Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 1213 04STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF REVISIONS AND } ADDITIONS TO THE COUNTY'S } COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & UNIFIED } DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING } THE JEFFERSON COUNTY } INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MLA03-00232)1 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("BoCC") has, as required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., adopted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, a Plan that was originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and subsequently amended, and; WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Plan, the County adopted its GMA-derived development regulations, known locally as the Unified Development Code (or "UDC"), in December 2000 to be effective as of January 16, 2001, and; WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in 1998, left certain planning tasks undone regarding the Jefferson County International Airport policies and regulations, and; WHEREAS, the proposed Plan and UDC amendments known as MLA #03- 00232 [establishing a regulatory framework for the Jefferson County International Airport and its environs] has been approved by the BoCC during this second week of December as required by the County's development regulations, known formally as the Unified Development Code or "UDC," The BoCC makes the following Findings of Fact with respect to this Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendment: 1. Jefferson County adopted the current Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan ("CP") on August 28, 1998. 2. The County adopted its development regulations or UDC in December 2000, effective in January 2001. ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport 3. On March 5, 2001, the Port of Port Townsend ("the Port") filed a Petition for Review ("PFR") before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board as identified by case No. 01-2-0016 regarding the implementation of the UDC regulations pertaining to the Jefferson County International Airport. 4. The Port and the County have been actively negotiating settlement of the appeal, and opted to settle the GMA appeal by entering into a Settlement Agreement. 5. The County has pursued the completion of an airport planning effort through a collaborative process with the Port as identified through the Settlement Agreement, dated July 24, 2002. 6. The Port formally applied to amend the CP and UDC through a suggested amendment submitted on September 9, 2003, identified as Master Land Use Application 03-00232. 7. The September 9, 2003 proposal (MLA03-00232) culminated from a collaborative process utilizing County and Port staff, and citizen involvement. 8. The amendment was ultimately taken off of the 2003 docket by the BoCC following a public hearing on November 24, 2003. 9. On December 22, 2003 a Second Settlement Agreement was entered into between the Port and County which outlined a collaborative "roadmap" for establishing regulations which included the delineation of an airport overlay boundary, and disclosure and nuisance provisions to meet the intent of RCW 36.70.510, RCW 36.70.547 and RCW 36.70A.200 as well as existing text found within this County's CP. 10. The Port and County staff continued to refine the proposed amendment based upon feedback received from various stakeholders. 11. The original amendments included provisions for revisiting and reconsidering a request from the Port to expand the list of permitted uses within the Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) District. After considerable stakeholder input and agency discussion, the Port and County mutually agreed to extract those portions of the proposal pertaining to expansion of the list of permitted uses and to bring such a proposal forward as part of a future unspecified (at present) Comprehensive Plan amendment `cycle.' 12. The amendment was placed back on the docket for review and consideration during the 2004 amendment cycle. 2of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport 13. The Port submitted a comprehensive document on or about September 7, 2004 to the Planning Commission and County Commissioners which included a 33 -page position paper with hundreds of attachments citing other jurisdictions efforts to establish various airport planning proposals in Washington State. 14. The proposal was noticed on September 22, 2004 under file number MLA03- 00232, and included a preliminary staff recommendation with notice of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act. 15. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearings on October 6, 20th & November 3, 2004 respectively. 16. The Planning Commission also formulated an airport sub -committee, which convened a series of public meetings spanning from August through October 2004 to delve into the intricacies of enacting regulations pertaining to the JCIA and its environs. 17. The proposal was modified by the sub -committee based upon testimony received through the public hearings and committee meetings. 18. That sub -committee's modifications to the Port's original proposal included the creation of a second overlay boundary, which corresponds with the Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA") mandated flight pattern for aircraft approaches, and WADOT aviation guidelines which address incompatible land uses. 19. At the November 3, 2004 the Planning Commission rendered a formal recommendation for approval with modifications for MLA03-00232. 20. The Planning Commission recommended the creation and adoption of a second airport overlay. 21.On November 12, 2004 County staff prepared and mailed correspondence to all parcel owners within both of the proposed overlays to apprise them of the Planning Commission's recommendation, solicit additional comments, and inform citizens of the impending BoCC public hearing. 22. In late November the Planning Commission's formal recommendation was conveyed to the final decision -makers, this Board. 23. On November 15, 2004 the BoCC unanimously agreed to hold a public hearing to solicit additional public comment regarding MLA03-00232. 3of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport 24. On November 24, 2004, a notice of public hearing regarding the entire 2004 docket was published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper. 25. A public hearing was held on December 6, 2004 before this Board of County Commissioners. The public testified at this hearing. 