or Suggested Amendments September 17, 2003 II. MANDATORY ACTIONS: (a) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH-approved public water system If available. (b) If public water is unavailable, an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: 1. Chloride concentration of a labomtory-certifled well water sample submitted with building permit application. 2. Installation of a source-totalizing meter (flow). (c). If public water Is unavailable. a qualifying altematlve system may be used as proof of potable water. B. AT RISK SIPZ I. VOLUNTARY ACTIONS: (a) Water conservation measures. II. MANDATORY ACTIONS: (a) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH-approved public water system " available. (b) If public water Is unavailable, an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: 1. Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certifled well water sample submitted with building permit application. 2. Installation of a source-totalizing meter (flow). 3. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration. 4. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the County per monitoring program. (c) If public water is unavailable. a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water. ....,...- ...-.....------.,'---. C. HIGH RISK SIPZ I. MANDATORY ACTIONS: (a) Water conservation measures (per list maintained by UDC Administrator). (b) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH-approved public water system " ava/lable. (c) If publlc!l~t~rJ~~ ul"!~vailª"Je,-~~JI1,dM~t~l_wel'-~.r only be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: 1. Variance from Chapter 173 WAC standards granted by Ecology per WAC 173-160-106 for a ~ groundwater well within 100 feet of a sea-salt water intrusion area per WAC 173-160-171 (i.e., within 100 feet of a groundwater sourœ showing chloride concentmtlons above 200 mgIL or within 100 feet of the marine shoreline); or for an existing groundwater well not subject to an Ecology variance, applicant must provide a hydrogeologic assessment (relevant components of an Aquifer Recharge Area Report per UDC 3.6.10.e), which shall be transmitted to Ecology for review, demonstmting that use of the well does not cause any detrimental interference with existing water rights and is not detrimental to the public Interest. 2. Chloride concentration of a labomtory-certifled well water sample submitted with building permit application. 3. If chloride concentration exceeds 250 mgIL in a water sample submitted for a building permit, then the property owner shaD be required to record a restrictive covenant that Indicates a chloride reading exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency secondary standard (250 mgIL) under the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. 5-9 " .' ....,. Jefferson County Departnlent of Comnlutlity Developtìlent Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Projected Schedule for the Final Docket July 16, 2003 .;iJ S ueJEC-r ìb:· c.tJ71tJ6-G" . ., c.;:"',.'" Actíon ~-,..., .....IÇ l~¡! Ie] ~-- "'--r Itern ~...-' '-'''-'' Co ....1'71 ~'::-: :p ;"rc:, ..." "--~ 1. PC Meeting: Inb'Oductlon to 4 Wed, July 16 .' Slte-Speclfic Amendments on Anal Docket .. '. 2. DCD Integrated SEPNGMA Staff Wed, Aug 6 "-:{ Report on Anal Docket SIte- (Pub request by . SpeclficAmendments, Indudlng- - Mon, Aug 4) .' -....-------~~,._"".,''''' - Legal Nòtlée"for PC Hearing Atig - -. . .... . .... - 20 3. PC Public Hearing on Site- Wed, Aug 20 Specific Amendments - Begin Deliberations , .. 4. PC Deliberation on Site-SpecIfIc Wed, Sept 3 Amendments and Potential PC Andlngs and Recommendation to BOCC 5. PC Andlngs and Wed, Sept 17 Recommendation to BOCC on Site-Specific Amendments -- -~~-- .-. ._~,~ .~. ~ ~- ~~' ._-.. _.~. -- 6. PC Meeting: Introduction to 4 Wed, Sept 17 Suggested Amendments on Anal Docket .. . 7. DCD Integrated SEPNGMA Staff Wed, Sept 17 Report on Anal Docket (Pub request by Suggested Amendments, Mon, Sept 15) Indudlng Legal Notice for PC Hearing Oct 1 8. PC Public Hearing on Suggested Wed, OCt 1 Amendments - Begin Deliberations 9. PC Deliberation on Suggested Wed, Oct 15 '""' Amendments and Potential PC Andlngs and Recommendation to BOCC 10. PC Andlngs and Wed, Nov 5 Recommendation to the BOCC on the SUggested Amendments 11. DCD Submits Agenda Request to Tues, Nov 11 BOCC for PresentatIon of PC . Recommendation for Anal Docket (Includes PC Recommendation and Anal Staff Recommendation) 12. Legal NotIce for BOCC Public . (Pub request by_ Wed, Nov 12 Hearing Mon, Nov 24 and SEPA Mon, Nov 10) Determination 13. DCD Presents PC Mon, Nov 17 Mon, Nov 17 Recommendation on Final Docket during BOCC Regular Agenda 14. BOCC Reviews and Considers PC 311I Week of November Andlngs and Recommendation on the Final Docket 15. BOCC Public Hearing on Final Mon, Nov 24 Docket (Could be cancelled by 8OCCIfUnn~ry) --_. ~nn .-.---. . .. --'- -- ._~n_ "U__ .~. ~ ... .~..' u. :..:: nn=:~... -.,.-" _n .. 16. BOCC Continues Deliberation on 481 Week of November Final Docket 19. BOCC legislative DecIsions on Mon, Dee 1 Final Docket or Mon, Dee 8 17. DCD Transmittal to OCD 10 Days After Final Adoption lB. Legal Notice of legislative (Pub request by 10 Days After Final DecIsions Mon¡ published Adoption following Wed) "..~ JK1t1(1«(SON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street . Port Townsend· Washington 98368 360f379-445O 3601379-4451 Fax www.co.jcffeason.wa.usfcommdevelopment ÇompreheDSive Plan Suggested Amendments - 2003 PrelimInary Docket *Suggested .~t proposa1s _ included on tbe filial doc:bt at tbe disaetion oftbe BoIrd oftnmmiqioncrs APPUCATION GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF , NUMBER TYPE APPUCANT PROPOSED AMENDMENT . . 1 MLA03-232 Suggested/Site- Port ofPŒt (1) Proposes Essential PubJic Facilities Speclfic Townsend (EP.P) MmgJWiœ fŒ approximately 24 ICIeS ofPœ owned property adjacent to _.. _'0<·.··- the Jeffersœ County Intematioual Airport (2) proposes Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code changes :related to the allowance ofJimited rura1 scaled industrlal uses within the EPF designatiœ and (3) proposes an area in which residents in close proximity to the airport would receive notification of airport operations 2 MLA03-244 Suggested People fŒ a Proposed Comprehensive Plan policy Rural Q~. changes ¡elated to the e1imin9fiœ of Oabe Ornelas requirements fŒ Jeffersœ County to adopt an Airport Overlay Œ Noise Overlay ordinance and to suppŒt adoption of an Airport Mastec Plan to ¡egulate land uses at the Jeffersœ County Intematioual Airport . . . . 3 MLA03-209 Suggested . 'JetIersœ Proposal to develop a Agricultural Lands County strategy ~ludfug CODSideration of land use ~gJJ.lÎti~,œconsidention ofUDC . ~ aDd additiœallmfiniRbed Agricu1tJ:áål Lands p1~ tasks as described in the Comprehensive Plan - 4 MLA03-210 Suggested Jefferson ~oposing the addition of narrative and County policy language in the Comprehensive Plan and UDC related to compliance with a Growth Manaçement Hearings Board order concerning seawater intrusion protection [over] 5/1312003 JEI(lf&<SON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street· Port ToWDSCDd . Wa!li~ 98368 3601379-4450 . 360079-4451 Fax www.co.jcffcrson.WLuslcommdevelopment CompreheDSive Plan Site-Spedfic Amendments · 2003 Preliminary Docket *Sifo.apcdfic --'-t pvposaIs are auÞ-ticaDy included on die final doc:bt , APPUCATlON TYPE APPUCANT GENERAL DFSCRIPTION OF NUMBER PROPOSED AMENDMENT 5 MLA03-182 Site- Northwest School of Compreheasive PJan Land Use Map Specific Wooden Boat' Building ~gMtion for approximately S acres from a Rural Resideotia11:S Assessor Parcel: Land Use District to Part Hadlcok 901013016 located in Rural ViDage Center Commc.tcial lower Port Hadlock District 6 MLA03-189 Site- ANE FŒests of Puget Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Speçific Sound Inc. re-desigoation for approximately 40 acres from a Rmal Residen1iall:20 Assessor Parcel: Land Use District to a Rural 901364012 located on Residential 1: 10 Land Use District Beaver Valley Road imml"iliAtely north of Egg and I Road 7 MLA03-22S Site- Donna Pall Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Specific re-desigoation far approximately 68 Assessor Parcel: acres from a Commercial Forest 1:80 821061001 located on Land Use District to a Rural Forest . Swansonville Road in the 1:40 Lancl.Use District and Rmal Port µdow area ResideDtia11:20 Land Use District 8 MLA03-231 Site- Marilee. Gary and Kelly ~vePlan Land Use Map Specific PbDlips and Richard Ir. re-dfW~atiœ far approximately 36 and Kristan Maki acres from a Rmal Residential Land Use District to Mineral Resource Assessor Parcels: Lands Overlay 702224003,702224010, 702224011,702224012. 702224023,702224024, 702224025,702224026 located on Penny Creek . Road south of Quilcene .. 5/1312003 [END] JEFFERSON CO~NTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT mLA-03- In l~fXL v ^. ¡J'{1( ~=:~i¡ ~billr)il~/f f QIW ! i ~~,~/ : -.--- ! j, J~F¡:F.rf)Õ:¡-C.i"îiJ?";:" :y·- . 1· , r,¡;:p,' Cf .~.; ....'.. ,.~..~ .....- .... '. ,.·t;"·'·,i-,,'If¡ y' 0f:·'(:· Of>·· . r ¡ ..... ......- .~.... ..,...w.~ ".. ~.,.,.:--_~.... j·.1 h'.j 621 Sheridan' Street . Port Townsend· Washington 98368 360/3794450·600/831-2678·36013794451 Fax WNW.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopment Master Land Use Permit Application Form PROPERTY /NFORMAT10N Tax Parcel Number: f'l] ~ [1] IQ] [l] fJ] [QJ III [¡ Subdivision Name: I, 36 Lot Number: Existing Use of Property: 8' City: Applicant's Signature: HI) Zip Code: Email Address or.! Property Owner(s) of Record: Address: City: I acknowledge that the appli Zip Code: Email Address or a building pennlt on my property. to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s). '3 -3'J'-O~ (DATE) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OR ACTIVITY (include separate sheets as nece [THIS SECTION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY] Refer to the specific sections of the UDC referenced below for more infonnation and further requirements. An asterisk (*) indicates that a supplemental application or questionnaire may be required. TVDe I Penn its o Septic PenniVEvaluation of Existing System (EES) o Building/Demolition Pennit o Allowed ·Ves· Use Consistency Analysis o Home Business o Stonnwater Management · o Road Access· o Boundary Line Adjustment* o Minor PRRD Amendments o Sign Permit* o Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) o Shoreline Master Program Exemption/Permit Revisions \ 0 Tem ora Use based on use ma be Tell orT e III * ' """"~, "''''''''',.ooc "'" """""" , \, ~: UDC Section 6.4.1 and Chapter 8.15 JCC UDC Section 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 UDC Section 3.2.1 and Table 3-1 Table 3-1 and UDC Section 4.20 UDC Section 6.7 UDC Section 6.8 UDC Section 7.2 UDC Section 3.6.13.15 UDC Section 6.15 UDC Section 8.7 UDC Section 5 UDC Sections 4,38 and 4.39 OVER Tvpe II Permits o Discretionary "0" or Unnamed Use Classification o Cottage Industry o Short Plat, Preliminary and Final· o Binding Site Plan· o Conditional (Administrative) "C(a)" Use 0. Conditional (Discretionary) ·C(d)" Use 0. Variance, Minor" 0. Wireless Telecommunication 0. Shoreline Substantial Development (Primary Use) o Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium for Single- Family Residence 0. Appeal Tvpe III Permits o Conditional "C" Use 0. Long Plat, Preliminary· o Planned Rural Residential Development Preliminary Approval (PRRD) and Major Amendments· 0. Plat Vacation/Alteration 0. Variance, Major" 0. Reasonable Economic Use Variance· 0. Wireless Telecommunication 0. Shoreline Management Substantial Development, Secondary Use· 0. Shoreline Management Conditional Use· 0. Shoreline Management Variance· 0. Appeal Tvoe IV Permits 0. Long Plat, Final o PRRD, Final Type V Permits 0. Special Use (Essential Public Facilities) g Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment· o Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment· 0. Appeal of SEPA ~: UDC Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and Table 3-1 UDC Section 7.3 and Table 3-1 UDC Section 7.3 UDC Section 7.5 UDC Table 3-1 and Sèction 8.8 UDC Table 3-1 and Section 8.8 (Discretionary Permit Review Process Determined by Administrator) UDC Section 8.9 Ordinance 06-0712-99 (UDC Appendix C) UDC Section 5 UDC Section 4.16.5(c) UDC Section 8.4.2 SEPA 8.10.12(b) UDC Section 8.8 UDC Section 7.4. UDC Section 3.6.13 (must be in conjunction with an underlying land division application) UDC Section 7.1.3(d) UDC Section 8.9 UDC Section 3.6.4(h) Ordinance 06-0712-99 UDC Appendix C UDC Section 5 UDC Section 5 UDC Section 5 UDC Section 8.4.3 SEPA 8.10.12 (c) UDC Section 7.4 __. .'_' . _ UDC Section 3.6.1á:P "',;' \:r¡) ;;~.. \ ¡. ~ \ UDC Section 3.3.5 . ,i ' PR 8 IV\M UDC Section 9 : ..:; ;',: A - CJNt c. '., ,. \ "I ~ \ ,.1 '. , ¡. ~ t !\ . ." UDC Section 5 1 ~__' ._ UDC Section 8.10.1~(~)... .. ~~ tit', ...._ ,...0. .. ... . i r"...,' .;', '.. . ,.', ,". ., "\' ......1 Other Local. State or Federal Permits 0. Please identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal. if known: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [PLEASE NOTE THAT 1WO SIGNATURES ARE REQUlRt:O] By signing the application form, the applicant/owner attests that the information provided herein is true and corred to the best of their knowledge. I also certify that this application is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affeded property. