Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 0823 04STATE OF WASHINGTON Jefferson County An Ordinance Approving Comprehensive } Plan Amendments MLA04-29 and Unified } ORDINANCE No. 10-0823-04 Development Code Amendments MLA04-30 } Regarding the Irondale/Port Hadlock } Urban Growth Area } WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan ("the Plan") originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998; WHEREAS, the Plan and its attached Land Use Map were subsequently amended by this Board's Ordinance #19-1213-02 on December 13, 2002 to include an urban growth area ("UGA") of approximately 1,245 acres in the Irondale/Port Hadlock region of the unincorporated County; WHEREAS, Ordinance #19-1213-02 was timely challenged before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (or "WWGMHB") by an unincorporated association of citizens, that association alleging the UGA created by that Ordinance was not GMA-compliant; WHEREAS, the WWGMHB found the Irondale/Hadlock UGA boundary appropriate, but also directed the County to create development regulations for the UGA, complete the Capital Facilities planning to provide urban levels of service for the UGA and estimate the cost to residents of the urban levels of services that might be provided; WHEREAS, the WWGMHB has determined that the County has until December 2004 to generate, publicize, discuss and adopt the documents that provide the necessary missing elements, i.e., development regulations and documents outlining the scope and type of urban services that will be provided inside the UGA; WHEREAS, the County's staff has, upon express direction from the Board, focused its efforts on completing the UGA `homework' well before that December 2004 deadline and has, through nearly -Herculean effort by staff and the County's Planning Commission, completed the necessary `homework' months in advance; Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 1 WHEREAS, the Board completes the process by the adoption of this Ordinance and now makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Jefferson County County Wide Planning Policy Policies 1, 2, and 3 and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies LNG 9.0, 9. 1, and LNP 9.5 call for an Urban Growth Area ("UGA") for the Tri -Area. 2. The Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study conducted on behalf of the Board in 1999 determined that the future demand for commercial and industrial lands would outstrip the land so zoned and available in rural designations. 3. The Special Study also determined that it would be appropriate to designate a UGA for Irondale/Hadlock. 4. The Irondale/Hadlock UGA meets the following requirements specified in RCW 36.70A.I 10 for a non -municipal UGA ■ Characterized by urban growth ■ Adequate developable land has been designated for residential, commercial, and industrial uses to accommodate the growth for the 20 -year planning period ■ Sufficient area for the designation of open space and greenbelts ■ Urban services such as roads, water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage are provided or are planned for. 5. The Board adopted the UGA boundary on December 13, 2002 through Ordinance No. 19-1213-02. 6. Irondale Community Action Neighbors (ICAN) filed a petition for review on February 24, 2003 concerning the UGA boundary to the WWGMHB. 7. The WWGMHB found that the County needed to establish urban levels of service, capital facilities planning, and urban development regulations. The WWGMHB gave the County until February 27, 2004 to submit a compliance report on the actions taken to bring the UGA into compliance with the Growth Management Act. 8. The County submitted a compliance report on February 25, 2004 to the WWGMHB, which granted an additional 180 days until December 7 for the County to complete the planning or request another extension. The next compliance report is due on December 22, 2004 followed by a compliance hearing on February 17, 2005. Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 2 9. An Open House was held November 18, 2003 to receive public comment on the UGA planning process. 10.A Citizen Task Force consisting of the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, the Chair of the Planning Commission, three Planning Commissioners, and six citizen representatives was formed in January 2004 to create development standards for the UGA and to review Capital Facilities planning for the UGA. 11. The Planning Commission discussed the components of the UGA at its meetings on the following dates: June 18, July 16, July 30, September 3, October 15, November 5, and December 3, 2003; January 21, February 18, April 21, May 5, and June 30, 2004. Public comments were taken at all of these meetings. 12. The Planning Commission UGA Committee met on the following dates to discuss the issues relating to the UGA: June 11, June 25, July 2, July 9, July 16, July 23, July 30, August 6, August 13, August 20, October 8, October 14, October 28, November 5, November 19, November 25, and December 9, 2003; January 6, January 27, May 25, June 1, June, 8, June 15, June 22, June 25, and June 29, 2004. These meetings were publicly noted and public comments were welcomed. 13. The PUD allowed the County to insert flyers into their customers' water bills on separate occasions to advertise the UGA planning process and Open House. 14. An Open House was held on April 14, 2004 to receive public comment on the UGA planning. 15. The Citizen Task Force made its final recommendation to the Planning Commission on April 27, 2004. 16. The Irondale/Hadlock UGA and associated UDC amendments referenced herein have been subject to environmental review in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), RCW 43.12C and WAC 197- 11. On May 19, 2004, the County's SEPA responsible official, Director of Community Development Al Scalf, issued an Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, including a Notice of Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents. 17. The following environmental documents have been adopted pursuant to SEPA administrative rules: Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 3 • 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 / 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 designation of a UGA in the Irondale & Port Hadlock area. 18. The SEPA Addendum and related documents (for example, the UGA element of the Comprehensive Plan, the stormwater management and transportation plans and the proposed UGA development regulations) were made available to the public on May 19, 2004. 19. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the General Sewer Plan on May 19, 2004. 20. The General Sewer Plan had been available to the general public since it was published in draft form in December 2003. 21. There were several comments provided against the then -preferred alternative in the draft General Sewer Plan. 22. The Planning Commission held public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Unified Development Code on June 2 and June 16, 2004. 23. The Planning Commission deliberated its recommendation on June 30, 2004. Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 4 24. The Comprehensive Plan will be amended as follows: ■ The Urban Growth Area Element will become Chapter 2 in the Comprehensive Plan and contains: The Future Land Use map, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas map, and Sewer Service Area map. ■ The current Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "Plan Implementation and Monitoring," will become Appendix H to the Plan. ■ The General Sewer Plan will be adopted as Appendix I to the Plan. ■ The UGA Transportation Plan will be adopted as Appendix J to the Plan ■ The UGA Stormwater Plan will be adopted as Appendix K to the Plan ■ For consistency, wherever required. 25. The Unified Development Code will be amended as follows: ■ Development Regulations applicable within the UGA will be adopted as Appendix D. ■ The Zoning map for the UGA will be included as a part of Appendix D. ■ For consistency, wherever required. 26. The public comments were primarily positive and optimistic for establishing a UGA. Many comments spoke to the need for some commercial growth, the cost of housing, and creating pride in the community. There were several comments against the proximity of the proposed sewer system to an existing neighborhood. All written and oral comments were taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and DCD staff when in formulating recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. 27. The Planning Commission made the following findings: ■ The Planning Commission has held three duly noticed public hearings on the various components of the UGA package. Public comments were taken into consideration. ■ All of the alternatives in the General Sewer Plan need more investigation and fieldwork to determine the most practical alternative. The Port of Port Townsend has offered land near the airport for a sewer treatment facility. Although the Planning Commission did not have time to evaluate the site for a sewer treatment facility, they recommend further study for that location. Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 5 The Planning Commission recommends that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and to the Unified Development Code for the UGA, as refined and transmitted by the Planning Commission. 28. The Planning Commission recommendations came to this Board on July 19, 2004 at which time the Board established a hearing date of 7 PM on Monday, August 2, 2004. 29. The public hearing held on August 2, 2004 was well -attended. Some persons who spoke that evening supported the Board's decision to implement the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA with the documents this Ordinance makes part of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's development regulations. Others expressed support for UGA planning generally, but requested that the Board continue the planning effort to include more analysis and the participation of more residents. 30. In response to the safety concerns voiced by the residents along Curtiss St. at the August 2nd public hearing, the BOCC has determined that commercial zoning designation is not appropriate for the whole of the neighborhood at this time. The Future Land Use map and Zoning map will designate the properties along Curtiss St. as Moderate Density Residential, and will designate existing businesses as well as the lots that front along Alley St. and Irondale Rd. as Urban Commercial. 31. The removal of the commercial zoning designation from the Curtiss Street area would decrease traffic generation and stormwater runoff. 32. Since a) the final iteration of the Transportation and Stormwater Management Plans prepared for this UGA included analysis of the affects of commercial zoning in the Curtiss Street area on transportation and stormwater management and b) there were no proposed transportation or stormwater facility improvements that were directly linked to traffic or stormwater related to the commercial zoning in this area, therefore it does not appear that this change would require changes in policy or Capital Facility Plans related to transportation or stormwater management. 33. Two parcels, 901024102 and 901024103, along the east side of Chimacum Rd north of Church Lane are incorrectly zoned on the Future Land Use and Zoning maps. Parcel # 901024103 has been split -zoned commercial and public along a section line. Parcel 4901024102 was mistakenly zoned public. Public zoning would inappropriately limit the use of the properties. Both Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 6 parcels are adjacent to Urban Commercial zones and will have an Urban Commercial designation on both the Future Land Use and the Zoning maps. 34. Water supply for the UGA will be provided by the Public Utility District #1 of Jefferson County (PUD). The PUD is a water purveyor regulated under regulations of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state Department of Health. Part of these requirements include development of a Comprehensive Water System Plan (WSP) every 6 years. The WSP must address water supply and infrastructure needed within the next 20 years. The PUD has recently (February 2004) completed a draft update to their WSP and submitted the WSP to DOH for review and approval. As part of the review and approval process, and according to DOH procedures, water rights and capacity must be available or planned to meet future demands for the PUD's service area. 35. The PUD WSP for the Tri -Area of Jefferson County identifies the population growth allocated to the Irondale/Hadlock UGA and has planned for the amount of water needed to serve anticipated growth. 