26. This County's UDC requires that any proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed for compliance with applicable growth management indicators set forth in §9.5.4.b & §9.8.1.b. 27. With respect to §9.8.1.b(1), the BoCC finds that circumstances relating to the proposed amendments and the area they would affect have changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on August 28, 1998 because the Port is desirous of having the County address noise, safety and compatibility concerns through amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations as the County Comprehensive Plan, in essence, promised would occur, by its initial language as it was adopted in 1998. 28. In order to implement the 1998 Comprehensive Plan language, several proposals have been brought forth through the intervening years, which have explored various iterations of disclosure, easements, nuisance provisions and noise and safety boundaries. 29. With respect to §9.8.1.b(1), The adoption of the AMP, along with the progression of County and Port discussions regarding the most efficacious means to implement the requirements of RCW 36.70.510, RCW 36.70.547 and RCW 36.70A.200, have made the proposed amendments necessary. 30. With respect to §9.8.Lb(1), the newly adopted AMP established revised noise contour interval mapping, which provides a rational and scientifically measurable basis to delineate areas and establish regulations around the airport and its periphery. 31. With respect to §9.8. l .b(2) the adoption of the Jefferson County International Airport Master Plan Update or "AMPU,", new information was available to establish and create amendments pertaining to the JCIA. The updated plan provided information outlining the proposed growth and development of the JCIA and provided detailed noise contour interval mapping and use compatibility for the airports and its environs. The AMPU, as well as the Second Settlement Agreement and extensive stakeholder involvement all necessitated several deviations from the original CP language, thus providing the impetus for these amendments. 4of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport 32. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), this Board concludes and expressly finds that the proposed amendments reflect widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. The proposal serves the two goals found in the County's valid 1998 Comprehensive Plan relating to the JCIA, specifically it i) helps to ensure the continued viability of the JCIA as a transportation hub that is self-sustaining and ii) helps to ensure the continuation of the JCIA as a safe and efficient public facility, two goals that can be said to reflect widely -held values since they were never challenged. 33. In addition, and in response to public comment over the last six years, the proposal has been modified substantially from prior proposals to be less intrusive and to be much less intrusive than the methods other airports in Washington State use to prohibit incompatible uses and prevent the demise of any particular airport. In that respect this Ordinance reflects widely held values of this County's citizens and thus is supported by the Growth Management Indicator found at UDC §9.8.1(b)(3). 34. The more intrusive methods proposed by the Port but now NOT part of this proposal included using notices recorded to titles and/or avigational easements that would have been recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. Instruments recorded with the Auditor would bind not only the current but also future owners of parcels adjacent to the airport. 35. The September 7, 2004 document submitted by the Port to the Planning Commission lays out the more intrusive methods other Washington State airports use to protect the viability of those other airports that will not be adopted or implemented here in Jefferson County 36. This proposal has been altered to incorporate concerns and comments brought forth by various stakeholders. 37. As a result, what is adopted here does not include generation of any document for eventual filing and recordation with the Jefferson County Auditor. 38. An additional overlay is created by this Ordinance that corresponds with the airport traffic pattern as mandated by the FAA, and include safety and compatibility regulations as recommended through safety zone 96, of the WADOT aviation guidelines. Both overlays serve to protect the citizens and airport by defining and prohibiting incompatible uses and creating mechanisms which apprise property owners of their parcel's proximity to the JCIA and noise inconveniences which may occur due to normal airport operations. 5of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport 39. With respect to the criteria promulgated through UDC §9.5.4.b, the Board concludes that items (1) through (5) inclusive and item (7) of this section are neither applicable nor relevant to MLA03-00232. 40. With respect to the criteria listed at UDC §9.5.4.b(6), the Board determines that all the statements applicable to UDC §9.8.Lb(1) are also applicable to UDC §9.5.4.b(6), since both growth management indicators mention "changed circumstances." 41. As proclaimed through RCW 36.70A.200, the comprehensive plan of each county shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. 42. More specifically, case law surrounding RCW 36.70A.200 from our regional Hearings Board states that Counties cannot permit the `strangling' of an airport by permitting incompatible uses or high-density residential zones in the vicinity of an airport. 43. The proposed revisions would repeal the Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) as an Overlay and establish an AEPF as a Euclidean zoning district. 44. As proclaimed through RCW 36.70.547, every county shall, through their comprehensive plan and development regulations, discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to the airport. 45. The County has heard concerns from the various stakeholders regarding disclosure provisions. Past proposals included the use of avigational easements, utilization of the 50-DNL Noise Contour Interval Mapping, and various mechanisms for requiring notices be recorded on titles. Based on comments received from stakeholders, the proposal was substantially modified to be less intrusive and to strike a balance with property owners, while assuring the proposed provisions adequately protect the airport. 46. The proposed amendments are consistent with the GMA and the County -Wide Planning Policies. 47. The regulations promulgated through the proposed amendment utilize a rational basis for their formulation. Overlay I is based upon the 55-DNL noise contour interval map. This mapping identifies areas that are subject to higher levels of noise due to normal airport operations. Overlay II is based upon the recommendations established for Accident Safety Zone #6 contained in the "Airports and Compatible Land Use" publication of the Washington State Department of Transportation's Aviation Division (2/99). 