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fad made by the applicant/owner with resped to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save, indemnify and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities, judgments. court costs. reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees. representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. This right of entry shall expire when the County (through the Administrator or the Administrator's representatives) concludes the application has complied with all applicable laws and regulations. Access and right of entry to the applicant's ro y I be r sted and shall occur only during regular business hours. I/. J. J 1. ,..pI! 03 (PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE) (DATE) The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a result of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential "take" of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Act" or "ESA." Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the adions that will be undertaken because this permit has been issued will not violate the ESA. Any individual. group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s) even if you are in compliance with the Jefferson County development code The Applicant acknowledges that he, she or it holds individual and non-transferable responsibility for adhering to and complying with the ESA. The Ap . an h s r this di laimer and signs and dates it below. . rA ~ (DA~ ~ a3 (PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE) MASTER LANO USE PERMIT DOC REV 02/2512002 WAC 197-11-960 EnviroDmental cheeklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checlclist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires aU governmeota1 agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the envirœmœt. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identity impacts fi'om your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts ftom the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide wheth« an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to desaibe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine wheth« the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best desaiption you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions ftam your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zœing, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the govamneota1 agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them OVCI'.a paiod of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental e1fects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checlclist for 11Onproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDmON, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FORNONPR.OJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checldist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACK.GROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Nordawest School of Wooden Boatballdbag Rezone Request 2. Name of applicant: NortJawest School of Wooden BoatbuDdbag (NWSWB) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 251 Otto Street, Port TOWDJend, W A 98368 Coataet: Bm Brock Phone: (360) 385-4948 4. Date checklist prepared: 3-21-200$ S. Agency requesting checklist: JeØ"enoa Couaty DepartllleDt of COIIUD1IIdty Development 6. Proposed timiD¡ or schedule (including phasing. if applicablc* Åpaey wUI complete detel"lllillatioa wItIùn the year. n. NWSWB will begin bùti81 eoutnaetion oa the currently zoned eomm.ereial seetioa of the property as early as the ead oftbb year. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or furth« activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, the total baiId-out on tbb property wUI be several yean from IIOW. TIae filial c:amp1D pIaB eunot be fI..UncI until this proposal is resolved. A ftve.eere campus wiD Iaave a tobtIIy different look ..... a two-aere campus. In the five-acre cam,., a pIIbIk parkiDg lot for boat trailen will be iadaded. 'ßis public IaeiIity would laelp reduce future traftIe eongestioa in this waterfroat area. The five-acre ampul also aDOM for a naore atfnetJ\te campus layout ad room for any future upauioas. IauDediate plaas (withba the next year) are to eoastraet one liard buDding ad enet two material covered shelten oa the current COIIUDereial seetion of the property. This would anow the NWSWB to move from its current ·loeatioa to this interim campus. .., ",; APR - 8 2003 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Draft EnviroDmeDtaI Impact statemeDt was flDaUzed Mareh 17,2001 for this su.bjeet property and the NWSWBs waterfront properties by Western WaslüBgtoD UlÜversity, Buley College ofEnviroJuDeDtaI Studies. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No approvals are pending eoneel'DiDg the subject property. The NWSWB just C4Dpleted a Pre-AppIleatloD Conference with the Jeß'enon COIIDty Department of Comm1Ulity DeveIopD1eDt for büdaI eonstnetioa of baiIdIDgs on the eoauaereially zoned seedOD of dill property as well as fatare plans for the waterfront properties. The NWSWB p..... to eontiDue a~ related to that Pre-AppIieatiOD. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Por this ameDdmeDt propoal DO other apprmals are reqairecL 11. Give bri~ cœtplete description of your. proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modi1ÿ this form to include additimal specific information on project description.) The NWSWBs proposal to Iaave the entire fIve.aere property zoned eoauaeråal Des In the desire for enough space to altimately IMdIcl the ealDpas as slaowa In EDlbit B. This MubDam Cam,. Plan IDeludes some 12 bailcliDp totaIiDg aroud 38,000 sq. ft. Theøe bulldlDp will aDow space for wood and metal shops, lamber and boat storage, admlDlstratioD, I1IIIdaroom, multiple eIasIrGoms, Ubrary and eveD a studeDt IUJIteL This MubDam Camp. Plan Is Idzed for a toCaI of appro~teIy 88 people cbuiDg the aIDe month ÅSIOdate Degree. P...... ThIs MubDam Camp. Plan aIIo IDel1ades a .7-aere publle parIdq lot for boat traDen that DIe the Port ot"Port TcnnueDd boat 1a_eJa. A Publle Aeeess TraD will be Induded In eitlaer the ftve.aere or two aere ea.p. that will eoueet the ceDter of Port Badloek with the waterfront. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address. if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. See EDibit A, the su.bjeet property is loeated In seetioD 1, T29N, RlW B. ENVIR.ONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, billy, steep slopes, mountainous, other . . . . .. Flat terraces IIpaI'8ted with steep dopes b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Slopes are 2B: IV to 13/4B: IV; 30% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime fàrmland. SDty fIDe to eoane IaDd with gravel to IaDdy fIDe to eoane sand with cobbles to 3 Inthes. Soils are over eonsoUdated and deDse. d. Are there surfi1œ indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The site .... been previously graded by øeavation as a borrow pit that has created three fairly level pads. There.are DO visible sips of land aDding or major son movements. .. . ...... .... :;: :, (~.:' :";::', : ¡:\ !:~ ;~.':; . r' .., ¡ ~ ; ,." ........... ........ : . \ ¡ !.,. APR - 8 2003 : I i: ¡ j;. ; 2 , ... e. Desaibe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No fiIIiDg is anticipated at tIds time. nere is tile plauecJ I'eIIIO\'8I of some 4,000 cubic yards of gravel to wideD the seeoad terrace (witIdD tile CUJTellt eommerdal ZODeeI area). t: Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, constructiœ, or use? If 80,. gencnl1y describe. Soule surØdal nvellq over time may oeear. No sipifteant eruøioD from 1'1III0« apeeted d_ to tlte poI'OIIS aatare of the site. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfiwes after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 28-30% + h. Proposed measw'CS to reduce or control erosiœ, or other impacts to the earth, ü any: ABy measures req1dred tbroap the pel"lldttbag proeess will be employed. A ItonD water pIM will be developed for fa:ture property eoastnaetioD. a. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result fiun the propœal (i.e.. dust, autcmobile, odŒs, industrial wood smoke) dming construction and when the project is cœnp1eted1 If any. generally describe and give approximate quantities üknown. DarIaa CODStrIM:daB .... d1lSt and eq1dplDeDt eDÚIIiOIIS will oeear, but Dot of IDY Iastiq IJpifteanee. TIle _ of boat eout:rueCioJImaterillls sueh as tarpeDtiDe, paiDtI, epoxy, vanish, IiDaeed oil, ete, will be properly stored and used as they eurreDtIy are at the NWSWB. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally desaibe. Not to oar kDowledge c Proposed me8SW'eS to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, ü any: ABy wood dustø ereated dariDg boat eoastruetioD would be eoatabaeel to tile boat shops. Ally boat ftn"hin. emissions are minor eompared to the area ill questioa. 3. Water a. Sur1àce: I) Is there any surlàce water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasœal streams, saltwater, Jakes, ponds, wetlands)? If)"'S, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A IapœI that empties illto Port TOWDSeDd Bay is to the east. 2) Will the project require any work over. in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yea, please describe and attach available plans. Part of tile Ioweøt terraee OD the property eomes wItIaba 200 feet, bat wrbal dJseassiODs with tile Wulabagtoa State DOE ad J1sIa ad WDdDfe iIIdieate Uttle eoaeen over oar plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed 1Ì'00l sur1àce water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applieable. . :. ~ '/'1'1 ¡ : ¡ ; ¡ :'.:'. \l.J~ r, ' i.\" , :1 \;,i G:~: , . ..... . ......,.......,-'....._,"".,........ s ,",\. i . APR - 8 2003 4) Will the proposal require surfàce water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No . , . ." ....... ,'~ .....;..¡.' . . 5) Does the proposal lie within a l00-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 3 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges ofwaste materials to SU11àce waters? If so, describe the type ofwaste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not over and above normal rabawater cJIseharIes. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and &pm oximate quantities if known. No In both easeL 2) Desaibe waste material that will be disc:harged into the ground fi'om septic tanks or other sources, if any (for eumple: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricu1tural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number ofhouses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. DiIeharges into the groud will be domestle sence 0DIy. Closed JDetal coIIeetion eontainen are aøed routinely to eoDeet b.... eleenlng sohents and other ueess fluids. Th_ eeaC8lnen are dispoIect of at a ......... eoDeetioD 1adIity. A..,.. .,.. (drain field and treatment tub) bas already been penrdtted witIt the Jefferson Coaty Bea1tIa Departmeat. For tIûs site the eœstnIeCion of bûtIaI hoIdhIc tub and eonneedœ linea Is aU that is needed. c. Water nmoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the sourœ ofnmoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, ifknown). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The Mubnam Campas Plan woa1d contain two holding basins fOl' nrlaee nnotr (Eshiblt B). This is In a eœceptaål stage and wUI require a ø..lh:ed storm water plan before peI'IIIitdng. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or SU11àce waten? If so, generally describe. It is possible that aeeidental spills of solvents eoaId oeear, bat the amount aøed at any one time is unaUy snaaIL d Proposed measW"CS to reduce or control sur1àœ, ground, and nmoffwater impacts, if any: BoIdiDg basins wUI probably be used to eoIdain nrlaee raaoß' bnpaets. 4. Plants . a. jheck or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree=. ap I aspen, other (madrona,willow) X .. . X evergreen tree. fir ~ine, other shrubs Ygrass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, sIamk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel~ mi1foil, other other' types of vegetation b. What kind and amount ofvegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation In the gravel pit eonsis1s of a eouiderable namber of non-native spedes, many ofwhieh are bmlsive weeds. '. .... . -.-,....-.--...-...... ""'- .-....... :! ¡~~.~\ If": ~r~ :'~. q '\'!j" r;:~' r~> ,l ! I ¡ i '." ....... I. -::? ~.! ' ~....;1 ~ t 1 \ . : I: ':" ._..~ ·····.....-,·~·_··.....·..·-1~.~ ì 11 ¡;, .;' ¡! 1 11'1: : ~ ',: APR - 8 2003 . ¡: 1 ) ¡ : . ./ I I- I , :';- . .. ............_......... ,i :;. ~.:.:::. i'''' .... \1 f~' ,:. ~.' ;,,: :'; ...... i' . . r:: ! .' ,~~ . 4 .....__ ~._.._ ____._..__._......___._ .___. ... .._u. . ...:::. ., c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NODe Imown \ !{~) ,\~~.:<~' ;-~~, )1....:JI.,_~~j~! i '! \'\ , APR - 8 2003 , ' J!' ..> '-,.' ~.~:...¡ ':. .' ,., d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, (X' other measures to preserve or eohance vegetation on the site, if any: Den is 110 IaDdseapblg pIaB at filii Cbae, as tile ftuI CUlpllllayout is in qaestioø. 5. ....111.... a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on (X' near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds:~,~other: m~~~~':iI( bea~other; fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened (X' endangered species known to be on (X' near the site. .. tile vidaIty; bald agIe, marbled murrelet c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Migrating birds aad bats ill tile prœimate area d Proposed measures to preserve (X' eohanœ wildlife, if any: TIüs property wDI be vea'" witIa a Ddx of tbiekets ad opea areas. Native veptadoa wDI be left iBùtet ad pnMde ..bleat for birds, iBseeCs, nptilel, aad aaJI ...