36. According to the WSP, the PUD has sufficient water rights to serve the growing population in the UGA over the 20 -year planning period. This is consistent with analysis completed as part of the County's Coordinated Water System Plan (1998). It is recognized that within these rights, source development will be needed to meet future demands. 37. The PUD is currently in the process of increasing the treatment capacity of the Sparling Well by 300 gallons per minute. 38. The PUD has recently constructed a two million gallon water tank and a 280,000 -gallon water tank for storage. Storage not only provides water for fire fighting, but also can reduce the need for short term demand on the PUD's wells. 39. The Chimacum Creek Estuary Project is the "Crown Jewel" of regional habitat restoration projects for the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project consists of inter -tidal and nearshore habitat restoration for shellfish, forage fish, and salmon such as Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook. 40. The scope of the Chimacum Creek Estuary Project includes the removal of an existing rock bulkhead, removal of power line and poles, preservation of dilapidated wooden jail building (circa 1890), excavation of 21,000 cubic yards of nearshore fill from the Irondale Smelter, re -grading 43,880 cubic yards of Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 7 granular sediment to a natural slope to the beach, placement of large woody debris, and construction of an accessible trail. 41. Because the WWGMHB was so explicit in the June 2004 Compliance Order in listing the limited ways in which this County was not GMA-compliant, this Board has determined that it must make additional specific findings responsive to that June 2004 Compliance Order. 42. In response to the determination by the WWGMHB that the County has not yet adopted urban levels of service for this unincorporated UGA, this Board informs the reader that the new Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "UGA Element," at pages 2-24 and 2-25 establishes urban levels of service for this UGA. 43. Furthermore, other levels of service have been and remain established by the County's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998. Examples of levels of service established in the Comprehensive Plan include levels of service for solid waste, parks and recreation, county maintenance shops and animal control facilities. In this regard the reader is directed to a more detailed description of these previously -established levels of service at page 2-13 of the "UGA Element" that is made part of the Comprehensive Plan by enactment of this Ordinance. The relevant pages of the County's Comprehensive Plan that adopt levels of service are incorporated herein by reference. 44. In response to the determination by the WWGMHB that the County has not yet completed a sufficiently adequate capital facilities planning, the reader is referred to the General Sewer Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan and the Transportation Plan, all of which were generated specifically for the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan (1998) addresses the supply of potable water, not only for the Quimper Water system, which currently serves the UGA area, and gives an assessment for the water demands and available water resources for the whole of the region. 45. Adoption of this Ordinance makes the General Sewer Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan and the Transportation Plan part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 46. The WWGMHB also expressed concern in the June 2004 Compliance Order that the County had not yet completed a fiscal analysis of how affordable such urban services would be to a resident of the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 8 47. With respect to the eventual installation of sanitary sewers (in phases) within that UGA, the reader is referred to Section 5 of the General Sewer Plan, which describes different methods for collecting the funds to pay for the installation of such sewers, i.e., by way of example only, a local improvement district (or "LID"), a system development charge (also known as a "SDC") or entirely through monthly charges to those persons and businesses using the sanitary sewer. Eventually, a combination of types of fees and charges may be used. 48. Section 5 of the General Sewer Plan utilizes key assumptions in developing cost impacts for the eventual customer, including the assumption that the initial system would be built at twice the size needed to serve existing water users in the area, and that 45% of the funding would come from grants. Section 5 contemplates at least six different scenarios as ways to pay for sanitary sewers depending on what portion of the UGA obtains sanitary sewers and how they are paid for, that is to say whether a LID or SDC is utilized. 49. For example, if an SDC is chosen, then growth in the form of residential or commercial development will, in general, pay for sanitary sewers as it occurs. According to the General Sewer Plan if an SDC is used to pay for the sanitary sewers the estimated one-time installation costs will range between $1,365 and $4,637 per "Equivalent Residential Unit," or ERU. 50. Note that an ERU equates approximately to a residence, but is more precisely a `term of art' that attributes to any residence a fixed amount of flow that a residence will place into a sanitary sewer system, makes that amount of flow "one unit" and then measures the flow attributed to any other user of a sanitary sewer system, be it a multi -family dwelling, a restaurant or a laundry, against that standard "one unit." The ERU methodology is the standard method of measuring consumption of the service (capacity) that any sanitary sewer can provide. 51. The General Sewer Plan, at page 5-6, also includes an estimate of how much a LID payment method would cost per acre of land inside the UGA. Per acre the annual cost for a 20 -year LID would fall between $965 and $1,330. 52. The General Sewer Plan, at page 5-7, estimates that if the capital costs (in reality, repayment of debt for expenses incurred to install the system) and operating costs were paid for by monthly charges to the users of the system, then the costs to the users of the system would be between $18 and $55 per ERU. Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 9 53. The Stormwater Plan for the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA, at page 8-2, also provides estimates with respect to the costs of implementing and installing the stormwater management improvements described in that Plan. 54. Specifically, the Stormwater Plan discusses two options and would impose a financial burden on a certain class of properties no matter which option was chosen. 55. The first option is to have all developed parcels, residential or not, contribute to the costs of stormwater management because they all create stormwater runoff. The Plan estimates each ERU would pay $2.86 annually under this option. 56. The second option is that only those parcels that are designated for commercial, industrial and multi -family development will significantly benefit from the stormwater management improvements and thus only they should pay for those improvements. If this option is chosen, those affected ERUs will pay $10.50 per year. 57. Additionally, regardless of which option was chosen, those parcels designated for commercial, industrial and multi -family uses would, according to the Stormwater Management Plan, also pay an annual inspection fee of $7.00 per ERU. 58. The Stormwater Management Plan being made part of the County's Comprehensive Plan by adoption of this Ordinance also includes a Chapter 9 devoted entirely to a "Financing Analysis." 59. The Transportation Plan forecasts the growth of traffic for the UGA and identifies necessary system improvements and financing options over the 20 - year planning period. 60. Jefferson County Department of Public Works presented to the Board additional strategies in the UGA Transportation Plan for the development of appropriate access management standards in conjunction with property owners and the Washington State Department of Transportation to enhance mobility and minimize the impacts of additional traffic from development and growth in the surrounding area. The Board incorporates these additional strategies into the UGA Transportation Plan through the adoption of this ordinance. Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 10 61. Finally, the WWGMHB found the County to be non-compliant because it had not yet adopted development regulations that would be applicable within the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. 62. This Ordinance cures that deficiency by adopting Appendix D to the County's Unified Development Code or "UDC." Appendix D is a "use table" for the numerous zones that are established within the boundary of the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. 63. This Ordinance also cures that deficiency by adopting other changes to the UDC to make other portions of the UDC consistent with the existence of this UGA. 64. Having a) satisfied the deficiencies listed in the June 2004 Compliance Order of the WWGMHB, b) provided early and continuous public participation in the preparation of the documents that are made part of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC by adoption of this Ordinance, and c) created an unincorporated Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA that complies with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110, this Board concludes that this UGA is GMA-compliant. 65. The Board is required to consider with respect to any proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment the seven criteria listed in UDC §9.5.4(b), also known as the "Growth Management Indicators," or GMI. 66. Because this is a suggested Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Board must also consider three additional criteria listed at UDC §9.8.1(b). 67. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), which asks if growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring at a greater or lesser rate than anticipated or is failing to materialize, the Board finds that population growth rates are not easily predicted. 68. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), the Board notes that the most recent OFM Population Determination for Jefferson County, based on a corrected Federal Census count, shows a year 2003 (April 2003) population of 26,700. 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 only 944 individuals over that seven-year period between 1996 and 2003 or a less than I% growth rate over the last seven years. Should this trend continue over the next five years, Jefferson County would see a 2007 population of 27,513— 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 Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 11 Jefferson County Resolution 17-96). OFM projects an intermediate series population of 28,308 for Jefferson County by the year 2005. 69. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), the Board notes that 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. 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. 70. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), the Board notes that it is not unreasonable to assume that this shift towards residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services outside of Port Townsend, a demand that the UGA is intended to, in part, satisfy. 71. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(2), which asks if the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased, the Board finds that the number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the County, with the exception of policy decisions made as a result of economic conditions, continues to be equipped to provide the same level of services available at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption. 72. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(2), which asks if the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased, the Board finds that completion of capital facilities and provision of services analysis related to this proposed Amendment and the 2002 designation of an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in the Irondale & Port Hadlock area could result in a situation whereby the level of service available in the County increases. 73. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(3), which asks if sufficient urban land has been designated and zoned to meet projected need and demand, the Board finds that the current population allocation contained in County Resolution No. 55-03, the analysis related to creation of the UGA in 2002, the Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Build -out Analysis of Mark Personius dated March 4, 2004.and the continuing trend for the county's population "share" to increase relative to Port Townsend, allow the Board to conclude that the urban land zoning (within the UGA) scheme proposed as part of these Amendments is appropriate. 74. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(4) and §9.81(b)(2), which asks if any of the assumptions on which the Comprehensive Plan was based are no longer found to be valid and whether new information is available which was not Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 12 considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Board finds that seven years following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the majority of assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. 75. Jefferson County has completed a "Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast" (authored by Richard Trottier and dated 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 was utilized as a support for the creation of the UGA in 2002. 76. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(5) and §9.81(b)(3), which asks if there have been any changes in county -wide attitudes that would necessitate this or any Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Board finds that there has been no change in attitudes, particularly because some residents of Port Hadlock and Irondale have been part of a planning process regarding their communities for two decades or more and were promised a resolution of this uncertainty by the current members of this Board. 77. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(6) and §9.8.1(b)(1), which asks if there have been any changes in circumstances that would necessitate this or any Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Board finds 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 and adoption of the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA. Changes in circumstance such as these suggest that components of the Comprehensive Plan may need to be amended. 78. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(7), which asks if there are any inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, the GMA and the County Wide Planning Policies, the Board finds that the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the County conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC relative to adoption of a new UGA in Irondale/ Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 13 order to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management Act. This review is incorporated into the proposed UGA Comprehensive Plan amendments and the proposed UDC amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows: Section One: The County's Comprehensive Plan be and hereby is amended to include the following documents: ■ A document entitled "Urban Growth Area Element" will become Chapter 2 in the Comprehensive Plan and contains: The Future Land Use map, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas map, and Sewer Service Area map. The Future Land Use map is figure 2-1 and dated August 16, 2004. ■ A document entitled "General Sewer Plan ... Revised Final Draft, May 2004" is made Appendix I to the Plan. ■ A document entitled "Transportation" on its first page is made Appendix J to the Plan, together with one additional strategy as incorporated by the Board as suggested by the Department of Public Works. ■ A document entitled "Irondale and Port Hadlock .... Stormwater Management Plan, May 2004" is made Appendix K to the Plan ■ For consistency, wherever required, pursuant to a 32 -page untitled document that has as its first page a page shown as page 1-8. Section Two: The County's Comprehensive Plan be and hereby is amended so that the current Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "Plan Implementation and Monitoring," is made Appendix H to the Plan. Section Three: The County's development regulations, known as the Unified Development Code, be and hereby are amended to include the following documents • A document entitled "Jefferson County, Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA Implementing Development Regulations, Unified Development Code Appendix D." ■ A Zoning map for the UGA will be included as a part of the above- described Appendix D. The Zoning map is labeled Figure D-1 and dated August 16, 2004. Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 14 ■ For consistency, wherever required, pursuant to an untitled document of 15 pages that has at the top of its first page the phrase "3.1 Land -Use Districts." Section Four: A declaration that any part of this Ordinance is unlawful or illegal shall not cause any other portion of this Ordinance to also be void or invalid. Approved and adopted this 23rd day of August, 2004. SEAL: Ra ... ATTEST: Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSI Men Hunting ord, air Dan i erness, Member atrick M. odgers, Member Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA -- ORDINANCE NO. 10-0823-04 Page 15 L�� Cut C, JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Proposals MLA 04-29 and MLA 04-30 DATE: Monday, August 2, 2004 at 7 p.m. PLACE: Tri Area Community Center NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ZLv F1�.Ld ❑ ❑ IJ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LJ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0— ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ P ❑ ❑ LJ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H1 El 0 El ❑❑❑ r vilc n C lir' �C9T �Dwvr s -e ., 2-70I�n� i i tnv�O�l� 3(o �,AIIT &A Ce ��� ►i f �/ W /. ( S e67Ak: 82 /�f a ��/ PT 17q &-o L K-- b aru (- pe-ot') Sq Pt N o s ' ` m�4 (L)LVrU G (1 vw 9/Lt FT-14Adlectc 14 Trs 1 ,I IrlD,A ZYA V'-Vl S r I6,-+ b d<j4,X IN`JZS �' 1 I C - cLc19 kf�-al, 1( 6,� La'& I,/// JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Proposals MLA 04-29 and MLA 04-30 DATE: Monday, August 2, 2004 at 7 p.m. PLACE: Tri Area Community Center NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ El El 9 El El ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f tf 7Db O i CW *S S 2 ck, X �tiJ U �G � ti �l L✓(, r f(f UP �~ (- JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Proposals MLA 04-29 and MLA 04-30 DATE: Monday, August 2, 2004 at 7 p.m. PLACE: Tri Area Community Center NAME (PI//ase Pri ) ^+" STREET DR SSj, / CITY , Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ❑ ❑ Wo 11 El [W ❑ ❑ IlSI ❑ ❑ fK ❑ ❑ K ❑moi ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ 000 6)iL?1,A,-A- 2LLIf-/t� 1,1JI'lP .4 ic,,- ?W- Z�zA Co L PaLici, QA V0 (-4) Pc�fi 50-,-, � civy 70c9U(1S h1417 L—Iq�44La6,,,�jf rl�,.rz HEARING RECORD August 2, 2004 Tri Area UGA Public Hearing before Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners . °._. 200' Public Comment Todd McGuire ' Y• RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA04-29 TriArea UGA and Unified 6eve4bfpAerrt°6de Amendment MLA04-30 These comments have been developed after review of the following documents: • July 21, 2004 Staff Report on Planning Commission Recommendations • Western WA Growth Management Hearings Board decision 03-2-0010 on Irondale Community Action's challenge of UGA designation • Corrected Compliance order for this case issued June 10, 2004 • Comprehensive Plan proposed line -in line-out edits • TriArea UGA General Sewer, Transportation and Stormwater Plans • Build -out Analysis March 4, 2004 Mark Personius • Proposed CP Chapter 2 UGA Element Background: I was a member of the Jefferson County Planning Commission from 1999 thru May 2003 when my requested reappointment was denied by a 2 to 1 vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Ostensibly the denial was to honor the wishes of Commissioner Dan Titterness, who was narrowly elected to represent my district. While it was Mr. Titterness' prerogative to not reappoint me, I was disappointed by his reasons for such, he indicating that there was a "hole" or lack of understanding on my part relative to the role and responsibilities of members of the Planning Commission or the wishes of the community. My response was that not only was I one of two remaining members who had been through the Comp Plan Special Study and UDC development and adoption process, but am also of a professional background grounded in development and capital facilities analysis. In fact, I was coauthor of a number of Minority Reports which challenged recommendations which, when adopted by the Board, were later successfully appealed. I feel it important to provide this background not only so that the public and Hearings Board understand my relevant experience and understanding of the materials, but also to reiterate the central premise of my involvement: Not enough input has been provided or acknowledged by the Planning Commission in the development of their recommendations and that many pertinent and, in some cases, required aspects have not been adequately considered by the PC or County staff. I have provided unofficial comment to staff over the last year and a half relevant to these issues but have not attempted to influence the Planning Commission as the Chair of that board, Tom McNerney, is a vehement supporter of the pro -development agenda of the three current County Commissioners and prone to dismiss any opinion with which he is not in accord. This current information has only become available in the last few weeks and differs substantially with the information available to the public in the public workshops held months ago. The decision by the BOCC could happen as soon as today, Aug 2, and is an inadeqautely short time for review and comment by the public on this far — reaching issue that will affect all residents of Jefferson County. 1. UGA development history: The original public process included a citizen's committee that made regular reports to the Planning Commission. Input from several of the TriArea residents on the committee indicated a lack of adequate involvement and address of their positions, while those of legal representatives for land holders have resulted in the incorporation of their desires for the subject properties in the new zoning map and development regulations. The Hearings Board has determined that the UGA will stand. The questions left to answer are many. Foremost among them: How will the TriArea residents be represented and communicated with? The history of this process is clearly flawed. 2. UGA boundary: Per hearings board decision, the proposed boundary can be considered for reduction dependent on conclusions of capital facilities analysis. Boundary designation should be based on 6 -year and 20 -year planning window cost / benefit assessments. The Hearings Board indicates that boundary can shrink based on demonstration of fiscal ability to finance capital facilities. This should work in concert with an analytical review of commercial land capacity requirements. 