6of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport 48. The procedural requirements of the GMA for "early and continuous" public participation have been satisfied as will be described in the following findings. 49. A public hearing was held on December 6, 2004 and written comments on this and other proposals that were part of this year's Comprehensive Plan amendment `cycle' were accepted by this Board until the close of business the following Wednesday, December 8, 2004. 50. Oral testimony before this Board on December 6, 2004 contained both favorable and unfavorable opinions of what staff had recommended. 51. Testimony on that date came from citizens as well as professionals retained by the Port and People for a Rural Quimper (or "PRQ"), a community group opposed to this proposal. 52. Citizen testimony was both in favor and opposed to this proposal. 53. The favorable testimony opined that enactment of the proposed CP and UDC language would be beneficial to the JCIA and protect it from incompatible uses. 54. Those persons who asked this Board not to adopt these CP and UDC changes generally agreed that the airport should be A) protected from incompatible adjacent uses and B) provided with at least one overlay district, the latter so that purchasers of land near the airport would discover through information available at the County's planning department (or web site) that the land they contemplated buying was adjacent to the JCIA. 55. A potential purchaser of land near the JCIA would need to perform a proper `due diligence' prior to buying to discover the JCIA was nearby, but the burden to do so should be and is hereby properly placed on that potential purchaser. 56. In fact, several representatives of PRQ stated that while they continued to oppose adoption of these proposed UDC and CP changes they found the twin goals of protection from incompatible uses and utilizing an overlay as a mechanism to apprise individuals of the airport's presence, a worthy objective that Jefferson County, through this Board, should adopt into County Ordinance. 57. The testimony expressing opposition to the proposed CP and UDC language focused primarily on the proposed sections of the CP and UDC that would deem normal airport operations to NOT be a nuisance. 7of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport 58. Those persons opposed to the provisions in the proposals that deemed normal operations of the airport to NOT be a nuisance stated their opinion that such provisions prevented them from suing the Port for the existence of a nuisance. 59. Those persons opposed to the provisions in the proposals that deemed normal operations of the airport to NOT be a nuisance stated their opinion that the County was providing a protection to the Port that was neither required by state law nor promised to the Port in the County's CP. These same people suggested that the County was allying itself with the Port rather than with its own citizens. 60. This Board deliberated on this proposal on December 13, 2004. 61.On that date this Board heard from legal counsel that RCW 7.48. 010 gave any citizen the right to pursue a civil lawsuit based upon an allegation that the Port has created what the state law calls a "private nuisance." 62. On that date this Board also heard from legal counsel that the state law that provides a cause of action in Superior Court known as "private nuisance" is superior to and survives any local Ordinance such as this one that may arguably serve to deem `normal airport operations' as never rising to the level of a "public nuisance," a term of art also defined at RCW 7.48.130. 63. Thus, adoption of this Ordinance can not void or obliterate the cause of action known as "private nuisance" granted to all citizens of Washington by state law. 64. Inclusion of the language deeming normal airport operations to NOT be a nuisance also furthers and implements EPP 1.7(c) of the CP which requires the County, when drafting development regulations for any Essential Public Facility (such as the JCIA) to include in such development regulations "standards and criteria related to ... nuisance effects." 65. Inclusion of the language deeming normal airport operations to NOT be a nuisance also furthers and implements the clear intent of the Second Settlement Agreement entered into by and between the Port and the County on or about December 22, 2003. 66. Adoption of this Ordinance promotes the health, safety and welfare of the populace of Jefferson County. 8of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the County Commissioners in and for the County of Jefferson as follows: Section 1 The language of the attached Exhibit, consisting of twenty-two (22) pages, is hereby adopted as the detailed revisions and additions to the UDC and Comprehensive Plan. Section 2: The new zoning district, the Airport Essential Public Facility or "AEPF District," is reflected on the attached map, which shall serve as an amendment to the map entitled "Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map" (or "the CP Map") until such time as the CP Map can be amended and revised to reflect and include the new AEPF District. Section 3: A distinct map (distinct from the map referred to in Section 2 above) reflecting two overlay zones, known as Overlay I and Overlay II, is also adopted by this Board and made part of this Ordinance. This map of the two Overlays shall serve as an amendment to the CP Map until such time as the CP Map can be amended and revised to reflect and include these two new Overlays. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or figure of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 5: This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the Board of County Commissioners, also known herein as the County Commission. 9of10 ORDINANCE NO. 16-1213-04 re: Jefferson County International Airport � TY e0",, a • ° #�" iZVED AND ADOPTED this I3th day of December, 2004. 44 Jf ,a Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prosecuting Attoley JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Dan Titterness, Member Z; Patrick M. Rodgers, Member 10 of 10 1, ON OWN I -(- •1 • %7R-' •. • • • Ill •l` 1•MgIMil L •• • - I I - •I. •. •1 _ - 1 •. �•All •• •- _ _ .• - - I • ••_ -1• - - • - .1 .�- •1 .I• .I�� I•—���- 1 ..1•a-••-• I• • •- FUN .•• - .I• •. -• ••I 1' � -1 � •-I `� •l. ;�• "•Ill/'!•- • • - _ - � I l- �� 11.1•. -• _ ••I .1 •. • - - - 1- 1 l' � - •11 1 - • • • - • l/ c • - 1 l ` f • • - • - • • I • -I Fy; MM911 • a • .�• - I- • • • ••-l+ •ill- .1• •- - ••- • - - .I• • I"I Il cl ••I -+ •I' I l al 1 1- l - I l • •ll�- •I -WITTT1 • MOM 11 •- •I • II• - •- - I • WWOM • - ••I� • 1` �� II.I•. -• .1 �.