-... Noa-utIve veptadoa wDI be removed. 6. EDergy ad utaral resoarees a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the CODlpleted project's energy needs? Desa:ibe whether it will be used fŒ heating, manu:tàcturing, etc. FiDaI plallllIave Dot beea developed bat it is aaUdpated tIaat tile IaeatillllOUl'ee for thole bullcJiBp tlaat require laeat (earreat boat eoDItrDetioa.... are DOt lleated) wDI be eIectrIe, propaae or fuel oIL EIeetrieUy will be rDD to aD batldiDp for UgIatIag ad power tooII. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, tIús property is allÛlÚlDUID of30 feet below IDG8t of adjaeeDt properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce (X' control energy impacts, if any: Do DOt Imow at tIaiI time. 7. EDviroameDtallleaItIa a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk offire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. TIle foIIowiBg is wordiag takea from tile meDdoaed Draft Eln'iroJuaeatal Impact &atemeDt... " De proeeøaes tlaat wUI be CODd1Icted at tile site .... .him., ill reprds to eln'irOllmeDtaI laazanb. It doeø DOt qaality as a badDltrlal fadlity aecordiDa to die Code ofPederal ReplatioBs. naere wDI eDIt a elaaDee of spills dlll"iq stonp ad .. ofpalats aad ftI'IIislaes bat Ukely IaoocI is ...111"'1, Partiealate aad D......ee dust from laW dDlt waste uist8. Den wDI be IOIIIe apoIDI'e to ftbe...... ad aa epoxy resiD bat its .. is reqalred ill a estimated 1 ill (; boats. Den slloald be otreme eautiOD ill tile use of OuIie acid, widell is used for wood bleaeldag opentioBs. " 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special senlees over tlaat curreDtIy available is aatidpafed, Iaowever, filial pel'lDittiDg wDI allow for --at by emergeDey services. 5 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: :Flammable material storage Ioeken 8Dd 0IHIte Material Safety Data Sh_; proper reglstratioD of aU BAZMAT. Saw cut waste is recycled by studell" as ßrewood, proJeet pieces, ud the dust is used ill gardell paths ud for aaJmaI beddblg. Excess saw dust is øeDt to the Coaaty compostillg facility. Old paiIIts, \'UIÜSh, ete are taken to the local BAZMAT facDity. .._. -..... -. .---... ...... ¡ i [1\ i :,1; ~;R:~ ~i::'~ ~ ..', I í i ., t '! ~ . , b. Noise 1) What types ofnoise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NotIûDa to aß'eet this project. . , :' I .,' ;' t > 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? indi- cate what hours noise would come ftom the site. Noise ereated by dais projeet wOI be fnma trame for the trusf)va ~tioB ofmaterlals, reJIIOhI ofwaste materials, .... gndIJII. TIaere wOI be 110I'III8I eoastraetioII noises related to the IIew b1dIdJIIg. NormaIlIOIIe aetIvIty related to sdIooI operatIoIIs will come fnma eIeetrieaI "'IidpmeIIt used ba the ...~ ofwoodea boeå ad repIar trame fnma IåIdeIIts ud staft TIte Iao1In ofllOl'llbll sdIooI operatIoD are from 8:00am to 5:00pm MœuJay tIaroaP Friday. r L..... ._.._......._._._.___ --.-. ~ : r·. - ,:;!.;(?~(:::~X:(~¡:·: ~.·\.,,- 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: No eDraordiJaary IIIeM1U'eS are plauaned at dais time, as the fhIaI camp1IS pIaII is UDkIIOWII. Eleetrieal power tools will be lloused withba liard baildbags ba tile fhIaI camp. build oat. 8. Lud ud slaoreliDe use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? TIle site is currently 811 abandOlleel gravel pit. Tlae œIy b1dIdiDg 011 tile property is a reatal mobile IIœte 011 the 1Ippe1'lllOlt terraee (see EDIbIt C). Adjacent property ases Incl_ residential 011 tile II.OI'tIawest aDd west, the ÅJu Calf 011 the 1I.OI'tIaeast, a COUIIty road 011 tile east, ad tile KIvIey Ceater COIIUIIeI'eiaI deYelopmellt 011 the IOUtIa. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our Imowledge c. Describe any structures on the site. A rentallbOblle IIœte eDstB OD. the 1Ipper IIIÐØt terraee OD. the nvrth... part ofthJø property (see EDibit C). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not initialiy, it Is utidpated tItat tile IbObIle Iaome will be removed wIIell ud lithe NWSWB builds a stadellt IIœteL e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? TIae site eurrelltly is spOt betweeII a R1II'aI VDlage Ceater -Commerdal and Rural Resideadall:5. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? SpUt RVC ud Rural ResIdeadaIl:5 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urbu h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specifY No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? IB tile M.uhD1un Camp. Plan tlaere WCMIId be 88 people working at the site. Tlae student IaœteI eo IaoIIIe a 1llDÜD8111 of24 iDdtridaals d1ll'iDg our 81IIDIDeI' worksIaops and wDIlaave its own øeptie systeJD. It Is possible tllat tile 6 hœteI woald be used durJag our IÛDe-lIIOIath program, bat would UkeJy Itouse eoaskIerably less btclividaals dum. for sltorter sammer courses. j. Approximately how many people would the cœnpletcd project displaœ? Oae to two k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NODe aDtidpatecl at this time. 1. Proposed measures to c:usure the proposal is ccmpatJ.'ble with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: A voeatioul sdaooI use is eoaditioaally ....... &der UDC Table 3-1 bt a Rural Village C.ter.11ae eaacIitiouI pel'lllittbag proeeøs wiD allow for pabBe CGIIIIDeIlt. 9.H~ a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high. mid- dle, or low-income housing. 11ae stadellt Itostel would Itoase a -n-.-a of24l11c1ividaals d1IriIIg our S1IIIUDer worksItops. 11ae IdIIe-DIODtIt P....... woaId house ecøaslderably lea. b. Approximately how many units, if any. would be elioIitlated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-inccmc housing. Oae mobile home c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Spaee li:mhadolls wiD Umit the area aVailable for housillg. 11ae ftnt priority for spaee wiD be eoutraetioa oftltose bnßdi..- Deeessary for geaeral operatlou of the NWSWB. 10. Aesdaetia a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s). not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materia1(s) proposed? Tlte tallest b1dldl:ac planed at tJüs eoneeptuaI staae is 34 feet. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? TItis property lies .. a CGlDbiutioD aataralhnaD-made IaoIIow that is at lest 30 feet below the Port Badloek street leveL It is aDtiåpated that DO obItruetioD ofvieM wiD CJeenr. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11ae propolld p1IbUe aeceu trail aad tts aeeompaayIJII Wew areas wiD IDereue opportaDitIes for tlte plblie to eaJoy tlte e~1 views. 11. Light aDd glare a. What type of light Œ glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Tlten wiD be IOD1e øeearity up. 011 aroud the eampus d..... tIae llipt, filiai pia malmOWll at this time. b. Could light or glare ftom the finished project be a saæty hazard or interfere with views? Very 1IIIIIkeIy that tlte project wiD create a safety hazard or illteden witIt views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NOlIe d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. if any: NODe aDtidpatecl at this time. 12. RecreatioD rr:~~ ._u; r T--;-{-- ... .... -, , j , .\... 7 APR - 8 2003 a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are water- oriented aetivides awDable Just dowD the I'G8d from tIûs praperty. ne Port of Port TOWIIIeDd .... a pubUe boat IaDC.... ramp nd a p1IbUe cJoek. The NWSWB will be addbIg uppuItuultIes for the geDeraI pubUe with its waterfroDt property plans. The property ID qaestloD wiD add fadIities for adult pubUe edueatiOD aDd pubUe meetiDgI. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts œ recreatim. including recreation 0p- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant. if any: ThIs property wiD provide a pabUe aeeesø foot traß ftoIII Port IIadIoek dOWD to Lower IIadIoek Road. The appUeaat will provide additiouI pablle aeeesø to a deek (for viewIDg nd pieDics), down a propoøed gugway to a fI.oetinC dock nd a pubUe IIIOOI'iq fteId. 'l1aese fadlitles will provide more opportaDities for water-orieDted aetivities. 13. BJstorie aDd eaItaraI. preøenatioa a. Are th~ any places or oijects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The Âju CaØ, OD aD adjacent property, is listed OD the aatiODaI repter Dder hi ortcIDaIlUUDe "Galster Boase". r .: .~:~?'~~',~"": -..~-.. '~':>::~::~:') .,,' ...:::~;:/ ¡ "-" ~. ......,. ,...' .': .1 s' ¡. 1.: b. Genera1lydescribe any landmarks or evidence ofhistoric, archaeological. scientific, or , :~, I cu1tura1. importance known to be on or next to the site. Down the hID from this she nd OD die beada Is a she /:, ': ~'l 00 referred to as "TIetsibas". ThIs 'MIS a pdleriq area for tribes to pt togetlaer for potIatehes." .~ ! I Cbemak1lmS lived iD this'ridDitf before bat beeame ~rtaaDy eDinet. ,,~.::.'! 8: .' :; . ::: oq:' c. Proposed measures to reduce or con1rol impaåS. if any: COIItaet .... already been ..de with tile W.........:: .~. ',__. State 0fIIee of ArdIaeoIogy & BIItorIe Presenation eoaee....... die OftnD pIaD. The NWSWB ~~~,,::.'r~':-::" sent a letter to the Tsetalbas Beritap CouneD seeIdq their Involvement, bat there ... been DO replÿ:' ,:':::~~:-'~, ¿: to date.' . "-" I,V i :-. ',} ,1.(- i ¡'f.: l~~)' ...,J ~ 14. Transportation a. ldentiJÿ public streets and highways serving the site, and desa1'be proposed access to the existing street system. Show œ site plans, if any. Aeeess to the site (see EDIbit As) wIJl be from Lower Hadlock Road (County) nd then up to where It eoueets with State ROQte 116 (Oak Bay RoadINess Corner Roa4). b. Is site currently saved by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? TIae site is DOt earrentIy beIDc sened by Jetrenoa County TraDllt. TIae ...... tnDsIt stop is approDmately % mile from the site at die iDteneetloD ofCh'- Road nd Ness Corner Road. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 11aere are 48 parking spaces iD the maID parldDc area aad aD adcJitIoaallllhOWD for the student hostel area. TIae ftft-aere baUd oat aIIo eontalns pablle boat traDer parIdDC. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets. or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally descn'be (indicate whether public or private). Initial verbal diseasstou with WashiJllton State DOT bnroIviDI the MuIDnma eam,. PIaa (apprœ. 88 people), btdieated that DO traßie study would be necessary at the iDteneetion of Lower Hadlock Road and Oak Bay Road. TIae earreat trafIIe load on Oak Bay Road would require oar proposal to be addiq close to 200 left tarns onto Lower Hadlock Road at peak time to trløer a traØk study. Verbal diseaIsiODs with Jefferson Coanty PabUe Works have been centered OD oar first phase of 8 developmeDt hi wIúeIa we WJII have froDa 5O-Ø stadeau and staff at tlte site. UDder tboøe cireuJDstaftees,., DO tndIIe stacUeø would be "--.ry ud DO ..........t ImpI"OftDleDU to tile I'G8d wUJ be aeeeuáry. Also _laded hi tit.. 8II1IDIptiollS Js tile cœtiD_ preleaee of_ PabIie Aecea Trail froDa Port BadJoek to tlte waterfroat to IDitigate ....dItiDae veJü-htr trip8 aad to proride _ safer pedestriu walkway. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, œ' air transporta_ tion? If so, generally describe. No t: How many vehicular trips per day would be genented by the axnpleted project? Ifknown, indicate when peak volwnes would occur. WitIa - MuiDnma eam,. PIau of 88 penIœJ ud ....._ wnnt -- øeeuario (aD drive, ODe penoa per veIùde, stadeats ialaœtel drive to euap1II, aD drive to Iuda aad back) paeratel total velúeular trip8 hi a day of352. Baled OB reeeat......t Ievek aad staftIDg, wileD tile NWSWB aetaaIIy IDOVeI to tIûs proposed site tile real _pad wUJ be DIOI'e like 5O-Ø people witIa a wont ease seeaarto of 240 total veJüeuJar trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce œ' cœ1rol transportatim impacts, if any: De pabBe aeeeøs trail wUJ 'elp mitigate total velûealar trips to tile CUIpDI area aad proride pedestrIu aeeeøs for tlte aeaeraa public froDa Port Hadlock to tlte waterftooat. IS. Public seniee8 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pr0- tection, police protection, health care, schools, oth«)? If so, generally desa:ibe. 'I1ae NWSWB move to this site would traDlfer tile respoIISibUity froDa ODe part of JeJrenoa Comaty to uodler. No Dew aeecI or serviee Js upeeted. b. Proposed measures to reduce or cœ1rol direct impacts on public services, if any. Not:Iüag suggested at tbJs time. 16. UtUitiet a. ~oomutlyavailabl."~~-S~ ice bon sanitary sewer,déõtic , other. . '~ b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the projøct, the utility providing the service, and the general cœstruction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needod. No Dew' or addidoDaI utilities onr tIaat wIücIa eo be IaooIœd 1Ip or started witIa uistbag veDcIon wUJ be requincL C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I Wldentand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ...............eu.~............................................................ .............................................. Date Sublnitted: .................. v¡. (l.:f.. t?.3................................................................................. ~ .'.: ~ '.: ....:...........:: ~..:. or--~-.:-~.~"""- ~"".' ~. \' . ::' ;:. '_.' ,. .~~ .;'.~ .~~~.~._.:.~,_.1.~; ."..~I .~ . , ': ,\\;", I ' ì ' , ',I APR - 8 2003 l._··'· ......'