3. Commercial zoning desi ations: There has been no commercial / industrial land capacity analysis done to justify the additional acreage currently included in the amendment. Ironically, in the Hearings Board case, the County cited the Trottier report as the logic behind C/I land use needs (including comment that analysis result was that the County had excess capacity). In the 2002 CP amendments, the County enlarged the undeveloped C/I lands outside UGAs by adding about 90 industrial acres to Glen Cove, Eastview, and Brinnon. The County also added 75 commercial acres at other locations. These new realities have not been addressed nor a revised total of needed acreage determined. From the Hearings Board discussion "However, the southern half of the UGA (now revised to include Rhody Drive) is designated for urban commercial and industrial development. This premature designation is bound to set up a false expectation of urban commercial/industrial development which will be totally inappropriate if urban infrastructure is later found to be fiscally or politically infeasible." italics added This is a disservice to the constituency. 4. vital Facilities Plan: While sewer, transportation and stormwater are being addressed in preliminary fashion, the documents available to the public as recently as the end of Jun did not address cost. The method of payment of the costs presented now should logically be included before a decision is reached. The general categories of "Loans/Grants/General Fund/User Fees" included in Table 2-3 of the amended Chapter 2 are inadequate to tell the public how they will be impacted or where the money will come from. Reduction in infrastructure area should be considered a prudent alternative. From the Hearings Board discussion: "The final step in designating the UGA is capital facilities planning. If the capital facilities planning shows that the area can be provided with urban levels of services, this area will become a UGA. The reality of capital facilities planning, due to the considerable expense of providing urban services, is that this area is not likely to be enlarged, but it could be decreased." Also "Although capital facilities can be expanded, you will need to consider the cost-effectiveness of doing so and the appropriateness relative to community goals. If it will not be feasible to expand or extend a facility and finance the necessary improvements, the land use plan will need to be adjusted accordingly. For this reason, you must work back and forth between your land use analysis and your analysis of capital facility and transportation needs. This is the step that needs to be completed before Jefferson County designates the Tri -Area as a UGA." This is clearly NOT the process currently at work. Aside from cost, the mitigation of traffic impacts caused by, in particular, the Rhody Drive commercial rezones on both safety and congestion under even partial build out of the proposed commercial land increase are not described or addressed. Other capital Level Of Service considerations that are not discussed include law enforcement, trash / recycle or street maintenance. 5. UDC Amendment: The recommended use table includes no limits on building footprint or permeable surface coverage and a 70 foot height cap. These would be applicable across ALL currently and newly designated commercial property including at least one nearly built -out neighborhood. The implications would be laughable if so many families were not potentially affected by them. From the Hearings Board discussion: "The County has also responsibly put in a proviso that until work to determine how urban service will be provided is completed, the rural development regulations will apply. Thus, the County is not encouraging urban development until urban services are available." Also "The GMA requires that cities and counties show how they will be able to serve their UGAs with urban services over the life of their 20 -year land use plan, and RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) requires "at least a six-year funding plan that will finance within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes." Again, these sources have not been adequately identified or presented to the public. The UDC amendment should be tabled until the funding sources for these services are identified and a diverse representation of community members can be informed and involved. This amendment coupled with the extensive rezoning constitute huge change and should be approached cautiously. 6. Intergovernmental Considerations: From page 2-12 of the proposed Chapter 2: "Capital facility planning for Urban Growth Areas should be coordinated among the City, County, and special purpose districts or other service providers who may be affected by the advent of new urban growth and the need to plan for the provision of new urban levels of service for public facilities such as sanitary sewer, potable water and public safety. For affected non -County agencies—who may provide these services—to meet their own capital facility plan goals, the County needs to ensure that it does not permit activity which would be inconsistent with their future plans." This process has not occured. 7. Comprehensive LanQuaue Considerations: From the Comprehensive Plan: Pg. 5-8 Not addressed or updated: Cost Burden Based upon the definition recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jefferson County defines cost burden as the extent to which gross housing costs, including utilities, exceed thirty percent (30%) of gross household income. This is the threshold at which the cost of shelter typically becomes a financial hardship, reducing the amount of income available for other necessary expenses such as food, medical care, and clothing. Based upon the information from the 1990 Census, over twelve percent (12.5%) of owner -occupied housing units in Jefferson County spent in excess of 30% on their monthly housing costs in 1989. For renter -occupied housing units, this figure was over thirty seven percent (37.4%). If a significant number of households spend more than thirty percent of their incomes on housing, it can have negative effects on other sectors of the economy. That is, if limited resources are over -allocated to housing, it comes at the expense of other economic sectors and a diversified economy. This relationship between affordable housing and a healthy economy is fundamental to the quality of life in Jefferson County. This has not been addressed as part of the Capital Facilities planning process. Pg. 10-3: Intergovernmental Coordination The Growth Management Act requires that comprehensive plans, including the Transportation Element, be prepared through a process which includes not only public participation but also intergovernmental coordination. In the case of the development of the Jefferson County Transportation Element, this has included coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), City of Port Townsend, Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson Transit, and Community Planning Groups. The City has not been actively engaged in this development process. Pg. 3-93 CP not addressed in amendment: TRANSPORTATION GOAL: LNG 17.0 Ensure that transportation is safe, efficient, multi -modal, and based on levels of service that correspond to the land use densities in the Comprehensive Plan. POLICIES: LNP 17.3 Include provisions to reduce access from main arterials. LNP 17.5 Establish criteria to identify roadways and areas with significant rural quality and character, and protect these areas from incompatible road construction and traffic impacts. 7. Summary and Recommendations: A. Update the Special Study commercial land capacity needs to include those revisions since adoption of Comp Plan now completed and determine how much (if any) commercial land is needed in this first tier. Include the results of this revision in Chapter 2 and zoning map. B. Revise Rhody Drive commercial land designation to include only those parcels currently designated. This is to address traffic and sprawl concerns as well as capacity issues and consistency with other requirements sited above. C. Investigate future commercial zoning potential along Chimacum Rd between Rt 19 and Hadlock Core. D. Delay UDC amendment language adoption until adequate standards to protect against sprawl and neighborhood impacts can be included. E. Sewer should still be considered to serve those residential parcel near Sparling well to address concerns in the event of failing septic systems there. 12 F. Circulate Chapter 2 of the amended language to other citizen and governmental groups for review and comment. Sections such as the following from pg. 2-10 are subjective and opinion based rather than fact based and deserve wide involvement and approval: During the Special Study many existing businesses in Irondale & Port Hadlock expressed frustration with the inability to expand existing operations due to building size limitations and lot size constraints. Some businesses have left the area to relocate to UGAs elsewhere where the land supply and urban capital facilities and services are more readily available. Even with designation of additional vacant lands for commercial purposes, the majority of the commercial lands designated in the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA comprise lands already characterized by urban growth or are surrounded by such lands. "'7CC. �C C 5�1 �i�Gy Page 1 of 2 Leslie Locke From: Josh Peters Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:15 AM To: Leslie Locke HEARING RECORD Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: UGA Comments Comments for the BOCC re: UGA planning. Per a Board decision last night, written comments will be accepted until close of business Wednesday. From: Jeff & Janet Miller [mailto:jjmiller@cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 8:56 PM To: #Planning Department Subject: UGA Comments August 2, 2004 Comments on UGA Planning I have several complaints about the proposed zoning and land use districts in the UGA. Two are specific and one is general. Specifically, the proposed zoning for the Curtiss St. area and the land use designation for the B&R mobile home park are problematic. Generally, there is too much commercial land being designated and it is too widely dispersed for efficient provision of utilities or to spur economic development. The Curtiss St. neighborhood is a residential area that is almost completely built out. There are only a few unused lots in that area. Zoning it commercial really makes no sense especially when you consider that the Planning Commission has only provided one type of commercial designation for the UGA. Wal-Mart is not likely to cite there but an auto mechanic or metal plating business certainly could. We are all aware of the conflicts that occur when businesses locate in residential areas. Ron Gregory himself has called it poor planning. You would think that we would learn from our previous mistakes but instead we seem to be all too willing to make the same ones over and over again. The residents of this neighborhood are going to be subjected to increasing nuisances and see their taxes rise as their land is rezoned. It should remain residential or be restricted to low intensity business uses. All these same comments apply to the B&R mobile home park as well. While the zoning is not being changed, the land use map shows it as commercial which means that future development there must be commercial. The taxes of the landowner are presumably going to rise which will in turn raise the rental rates of the tenants. The result is that people are going to be forced out of this area. Perhaps that is the goal. More commercial land is not the answer to increased economic activity. We already have a huge glut of underused commercial land in this county. According to the county website, in October of 1992 almost 60% of the existing commercial land was in timber, houses, mobile homes, or just vacant. Another 6% was used for storage units. Only a very small percentage of our commercial land is actually used for commercial purposes. Clearly, there is no shortage