�- I • I- TI MOA,-••-• I. I� • •- I ti� • - • •- • - • ,l • - in. ils The County's current Unified Development Code (UDC) generally limits uses within the Airport Essential Public Facilities District to aviation support facilities and aviation related manufacturing and light industrial uses. The County and Port acknowledge the need to consider permitting a broader range of uses within the district in order to maintain the long-term financial viability of this essential public facility. Accordingly, the County and Port will work together to prepare amendments to this Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) addressing Port owned property in the vicinity of JCIA, based on the Airport Master Plan The Port will assume responsibility for preparing the proposed Plan and Code amendments (in coordination with County staffl, and the County will docket the proposal during the applicable ensure the continuing operations of the JCIA as an essential public facility, in goal of these future amendments is to _promote compatible land uses. provide Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 3 of 22 8. Rural Forest 1 , « 1 • • • 1 - : lir- • • • 1 SII .l .. 1 • - • • - - - 1• 11- s1•I ••- _ •I 1 `1 •I • 11 I till- •l. ••l I Port Ludlow Master Proposed Amendments to the Unified Development Code Table 1-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use District Designations RF -40 Rural Forest IF Inholding Forest Master Planned Resorts MPR Port Ludlow Master Lands Planned Resort Public PPR Parks, Preserves and Brinnon Planning Area - Recreation CWMEPF oun Waste Management Essential; Public Facility AEPF Facili Overlay Designations ESA Environmentally Sensitive Areas MRL Mineral Resource Lands WEPA-RR West End Planning Area -Remote Rural BRPA-RR Brinnon Planning Area - Remote Rural A t Essential Fblis-Fasikty Small-scale Recreation SRT and Tourist Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 9 of 22 5. Public. This land use class consists of non-federal public lands used for special purposes. It includes three districts: a. Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PPR). This land use district consists of state and county parks, preserves and recreational sites. It is intended to provide for public recreational opportunities consistent with the rural character of the County and preserve significant natural amenities of special or unique character. • •_t� «-1•_! a t_ • • 1 1 • �_ _ #1179 =M IMIKINNNIM71T.Iff 1 .1 • - • • • 1 mM t 1- •.- .� . �- -t- •1 • 1� 1 - 1-=M •1• � •.n -• • . .. . 1- : -•1 -1 it 1 • �. -M a. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section is to regulate land uses within the "Airport Essential Public Facility" eveday District IAEPFI in order to encourage orderly economic development in a manner compatible with airport operations and adjacent properties and to protect existing general aviation public use airports from conflicting or incompatible adjacent land uses or activities. b. Designation. - eveday diStFi9t (see G•Gempi:eheRsiye Plan Map) business,= =- -t - - flight-- -- J-eftrson Cou& International Airport (JCIA) is a general purpose, public aviation airoort thatprovides r- - _ •1. business, floaht tragnina,I.t- J other uses- The Airport Essential Public Facility District d6signation -- the official Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan .td Use Designations Map) 1, •• to the following6 Parcels desianated as an Airport Essential Public Facility on the official Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Map-, Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 10 of 22 11 ice ! • � • • �71, 2 r ti Ir • • - iti, •- - cell"f .IL l 1 ' iL 1- il_ G •1 e••1 .� ! - •Ee1 &WI 11• u- 1-•1 f •I •J Ie •�� 11 11 �• , •:nMlr. - • I 1 I • .:« e f 1) Permi pdtcac- i. uses-wtaiekt Aviation support facilities and activities directly support flight operations and the operation of the Jefferson County International Airport, and include, but are not limited to: passenger service facilities including food service; charter services ai3d aircraft rentals; airport -related government offices; navigational aids; runway aprons; terminal buildings; hangars; fuel storage facilities; operations/maintenance facilities; aviation museum and/or visitor interpretive center; automobile parking; and restaurants. ii. Aviafion Related Development; Aviation Related Development emrise. These include, but are not limited to: aircraft repair facilities; aircraft remodeling facilities; aircraft sales and related aircraft equipment, services and supplies; aircraft manufacturing; airborne freight facilities; air pilot training schools; aviation clubs; taxi and bus terminal; automobile rental and associated parking; aviation related manufacturing authorized and approved:by the Federal Aviation Administration; and aerial recreational activities (e.a., balloon rides, aliders. etc.). iii. Public works maintenance/ eauinm_ ent st_n_ran_P_ shops: iv. Park and ride lots/transit facilities V. Roads, public or private: and vi. Public trails and paths. vii. Port -related aovernment offices. .- - s. •1. .1.�.1.•1 MIT- . ' . - -yl .- - •e11"1 Il- • •- - ..u-1 Ill 1151WOU111 Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page I 1 of 22 vii. Unnamed t 'lite u�S (Dl and Comm rcial communi ation facilities (note: this is a sn _-aa_I use under seL1on4 .3 infra 1 (3) Accessory Uses: Other uses accessory or incidental to uses allowed in 3,3.6(c), above, are permitted in the Airport Essential Public Facility District subject to approval by the Federal Aviation Administration. Such use��nclude b��+ are not limited to (4) Prohibited Uses: specifiedUses not wecffted within this section are prohibited Additionally, uses or activities that may affect flight operations including, but'not limited to the following, are expressly prohibited: i. Any use that releases airborne substances, such as steam, dust or smoke; ii. Any use that attracts concentrations of birds, waterfowl or other wildlife; iii. Uses that are determined to pose a hazard to the safe operation of the Airport as an aviation facility, d. Development Standards. This section provides standards to minimize the conflicts between the Jefferson County International Airport and proposed future development proximal to the airport proper. the establishment e The followina development standards are established to volt future incompatible uses and airspace obstructions in airport overlay districts, approaches and surrounding areas. Land uses and development shall comply with the standards established in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Part 77 (Objects affecting navigable airspace). Where the standards contained in this section conflict with FAR, Part 77, the more restrictive shall apply. All other development standards and review and approval criteria in this Code shall also apply. (1) Electrical Emissions. Any use or activity that emits electrical currents shall be installed in a manner that does not interfere with communication systems or navigational equipment. (2) Lighting. New