....,. .. - . ...... ..: 9 '"I : l ~ " !: ì ,) \ 1 \ \ 1 ~",i f ¡ ..... JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street - Port Townsend - Washington 98368 360/379-4450 - 800/831-2678 - 360/379-4451 Fax Application for Formal Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan/UDC Amendment' MLAtI PROJ ECT/APPlI CANT NAME: Northwest School of Wooden Boatbulldlng Rezone Request Applications must be completed and submitted to the Department of Community development by May 1 of the current calendar year in order to be considered during this years amendment process. Please note that, beginning In 2004, the application submittal deadline will be February I of each calendar year. Completed appncatlons that are received after May I· will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year. Applications that are Incomplete (i.e., that do not include all of the Information required below) will be returned to the applicant. Submittal Requirements 1. A completed Master Land Use Application and SEPA Checklist (if applicable). Representative authorization is required if application is not signed by owner. 2. A completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. 3. Comprehensive PlanJUDC Amendment application fee (as applicable), as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance, as amended. 4. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. 5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A," a vicinity map showing the following: a. The location of the area proposed to be redesignated; b. The land use designation of all property within fIVe hundred (500) feet of the site; and c. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site. 6. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit B," a description of the proposed PlanJUDC amendment and any associated development proposal(s), if applicable. Applications for project-related formal site-specific redesignations must include plans, and Information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and Improvements. Applications for such redesignations that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services. 7. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit "C," a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity [i.e., within a three hundred (3oo)-foot radius]. The exhibit must depict topography, wetlands and buffers, easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site. The intent of the exhibit is to clearly Illustrate the physical opportunities and constraints of the site. 8. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment Is being proposed. (Attach additIOnal sheets, if necessary.) The NWSWB seeks to have the entire subject property zoned Rural Village Center.commerclal. Currently the property has a split zoning of RVC-Commerclal and Rural Residential 1 :5. The spilt zoning seriously limits the NWSWB In Its plans for developing a new campus on this property. The UDC allows conditional development of an adult/teChnlcal school (private) on Rural VIllage Center-Commerclal but not on Rural Residential 1 :5. See UDC Section 9.4. SITE SPECIFIC APP,DOC REV. 212512003 Page 1 . _.~_..._...M ; , ~... i , f; ,_ ¡ í \:. . . : I ~ : ~. - \: ;:l I.f. ~ H \5 p~:, ., ,.. ! ."._ . u..,._..,-.____.._ ~ APR - 8 2003 " : , 9. The current land use designation/zoning of the site is: Split zoning, Rural Village Center-Commerclal and Runil Residential 1 :5 10. The·.proposedland ùse designation/zoning of the site is: Total property would be Rural Village Center-Commerclâl ' 11. The current use of the site is: Abandoned gravel pit 12. The proposed use of the site is: Future site of the Northwest School of Wooden Boatbulldlngs main campus 13. If changes to Comprehensive Plan or UDC text are required, please prepare and label as "Exhibit D," proposed amendatory language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill" format, with text to be added indicated with underlining (e.g., underlinging and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., Not applicable 14. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit E," a thorough explanation of how the proposedredeslgnation/rezone and associated development proposals, if any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following Inquiries: a. Have the circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it Is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? b. Are the assumptions that form the basis for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan no longer valid, or has new information become available that was not considered during the process of adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or any subsequent amendment? c. How does the proposed amendment reflect current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? d. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation? e. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general govemmental services)? f. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? 9. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated? h. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities? i. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following: (i) (Ii) (Iii) Access; Provision of utilities; and Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? j. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be In the long-term best interests of the county as a whole? k. Does the proposed site-specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan? I. If the proposed reclesignatlonJrezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the Immediate areas and the overall UGA? SITE SPECIFIC APP.DOC REV. 2I2SI2OO3 Page 2 .. . ¡, ¡ 1 ¡'. ~ :....) ", r-':-! .\ . i.~..'::.· ì.<:, ~' \.f -. ,. ..~..._....._.....v..____.....: .., ,... j " '\. , . \ .1 ;. \ APR - 8 2003 ....'-. .' .:.;..., ,.. .. m. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Am (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the Çou~de Plannlna PoItçY for Jefferson C . and other applicable Intero.jurlsdlctional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federlllaws? 15. n. .""tk;tmt hereby ctI1IJM thetthe ",."".",. contIIn«Iln this ¥PfIOIIIØn .,.1nIe endpmfde en IOOIII'IØ ~ of the f'IDPI*Þd....... end the ~".,.", ecIcnOrlt.. thet eny fIPPIOVlIIltIatIIId on this epp/IoItIIon mey be 1WO#ØI4' any auch ~ Is foIIndto be"'. DAtE '3/51 /03 ~riOWNER'S8ICJNA1UAE DAtE "3 -3/- 03 ~ ,.. 3 I... ð.3 DATE <j_ð/- 13 [NOTE: For 811 required signatures, representetlve authorization is required if application 'S nOt signed by the owner. J III1IE SPICII'IC N"PÞOC REV. 2ØIIIOIIS Pep 3 -. . ...... _. .--......--.'.....- .----.. !.' :' . ..., .-,. ;~ 1 ~;:; :E ~ \ 'l ¡.:;i ¡-\ " ¡ ..... ...... .......... .._"H...~....._......._.~.. i .; j¡i ¡:' . .~, APR - 8 2003 , ~.. . . . ~ ~. f, ~~ s.... w ~ t.:> ~~ ~ 1,,~ ,\~'\". '\ 5'" -i~ /; -g \ J! ..~I '.' q ~/ ./ V) '\ '~. . ~ \ i , ' .J ~W I:....,~::~\~\ " ' .\ ~\\[l\~v ~~~I~~ . ~ ==~ r~~~ ~ ." ..~ I '-.~EI!..~- ~..., .' ~~ <:\\~.. . ~" . ___ ~~ : I',^-;- ~~ . . .'~. . t ~:~ \\".~ ~l¿~/~·· ~~.' .' . '·~~~~~I ~I~··· ~:~...' ~. ~\\'\-0m~~:~~~(17 ''77-/' \:' j(~ . . ~~'Ç.V" ~ r." ~ '/ / .--'..-' .-- --- ¿ 's - -;;:;-; ~ :!o. / _.- "'Q ~ ~ -, <¡ ~.¡ ¡: _. '1<..",;;;,,- ~ . . if~ - \ ~~ ~~' - - ~ . .- I !~! ~&.,~ ).. "= i I. I 81 i ! Ii" ~ ':'-. j h. . ~ _~..:. ? ¡ , Jf~~ Ii i ~ //~ -~- i i@tL'-'1 ¡; i:~. ~~!! .". . .1. f .~" I ; ,: ~@ .- _ ~ 8 I 0 J;.- 'ill .. ...... ~... ,t---., . . I, .... _ i -' p.. }- IIth. I -:-\' ~ ~¿¡ ~ ~_ . _; ; ~?\ i '".. , lflJ:1JD ~ . © __~1 :- I@\./",.,:' '!~ t-- Eo.. ~! J+. . . TJ]JJ ,., I 71'\1 i'i '-:f) ""...... "-" -..J 1- It Ic....,: R ~. "0 \:':"1 ....... .-... I ~ ffi· .. ,.-! . ~ IT" - ¡ ,.3)1 -:::::::---\ ~ '-1<: .---- -'" " -IHI--m·. "þ'- ~Jír- ··.·~...:..!i : ..."....;:¡¡. ¡ .,,> .~ . ~I H:r. ~ ._-:.~. -~/1~' 4 ~"':j ~ ~~~: :~' ~ ~ == ~ i ¡ '~~ ~1L. ~ -' ---¡ :?0JJ2"'d ,~ \1'.2 ¡¡¡¡g--.... - : : f I lIfIm ....@")'!@)li-=!/.·éf,'l-iJ··.,·il _j- tæ~~ -----~-~~-- - ~--~ ;1 .1 ;.. "'~: ~ . f '. ~j ~}~4-;- t i';[ - I, -,JIll.:J i I I <tOo"'" ~ 'è¢:(.\~ Ii : : i I (.': ~ :z. o .,-..N U,..J ;> < ~i= -z ~~~ UWCñ oE-w ~z~ oWe:. <I: U z. ::I::w< Ci ,..J f--0o1:'::: r.' ...:¡ u ..........:¡t:t:: o>~ P-. --'- .-:¡::E <0 ~u ::>::E ~Q: I:r.J to- Z. .---". ~... Exh¡bi+ A a I E ~t! ~~ ~ I ~ ¡: ~ I !~ ~ §~ ,< t!~ u :;, . ~ ~ ~ t ~: ; va: ¡~ :fu~~''': . g~~ a~ ~M ~ . f 8 i ~ Ë ~ ~t ~ ~~ ~~ %~fi~ ~ ~a: I~~O ,I ~~& ~ ~ ~a: ~~ ~... ~¥..~ ~=a~ š~ o~~8...~ ~ª ~ a~~~~tt~ ~t~t" Eo~x~i e5 ~ ~~g ~~"~ ~m~~ j~ 6~t=g~ ~o ~~ ~~f~~=~~~o~50ICœ !:~~~ ~p E ~ (, · œ -ðc a.a:.~N ~~. u t~ ~~w~=. KpM ~ 0 ~;i~~~.~ii;i~~~~~~~~§g~~~~~!i!~.~~18~~~~~;~~Ë~~~;l!øl!i;~i~~i~~ ICB~~~š~:~ ~~~~~~~~~OI~a~~a:tga:e.~~6t~š~~~~.sæ~i~~~·~R~e~I~Gfi~~~~ ~>~ê~...og~~~g~~:~~§g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~!g~~~~ª5B!~!~~~§~§~ ~~B~~~~ _ Q~g_ø ~mé~~x:~~~ m>r=~~U~_~~~Z~ uUU~~~.~~~L= ou_ __ø ~~ _u_2 -Na..,.otO","., o-...n...IlftCII....c .--------- ..n...,..,c......,.O-Nr.Þ ftnnnnnnn........ ....... ....... I'-.,.O_N .............øtIÞ., n........Ð .ø.n."..t!O .a_N"" -C'lfNNNC\I 100",.,00- tlNN....n" ;1 , ! ï . . I',', i. Jdlcrson County Comprehensive Plan i ,; ,'; APR - 8 2003 , AÛl!u~1 28, 19<)8 3-36 ','.: ...... <+-< o ...... t) ~ 0.. .s.. -.. .... ¿: ~ ~ þ -.. - --> - . ..........~..,..,.. ,;"",.~H."""'··""·· .& E )l.h ¡bit A b r .._,~....-..........- - r...... ~..... .. .. .:........ ,........ I:' --'-'--1 ~...¥ ~~ .~- ~ .' :':':".:: .': -;.:1 ! . ..-....... (,. ~ ¡itr 00 '-.J >- . '.",.;~ I .. ". o~: ~ I~~: -::_:;;'::_::~~; , r;,. ' ': ...,:~ '::. ; . i ·...:"7.·f : ::::'. _ ~:::-:-::,' Ë: ..._.. _._____J ("") ~ .- ..... ("") 00 0- ....., 0\ '" \£) 00 00 '" "¢ - "¢ (",I -.:t cG i...ù > c:: LW ::/') Ç/) 8 '1.1 :"S2 '::3 -' ::;. 'J'> v :-' ëa ~ -' 3- -' ~ ~ ~ ~ .r.; c:;:; '1.1 c' U 'r. ~ ~ !:... ~ EXhib",-r A~ '¡ ~ J. ,....-. ,"" "j ~. ',,". \ 1 ...\ 1,!~ \......'.. ',r. "^"^"""^". '. ~ ~.... ~104... Geo400Gœ t - ) '\1" -~I '\ \ \ " ' '~'_M"__. \ \ ^ð^.""."" 0ðé400401...-..'.', \~ , , I· ! ~ ' ~ \ ---...:> . (.. .. ... , J I "\. '~"'·.··1 í ¡ . ........',. ."............".-. I ¡. .... " -~,..; (.-:'"".....:(Í ., _..··········~·I ^"^......."" /'. .,.-' '1'1\ . .,,~'. ¿. I 0000002iIS0' . f ).' . _"''A1w:.<; / ~ ._~ \ ~ C,,,,-'- ~'I· ~ ' '»: . ~ \ Q804OO102 ..~ I ..,/ 1 '0 " ~-.(., ,,-I )0 .\ ~,', 0ð040011S _400603 , \ \ ..,.-............- «O~L" _..........- ~\ . - 010100304 ) ~. (. \, . )r~' Ô!o4~ ;.- ~~~.,..~ ,.'. -'. . .. 0 . ¡I, \......-.-.... 001024036 .. ' "-;,'7""'. n\' . .. . . ..... . n",... ". \., ...;. \. iB·· \........--""\ _.oo.œ '. ~"O,. ':' '. . ' . -.00101 \ 0000Ci02s0'..... ~¡~ \~~'I\.'~.>_.,.~".. ;òo\.. , ,.,0010240,6-i1\ . ,.. . "-., f t!I . ''')I' QOI02406Gi'\· \ ! ~/ .. ,/ \ \. Q01Ö1S016 ,. . / .\" I'D ",,/ \ ifI01301r1~t~j' I QOI~. t \ J II: .......,~ ,tl ^" \,:, \ . /f.....:--~ I ·0'·' 001~:,..7~·'l-"·,/' i MilQis: / ....., it' to101S014 t ., -~-..~--.~. .~101&)1~~t~t',,~.. ~.~......... ....1. . .1 .. .,1 . 00101S01S --~-..,,~ ", 1 I . ·"r',<. e... .o".. . . I Q01œ1œ5"" "'b I"{ ! ~ ..i ". .t' ./ ,. " " Q0101S016 .... .. / i I fl" . i Q0101S01t ... //' if'tJO- Pto(. , ~001. '::'œNJu r r~'<, s'~~, /J 1M,. I ~ \ 001010006 . U.,. ~iNI, "'r.JeftII-I!.~4NlIriyJ!IW \., "'., ./ ,.../ QOI01ao01 \\ QðQ400r0I ...........,., ..~ ~,: ., ....".... . ,........... \ .,¿.' ,/' r' ./ ~.-......... ... .,'/' ./' ...,;~..... -....--.. ....................--- a·r:,ft;· -~~F'¥~,.r.M!!fJ.'a,Y'V~,;!!I"'*;;;; "'\Iò,,~~.a'. , .' : . r"\ 1 t: ~ \~.;:~ '. \ I ..~. r~.; . \) '.:.i ......-...........--.... . , ; , '\ '. ~ ; . , , : APR - 8 2003 ... ~.-:.iË.~;:~.;.?:~-:.~,},;.;¡.\:\:. http://maps.co.jefferson.wa.us/output/parcels. outside ..GIS SERVER 1424l6808764.jpg " ,. ) ! , ! , ¡ \ I : , ~.."f ¡ ...... 3/1 0103 EXHIBIT B Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding Description of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment This proposal is a request to rezone a 5.36 acre property from a split designation (Rural Village Center and Rural Residential 1 :5) to a single zoning designation of Rural Village Center. This property (tax parcel 901013016) is an abandoned gravel pit that is owned by John T. Shold, Samuel SWanson and Sterling & Sally Huntingford. The NWSWB has an option to purchase this property. The Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding (NWSWB) is a non-profit private institution that would like to move from its current location in Glen Cove to its planned main campus on this 5- acre property. The current split zoning allows about half of this property for campus development per UDC Table 3-1. Under that table a College or Technical SchooVAdult Education Facility (not state owned) is not allowed in a Rural Residential 1 :5 zone. The NWSWB would like to have the entire property for development so that a sensible, expandable and aesthetically pleasing campus can be designed. The NWSWB requested an Un-named Institutional Uses designation for its Heritage Campus activities in 2002, but was rejected by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development This proposed amendment is a further effort to remedy our inability to use the entire property as an adult education facility. The Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding has been developing its Port Hadlock Heritage Campus concept for the last two years. This campus concept includes two properties on the waterfront that are currently owned by the NWSWB. One of the buildings has been repaired and is being used for summer and winter classes not associated with our nine-month associate degree program. The other building is being repaired at this time and is planned to be functional this summer. It will include a large classroom and shop areas. The NWSWB has received a Washington State Heritage Grant that was used to repair one of the waterfront properties and a Washington State DOE Planning Grant that was used to design a Public Access Trail from the Port Hadlock street level, down and around the perimeter of the property in question, down the County easement on Lower Hadlock Road and finally out onto the currently existing NWSWB dock. We recently received a grant from the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC) that will provide partial funding for construction in 2004 of a public mooring field, floating dock and gangway. The Exhibit B Plan shows the main elements of the Heritage Campus concept This Maximum Campus Plan scenario includes some 12 buildings totaling 38,000 sq. ft. and is sized for student and staff population of 88 individuals. This plan also includes a student hostel that would house as many as 24 students during the shorter summer classes and significantly less students during the nine-month program. This Maximum scenario includes future potential growth, but would not be our first build out. Our first campus would be sized for a total of 50-60 students and staff. Eliminating half of this property for development will significantly reduce our site design options. We believe our development at this site will not have a significant negative impact on County services, the environment, adjacent property owners or overall traffIC. We will have an impact, but we believe that any negative factors will be overshadowed by positive impacts such as increased revenues to Port Hadlock businesses, increased public access to the beach and dock areas, increased meeting room facilities for community groups and building aesthetics that enhance the "early 20th century" feel of the waterfront . , , . . 