of available land. Rather than stimulating economic growth, designating more commercial land actually inhibits growth. Economic activity is most lively when it is concentrated. When enough businesses are in the same place people start to use each other's services and opportunities are created for supporting businesses such as delis and copy shops. By designating hundreds of acres of commercial land all around the county we are decreasing the likelihood of any areas really catching on. If we want economic activity we need to limit the amount of commercial land to a few key areas and work to make it desirable by improving infrastructure and marketing. I thought that was the purpose of the UGA but apparently that idea has been lost. Huge disconnected swaths of the UGA are being proposed for commercial use including strips along SR19. This sends the infrastructure costs through the roof and makes it less likely that anything will happen. I think it would be much smarter to concentrate on the Hadlock core area, get the sewer going there, and improve access routes 8/3/2004 Page 2 of 2 from SR19 to the core. The long strip commercial development along SR19 is just going to prove to be a transportation headache. I also want to register my opinion that it is time for the people of the UGA to step up to the plate and start carrying the water on this planning effort. I live in the city and am already paying for a sewer here. People out in the county have already paid for their septic systems. How come we are getting tapped to pay for this level of planning in the UGA? I know we've spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this effort and probably over a million. Are we going to get our money back when all this land gets zoned commercial and the tax rates go up? Will they go up? I recognize the county role in subarea planning but I think we've gone too far in this case and need to step back and let the citizens in the area take over or at least foot the bill. I've heard a couple of terrifying comments from members of the BOCC that the county may actually help pay for the sewer system. If the citizens of Hadlock want a sewer system than they need to pay for it on their own. Jeff Miller Port Townsend 8/3/2004 J EMEK50 N Helping tine community Preserve o CE -I ET)KATING August 3, 2004 AND TKUST Jefferson Land Trust is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization. Our federal tax ID number is 91-1465078. Your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 PO Box 1610 Port Townsend, WA 98368 1033 Lawrence Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Subject: Formal Comment on UGA Zoning Districts/Sunfield Farm Fhoue/FAX (360) 379-9501 Dear Commissioners Huntingford, Rodgers, and Titterness: E-mail: jlt@saveland.org Web: www. saveland.org Thank you for taking oral comments last night related to the proposed Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries. Jefferson Land Trust is taking this BOARD OF DIRECTORS opportunity to submit our comments in writing, and to elaborate on several Mark Dembro, President further points related to Sunfield Farm. Ellen Crockett Don Dybeck First, as mentioned last night, Jefferson Land Trust heartily commends Jefferson County for investing in the permanent preservation of Sunfield Heidi Eisenhour Farm's more than 50 acres of prime agricultural lands through your Owen Fairbank commitment of $124,000 in Conservation Futures Funds. As you know, part Steven Habersetzer of Sunfield Farm's vision is to be both a community food source for low - Pat Hood income families in Jefferson County and a learning farm dedicated to Kees Kolff sustainable, biodynamic farming practices. The current commercial zoning boundary of the UGA directly abuts significant expanses of Sunfield Farm (see attached map). Because of this, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Stephanie J. Reith we strongly encourage the County to fully monitor and enforce all the ed@saveiand.org stormwater management provisioiis in the proposed plait. T hip is critical so that the prime agricultural lands at Sunfield Farm and the underlying PROJECT MANAGER Sparling Aquifer are not contaminated by stormwater runoff from either Sarah Spaeth programs@saveland.org properties commercial p p ertes oroun�' �' iCounty roadways because of failures in the permit or design process or inadequate enforcement. OPERATIONS MANAGERS Nancy Newman Related to that, we would request consideration of adding "prime agricultural admin@saveland.org lands" as sensitive receptors related to stormwater runoff, equal in Kristin Axtman importance to Port Townsend Bay and Chimacum Creek. We realize that the jlt@saveland.org NPDES regulations focus primarily on receiving water bodies in terms of stormwater pollution, but in Jefferson County, we believe prime agricultural STEWARDSHIP COORDINATOR Sonia Frojen lands, especially those dedicated to organic and biodynamic farming, can be programs@saveland.org adversely affected by stormwater pollutants. Jefferson Land Trust is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization. Our federal tax ID number is 91-1465078. Your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Page 2 Board of County Commissioners In response to several audience comments last night, we also wanted to point out some prohibitions that will be part of the final Sunfield Farm easement. The easement will prohibit: • The use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and other chemical treatment of vegetation, soil, water and animals, except when deemed necessary, by mutual agreement of the parties. • Any use or activity that causes or is likely to cause significant pollution of surface or subsurface waters, including disposal of wastewater in manners inconsistent with the terms of the easement. • Spreading of off-site sludge and wastewater on agricultural land. As you can see, part of the preservation of Sunfield Farm is its protection from contaminants, both those generated on-site and those originating off- site. This is why we are so strongly stressing the diligent enforcement of stormwater regulations, whatever the eventual UGA boundaries. By comprehensively enforcing these regulations, as stipulated in your draft UGA plan, you will protect both the County's management reputation and its financial investment in Sunfield Farm. For the remaining open spaces, JEFFERSON LAND TRUST Stephanie J. Reith Executive Director ATTACHMENT: UGA zoning District map Page 1 of 2 Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:41 AM To: Leslie Locke; Glen Huntingford Subject: FW: Proposed Tri -Area UGA neighborhoods Importance: High Biwa De&ute#, C'Qe%k a f ffw Xa.axd Jef fma.n Count* eemrr bjwnm < mai Ito: ldelaneya-co.jefferson.wa. us> -----Original Message ----- From: David & Heidi Eisenhour [mailto:eisenhour@olympus.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:40 AM To: Lorna Delaney; Josh Peters; Kyle Alm Subject: Proposed Tri -Area UGA neighborhoods Importance: High August 3rd, 2003 Glen Huntingford Jefferson County Commissioner, District 2 Via email Glen, HEARING RECORD As discussed at the hearing last night we disagree and are confused by the wholesale re -zone, from single family residential to multi -use commercial, of our largely built -out residential (Curtiss and Randolph Street area) neighborhood in Port Hadlock which is proposed in your Tri -Area Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We are also concerned with the type of commercial you are proposing with this amendment for this residential area. As we understand all types of commercials uses are allowed in the proposed commercial areas with minimal limitations on building size and lot coverage. As we testified, we did attend a few of your public workshops & hearing over the past two years. We did participate in the November 18th, 2003 workshop and we were handed a proposed zoning map (dated August 20, 2003) for the tri -area where our neighborhoods zoning remained residential - which made sense. Drive down Curtiss Street any day. It IS residential. On a more recent map dated May 19th, 2004 (reviewed on the county website) our neighborhood has been entirely included in the'urban commercial' zone. We are aware that if we had attended EVERY meeting of the Planning Commission and associated subcommittees we may have been able to express our concern earlier - but we weren't able to and had to wait until your August 2nd hearing. 8/3/2004 Page 2 of 2 Please consider removing the Curtiss and Randolph Street neighborhood from you 'urban commercial' zone that you and the planning commission are proposing for a large part of the Tri -Area. There are some businesses that are appropriate and active (Dr. Barrett's dental office for example) in our neighborhood. We think if any commercial zoning is applied to these neighborhood areas in Port Hadlock it should by a zoning that recognizes the residential nature of the area and the historic qualities of this part of the community not a wholesale zoning applied to area like Hadlock Building Supply, QFC, etc as well. Respectfully, David and Heidi Eisenhour, residents Donna Pollock, owner 220 Curtiss Street Port Hadlock, WA 98339 (Mailing address is: PO Box 338, 98339) CC: Kyle Alm, Planner Josh Peters, Senior Planner 8/3/2004 co r August 2, 2004 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Hadlock/Irondale UGA amendments Commissioners, eel'llej " HEARING RECORn Water: Despite the fact that Jefferson County has been designated by the State as a Critical Water Supply Service Area, the County hasn't been planning with an eye to limited water resources. Instead, the seeds of a very troubled future are being sown by unsustainable, over- development in the proposed Hadlock/Irondale UGA. There is just not enough water for the growth it allows. The available water comes from wells that are all in hydraulic continuity with Chimacum Creek, which is a salmon -listed stream, as documented by WRIA 17 materials before the BOCC for adoption. The Board is well aware that the creek basin could be closed for further groundwater withdrawals, leaving an over -committed water system for this ambitious UGA. Both the City and the PUD have obsolete water plat ^s and are in the process of revising them. The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan is also obsolete and being revised. It is unfortunate that this UGA would be approved before these plans have been updated and received State approval. I recently attended a Water Resources workshop of the Port Townsend City Council, during which a City Public Works staff member stated that on a good day, the PUD water system in the Tri -Area barely has the capacity to meet demand. He referred to an out-of-date water capacity study done in 1996 by CH2M Hill, when the groundwater system was being subsidized by out -of -basin water from the Big Quilcene River. This staff member had managed and operated the Tri - Area water system for years before it was sold to the PUD in 2001 and is fully informed about the inadequate capacity of the PUD's groundwater system to meet future needs. It is unfortunate that the City has been officially mute on the regional impacts of this new UGA. Scale: Given the limited available water supply, this water -hungry UGA is planning of the worst sort, but there are other reasons why the HEARING RECORD UGA boundary should be scaled back and the regulations scaled down. The amount of new commercial zoning is excessive for the county's growth projections matched with the current commercial inventory and zoning. I refer the BOCC and the Hearings Board to the thorough analysis of this issue done by counsel for the 2002 ICAN and PLC appeals. The excessively scaled development regulations, allowing unlimited building size and lot coverage, are certainly urban in scale but completely fail to recognize and protect the character of this community. A UGA doesn't have to destroy a place while providing urban services and zoning. It just needs to be done right, and this isn't it. Sewer Planning: Although detailed engineering studies are allowed to come later in capital facilities planning, at this critical decision point the list of alternatives should have been narrowed to a firm concept with related location, cost, and affordability documentation. This homework hasn't been turned in yet, and the Hearings Board should issue another remand order until it is. The County convinced the Hearings Board that a basically unneeded UGA was nevertheless necessary in order to prevent aquifer contamination from septic systems on numerous small lots in the area. But there are no plans for such sewer system in Irondale and never will be because this UGA isn't really about protecting the aquifer. It's about maximizing commercial development. As a City taxpayer, my taxes are used to build or replace infrastructure in the Port Townsend UGA, so naturally, I am very upset that I will now have to subsidize another UGA with my City taxes (16%) that go into the County's General Fund. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Port Townsend HEARING RECOVD & lalou� �-p r V7 AM J.... w1�. rvt co.v%(ato.*c U^-.44 'M+f`rA C�jc D. K 0`I HEARING RECORD To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Subject: MLA04-29 and MKA04-30: Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments Date: August 2, 2004 Honorable Commissioners, There are reasons to be conservative in considering MLA04-29 and MKA04-30: Comprehensive Plan amendments and Unified Development Code amendments related to the Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. The planning process has been long and frustrating. Through a process of attrition, we have lost the participation of many citizens who deeply care about their community and worked to create a vision of it's future. This year's increased public relations effort has given people more opportunities to be involved, but failed to engage many who experienced past efforts as futile. Faith in citizens' abilities to plan their own community and determine their own future would have resulted in a vision where vacant land was used for expanding local businesses, increasing opportunities for young people, creating entry and living wage jobs, providing affordable housing options, affordable utilities, and competitive shopping choices, while protecting the shoreline, wetlands, Chimacum Creek, farmlands, and rural character. It is doubtful that aggressive proposals for 5 story buildings, encroachment into existing neighborhoods, and increased traffic congestion would have been included. It is in the best interests of everyone for the BOCC to adopt proposals that will avoid appeal, or survive appeals that are without merit; proposals that will be accepted willingly by the community. Traffic is both a local and regional concern. SR 19, Rhody Drive, serves as a principal arterial for which bypass options do not exist. Increased use of Irondale Road through residential areas is undesirable. To the east are family homes and Chimacum Creek and to the west farmland and the aquifer recharge area for the Sparling well, TriArea's primary water source. The wellhead protection area needs to be a consideration for all plans. Increasing commercial zoning that makes this 1 -mile stretch of SR19 a destination for commerce, without a comprehensive transportation mitigation plan that limits access to SR19, will exacerbate congestion problems that already exist. As mentioned in the Transportation Plan, due to close proximity of Irondale and Ness's Corner Road, signals at both could restrict mobility on SR19. The plan itself recommends further study to reduce financial costs. Already, the SR19/SR116 intersection qualifies for signalization but is well down on the priority list to receive funding. Local funding for this one item at $334,484 is recommended in the plan. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has jurisdiction over these roads offering the opportunity for outside funding, but at the expense of local control. Most people in TriArea want to see some progress in planning that leads to results. Given the work that is still unfinished, I encourage the BOCC to realistically consider what can be accomplished and done well this year. Some property owners may be disappointed that the work is not yet done. Your task is to look at the cumulative impact in light of anticipated growth. Phasing in commercial development, directing it first to the Port Hadlock business core, would also direct traffic away from Rhody Drive until those traffic and cost concerns could be resolved. This phasing corresponds with the phasing of the sewer project being directed first to the core as well. Starting with this area is more likely to be accepted and allow progress to be made with the consensus of the community. Having a UGA designation will do little for the community without a sewer. The sewer project itself has many unknowns. Estimates used in the plan do not reflect costs based on actual methods of assessment to be used and do not consider seniors, low-income residents, or public entities (PUD, Library, School, or County buildings) that are included. Participants in any local improvement district to pay for costs will have difficulty guessing what their expenses will likely be from the information available. Neighborhood acceptance will also be enhanced if encroachment into existing residential areas is avoided and buildings are on a scale that compliments the neighborhood. Increasing the building height greater than 35' should only be done to allow "residential -over -commercial" development, and until the community has had a discussion on this issue, 3 story buildings should be the limit. There is much work to do. Focusing on areas of consensus and making progress can have an energizing effect on the community and lead to renewed involvement in community planning. Accomplish what you can for now and set the stage for tomorrow's work. We need to let the citizens in this community make this plan their own. They will be the ones living with it and paying for it. Respec lly, i`r �Z t zcC 'aL A David Sullivan 51 Fir Place Cape George Port Townsend, WA 98368 Take /�Advantage of Compact Building Design Resources .I)l0 • _i?�Ji6-- C I1 c��FARI ,��, , G Take Advantage of Compact Building Design Page 1 of 1 Smart growth provides a means for communities to incorporate more compact building design as an alternative to conventional, land consumptive development. Compact building design suggests that communities be designed in a way which permits more open space to preserved, and that buildings can be constructed which make more efficient use of land and resources. By encouraging buildings to grow vertically rather than horizontally, and by Incorporating structured rather than surface parking, for example, communities can reduce the footprint of new construction, and preserve more greenspace. Not only is this approach more efficient by requiring less land for construction. It also provides and protects more open, undeveloped land that would exist otherwise to absorb and filter rain water, reduce flooding and stormwater drainage needs, and lower the amount of pollution washing into our streams, rivers and lakes. Compact building design is necessary to support wider transportation choices, and provides cost savings for localities. Communities seeking to encourage transit use to reduce air pollution and congestion recognize that minimum levels of density are required to make public transit networks viable. Local governments find that on a per-unit basis, it Is cheaper to provide and maintain services like water, sewer, electricity, phone service and other utilities in more compact neighborhoods than in dispersed communities. Research based on these developments has shown, for example, that well-designed, compact New Urbanist communities that include a variety of house sizes and types command a higher market value on a per square foot basis than do those in adjacent conventional suburban developments. Perhaps this is why increasing numbers of the development industry have been able to successfully integrate compact design into community building efforts. This despite current zoning practices - such as those that require minimum lot sizes, or prohibit multi -family or attached housing - and other barriers - community perceptions of "higher density" development, often preclude compact design. Resources http://www.smadgrowth.org/library/byprinciple.asp?prin=2 8/2/2004 Erin Lundgren From: Ann Starrett Mansion [starrettmansion@cablespeed.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:41 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Tri -Area Comments Please include the attached comments as part of the record for the hearing held August 2, 2004. www.staffettinansion.com info@starrettmansion.com 744 Clay St Port Townsend WA 98368 8/4/2004 Page 1 of 1 A IVA Wk, Id'd kip Jefferson County Commissioners August 3, 2004 Jefferson County Court House Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the progress made in the Port Hadlock and Irondale Urban Growth Area (UGA). I have followed the process as an individual, Port Townsend (PT) City Council member and a Port of Port Townsend commissioner since 1992 or 1993. To say that the UGA discussion has been rushed through is an exaggeration of huge proportions. The area was designated as a UGA in the early 90s which was appealed by PT and the hearings board sent it back for more study. This was not a win for either the city or county because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars is cost our small county. The Jefferson County Comp Plan was enacted in 1998 with two gaping holes. No decision was made on the Glen Cove area and no decision was made on the Tri -Area UGA. In fact, the planning commission did not have the opportunity to review the entire comp plan prior to the County Commissioners adoption. The discussion of those two areas has continued since then until now in 2004 specific plausible recommendations have been at last been presented. The hundreds of meetings and thousands of hours with public comment throughout the process have finally resulted in a plan which went to the citizens for comment on August 2, 2004. These efforts should be lauded and not derided as not being enough. When is enough, enough? In the private and public arenas, decisions must be made based on available information because total information will not be available until this process is looked back at as a historical study. The UGA is an existing functioning area which needs refinements and some urban levels of service. The plan, as forwarded by the planning commission, contains those refinements and a forward look to develop urban services such as a sewer system. Public comments have been heeded by the planning commission and incorporated into the plan. The development of infrastructure will not happen over night which is evident when one realizes that 150 year old PT still has septic tanks. Your decision will be more difficult as you are bombarded with the nit picks from selfish people who will use a shotgun approach in hopes that one of the pellets might kill any potential for the residents of the UGA to get along with their lives. You need to remember that the legislature has allowed you to make changes to the Comp Plan and that you can change the UDC as new information and issues arise. IL HEARING RECORD As with all plans and regulations, this is the starting point, and I hope you take that necessary first step by approving the Tri -Area UGA plan and UDC. Sincerely, Robert H. Sokol 1005 Quincy St Port Townsend, WA 98368 385-9002 Erin Lundgren From: wbjmail [wbjmaii@olypen.