development that creates glare of lighting that interferes with the lights necessary for aircraft navigation, including landing and take -off, shall be prohibited. (3) Height Restrictions. New development or alteration of existing development within the airport's navigable airspace shall be in accordance with "Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77: Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." (4) Ground Transportation Facilities. All uses shall be served by adequate transportation facilities, including appropriate facilities for transit; pedestrians, and bicycles. Where transportation facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed use, the applicant shall make provision for Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 12 of 22 Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Rage 14 of 22 W not limited to the folio ;-1--h-sta,nGes, WNW& Any use that Fele rhnrne SUGh as steam,nGluding, dust OF SFAGWIT iq. Any use that attFarts renGeAtratiens of �.rA etheF wildlife; Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Rage 14 of 22 W not limited to the folio ;-1--h-sta,nGes, WNW& Any use that Fele rhnrne SUGh as steam,nGluding, dust OF SFAGWIT iq. Any use that attFarts renGeAtratiens of ' etheF wildlife; Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Rage 14 of 22 necessary improvements. Transportation facilities shall be deemed adequate if necessary improvements are planned and funded in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation facilities shall meet the design standards of the Department of Public Works and Jefferson Transit. These standards include, but are not limited to, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and the Washington Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. Tr r I lei .Trm,T -3 = - - TCM -Wei- - - -- -- tee Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 13 of 22 I lei .Trm,T -3 - TCM tee Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 13 of 22 Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 15 of 22 • a• AW - `a- I 707mr7lill ■• • uti. r .gip-. r • i - •! I.• -r -i VAI .I Rural Industrial AG -20 X11. 7• - f Z«I.I � «ri111 - • � .a1 ,�- f I • - - I -I 1J,�I 1,f 1rl it .it i«.1 aft• z� rr1 p.I _• •1,• ��if - 1l •%1. 1,1=• • - p •.. -_ •.. ._pa •� .I � �- h1.fll't i� I �• f� fl a. 1. I �� • r ! ti« f _ WA; _ •:•rL - / HI .tl.ri =�- 111 J -I Table 3-1: Allowable and Prohibited Uses NOTES: 5. Land Use Districts: AG Agricultural Resource Lands I Rural Industrial AG -20 Commercial Agriculture RI Resource Industrial AG -5 1 Local Agriculture LI/C Light Industrial/Commercial Glen Cove F Forest Resource Lands LI Light Industrial HI Heavy Industrial CF -80 Commercial Forest RF -40 Rural Forest IF Inholding Forest RR Rural Residential P Public RR 1:5 Rural Residential —1 DU/5 Acres PPR Parks, Preserves and Recreation RR 1:10 Rural Residential —1 DU/10 Acres CWM County Waste Manaaernent Essential Public Facility RR 1:20 Rural Residential —1 DU/20 Acres AEPF AirFmrt Essential Public Facility (Refer to Section 3.3. RC Rural Commercial UGA Future Potential Urban Growth Area Reserved RVC Rural Village Center Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 20 of 22 CC Convenience Crossroad NC Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad GC General Crossroad Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 21 of 22 7.1.6 Compatibility with the Jefferson County International Airport a. Incompatible Uses. If the proposed short subdivision, long subdivision or binding site plan is within the Airport Overlay I, that it will not result. in the siting of an incompatible use within the vicinity of the airport. b. Disclosure. All short subdivision, long subdivision and binding site plans within the Airport Overlay I shall record the disclosure statement required under Section 3.6.11 of this UDC. In addition, the statement shall be signed and affixed to the plat and recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. Section 8.8.6 (8) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjaGent to an aiFpoFt OF aiAeld within the AiWrt Overlays as defined in Section 3.6.11 of this UDC. Staff Recommendation MLA03-00232 November 10, 2004 Page 22 of 22 cc-. ,i c --D JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DATE: Monday, December 6, 2004 at 2 p.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY All nc2 V s,h �NNr� 10 2-o %' NDS+h v, w l Testimony? NVQ YES NO MAYBE D 32-14✓d®ozAArb bl-, ■ ■ . ■ ■ u ■ ■ 0 ■ . ■ ►, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ fpr G eivI V541, 4 it/ N 373 =men WE 3 o ;�Z. 5 0 -22" s D 0j 00,0b 4leb,-V-,Pj l Testimony? NVQ YES NO MAYBE Z;3 ■ ■ . ■ ■ u ■ ■ 0 ■ . ■ ►, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ =men =11M it " ,�i ,1® am■ ®©am ©ONan'Al roam ®,®M mems JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DATE: Monday, December 6, 2004 at 2 p.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY N M Testimony? N YES NO MAYBE ROOD El77- ❑ C fes❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ r El El El El El `❑ ❑ E El El A -❑ 9 ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ rr i p //�v 509 P 1 b N, C. v aco c6 Z&el'� /V ��C C)4.J7— P X19 o Q� / c Qu c--> zkAfik.,j A4qOV fra,-t c 1. The Chair opens the public hearing. 2. The Chair states: This public hearing is being conducted on legislative matters pertaining to the comprehensive plan and development regulations of the unified development code. The purpose of this land use hearing is to provide the public an opportunity to present testimony to the Board in a manner that will assist us in making a fair, legal and complete decision. The hearing will be conducted in a controlled environment that allows all parties an opportunity to present testimony and evidence to support or oppose a position. This is not a question and answer period. This hearing is a fact finding forum. Those persons testifying shall first state their name and address for the record. Testimony is limited to minutes. Unruly behavior cannot be an element of the hearing. This is a legal process in which facts and opinions are presented to the decision makers. Please conduct yourself within these guidelines. 3. The Chair requests the Director to identify the amendment and to introduce the staff member who will present the staff report. 4. The staff member signals the Chair, who calls upon the citizen. 5. Repeat 4 and 5. 6. The Chair states that the public hearing is hereby closed. Crn elnL6 D Via" 1a�7�cy 1999 Noise Overlav Chronology NOZ - Agreement Between BOCC and PORT IMPACT: 600 Parcels/$37mil./Title Notification 2002 Port Proposal Tabled. BOCC and PORT Settle to adopt NoZ IMPACT: Notification to Title Companies 2003 Feb - Overlay #2. IMPACT:420 Parcels $16.5mil. 50 DNL Mar - Overlay #3. IMPACT: 99 Parcels $6.4mil. 55 DNL May 1 - PRQ Submitted Amendment July - PORT Removes Title Req. IMPACT: Disclosure Notification on Owners Dec. - Amendment Docketed Placed in 2004 cycle. 