1 . i . i; : ~ . . I . APR - 8 2003 ( . .., . ., ..J <J: ::) I- 0.. W U Z o U I Z <J: ..J 0.. V) ::) 0.. ¿ <J: U ¿ ::) ¿ ...... X <J: ¿ r .. ..- - m. '::.1 :.-..... - '-"'..-:.. '.;.::3; t. >.;':'.::;1 ~ 1::-., ~ It; 00 ,;_ ,.', I . '"-=:-. ':.~~t , ".- ;2~:; : :-:'. '-:~--~: . !E "..., ...: ¡"'_O .J ::> :..... .:;'.,;. , ~. ,;~~.~. ~....~~~~, -'j -"- -" '~-'- :M':':"~"'__'_ '" ::I a.. ::E: <t U W L.,.c:J !;l 02':; !:; ~d e:¡ 0::1 J: J:P'I :.: U~ U "'<t 0 t;;~ ~ W ^ <t W :;'ZP'I J: ~ J:~~ ~ ~ ~ª~ ~ Z....'V g N co <Þ I I I I ~I ~I t ~ \ \ \ " .......... ---- -- ,./ ~~ - VI C o ..p ë:5 C o u c ..p VI X W I U r- I-t ÇQ I-t :r: X w ~I ~I 8 (')\ \ \. " ........ --- - - . II 15~ ~~ a I-~ ¢1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ <) ,f'> ~ ,:;." ":'.: ;¡ \.:' i,~ \,.1 I' 'I It ,.1 i.... '\.,. .... ..~.'-, " ........."'.·.~I~._..._-~.: t: I <.", ': I ì \ i i , j ;: ¡ APR - 8 2003 '. .:: ,.'1 , ¡ . . i '-".;;',{~ i: ~\~í~:~:T~?:; (~"t i~,~,:, ~.. EXHIBIT D Not applicable to this proposal : 1,.:·;-" (;I' r¡~;~u"i¡:~'-'¡¡ ...\ f'n,: . ·r~.:.~ ;.' ..:; it I.'" I. :.: .::::,,;! 1 f '\ q....... - "-"d ¡ i i; APR - 8 2003 ì i . ~ ... R, ~ .... ~"..........' ....... ¡' ... - . ~ '. ~ '....: 1::'\1. ",' I ~ '" '., . 1.,;;-' EXHIBIT E Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding Item 14 of the Application, explanation of the Rezone 14 (8) The only substantial change since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan would be the recent 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle in which this property is in the proposed Tri-Area UGA. 14 (b) We believe the assumptions that form the basis of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are still valid. "The Comprehensive Plan is a living document and will change as circumstances, challenges and outside influences change" (pg. XI). We believe our specific request for a site-specific amendment is a change that fits well within the intent and design of the Comprehensive Plan. 14 (c) We believe our request is consistent with several of the "basic principles" of the Comp Plan Vision Statement (pg. x). We help "support a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by recognizing existing local businesses...which are compatible with and complementary to the community". The NWSWB has been active in Jefferson County for over 20 years by providing skills to people workirig in the marine trades. The summer and fall students bring in outside dollars to the tune of between $1-2 million per year that is spent in the County for all manner of living and entertainment expenses. This proposal will help "reinforce and enhance the historic sense of 'place' or 'community' around traditional population centers" and "..the strengthening of local communities". This property adjoins the current commercial center of Port Hadlock, thus continuing development within a population center. The architectural style of proposed buildings on the site and the current NWSWB properties on the waterfront all will have a "historical" flavor that will be reminiscent of the early part of the 20th century. ******************************A4AAAAAA**.********* One of the stated Strategies is (pg. 7-17) " A. Adequate Land and Infrastructure for Economic Development". Under the Action Items for this are the following: 11. (pg.7-18)" Actively promote vocatio,nal training and educational opportunities that strengthen and increase the skills available in the local workforce." 12, (pg. 7-18)" Encourage educational outreach programs (WSU" Peninsula College, Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding, and private programs) designed to train people in recreational and tourist related activities, small scale entrepreneurship, and marine trades." The NWSWB has been teaching people for over 20 years both woodworking and boat building skills. We plan on continuing this core activity in the future and are looking at ways to increase the breath of our curriculum and its effectiveness. One example of this would be the recently initiated Community Woodworking Program that is targeted specifically for County residents. ****11.41"'''''..''",.,********************************* A few points from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that this proposal directly r . ". .--~::.,--- -. _ __taddresses include the following: . ~ ... ... .. .,. i. . . _ : ';: 1) Rural Commercial. Land Use (pg. 3-68) ~, , LNG 4.2 "Encourage a variety of commercial, retail, professional, tourist-related, a ,~: .:., . community service... within the designated boundaries of Rural Village Centers at a ~ ì:~ .. . scale appropriate to protect the rural character of the natural neighborhood." This ¡;, " . proposal would af/ow the NWSWB to fully develop a campus that is in character and proportion to the current Port Hadlock community and that supports the heritage of this area both in use and in design. . . 00 , 0:: a.. < .. .. ,'. ,.... , ...... - ..~. r :": ......... ..,A.... ...... ........ ~~-~.~; ~ , I . ! ~ <..'".:'~., !;. \ \~.~.: i i ,':' ;:-:., ! . -." I ...~ ., . ; , ! ',.", " ,"- , '...- ~ \(::' \ - ..:,. ('~' . \¡~;;.(, ., :').. ~ ~:~ ;..': . . ~.. .", . : -J 00 I a:: 2æ .-.---.j :. \ ((:-~~.::']:;;.;~._~ 2) Rural Commercial Land Use (pg. 3-70) LNG 4.6 "Ensure visual compatibility of Rural Village Center commercial ¡nfill development with the surrounding rural area... shall be scaled and sized to preserve the natural character of the neighborhood." The proposed site is in a "topographic hollow" open to the waterfront and lower than the level of the Hadlock commercial center. This physical separation makes the proposed site more of a waterfront than an upland property. The period design of the buildings on this site will enhance the "waterfront character" of Lower Hadlock. 3) Transportation (pg. 3-87) LNP 17.1 "Encourage development and land use proposals that utilize existing transportation systems and provide non-motorized transportation opportunities." The NWSWB has plans to develop a Public Access Trail (initial design completed through a Washington State DOE Planning Grant) through this property and down to the waterfront, thus, encouraging public use and providing student access to the Port Hadlock businesses for lunches and temporary housing. The proximity of public transportation and this Trail will allow students to live in the area and commute via mass transit. A public easement has recently been granted to Jefferson County for the first leg of this trail between t~ two NWSWB waterfront buildings. 4) Education EDG. 2.0 (pg. 7-11) "Encourage programs aimed at providing education,job training .. and retraining, and skills enhancement that are responsive to the changing needs of local businesses and residents." EDP 2.1 (pg. 7-11) "Support the expansion of adult education opportunities available to Jefferson County residents who seek... ... vocational training and retraining, skills or knowledge enhancement..." The NWSWB provides an Associate Degree in Occupational Studies through its nine month program as well as a variety of ways to improve specific skills related to the marine trades. ************************AAAAAA.AA~AAAAAAAA*~ .., This proposal also supports the following goals of the Growth Management Act: 1. Urban Growth (pg. 1-13): "Encourage development on urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner". This proposal is adjacent to existing commercial development in Port Hadlock. The public facilities and services needed for future campus development already exist. 2. TranspOrtation (pg. 1-13): "Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans". The future development of the site in question will include a Public Access Trail that will reduce the number of vehicular trips needed by the NWSWB students and staff and will also allow access to the general public. The Trail is included in the Jefferson County Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trail Plans. 14 (d) We believe the NWSWB proposal meets the concurrency requirements for transportation in that no capital improvements are needed to accommodate this proposal. We have come to this conclusion based on the following: Initial verbal discussions with Washington State DOT and Jefferson County Public Works Indicate that no capital improvements will need to be made for State Route 116 or to Lower Hadlock Road. Discussions with the DOT were based on the Maximum Planned CamDus (88 persons) and it was determined that it would take some 200 left hand turns during peak hours from SR 116 r .. .- ........-... ''''-.' . , . onto Lower Hadlock Road to trigger a traffic study. The maximum campus case is well below that threshold. Conversations with Jefferson County Public Works have centered on a more realistic near term NWSWB population of 60 persons. No significant capital improvements were required as long as the NWSWB continues development of its planned Public Access Trail. This planned trail is included in the recently completed Jefferson County Non-motoriZed Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan. The Trail will significantly mitigate the lunch time vehicular trips by NWSWB staff and students by providing access from the campus to the Port Hadlock restaurants and food establishments. There will also be bike racks and showers on the five-acre campus plan to encourage bicycle use. The general public will also have access from the town center to their historic waterfront and beaches. Both SR116 (Major Collector) and Lower Hadlock Road (Local Access) have an adopted level of service (LOS) standard of C. For SR 116 (Table 10-7) from lrondale Road to Flagler Road the LOS Capacity ADT is 7400, Existing ADT 4800 and the forecast ADT for the year 2018 are 5,857. The maximum campus plan will not significantly alter these numbers. For Lower Hadlock Road from Oak Bay Road/SR116 to Water Street the LOS Capacity ACT is 7400, Existing ADT is 584 and forecast ADT for year 2018 is 713. The existing LOS and the forecast LOS for Lower Hadlock Road is both a B. This proposal will have an effect on the current and forecasted numbers, however, minimal increases should occur after the campus build out as there is little room for additional development along the waterfront. 14 (e) This proposal will have minimal impact on public services. There is underground electrical power and water just outside this property. NWSWB has recently installed a septic drain field on an adjacent property easement with treatment tanks located on one of our waterfront properties (see Health Department Septic Permit # SEP01-o0058). The current road system and planned roads to the campus will provide access for fire and emergency vehicles. 14 (f) We believe our proposal is consistent with many specific goals, policies and implementation strategies as stated above. We believe we are attempting to utilize this topographically distinct area in a manner that benefits the NWSWB, surrounding businesses, residents of Port Hadlock and Jefferson County. The proposed usage on this site enhances the future competitiveness of the NWSWB, the maritime heritage of the waterfront area and promotes public access and involvement in both active and passive water-oriented activities such as kayaking, sailing and picnicking. 14 (g) We believe this project will not result in significant adverse impact to County services and facilities. The move of the NWSWB to this site from Glen Cove will result in some different service providers and response centers, but the overall net effect to Jefferson County should be negligible. 14(h) To our knowledge this proposal would not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities. 14 (I) " "" ,~. (i) Access: This site has existing road access via SR116 and Lower Hadlock Road with access to and from the campus site via Lower Hadlock Road. The Public Access Trail will also provide pedestrian access from the Port Hadlock level down through the five-acre campus site and then onto the waterfront. ;:,) : ~ . :<~. .