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:42 PM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: Kyle Alm Subject: Tri Area UGA August 3,2004 Glen Huntingford Jefferson County Commissioners Mr. Huntingford etal, HEARING RECORD Pagel of 2 We are very concerned and confused about the rezone of our neighborhood from residential to commercial. We are referring to the Curtiss and Randolph St. area,which we understood as per the map given to us at the November 18, 2003 workshop at Shold Business Park did not include this area in the commercial zone. That zoning we approved. Our confusion and question is why the change? We wonder if there may have been an oversight due to the fact that Curtiss St. makes a right angle turn at the bluff and someone meant to make the East-West portion,on which the Wooden Boat School owns a large parcel,commercial and not the North-South portion which is already built out except one small lot and is only family dwellings. There are only two active businesses in this neighborhood, a B&B in an old church that is for sale, and a dentist office in an old Victorian house. These are both historic buildings that set the style of this residential area. Why designate this a commercial zone for two businesses at the expense of all? If the commercial zone came as for off of Irondale road as Alley St., could the dental office and the multiple family unit the Broders might want to build on their property at Randolph and Matheson streets hook up to the sewer on Alley St and still be residential? Please consider us, the many families in this neighborhood, and try to come up with a more amicable solution to accommodate the few. We would very much appreciate and admire you for it. Respectfully, Wayne and B.J. Cornett 183 Randolph St. Hadlock, Wa. 8/4/2004 wbjmail@olypen.com 8/4/2004 Page 2 of 2 ct UPJ. a "/ - 01/ Page 1 of 1 Erin Lundgren From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:02 AM To: Erin Lundgren Subject: FW: August 9 vote on commercial corridor HEARING RECORD .ofme'3 jeftmon eounig &wwwawnm <mailto:ldelaney(cb-co.jefferson.wa.us> -----Original Message ----- From: len zweig [mailto:leonardz@olympus.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:52 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: August 9 vote on commercial corridor Gentlemen: I appreciate the diligent work and patience required to create a plan for commercial development along Route 19. As you prepare to make your decision, I want to call your attention to a unique opportunity you have, and a special responsibility that goes with it. Population growth in Jefferson County is slow. This means we have time to try out development ideas in phases, rather than make a commitment to large scale commercial growth that residents of Jefferson County — including residents in the immediate vicinity of the development corridor — may regret in the future. Why not scale back the 70 -foot height allowance and start a first phase with a lower limit, perhaps 35 feet? This would allow ample opportunity for local businesses to expand and for energetic entrepreneurs to build new businesses. If, over time, there is a desire by established businesses to build higher — or to accommodate entry for a larger business that pays family support wages — then Jefferson County residents can decide whether to amend the plan after weighing the costs and benefits at that time. So please consider phased development along the Route 19 corridor, just as you are considering phased development of the sewer system. Respectfully, Leonard Zweig 1059 Quincy Street Port Townsend 8/4/2004 @-DOS Y Vy r'; ALJ Ui- IMN ,, iJ '.✓ I i'�;. JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISIONERS JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 DEAR COMMISSIONERS, HEARING RECORD HENRY A. SUKERT 82 ELIZABETH ST PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 MY SON & I OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY. IT IS CURRENTLY BEING DECIDED WHETHER THE PROPERTY SHOULD GO BACK INTO COMMERCIAL ZONING OR STAY RESIDENTIAL. THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL WHEN MY SON & I BOUGHT IT BACK IN 1992. AT THAT TIME, THE SURROUNDING AREA WAS COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. SINCE THAT TIME DIFFERENT PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN BUILT ACROSS THE STREET WHICH IS NOW ZONED COMMERCIAL. I FELT THAT AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE IN THAT IT ACTUALLY CREATED A SPOT ZONE. I FEEL THAT AT THIS TIME THE COUNTY HAS A CHANCE TO RIGHT A WRONG BY RETURNING THIS PROPERTY BACK TO A COMMERCIAL ZONE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SHOLD BUSINESS PARK. THANK YOU n HENRY A. SUKERT ell Erin Lundgren From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:42 PM To: Erin Lundgren Subject: FW: Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA HEARING RECOnnR Inn at Port Hadlock Comment. pd... Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board Jefferson County Commissioners < mai Ito: Idelaney@co.jefferson.wa.us> > -----Original Message----- > From: Rentz, Karen-OLY [mailto:KRentz@perkinscoie.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:40 PM > To: Lorna Delaney > Cc: Kyle Alm; Paul Christensen (E-mail) > Subject: Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA > Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: > The attached letter is submitted for the record in the > matters MLA04-29 and > MLA04-30, scheduled for action on Monday. > Sandy Mackie, sent via his secretary, Karen Rentz > Perkins Coie LLP > 111 Market Street NE, Suite 200 > Olympia, WA 98501 > Phone: (360) 956-3300 > Fax: (360) 956-1208 > krentz@perkinscoie.com > amackie@perkinscoie.com HEARING RECORD > NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other > confidential > information. If you have received it in error, please advise > the sender by > reply email and immediately delete the message and any > attachments without > copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. i August 4, 2004 Page 2 product of the plan the County is now reviewing—the County can begin to take project -specific looks at plant siting and discharge locations and techniques. I would encourage you to retain the General Plan options as part of your SEPA review, as cost, location, and cost-effective techniques for treatment and disposal will all enter into your final decision on the sewer design and operation. As I mentioned in my testimony, the concern about water supply ties closely to the planned waste water treatment system. The ability to focus discharges from an advanced secondary or tertiary treatment system with Class A recycled water, provide opportunities to identify the potential for additional water rights to be available for beneficial use in the region as part of an overall waste water/recycled water permit approval process. Enhanced wetlands can provide meaningful and timely seasonal recharge to headwater areas for local streams. In addition, contrary to the comments of one speaker at your hearing, the availability of Class "A" recycled water does in fact enable the community to use the processed water for public facilities, including parks and recreation areas. (Check with the public works officials at the City of Yelm about the treatment and utilization of the water from its wastewater treatment plant.) I encourage you to adopt the comprehensive plan amendment, including the final UGA boundary and the related development regulations, including stormwater and zoning. The Northwest Center for Wooden Boats, Ajax restaurant, and cabins are clearly urban, and urban waterfront dependent and oriented, and should have urban services available. A similar justification for including the property at The Inn at Port Hadlock is also present. The Inn has existed on the shoreline for many years and currently has a commercial inn, restaurant, and conference facilities already constructed or underway in the two existing buildings, and vested plats and septic facilities for the Inn, the restaurant, and vested home sites that would be much better served by PUD water and municipal sewer. The Inn also has the largest approved modern marina in the south bay area, providing essential moorage and public access to the water. The area is characterized by urban growth and properly included within both the UGA and the sewer and water planning areas. The visitor -oriented commercial zoning is consistent with the existing and planned uses and provides a good resort recreation anchor for economic development in the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. VSL042170.0621 08/04/04 August 4, 2004 Page 3 We urge your support. Very truly yours, Alexande . Mackie Attorney for The Inn at Port Hadlock AWM:kr cc: Kyle Alm Paul Christensen l � 1 [/SL 042170.0621 08/04/04 Page 1 of 3 HEARING RECORD Erin Lundgren From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:26 PM To: Erin Lundgren Subject: FW: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area Baum 29d of , C'ea* o f Me'3aa 4d Je ffem owcauntcv &vnmb a tam <maiIto: Idel aney@co.jefferson.wa.us> -----Original Message ----- From: Mark Rose [mailto: mark@markrose.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:12 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area August 11, 2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), MLA04-29, MLA04-30 Public Comment Commissioners: Approximately two years ago a group of 20 citizens convened to plan for the future of the communities of Irondale, Port Hadlock and Chimacum. When it became apparent that they were not to be included in comprehensive planning but were merely a "sounding board" for a pre -determined outcome fashioned by a consultant, their ranks whittled down to about eight. The remaining group members voted not to designate a UGA until they could consider transportation, water, sewer, economic and other impacts. The BOCC ignored their recommendation and designated a UGA anyway. I cannot find a record of this group ever existing in any county documents submitted on the UGA. The BOCC ruling was appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) and they determined that in fact the county must plan in an integrated, comprehensive fashion as mandated by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Once again we find the county disrespecting and marginalizing the wishes of its constituents and intentionally attempting to circumvent state regulations. This wasteful and polarizing practice has 8/4/2004 HEARING RECORD Page 2 of 3 been going on for years and has cost taxpayers millions in consultants fees, legal costs, mismanagement of Department of Community Development, the Prosecutors office and other county resources. The Commissioners can blame a "small group" of "process terrorists" or they can take responsibility and implement planning processes that assure that we do it once, do it right, and make a serious attempt to be inclusive rather than confrontational. It is cynical and non-productive to say that appeals will be part of the process. It need not be so. Unfortunately, the county has become adept at showing the appearance of community involvement while fulfilling its pre -determined ideological agenda. I look forward to the time when the BOCC, the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development can work in concert to involve citizens in comprehensive, integrated planning and we can create and implement successful roadmaps for the future of our communities. I incorporate the comments of Nancy Dorgan (below) into my testimony. Thank you. Mark Rose Brinnon, WA 98320 August 2, 2004 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Hadlock/Irondale UGA amendments Commissioners, Water: Despite the fact that Jefferson County has been designated by the State as a Critical Water Supply Service Area, the County hasn't been planning with an eye to limited water resources. Instead, the seeds of a very troubled future are being sown by unsustainable, over- development in the proposed Hadlock/Irondale UGA. There is just not enough water for the growth it allows. The available water comes from wells that are all in hydraulic continuity with Chimacum Creek, which is a salmon -listed stream, as documented by WRIA 17 materials before the BOCC for adoption. The Board is well aware that the creek basin could be closed for further groundwater withdrawals, leaving an over -committed water system for this ambitious UGA. Both the City and the PUD have obsolete water plans and are in the process of revising them. The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan is also obsolete and being revised. It is unfortunate that this UGA would be approved before these plans have been updated and received State approval. I recently attended a Water