2004 August - Merits of amendment. 2005 GOAL: Amendment RE"'ORD Approval HE fiA CG pa 0- 104 cc. City of Port Townsend oFp°pTTO�y City Council a w Waterman -Katz Building',='° =' 181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368wn (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-6122 December 3, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: BOCC Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes Rural Densitv — LPN 3.7 — Land Use and Rural Element MLA 04-28 Part B — Public Hearing Scheduled December 6, 2004 Dear Members of the BOCC: 2004 This letter comments on your proposed action referred to above. The City believes the proposed comprehensive plan amendment should not be acted on by the BOCC. Our concern is that we understand this proposed amendment did not go though your Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. If so, this does not appear to meet GMA-required public participation requirements. Further, we are unaware of any staff report on the proposed amendment providing an analysis of its meaning and impact. Lack of Planning Commission review and any staff analysis available to us has prevented us from being able to fully assess the impacts of the proposed amendment. We have further concerns, resulting from not having the benefit of any County staff analysis or Planning Commission review, that the proposed amendment is not consistent with GMA planning requirements that would limit densities in rural areas. We are also concerned that policies that increase densities in rural areas result in potential negative impacts on urban areas like Port Townsend, contrary to GMA planning requirements to concentrate growth in urban areas. For the reasons stated above, we request that you defer any action on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment concerning rural densities This letter was approved by the City Council at its December 2, 2004 special meeting. Sincerely, Catharine Robinson Mayor A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT Q�,YC City of Port Town ORT> ,- City Council MMING RE Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368¢ (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-6122 December 3, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: BOCC Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes JGMSC Membership Composition — Comprehensive Planning Process MLA 04-28 Part B — Public Hearing Scheduled December 6, 2004 Dear Members of the BOCC: This letter comments on your proposed action referred to above. The City believes the proposed comprehensive plan amendment changing the composition of the joint growth management steering committee (JGMSC) should not be approved at this time. JGMSC at its September 21, 2004 meeting discussed potential JGMSC representation for the Irondale and Hadlock UGA and Port Ludlow. Following discussion, "it was agreed that the issue would be discussed again in January." (Minutes, attached.) The BOCC proposed action now isn't consistent with the agreement at JGMSC to defer action on changing JGMSC composition. It isn't consistent with the collaborative process to planning under GMA. It isn't consistent with the practice of JGMSC to increase membership (which was done by JGMSC vote, not BOCC action — see Councilor Masci's email, attached, opposing any City action). The City agrees in concept with additional representation to JGMSC. But as the consensus reached at the September 21 JGMSC indicates, the issues of how representatives should be selected, and what areas should be given representation, needs additional discussion before A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT Board of County Commissioners December 3, 2004, Page 2 action by JGMSC on expanded membership occurs. We request that you defer any action on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment changing JGMSC composition, pending further review and action by JGMSC. This letter was approved by the City Council at its December 2, 2004 special meeting. Sincerely, E/ �G�it.aar- Catharine Robinson Mayor Encl: 9/21/04 JGMSC Minutes 12/1/04 Masci Email cc: City Council GACity Anomey\2004\City Departments\Mayor\Mayor to BOCC JGMSC 12.3.04.doc GROWTH I+UNAGEMENT STEERING COKUTTEE MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by County Commissioner Glen Huntingford at 10:00 a.m. in the first floor conference room of the Jefferson County Courthouse. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Jefferson County: Commissioners Glen Huntingford, Dan Titterness, and Pat Rodgers. City of Port Townsend: Council members Michelle Sandoval, Freida Fenn, and Laurie Medlicott substituting for Frank Benskin. Port of Port Townsend: Commissioner Bob Sokol. Staff present: Al Scalf and Josh Peters, County Department of Community Development, County Administrator John Fischbach, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez. Jeff Randall, City Building and Community , Development, and Eric Toews, consultant. Herb Beck, Port Commissioner, and Larry Crockett, Port Executive Director. Guests:- Tom McNerney, County Planning Commission; Phil Johnson; and Nancy Dorgan. COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (CWPPs) The agenda topic related to potential updates of the CWPP for 2005. Al Scalf began the discussion by providing an overview of the policies and raised areas staff thought may need to be updated: The CWPP were statutorily mandated by the state under 36.70A.210. The current CWPP were adopted in 1992. Since then, both the City and County have adopted their respective Comprehensive Plans. Also, the GMA has been amended, particularly relating to rural provisions and best available science. The Legislature also enacted amendments relating to regulatory reform (36.70B) and the Land Use and Petition Act (36.70C). Additionally, there was case law from the courts and rulings from the Hearings Boards. Mr. Scalf noted that the Port was added in 1999 because the coordination and consistency of the respective comprehensive plans affected a number of elements for the Port as well. He stated that the CWPP were the framework to'guide the development of the comprehensive plans._ He stated that shoreline issues became a "fourteenth goal" of the GMA through Hearings Board action, adding to the thirteen original goals established by statute. - Al Scalf pointed out some outdated references in the CWPP. They included references to interim ordinances, including interim resource lands ordinances. He stated that best -available science was now required for - critical areas. Population was another issue. The recent designation of Port Hadlock/Irondale as a UGA and the references to Port Ludlow were also outdated and should be