~.: , "'of. . (ii) This site has water and electric hookups just off the property boundary. A septic drain field and treatment tanks currently exists and will require only the addition of a few holding tanks and connections to the current system. The physical site is somewhat of a "topographic hollow" that is open to the waterfront. All existing residential and commercial buildings at the Port Hadlock I:.' ." OC) I a: c.. 4:( , .- '¡:.' J' . . ,. , .., .(iii) ; :.: .~: ~.: : ....J '" ........ ..,,,, .~j, town-center level are at least 30 feet higher than the highest terrace on the property in question. The cottages and café along Water Street are physically separated from view of this site by an intervening ridge. The three existing terraces of this abandoned gravel pit site will allow for a campus plan with somewhat separated areas for buildings, school parking and public boat trailer parking (on a full five-acre campus only). This site is surrounded by both residential and commercial properties. As stated above, we feel this physical site has a natural isolation that will somewhat Insulate all Inhabitants above our campus from our activities. We also feel the campus will provide a visual transition from a more modem commercial area to a historic waterfront. This proposal seeks commercial zoning for the entire property, instead of the current split, to allow for a full campus development using a ·condltional use" pennitting process per the UDC. 14 m We do not believe our proposal will create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties as most of the surrounding properties to this site are already developed. Commercial development in the Kivley Center and residential homes on Curtis street occupy the Port Hadlock level. The Ajax Café, Skunk Island Cottages, Port of Port Townsend boat launch and the two NWSWB owned buildings occupy much of the waterfront level. 14 (k) We do not believe this site-specific amendment materially affects the land use and population growth projections. The NWSWB has been in existence for over 20 years so it is assumed that some, if not all, of the NWSWB population and its impact were figured into the original Comprehensive Plan. The move of the school from Glen Cove to this site will merely redistribute that population within Jefferson County. 14 (I) The site is located within the Port Hadlock RVC and the Tn-Area UGA. Adequate facilities and services currently exist and this proposal should not significantly impact them. 14 (m) As shown in some of the above answers, we believe this proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County in such broad areas as Land Use, Rural Element, Economic Development, Education and Transportation. - .., c' . , I; APR - 8 2003; .< ,". . ..,.' ECOLOGICAL LAND SERVICES, INC. ---=-- November 23, 2003 Via Hand Delivery Board of Jefferson County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: MRL 03-231 Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Lands Overlay Penny Creek Quarry Ecological Land Services represents Marilee and Gary Phillips, Kelly Phillips, Richard R Maki and Kristen Maki in connection with expanding the Mineral Resource Land Overlay District (MRL) for parcels adjacent to the existing Penny Creek Quarry south of Quilcene. This letter is written in response to materials recently submitted to the Board by Michael and Dora Whittaker in opposition to the proposed MRL expansion. In considering the Whittaker's comments, we ask the Board to recognize that there are statements from several neighbors in the record supporting· the Mineral Resource Lands designation. For the reasons outlined below, the comments submitted by the Whittakers do not form a basis for denying the Mineral Resource Lands Overlay for the areas adjoining the Penny Creek Quarry. A. Prior MRL Designation/Prior Complaints The great bulk of the Whittaker's submittal relate to allegations concerning the designation of the Penny Creek Quarry as a Mineral Resource Lands area during the 1990s, and noise and other complaints also submitted during the 1990s. Approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of the items listed relate to activities in 1995, 1996 and 1997. It must be strongly stated that the current Mineral Resource Lands Overlay expansion proposal is not a development or operations permit request, nor is it further hearings on complaints on past or current operations. Mining in the proposed Mineral Resource Lands Overlay expansion area will require permitting by the County and the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and permit conditions will be addressed at that time. The Phillips fully recognize that their operations are subject to the applicable DNR and County regulations and intend to design a mining and reclamation plat for their entire MRL area that meets those standards. Should there be a need, the Phillips will not object to reasonable conditions on those permit(s). B. Department of Natural Resources Reclamation Plan and Permit As has been stated in the Phillips' application materials, the Department of Natural Resources has concurred with the Phillips' schedule of filing a reclamation plan for the Penny Creek Quarry after a decision is made on this pending Mineral Resource Lands 1157 - 3rd Avenue, Suite 220 . Longview, Washington 98632 . (360) 578-1371 . Fax (360) 414-9305 Board of Jefferson County Commissioners PhillipslMaki MRL Overlay November 23,2003 Page 2 Overlay change. The Department of Natural Resources recognizes that filing artd· submitting a reclamation plan is a comprehensive and complicated process and that the plan depends upon the configuration and scheduling of mining. The Department of Natural Resources has specifically not required the Phillips to file two reclamation plans-'-One for the current operation and MRL overlay area, and one that would cover the current and expanded MRL area, if approved. c. Known Extractable Mineral Resource Penny Creek Quarry has been verified as having known extractable mineral resour-ce in commercial quantities. It is a commercial deposit of material comparable in quality to what is produced in other quarries in Jefferson County. The Penny Creek Quarry material has important uses, stich as maintenance of County roads. The deposit is a commercially extractable mineral resource. D. Surface Water The Penny Creek Quarry currently has an NPDES permit (W AG501403) for·stormwater discharge. All stormwater run-off is treated prior to discharge. The Phillips are unaware of any violations, or complaints of violations of its NPDES permit, or any other applicable stormwater management regulations relating to the Penny Creek Quarry. E. Groundwater The current and proposed mining use at the site will not affect area ground water. As noted there is a licensed stormwater treatment pond. Further, all mining activities are·or will be at the elevation of Penny Creek Road or higher, well above the wells in the vicinity. No significant ground water withdrawals are involved in the operation. The area being mined is hard rock, and has low permeability. Operations in the newly designated area will require full review including potential ground water impacts through the environmental review associated with the county permitting process (UDC 3.6.5, 4.22, 4.24 and 6.17) coupled with that for the Department of Natural Resources required reclamation plan. F. Blasting Suggestions continue to be made of improper blasting procedures or possible blasting damage. Blasting is an extremely heavily regulated business, and any violations or damage resulting from blasting are serious. The Mine Safety and Health Administration conducted a review of Penny Creek Quarry operations in the Spring of 2003 and found them to be in compliance. Although not a requirement, as a courtesy, the Phillips have telephoned those in the vicinity to notify them of planned blasting. Records maintained by blasting contractors show that the blasting operations are well below the limits of state regulations. The Phillips are committed to strict compliance with all blasting regulations. Board of Jefferson County Commissioners Phillips/Maki MRL Overlay November 23,2003 Page 3 G. Noise Neighboring property owner have made repeated prior allegations of noise violations. Yet, there is no documented scientific evidence submitted that there has been any violation of the applicable noise regulations by the existing operations, nor any substantive evidence that continuing the operations at the same level will result in such violations. The Phillips have submitted valid noise level monitoring data in the record, and are in compliance with the applicable noise regulations. All future operations will be subject to State noise regulations. The Phillips are agreeable to application of the current UDC regulations to the existing grandfathered operations (subject to the requested clarification to allow truck loading to commence at 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, and to allow truck loading and hauling from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Saturdays). This will limit hours of operation for the entire facility to the benefit of the neighbors. H. Conclusion Expansion of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay District for the tracts adjoining the existing Penny Creek Quarry is consistent with the UDC, and is appropriate for this area. The Phillips do not propose increasing the intensity of their operation, but simply continuing it into adjoining areas within the overlay zoning district, between their existing operation and the recently acquired and grandfathered former Jefferson County quarry. In fact, current reclamation rules require that mining, and reclamation, be conducted in a progressive and sequential manner, rather than area wide. The impacts discussed in the SEP A process are not legally significant, and are subject to mitigation and controls that will be applicable to any projects receiving permits in the district. On behalf of the Phillips and Maki families, we appreciate your consideration of these matters. Very truly yours,. /~. ~/-=.~ I'~·, \.~ I. ( ki:Ji;?ng V ( " :::;:,. I; f~ if ~ ~ ~ f J { ! j i .. l ! II" P t .....z 2S¡ ::¡m ...... 0"1;1 s~ f!~ 0.'" "'..... 0.0 <'" -. '" .,,,, "".... a~ "" ~ gs¡o "'..... 0.0 OJ'" r;§¡ §:El "N ¡;;~ 8.a "'''' 0<>. ¡¡¡s¡o ¥'o ~ !11 ¡¡¡ '" ã' 3 "" ., ð !It I f:ågQ.~~z ~I m.. :i 'ã:'" ~ :: ::c~ ~ ,,~ 0 '" ?! ;: > g~ "'''''' r 1ICI <>!!! 0'" o~ ª' ª- S· a §~~ m mmåià[~ '" ~g :;:¡ ~~ ª' 3'" '" ~.o '" '" <> ~ !1.'g ::.: - .en "",'< .... C::J .. g. .", " ' ",' âif 3 ;; '" ª' j! "'''' ~~! ~ !fta~m~(þt; H' -m ~ F f f ~ ~ i $ ,... o! 011 ~ " i~!;~~& ~~ <g3 ! -! ~. !2: ¡¡¡ !1. J!t ~ ~ >", ~~ ¡¡; $ <> '" ~s;; ~~~z.i§'~ $ gJlJ ~~ ,... ff> ¡ ::c JJ a a 16 "',... J;;' " ¡¡ ~ 0 "' ¡¡¡ $I æ: " &' ~~ ~g~ig:~i g~ g~ ê. ê. 16 '" ~ m 'ª s ~ ~ ~. ~ ! ,;; w 'õ ~ $ ¡¡¡g (";I Q; ø- ii !!. '" ~3 g c 7' ªª' gi°5:(¡ 3 3 " œ '< " it'Þ = Q)"t! '" ~ fiI .s " -o~ f!. ECOLOGICAL LAND SERVICES. INC. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING AND LAND PLANNING 115731<1 Ave.. Su~e 220 Longview. WA 98632 (360) 578-1371 Fax: (360)414-9305 DATE ~ DWN. --MM.- APPR. ~ REViS. EXHIBIT A WM. Penny Creek Quarry 450 Penny Creek Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 Office 360-765-3413 Fax 360-765-3391 November 19,2003 Board of Jefferson County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: MLA03-231--Planning Commission Recommendation Covenant Trucking Hours As owners of Penny Creek Quarry we appreciate the Planning Commission and Staff recommendation of approval for the mineral resource lands designation for the Penny Creek Quarry expansion area in Quilcene Washington. The Penny Creek Quarry provides 6 family wage jobs in the Quilcene area, and is the primary source of rock, crushed rock, and gravel, between Shine and Shelton. Expansion of the mineral resource lands designation will provide the flexibility to expand a mining operation that will increase the safety, efficiency and compatibility with the area and be beneficial to the community. However, we believe that two of the recommended conditions of approval, No.2 and No.5, as included in the October 15, 2003 memorandum, do not accurately reflect the intent of either the staff or Planning Commission as memorialized in the minutes of the September 17, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Condition No.2 calls for a covenant running with the land to be recorded that would require all,...