Resources workshop of the Port Townsend City Council, during which a City Public Works staff member stated that on a good day, the PUD water system in the Tri - Area barely has the capacity to meet demand. He referred to an out-of-date water capacity study done in 1996 by CH2M Hill, when the groundwater system was being subsidized by out -of -basin water from the Big Quilcene River. This staff member had managed and operated the Tri -Area water system for years before it was sold to the PUD in 2001 and is fully informed about the inadequate capacity of the PUD's groundwater system to meet future needs. It is unfortunate that the City has been officially mute on the regional impacts of this new UGA. Scale: Given the limited available water supply, this water -hungry UGA is planning of the worst sort, but there are other reasons why the UGA boundary should be scaled back and the 8/4/2004 HEARING RECORD Page 3 of 3 regulations scaled down. The amount of new commercial zoning is excessive for the county's growth projections matched with the current commercial inventory and zoning. I refer the BOCC and the Hearings Board to the thorough analysis of this issue done by counsel for the 2002 ICAN and PLC appeals. The excessively scaled development regulations, allowing unlimited building size and lot coverage, are certainly urban in scale but completely fail to recognize and protect the character of this community. A UGA doesn't have to destroy a place while providing urban services and zoning. It just needs to be done right, and this isn't it. Sewer Planning: Although detailed engineering studies are allowed to come later in capital facilities planning, at this critical decision point the list of alternatives should have been narrowed to a firm concept with related location, cost, and affordability documentation. This homework hasn't been turned in yet, and the Hearings Board should issue another remand order until it is. The County convinced the Hearings Board that a basically unneeded UGA was nevertheless necessary in order to prevent aquifer contamination from septic systems on numerous small lots in the area. But there are no plans for such sewer system in Irondale and never will be because this UGA isn't really about protecting the aquifer. It's about maximizing commercial development. As a City taxpayer, my taxes are used to build or replace infrastructure in the Port Townsend UGA, so naturally, I am very upset that I will now have to subsidize another UGA with my City taxes (16%) that go into the County's General Fund. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Port Townsend 8/4/2004 Page 1 of 1 Erin Lundgren From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:42 AM To: Erin Lundgren Subject: FW: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area Importance: High HEARING RECORD lean eauntv eaamf wawmna <maiIto: Idel aney(a)co.Iefferson.wa.us> -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Biery [mailto:bbiery@cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 4:46 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Testimony for Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area August 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), MLA04-29, MLA04-30 Public Comment I do not favor proceeding with the proposal as it stands. Obviously, much contribution has been made from the community and the planning commission to get to this point. Many questions remain, however. Adequate answers are not available, not adequate or not understood by the public and those impacted. I strongly urge you to delay the approval for the plan as it is now. I recommend further public comment, examination and explanation of the issues such as natural ecosystem impacts, stream impacts, salmon and habitat, transportation, availability and quality of water, sewage treatment, cost to property owners, cost to county tax payers and a full report on this somewhat complex matter before you submit the plan for another rejection and appeal. This plan may be too aggressive and too large a scale. So much has been invested to get the concept and plan detailed up to this point, it would be a shame to have the proposal rejected and go through expensive reworking. You need to do additional homework to achieve a workable plan before it leaves your hands. Do it right the first time! Thank you for your consideration. Bill Biery 406 T Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-385-3118 8/5/2004 Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:02 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Testimony re: Pt. Hadlock Irondale UGA Page 1 of 1 HEARING RECORD From: Terri Jeffreys[SMTP:TERRI.JEFFREYS@WAREALTOR.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:00:06 AM To: Dan Titterness; Pat Rodgers; Glen Huntingford; Josh Peters; Kyle Alm; Al Scalf Cc: Ron Helmonds; Bill Perka; Catherine Hendy (email); Judy Johnson; Karen Best; Kevin Tuuri; Laura Halady; Nancy Stelow (email) Subject: Testimony re: Pt. Hadlock Irondale UGA Auto forwarded by a Rule To the Jefferson County Commissioners and Dept of Community Development Personnel: Attached, please find testimony to be entered into the record for consideration of the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area. This testimony represents the views and opinions of the Jefferson County Association of REALTORS. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Terri Jeffreys Olympic Peninsula Region Government Affairs Director Washington Association of REALTORS® terri.jeffreys@warealtor.com Phone: 360-427-5403 Cell: 360-481-0544 Fax: 360-427-2329 8/5/2004 219 W. Patison Street Suite 1 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Phone: (360) 385-6041 Fax: (360) 385-6043 Email - teffrlty(a-�olypen.com August 2, 2004 TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jefferson County Association of REALTORS® RE: Proposed Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the proposed zoning designations and implementing development regulations for the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area. Our members applaud the Board for taking the steps necessary to ensure Jefferson County will provide the infrastructure, proper zoning and land inventory needed to accommodate commercial and industrial growth and to provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of our population. Growth is vital to our community. Over the years much has been said about the cost of growth and little attention has been paid to research showing the negative impact little or no economic and population growth has on communities. Analysis of data contained in the Places Rated Almanac, and studies by the United Nations and Urban Land Institute reveals that low growth communities generally have a lower overall quality of life as compared to communities with more rapid rates of growth. The long term effects of low or no growth also are shown to reduce the quality of life even further.' Importantly, lack of growth affects the poor and working class the most, depriving the poor of job opportunities and the working class of housing opportunities, affecting their ability to share in the "American Dream" of owning their own home. For these reasons, the Jefferson County Association of REALTORS® are vitally interested in ensuring the Board of County Commissioners make proper assumptions for determining the appropriate size and zoning designations of this much needed UGA. 1 Petree, Jack. How Lack of Growth Harms Communities: The Dark Side of Low or No Growth Planning Policies. White Paper prepared for the Washington Association of REALTORS®, 2004. After careful study of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, UDC amendments and supporting documentation and studies related to the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA, we offer the following comments and concerns. • UGA size does not provide maximum residential holding capacity affecting inventory of moderate priced housing. Designated residential lands within the UGA provide only 18% holding capacity (pg 2-11, proposed Urban Growth Area Element amendment) while Growth Management Hearing Board decisions have allowed up to 25%. It is unclear why the Planning Commission would not seek to provide the maximum allowable residential holding capacity. Failure to provide maximum holding capacity threatens our County's ability to provide a much needed balance between the supply and demand of housing. Research by the Reason Public Policy Institute has shown that GMA is responsible for 26% of the increase in housing costs in Washington.2 Artificial restrictions on the buildable land supply (urban growth boundaries) are the primary reason for the added inflation. Other counties sought to correct this market failure by building in the 25% market factor. Jefferson County should learn from other counties and take advantage of the legal maximum holding capacity. Build -out analysis assumes 40% of the people in the Urban Growth Area will live in multi -family housing. Current market analysis of King County residential housing shows 45% of the county's housing demand is met through multi -family housing.3 King County is a decidedly urban environment whose demographic make-up and residential preferences should not be considered comparable to Jefferson County. We believe assigning 40% of population growth to multi -family housing is overstating our region's consumer preference and can only serve to further restrict affordable home ownership for working class citizens. Homeownership accounts for 40% of the average American's wealth, helping moderate income citizens to achieve a level of wealth not otherwise possible. Homeownership also increases civic involvement and concern for a healthy, thriving community. REALTORS® recommend the Board of Commissioners reconsider the attempt to accommodate such a high percentage of population growth in multi -family housing. • Total commercial land designations do not realistically reflect the actual amount of land available for sale. Our members actively seeking commercial land for clients cannot support the Comprehensive Plan's assumption that the 93 acres of supposed vacant land designated commercial, is available 2 Staley, S. & Gilroy, L. Smart Growth and Housing Affordability: Evidence from Statewide Planning Policies. Reason Public Policy Institute, Los Angeles. Policy Study no. 287. 3 The Housing Partnership. Issues Influencing Housing Supply. A compilation of articles reprinted from Housing Stock, a newsletter of the Housing Partnership, Winter 2001 -Spring 2003. for purchase and development. County officials should "ground -truth" the plan's assumptions and correct this number. If the additional research shows less available commercial land, additional land, located in appropriate areas should be designated. Any additional lands should not come as a result of reducing residential acreage. • Household size assumptions do not reflect County and state-wide downward trends. The Build -out Analysis (on which much of the UGA sizing depends) assumes a linear projection average of 2.5 persons per household (PPH) for the duration of the 20 year planning period. This assumption does not agree with the state Office of Financial Management's county -wide forecast for Jefferson County of 2.123 PPH by the year 2010. Failure to accurately forecast household size can result in an undersized UGA and will further increase pressures to grow outside of the UGA, decrease supply of residential land within the UGA and raise the cost of housing. REALTORS® recommend the build -out analysis be re-examined using a trended household headship rate to more realistically determine the UGA's residential needs for the entire 20 year planning period. The Jefferson County Association of REALTORS® (JCAR) would be happy to provide additional research materials and policy recommendations to assist the County in this difficult and important task of sizing and zoning the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA. Thank you for your consideration of our comments and please do not hesitate to contact JCAR if you have questions or would like additional comment on the proposed plan.