updated. Some issues called for in the CWPP were accomplished through the County's Comp Plan. There were references to community plans. Mr. Scalf pointed out that the Brinnon Plan was the only new community plan to be adopted, although there were other older plans for Gardiner and the :Tri Area. Mr. Scalf stated that one question he had was 1 whether we needed community plans, stating that they added complications to our codes. Al Scalf stated that there were new issues that possibly should be considered for inclusion in the CWPP. One was the dissolved oxygen issue in Hood Canal. The CWPP talked about water quality, but he suggested that it may be appropriate to address water quantity as well and conservation policies and standards. There were now two UGAs, so the CWPP should be modified to reflect that. There was discussion in the CWPP about inter -local agreements between those UGAs and the County and whether there could be joint review. Now there were Major Industrial Developments [MIDs] and Industrial Land Banks [ILBs] under the statute, which necessitated the removal of language in the CWPP about regional shopping centers or a large industrial complex in the County, because we wanted to utilize the aspects of the Act that provided for those potentials. Another issue the GMSC may want to discuss was the section of the GMA [36.7OA.350] which addressed fully contained communities. He stated that the Essential Public Facilities section needed to be updated. Transportation required ongoing updating. Affordable housing continued to be a major concern in our county. There was now a Task Force addressing the issue and there was recent data that could be integrated into the CWPP'on the topic. Economic development, although not a mandatory element of the GMA, was a very important aspect for our community. He thought the-CWPP on the rural areas should be totally rewritten to conform to the new aspects of the GMA. Policy #10 addressed the GMSC as the body for regional oversight. The question for an update was whether there should be participation from the new UGA and/or from the Port Ludlow MPR. Al Scalf described possible.scenarios for updating the CWPP, including the possibility of forming a -subcommittee of the GMSC to work with staff on drafting a recommendation for the full GMSC. He pointed out that adoption of the CWPP was a legislative action of the BOCC. The GMSC would essentially make a recommendation to the legislative authority (the BOCC) for amendments to the CWPP. Freida Fenn asked about a timeline from staff's perspective for an update of the CWPP. Al Scalf thought it would take most of 2005, working with the respective staffs and the GMSC to formulate a recommendation to the BOCC, and then the BOCC holding a public hearing before adoption of the amendments. Glen Huntingford asked how a list of potential amendments would be compiled. Al Scalf responded that he saw it coming individually from the City, County, or Port with suggestions for proposals, line-in/line-out. Or, the GMSC may want to form a subcommittee to work with the staffs to prepare a proposal. Mr. Huntingford thought. it would be interesting to try having each jurisdiction make line-in/line-out proposals. He commented that the three jurisdictions may be closer than one might think. Once we got'that together, the GMSC could work out the differences. Mr. Scalf suggested that the GMSC set a meeting for January and provide direction to staff about how the Committee wanted staff to proceed. Bob Sokol commented that Mr. Scalf had already taken a "first cut" at a review of the CWPP based upon his presentation. He suggested that Mr. Scalf provide his notes to the Committee as a starting point. Mr. Sokol stated that it was important to note that the last CWPP contained the procedure for amending them. 2 Glen Huntingford stated that the Committee would discuss the issue before the end of the meeting and set the agenda for the next meeting, which should take place after the first of the year. POTENTIAL GMSC REPRESENTATION for the IRONDALE 6 HADIA= UGA and/or PORT LUDLOW MPR Glen Huntingford stated that this discussion went back several years to around 1999. It involved both Port Ludlow and representation from a new UGA, when one was formed. Concerning Port Ludlow, he wondered how the Committee would solicit a representative. One way would be to ask for a list of people from the Port Ludlow area from the Village Council. Then the GMSC could interview them. He thought it would take.an.amendment to the CWPP to set up A procedure. He wondered whether 2005 was the appropriate time to do that, along with the other CWPP amendments. Glen Huntingford stated the opinion that there should be representation from those communities. His question was how to go about doing that., He asked for.the other Committee members' thoughts. Michelle Sandoval agreed that there should be representation. She had a concern about how to pick someone from Port Ludlow to represent the entire MPR given the differences between the communities within the MPR. She suggested that it may be best to have.them decide amongst themselves about who should best represent them. Pat Rodgers agreed that Port Ludlow had differences between communities. However, Port Ludlow had a Village Council, which was elected. He thought. the means. to getting a representative on the GMSC would be to ask the Village Council to appoint someone, adding that it might even be their chair. Mr. Rodgers stated that the UGA would be a different matter because that area did not have a governing body other than the County. Frieda Fenn agreed with Mr. Rodgers about both Port Ludlow and the UGA. She thought that, since the UGA did not have an elected body, it would be difficult to have an appointee that the community felt was representing them. Ms. Fenn stated that all of the current GMSC members were elected officials. She thought it would take some negotiating with the community to see who should represent them. Bob Sokol agreed that Port Ludlow would be easy because they did have an elected body. The fact that they had a divergence of opinion among their communities could be equated to Bort Townsend or other communities as well. He thought that a lot of the controversy in Port Ludlow seemed to be the Village Council versus PLA. He noted that the. Village Council was elected by geographical area. His suggestion to the GMSC was that the Port Ludlow representative be selected by the Village Council. He agreed that made the UGA.issue a bit more difficult, however. He wondered whether there should be some sort of advisory council representing the UGA, possibly similar to the Port Ludlow Village Council. That would put the UGA's representation on the GMSC out into the future until a council could be established. Another question was whether the Irondale/Hadlock UGA should have the