-" the mineral resource lands overlay to be at least 1 0 acres. Our intent with this application is to e....... MRL overlay for a total of over 50 acres and then develop a mine plan for the entire site. Several oftbe parcels included in the application are smaller than 10 acres. Our proposal to the Director of the Department of Community Development, and his concurring recommendation to the Planning Commission (based upon prior precedent and hearing examiner decision) was to record a covenant that would require all tracts within the new MRL to be treated as a single unit for regulatory purposes related to mining, and not to be separately saleable unless the MRL went away or mining operation completely terminated. This covenant would have the effect of maintaining tracts 10 acres or larger. We continue to offer this covenant and believe that it will satisfY the requirements of the code. We will provide a copy of the covenant, reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney, at the hearing on November 24. Condition No.2 should be changed to read that a covenant running with the land shall be recorded on the referenced parcels to prohibit their separate sale, maintaining parcel groups of 10 acres larger, in the fonn attached. Condition No.5 also needs a minor change. With the exception of the strict limitation of hours of operation by the county code, we have no disagreement with applying the standards of the Unifonn Development Code Section 4.24 to the current operation area as we design and submit a mine plan for the entirety of the site. In our existing operations, haul trucks, including numerous County haul trucks, are loaded and heading out between 6:00 and 7:00 in the morning during weekdays. This gives the County and private contractor work crews a full day of work with materials, which is very important especially during have rain events. Other quarries in Jefferson County also commence loading at 6:00 or 6:30 a.m. The written Planning Commission and staff recommendation states that the grand fathered operations should be subject to the new operational regulations of the Unified Development Code. As stated above, we have no objection to this ~ as those Penny Creek Quarry 450 Penny Creek Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 Office 360-765-3413 Fax 360-765-3391 regulations might be construed to prohibit the loading of trucks between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays, at our existing operation site. We include proposed language below as a supplement to Condition of Approval No. 5 for the mineral resource lands designation proposal. This language would retain this important operational and public need component of our grand fathered operation, and clarifies that the new development rules would not be interpreted to prohibit that truck loading. The proposed supplementary language is as foUows: "Due to a continuing public need for truck loading commencing at 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and for limited Saturday loading, grand fathered operations in the preexisting qull11)' areas of truck loading from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon on Saturday shall remain grand fathered and/or shall not be prohibited. Regulations in the Development Code concerning extraction and reclamation shall not be construed to prohibit such truck loading." All loading operations during these important early morning and weekend hours would have to meet the noise standards found in Chapter 173-60, Washington Administrative Code. We thus ask you to approve the mineral resource land designation with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, with a revision to Condition NO.2 to allow a covenant to bundle the multiple existing tracts in the proposal into 10 acre units, and with the supplementary language added to Condition No. 5 to ensure that this key truck loading time is not restrained. We thank: you for your efforts on behalf of Jefferson County and your thoughtful review of this matter. Sincerely, ..'ì /~--!r-j I. '/1' .J. ~ f Garygrrn!./:~..rr í ,--^" "' i . IÆ tL.ul- Marl Phillips Enclosure: Planning Commission meeting 09/17/03 minutes WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Mark S. Beaufait, Esq. Black Lowe & Graham, PLLC. 701 5th Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98104 DOCUMENT: MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT COVENANT GRANTOR(S): Marilee Phillips, Gary Phillips, Kelly Phillips, Richard R. Maki, and Kristen Maki GRANTEE(S): Jefferson County Department of Community Development PARCEL Nos.: Parcell: AFN No. 702224003 Parcel 2: AFNNo. 702224010 Parcel 3: AFN No. 702224023 Parcel 4: AFN No. 702224024 Parcel 5: AFN No. 702224025 Parcel 6: AFNNo. 702224026 ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: PARCEL 1: [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. PARCEL 2: [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. PARCEL 3: [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. PARCEL 4: [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M.] PARCEL 5: [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. PARCEL 6: [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. COVENANT - 1 MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT COVENANT (No Monetary Consideration) This MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICT COVENANT is made and entered into this _ day of , 200x, by and between Grantors, Marilee Phillips, Gary Phillips, Kelly Phillips, Richard R. Maki, and Kristan MaId ("Grantors"), and Grantee, Jefferson County Department of Community Development ("Grantee" or "County") as follows: I. Parcell: Marilee E. Phillips and Gary Y. Phillips, are the owners of the following referenced parcel ("Parcell "): AFN No. 702224003 [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. II. Parcel 2: Marilee E. Phillips and Gary Y. Phillips, are the owners of the following referenced parcel ("Parcel 2"): AFNNo.702224010 [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. 11111. Parcel 3: Gary Y. Phillips is the owner of the following referenced parcel ("Parcel 3"): AFN No. 702224023 [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. IV. Parcel 4: Kelly Y. Phillips is the owner of the following referenced parcel ("Parce14"): AFN No. 702224024 [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. COVENANT - 2 V. Parcel 5 Richard A. Maki is the owner of the following referenced parcel ("ParcelS"): AFN No. 702224025 [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. VI. Parcel 6: Kristan N. Maki s the owner ofthe following referenced parcel ("Parcel 6"): AFN No. 702224026 [] SE 1/4 Sec. 22, T27N R2W, W.M. VII. Mineral Resource Lands Overlay: The Grantees have applied for and received a Mineral Resource Lands Overlay designation for Parcels 1 through 6. A condition for the Mineral Resource Lands Overlay approval is the implementation and adoption of the following covenant. VIII. Purpose: For the purposes of complying with the County's comprehensive plan and development_ regulations, the Grantors desire to treat Parcels 1 through 6 as combined as 10 acre tracts, and in particular desire to do so for the purposes of mining under the Mineral Lands Overlay. IX. Assurance to County: The Grantors desires to assure the County that Parcels 1 through 6 shall be and remain as contiguous 10 acre tracts for the duration of any Mineral Resource Lands Overlay zoning. X. Grant of Covenant For and in consideration of the mutual agreements herein and approval of the Mineral Resource Lands Overlay, Marilee E. Phillips and Gary Y. Phillips as owners of Parcel 1, and Parcel 2, Gary Y. Phillips as owner of Parcel 3, Kelly Y. Phillips as owner of Parcel 4, Richard A. Maki as owner of Parcel 5, and Kristan N. Maki as owner of Parcel 6, hereby grant to the County the right to enforce the following mutual restrictive covenant, and further declare, COVENANT - 3 covenant and agree that Parcels 1 through 6 shall be considered aggregated as and remain as contiguous minimum 10 acre tracts for the duration of any Mineral Resource Lands Overlay zoning and mining activity. During the pendency of any Mineral Resource Lands Overlay zoning, no mining activities shall take place on any parcel or parcel group less than 10 acres in size. This restrictive covenant shall not be removed unless such an action is approved by the County. XI. Running with Land: This restrictive covenant affects and restricts the described Parcels 1 through 6. This covenant shall run with the land, and shall be construed as a covenant running with and touching and concerning the land and inuring to the benefit of the Grantors, their Successors and Assigns, the public generally, and the County. XII. Binding on Successors and Assigns: This restrictive covenant shall bind the successors, grantees and assigns of the referenced parcels. The easement and covenants shall be in perpetuity, and may be terminated only by the mutual agreement of the owners of the referenced properties and the County or otherwise by law. XIII. Recording: Upon its execution, this Restrictive Covenant shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. All contracts and deeds or other instruments of conveyance relating to the property or any part thereof shall contain reference to this covenant. XIV. Enforcement: In addition to any other party having a legal right to enforce this covenant, the County shall have the right to enforce and compel compliance with this covenant, including all remedies available at law and equity. The County shall have the right in any such proceeding to recover its attorneys fees and costs. xv. Estoppel: The Grantors by this Restrictive Covenant specifically estop themselves and all of their successors and assigns and all persons presently or hereafter having any interest in the property from asserting or contending in any manner that this Restrictive Covenant is not a full and adequate covenant running with the land and binding upon the property. XVI. Severance: Invalidation of this covenant by judgment or court order shall not affect any of the other covenants which shall remain in full force and effect. COVENANT - 4 DATED: November 24,2003. STATEOFWASIDNGTON) )ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) IA] [ date] / / --- / / --- / / --- / / --- / / --- / / --- On this day personally appeared before me , known by me to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IB] [date] IC] [ date] ID] [ date] IE] [ date] IF] [ date] GIVEN under my hand and official seal this _ th day of COVENANT - 5 , 2000. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Jefferson County. My commission expires: Printed name: On this day personally appeared before me , known by me to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this _ th day of phil-5-1000d02 COVENANT - 6 , 2000. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Jefferson County. My commission expires: Printed name: ( I + ~ w. ;-...... ~ 0 ~I 01 Xi ~ ~: 8 2: ê '§ I I f f fH ~ 8. 1 ~!! ~ f f f: ¡;¡ ~i 9r §, ~ Id ~ld?l: £0 ::;:)0::' 2~ 'ôntj £8£6ÞT709£:: 'm~ y:l::Jd -a m z ZZ 0< -n fn:a mm i:ftI o~ ZD -c d~ æ" z< G)¡: r-" 0,.. ~e OJ:- zz en - o z ( '~ ~ / '"' ::> - :> - D l. :> - ) ,) ::) ::)~ v(J1 N o ~ (J1 N (J1 1 ~ (J1 W o ~ (J1 . . W (J1 ,,- ~ -- 0 .~~~--. n' o '~'--r___ C : ~ » ;0 ;0 -< ,-------~-: ~~- "0 "U , ~ » ""4" .. --.......~..~,- ~ ., o Z~ (J) ~' , , , , , ~-"~- ~s- : ~ , , , , ..~, w o " dB - ~ ~ ~ ~ r -....J co c.o 0 ~ N W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..þ.. o (J1 o CJ) o , , , , , : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : I , F~-' \. Z ~~ . -Jo. NCO - .. .-.. - W OJ CO -0 š: , -- .....- -,.. - . - - - - - -. ~ ~ .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - .. - - -. . - - . - - - - - - - - ~ . . . - . - - . - - . - - - - - --===i=:==- T--~ , , , , , , -- '" ~ ------ , , : , - .--~ ~ ---'.-..". ~ . - - -. - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ -.. - -. - - - - - - - - -- , , -----.-. ------.----- -------.----- .. , .:0--- --.--=~ - .. --~ -~ ~ ...-- --. -=--....: r =-'" -.--.- ._,--_._------~ n .. .. -- -. .. - .- .. ------- ----------- ---.---------- ---._-------- --.------ --- --=: ~_._c~.__ i~ ~- .. .- :.....~-~-'::c,"-: ~~ .W .þ.-Jo. Q..þ. OJo -0 $: ~ .. --....- ~ ~,.-.,;.--~.".- c __. ~,-- ~-....---____;....c:..3··-·· ,...::...: ~' , , : ~ : --.. ~ : -_.~~-:--:-:-~:~.._~~.__._-_..~._-_._---_. -------.-------- -.-.--------.- _.-----.---.- '-'... ~-_.'"''',,~ . , ------- ~_.._----; .--. _w_. ..... ..¿-- I -.-, , --~ ... ......- .---.------ --------L...... __ , : ~,~;lí~~~~~Jiti~j~~~~;-,;,~~~" ~ ~ ~ ~(j g ~ =' tr1 ~~ p.~ ~ ~ 0 , (.¡J :::. 0 ) ] > . . ) J ) ) J ~ o (j o , , , I , , , , , . I , , , ,. I . . , , I . , , , , , , -...J (j o "'U r . » . -- -..... --.. ";' --. - - ·z--· - ,-... : -I : o "'U m ::u » -I z G) z , 0 ' -_.._..-.._..-:..._-~~---~.-.... (J) m r m < m r -...J ~~ ¡ ) ) dB m o -...J o OJ o <.0 o ....l. o o ....l. N o (j W" . ~ : : , , . . : W co --.... .;... ...----... ·i··- -....... -. .:- .--.. --.... --~.. -.'- .---. .--;--.--.. ... --.. ,.. ..--.... --. -;.... (l... ~ , , : : : : : rT'I(j 1 , " , 'UJ I , , , I , , , , , : » : s: , , , ¡ , , , , , , , , , , ....l. ....l. o , ¡ , I , I , I , I , , I , , , , . , ¡ , , . . , , I . . , ' , . . I . . , , , , " . " , . . _.... .. ,.. . _ ,.. ,.. _ ,..,.. . . _ J _ ,.. ,.. _ ,.. ,..,.. _ ,.. ,..,.. _ ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. _ ,.. ,..,.. ,..,..,..,..,.. _ ,.. _ . _,.. ,.. ,..,.. ,..,..,.. _ _ _ _ _ _ ,.. . _ _ ~ _ _ ,.. _ _ . _ _ . ,.. ~ . _ . ~ _ _ ,.. . _ ,.. _ _ _ ,.. _ _ _ ::u » ." ." o , n.___. --.. -- .--.... -- --.. .-- --.. __. -- .~---------.--- j--------.---.-~--- ---- --z .---- --------- --.---.- .---. . .-. .... -- -- ..~.. - -- - ---'- o co o o co o (j m m < m r (j . . .0 mo Q. .. ro~ » s: --.,... -,.. - -,.. - -,.. , , , - -,..... -,.. -,..,.. .,..,.. ,..,..,.. -,..,..,..,.. _.~ -,...,.....,.. - ~,..,..,.... - -,.. -,..,..,..,..,.. -- --.1-"''''. -,.. -,..,.. _,...,.. _ _ _ _ _,..,..,.. _,..,..,.. _,..,.. ,...,..,..,..,..,.. _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _,.. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _,.. _ _,.. __ , , , , , ... -Jt. W o ~ 111 2 ~ ~n 8@ Zl11 ~~ 618 C > ~ ~ Ð FROM : ?' f' 1:1/211200:1 l!:44 PAX 3BO 4Ql no a ~~ov. 22 2003 1213: 37AM P4 ..£ .* ra¡ 003~[ .;0: .<f.. FAX NO. :3604149305 ORCA! File#213 OLYMPIC RI!GION CLEAN AIR AGENCY (ORCAA) INSPECTION REPORT Penny Creek Querry 413 Penny Creek Rd. Qullcene, WA ge378 ORCAA Staff: John Kelly. AIr Quality Spedallst Source Represèntativea: Mr. Gary Phillip', owner Type of inspection: Unannouneedlannual Date of InepectJon: 1 0/2/0~ P.te of Report: 10/17/03 Source: Introduction I arrived at the Penny Creek Quarry In Qullcene at approximately 10:30 AM on 10/2103 In response to a series of complaints about blasting opeT'itlons at the quany over several weeks. Complainants had reported blasttng depositing matarlal on their property and creating a nuisance, Conditione were dIY, with partly doudy sklel. Temperaturee were in thé mid eo.. Winds were light and variable tending from the north-northeaet. Entrance Interview: I mst therG with the owner Mr. Gary Phillips. The purpose of the site visit was discussed. Mr. Phillips escorted me on " Þr1tf tour of the facility. Pollution Genorating Equipment: The rasence of the fOllow'" e ul ment on site MS verified: Number Manufacturer Type of E ul ment 1 1m act Crusher 1 Jaw CnJsher Capaolty 300 tonlhr 300 tonlh r Inspection Activities · While on site I pèrformed the typical periodic inspactlon to vertfy complia71ce with all app icàble air quality regulationa, I presented my oredentlals and announced my Intention to In$pect the facility to Mr. Phillip.. who escorted me on a brief tour of the faolllty. · The sour~a has water .pray at various points on the two crushing lin.. for dust control. · Mr. Phtll¡ps states that their raw matenalls coastal basalt, Interspersed With dIrt. The material rH!S! felr amount of moisture content naturally, so dust is genérany not an luue In their screening and crushing activities. · At the time only one of the two crushers was operating. · There was no visible dust being generated. · Mr. Phillips was aware of the complaints and Indicated there may be other f.-ctol'S associated wíth the complaints. aa they have just etarted a permit process for expansIon of their activities. They recently acquired the adjacent county quarry, C:\My Documents\!nsp Penny Crel!!\c.doc 11/21./2003 FROM: . ; 11/21(200~ 15:44 FA! 360 4Ql 6~08 FAX NO. :3604149305 Nov. 22 2003 03:38AM P5 ORC..u. IjI 004 , File #213 · Mr. Phlllíps indicated the area where they are blasting. a steep rook face about 150-200 feet above the floor of the quarry. He stated that the material ha$ æ fair amount of dIrt associáted with it. f¡' FlndlngslRecommendation. · Dust controls ara available and in use for the on the ground actlvltlel, · The faOllity Is apparently well maintained. · The source was advised to continue taking preventative measures for dust control · The source was cooperative In accommodating the unannounced site visit. C:\My Documents\Insp Penny Creek.doc 11/21/2003 -_. G0 3ÐI:1d To: Gary Phillips Penny Creek Quan-y Fm: Rick Wakefield U. S Dept. Of La.bor Mìne Safety and Health Administration Gary, August 25, 2003 This letter is to inform you the findings of the complaint lodged on about June 25'1b. 2003. As per our conversation in June, a decision oC"Negative Findings" ha:s'been made. This deteffiÚnation. was made after inteJ'Views and researching Federal Law. Thank you for YOW" time and patience with this investigation. d'r;J Sincerely,~ Rick Wa.lcetield CMSP Federal.Mine Inspector 9969988ra98 ÞE:9, 8BellSl/80 ¡ 11/2~!2e03 15:?7 , oS ¡vi:;' ( \A~~~ ... . 13607 "013129 ALASKA PACIFIC ~~DRE 'J'lIIIfIIi*Y.>^ ....Jt"r1J101'1 t. A<f'(JtyJSI *' IlMI<ð 017 0faUI0N 1UlUDÐf(J/u CR.I7'RIUÅ AND gpSCT$ e., lPl Dwau olllMnc:s m:omllrl~ ~ I ?I ~ LI1~1Oki Itml' (n.7 -..;.) _ In ~ c:oa.'CI'Ut1Ì1Gà AnIt" IIUdiN:'t' mLncs (~enrl. ~'* r.... øperaUoo~. (In 8507').. t. ~ ... ~ or JlllJnø I"I'.COtDftX'.adc<I fUiddlac:- to pn::"¥dII rhtoIuàd !kit... (19.1 .....,..) ... is .~qod¡ !;()(Ut~ 11C:IU' ~ IInJt~.. (tu 6W?). 1.0 .y. ODI ~ory 1it.1AI .... tdide...."d new IN(fs~e MtM Opétatiðl'W (n......,..:1 . di'JC2ØCr'S at ~5000 I.. c,Ioot-l~m.IMp::'" "'a.~. .2:.G .1'1 WiddJ ~ed Imùt fÞr œilda!1ICe'i new ("(10.'11....;«1 hk.n.e M(j ~ ØIØI,i.) tllMTbÞatlnC- (JulIn ,,*~.'U ß'".iO? ~ œcic':s.~ tklnS .,.. Kal1lM1orM. Alto doWed by o.w h ðreqtJMCIð ~ JOtk. S." 1.1" JI4iiMK ~ I.Q Lhe if.'l'C11IF !,oLlX M.J~c.1C!Ct IIV ( IØCr)' l:ü:.l~ (137 øøI.J vibnllbns_~.IIIU 6"J6>. 9 !Pili ~ 9(M pllOb&bilily ol minot ..,.., from ~iOl:l <M:' ~ (129 ....¡.., /"'f ........ StnIldUflllt... en .~Jtt1I: hoaR:.\.. ~ 00 Y1b~. tìtw\ 1«"'~~.~m.c:u'1' (( LIM: 'I'ihnIe.ic- ~ .he ~. D ÏI''' ¡:lor c~. c:'<INWtnlcdOf\ I~ r1ÚnIH ~ to IW!IIdy ... how~ ('Wt.!i..xaf'" aI. .t"llC'fual (knl. I()!II'IIM ~f ~"'''' ÌYqt''''D(:Y ~s. .ruc- tYnlI dMQIIIC -.n mt.* .~. NøIc: "I1Ic ÜOK at..... IIpJIt)< unJ'f 110 f'C8~' J:lC(:S. not If) an"} odM.... &dIisha or ........ 1 A ,... .., JerY1ltt1l"C: ZK1.an.: dc::siAßcd tu ptCYalt dvc;h,)Jd da.rn2øc (t':~«:1cOOU oj haidtne c:r:IICb). CIr below Stroctur.J1 (t.T,,.gr: lr:vt"i!I. Howr.Yf!..c.lur the exp{osiw:5 UlCrwbo mar'~ ŒJ W<X1c: twldc:r Of a~cent to indMd· uli l"tOUl'les, it Is beoeðclAJ .bar Inoøt haœcs arc cap~bte ot 'Niduund- II. b11.IM.'t "'Clit'on Inþ.:n*k.:s "¡an dJO$e gencnJ1y recommc.nc1c(J for I1Jr C'OmIRUnil)' U ~ ..,fl.. He st'I.otI.k1 2.lm reS1:1e(t1her lletr Jow4're.· qumq ~brafions ~ greater ~c:øWt tar d:atm~ tbto bigh-ft-ç- G1\Cnq vh'2lrtott5, uSIdUy uy ., e,t.'Wf {It ~OOUt 2. In ctta.unsu.oces whk'h dcpllrt &om community n()(m$, Ibe expkJ5i'VC~ WIer WI.l1 b:ve to make: t.n I~ . ~W~t.lon. Mlsoellaaeoas Topk:s Out!': to ~ ÜØúlrMicws. t1,'I.C .~ 0( bbølinJ;; c.tI<::Cf$ t~ bc.iJ:IA Lim- ited ~ w 1Þidc:na~ Thal toploC Js t~ one CCl05t Ü'eqUeActy ~l1coumr.n:"lCt by er:plOSi'&lt'S users, brouøbt ibout priJ1oC¡I~ œcaue¡¡e ofthr...~ t'¢spoMc (If þeopk to bInIi~ opeca.Hol1.!i. fj"cn ID<: tupic of bwDm responM: can be dUc1.13oICd 001)' in I;;l4r'IJ()ry fashion jn ctús Umlrai space. lbt: (ÜIIICl"-;-JOrt '; fmA'}d 10 the f'(':~l"C':nres tiSfr.:d a.t th~ tsE£ ~ . Htlft/:ftxlIJiYAr PAGE ~ ..... " r-: .... ¡...; o -' Þ b p ~ '" ... ::JD ~ 621 IS Q <:> c..;. ..... ç;: ~ B i r~lm1imirI1JCIl--~ 1- - -----'-:=::J[':'" ~~-,¡r¡-¡-¡IT l+ -+----+---~- - ! -0.2 0.0 0.2 . f' '............ DatelTime Trigger Source Vert at 16:37:20 September 15, 200~ Geo: 0.0300 in/s Mie: 0.0290 psi(L) Geo :10.0 in/s 1.0 see at 1024 sps Range Record Time Notes Location: Client: User Name: Converted: turn one pennny creek quarry kmk APPCO September 16, 2003 17:39:30 (V4.02) Post Event Notes Microphone PSPL ZC Freq .+''''.Cl1ànnel Test ,.........: .- , LinearW.eighting 0.00097 psi(L) ?t 0.153 sec N/A Passed (Freq = 20.0 Hz Amp = 469 mv) Tran Vert i Long PPV ZC Freq Time (Rei. to Trig) Peak Acceleration Peak Displacement Sensorcheck ® 0.00500 N/A 0.002 0.0133 0.00000 PaS$ed 0.0350 2.0 0.073 0.0398 0.00156 Passed 0.0100 >100 0.010 0.0133 0.00000 Passed Peak Vector Sum 0.0369 iIVs at 0.073 sec N/A: Not Applicable MicL 1-----+----- r I I I Long i t I I ¡ t III III\WIII'WL___ r rr- ;-~- l_~~·h.CL ¡ Vert T I t T + Tran i: '~.~ ... 0.8 1.0 ); :~, J' .. Serial Nùmber Battery Level Calibration File Name Scaled Distance 2838 BlastMatell/477 6.3 Volts Octobðr 11,2002 by Instantellnc. 08389RH4.U80 72.9 (800.2 ft., 120Alb.) USBM RI8507 And OSMRE 10 5 - No velocity above 0.04 In/s in/s Hz sec 9 in 2 I I ~ ~ ~ C,) 0.5 ,g ~ 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.04 1 2 5 10 20 Frequency (Hz) Tran: + Vert: x Long: ø Jri.l.1I111Lt1~8o\ 1111IWIMUlI.It 1I11JJ.LIUuulII'~P1KI 11 ~- 11111 1£Uf11T1-.rurnïU1 I I 0.4 I 0.6 Time Scale: 0.10 sec/div Amplitude Scale: Geo: 0.01000 in/s/div Mic: 0.00050 psi(L)/div Trigger = ~ - ---4 Printed: September 16, 2003 (V 4.02 - 4.02) Format Copyrighted 1996·1999 I I ----r-- 50 100 > " 0.0 0.0 0.0 -j c -" r , :. 'c'~ , ,.... , , 50 in/s/d Iv 0.00073 P$ i/diV SENSORCHECK (tm) CALIBRATION -1 c r OT=36 FU=82 OV=33 FL=78 OL=36 PM='T69 BL=63 enSOTS passed Mic test ok fa ted 11 Oc t. 2002 stan te l 1 n c . ....¡'1..Jirli"lJc..L L.J0""1'// DLj'ì......., II'¡I- ... SERIAL 4* CLIENT . LOCAT ION USER TRIG SOURCE TRIG LEUEL RECORD TIME NOTES: 2838 U 5.52 pennny creek quarry turn one kmk APPCO geo or 0.030 I n/s 1 S m Ie 0. 02900 psi (U DISTANCE WEIGHT/delay 800.0 ft 120.0 Lb ve r t. à t. 16: 37: 20 15 Sep. 2003 TRAN UERT PPU 0.005 0.035 FREG N/A 2 TIME 2 73 ACCEL 0.01 0.04 PK DISP: 0.0000 0.0016 ; "fy:S 0. Ø'37 it¥/$ a i /3 ms PK"AIR O/P 0.00007 ps ICU at 153 ms FREG N/A . _ SCALED OIST. 73.1 TRIGGERED LONG 0.010 N/A 10 0.01 0.0000 USBM RI8S07 AND OSMRE ANALYSIS ALL GROUND CHANNELS(ln/s) IIiI NO VALUE OVER 0.04 In/s .,. / ./ ~ ,I' "" ~ -;"" / "" þ........ ....... -..---..,.;-" 2. iii 1.1iI 8.5 8.1 ~ '~ u, FRE QUENC"í (H z ) ¡ n/s Hz ms 9 in IliIe> - ..-I-----.---+-------+---+-----+----+--.-_+_~ ..---..-...--- -._-.------..---.---------------~----~-----------~~--f 0.0 f T t + r- -- "I == ~J =------~-.'rr--~~:~----t ... r-- ___L:::-'r_:____ --------' J,~:=-=- :.I1m_IlL_ ------ .. -- -TEr' ---rL-.l!..IT:=\- ,,---- I-:;;;:~-I------;-r- ~I 0.0 f + r t :- -+ t-- . ----JIHTrr--UUC..\'1\¥~lI'¡ '..'Viilllil7WWIIII!\fj¡¡¡ Ænn I r·-·-·" -·--..--r----··-·n~-- -î1I----------------t 0.0 ~- .-+---:1-- ···t----- ,..---.----+- I ---+ I --t~ -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 c· , . ,. ,I _" """" Date/Time Trigger Source Vert at 16:53:43 October 1, 2003 Geo: 0.0300 ¡n/s Mic: 0.0290 psi(L) Geo :10.0 in/s 1.0 sec at 1024 sps Range Record Time Notes Location: Client: User Name: Converted: qulicene WA penney creek Kevin Hartley· APPCO October 7, 2003 20:26:17 (V4.02) Extended Notes penney creek Post Event Notes . Microphone PSPL ZC Freq Channel Test Linear Weighting 0.00007 psi(L)at 0.977 sec N/A Passed (Freq = 20.0 Hz Amp = 469 mv) Tran Long Vert 1 PPV 0.00500 0.0300 0.0100 ZC Freq N/A 2.0 >100 Time (Rei. to Trig) 0.002 0.005 0.000 Peak Acceleration 0.0133 0.0398 0.0133 Peak Displacement 0.00000 0.00038 0.00000 Sensorcheck ® Passed Passed Passed Peak Vector Sum O.0319W$Jilt 0,005 tee. N/A: Not Applicable I ,.......,---- {---- +---- -_.~_._- MicL ~....~--_¥ ....--..-----------. .-.--...-..... Long Vert Tran Event Report Serial Number Battery Level Calibràtion ' File Name Scaled Distance 2838 V 5.52 BlastMate 11/477 6.3 Volts October 11, 2002 by Instantellnc. D8389SAS.9JO 26.9 (324.8 ft., 145.6 lb.) USBM RIS507 And OSMRE 10 -- I ---t I I I I I I I 5 No velocity abo\le 0.04 In/s in/s Hz sec 9 in 2t I ~ 1~ ~ ~ ë::¡ 0.5 0 ãi > 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.04 1 2 20 50 100 > / I + / -/ 10 5 Frequency (Hz) Tran: + Vert: x Long: ø .,. Time Scale: 0.10 sec/div Amplitude Scale: Geo: 0.01000 in/s/div Mic: 0.00050 psi(L)/div Trigger = ~ -- -<I( Printed: October 7, 2003 (V 4.02 ·4.02) Format Copyrighted 1996-1999 :/:Jì ..3 '7 q Lj l! if ~~(! 1- CommissìÕñers Meetmg Minutes Week of February 10, 1997 r¡lPt5 ~3151 ~ - PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Team: AI Scalf stated that he and Gary Rowe have been reviewing the resources for the Comprehensive Plan and the proposal for a Comprehensive Plan team is not a surprise. Gary Rowe added that the staff assumption is that getting the community plans integrated into the Comprehensive Plan. is a priority in the Comprehensive Plan. adoption process. ") HètII'ing Exomine.r Recommendation; To Designate Two Parcels (IS Mineral Resolll'Ce. Ltucds; Located Near Intersection of Penny Creek Road and Highwoy 101, Qllilcene; Gary and Mari Phillips, Petitioners: ,A¡~~.Jt".Ip1IIiv~wì.s ~nnined ÍDcorreAìoUy \a)I....'taàe: Q..ømiC'r~\tlul"pt*,-,~.. When the Hearing fxaminer rcvi.ewed it he made a statement tbat SEI' A would be required on individual surface mining permits or condi.tional uses of the site and the recommended approval of the designation on that basis. Ai Scalf added that he met and discussed this with the applicants and they have agreed to go through the SEPA process at this time. ..,.~.ì~>#j;o. rr'~_WinblíllJI..a.m..I.r~.&i.lùt._ Jl."Ü ... .~; ..' ,~l~f}1rP1, lIt.l. 1"-] ·-:-lMd r1tJ.nJl U' H.íf JJ.W.IUll~J'IIJI·llllt"...A.~"~1XrW" ".~j£tb.eBo&cJ .............to.,.,.."...u I·· r Ch'~;i"~~j$'~,L --r ~_·""'SEP A i& done? Ai Sca1fs.tàdfhat,KVl~Iiko.","'toadopt tRe fiadiltp " andl'~~tioD of thaH~,E~-rm.,,_¿W""""Ñ'~~- .,wiIa" ..L....¿.a..tt crit;e.tiÐlloftbe JcfÏerson ComâyMiDa·a1L_ù.Orwa.+(OøIinan.ce No. 09-0525-95) for designation to mineraI resoW"Ce land. . .', 'i.~,,,,:'<¡ " .inal approval of esignation shall be by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Harpole stated that his assumption of what this really means, is that no mining activities will take place on the property until SEP A is completed. AI Scalf explained that currently the applicant has an approved operation that's been through the Hearing Examiner on appeal trom a citizen of Quilcene. Though the State Jaws on surface mining allows tb.em to do mining activity up to a certain threshold, and since they are currently under that threshold~ they have a legal~ existing, mining activity. To expand that activity to a full blown~ long term commercially significant mining opera1Ïon on over 10 acres would not be allowable unti.l the SEP A review is completed. Commissioner Harpole reiterated that the mining activity is confined to the three acres that is currentJy allowed? Al Scalf indicated that is COlTCCt. Page S . \'OL 23 ~,'rl~ t1f} \þry ,~// CI 0 o ~ "O~ å.8"8]8g ~ ..- 0 bb ~ fI.i o .5::g ! 6~'" o (/.) '0 e:.a .. = d \OoJ;4 c.e ~ O¡ ~ e ~ Q. ~ Ð ~:; ~ ..9 Of;) 8' r-- .a Q "0 CI 0 (/.) 4) Q,) -s +-: ~ -š 5 aÐe~dtn § -ß ~ a o~ Ê O~Oèl:S~O 00 00000 53 "0 .. .- ..0 ~!eã1~õ ocuo= = - ...'-' ° :::i ~ 00 '+-4 ° ~ ..a 2 ~ _~z . tn .....=;e813 = """Oø:s........O o - ° ~ 0- ..ø (+:¡ ~ - - P:a ~ "OèI:S~o ß]g......s_ CI~-= 'Q.~ () èI:S t+-4 ~ 0 """ ~ooo«S..o"o i13~8õ¡ Q....... is .. = ~] a ~ ï.8 ·ã 6 ~ 1ä (/.) g .::: (+:¡ ~ ~ '-' 13 :: t:I "0 t::J'4 èI:S ~ U cö g ã öO =8 CI f·s «S ~.$ ~ td. ~ Oèl:St;..c:-S 0 ...... "O.¡;¡! 00 ~ Q)- å133S-š8~ :: ~ ã;Š ~ g Ë