same number of representatives as the Port Townsend UGA.. Dan Titterness asked whether the GMSC would support the County beginning the formation of an advisory body in the Irondale/Hadlock UGA. He thought the County could form it in the same way as any other advisory body, by 3 soliciting applications. Bob Sokol commented that it would be easy if the UGA was equal to one or two precincts so that there could be an election. Pat Rodgers commented that an interim answer may be for the GMSC to solicit applications and to interview and select from those applications. It was another approach he was just suggesting. Michelle Sandoval asked if the BOCC had considered forming some sort of long- term advisory body for the UGA. Dan Titterness replied that the BOCC had considered the concept. It was being raised to the Committee because of the issue about representation on the GMSC. He stated that the BOCC had not made any decisions but they were soliciting input. Bob. Sokol stated that Skagit County had an unincorporated UGA and there were probably others. Glen Huntingford wondered whether there was representation on that county's Steering Committee. He thought the topic should be researched. Michelle Sandoval stated that, if there was no precedent we could learn from, we should consider some way to district the UGA and hold elections, rather than merely appointing someone. Freida Fenn reiterated that all of the Committee members were elected and the Village Council members were elected. She thought that residents of the UGA would want to feel there was a process of self-determination over time to send representatives themselves. She thought that whatever direction the County took, it should eventually lead in the direction of elected representation. That would parallel everyone else sitting on the GMSC and would honor the democratic rights of that area to participate at that level, similar to every other entity at the table. The GMSC discussed how the Port Ludlow Village Council was formed and whether that model could be used for the Irondale/Hadlock UGA. They also discussed funding for .such a body. Glen Huntingford commented that Port Ludlow was discussing incorporation. With that would come some GMA issues Port Ludlow did not necessarily want to address (affordable housing and industrial and commercial growth to support the community). He thought that having a Port Ludlow representative on the GMSC to address some of those issues was a good idea. Pat Rodgers stated that Port Ludlow as not that many years from buildout by the developer at which time the community's relationship with the developer would be complete. He stated that part of the reason the Village Council existed was the relationship between the community and the developer. He thought it would be a natural evolution for the new relationship to be between the community and the County and the City, etc. He thought it would become closer to a municipality than it was currently, although Port Ludlow would not become a real municipality unless it chose to do so. Dann-Titterness asked if there would be support from the Committee for the BOCC to write to the Village Council asking them to appoint a representative to the GMSC. Glen Huntingford stated that his preference would be to wait and try to address the CWPP issues as a whole before making invitation to join the GMSC. Freida Fenn stated that a process to include Irondale/Hadlock UGA representation should be worked out before inviting Port Ludlow to join the GMSC. She thought the UGA folks may be upset if Port Ludlow was invited onto the Committee and the Committee. had not figured out how to accommodate UGA representation yet. Mr. Huntingford agreed that the structure should be in place first. In the meantime, we could answer their questions, if they had questions. 4 Michelle Sandoval commented that there was a big difference between sitting on the GMSC and being in charge of a homeowners association. while there were people who would get involved no matter where they lived, there were others who would have nothing to do with the association per se. She stated that she heard the same thing from certain people, which was.that they did not want to be involved in that. It was another layer of complication of their retired life and was not something they found positive. In some ways she would have a concern that people who would sit on the GMSC would have a broader interest than merely being on a homeowners association. Glen Huntingford suggested that the Committee talk about the issue again in January. He suggested that the GMSC may want a structure such that when certain things happened in that community, they would have the ability to choose a representative. Then they would have a spot on the GMSC. One option would be for them to be non-voting members. Another option would be to assure that the County Planning Commission had members from those communities and then the Planning Commissioner could be the GMSC representative. It was agreed that the issue would be discussed again in January. UPDATE on COUNTY and CITY PROGRESS on 2004 UPDATES to COMPREHENSIVE PLANS and DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Eric Toews provided an overview of the City's process for updating its Comp Plan and development regulations. He reported that the City conducted _its review and assessment as part of establishing the docket for formal review. That assessment and docketing process was done in April, 2004. A total of ten legislative items were docketed and one site-specific. rezone. There were four Comp Plan amendments docketed which were mostly technical in nature. One significant item was updating the Plan language relating to the population forecast and allocation. Another related to policy language concerning group homes to'assure the'Plan was consistent with state and federal statutory mandates. He stated that there were a number of code amendments docketed. The most significant related. to adoption of a Transportation Concurrency Management Ordinance, a new off-street parking and loading ordinance, and implementation of !best available science. Eric Toews stated that the City was also working on its Shoreline Master Program [SMP] update. He stated that much of the science being developed in the shoreline jurisdiction was also applicable in the upland areas. Therefore, the City was trying to dovetail as much as.. possible and not duplicate effort between its Comp Plan and SMP. Eric Toews explained that the City segregated the topics into amendment packages with the first being technical amendments. That package had already gone through Planning Commission review and recommendation. The City Council had held the first reading of an ordinance for the technical amendments. He stated that staff was currently working on the final draft language for the off-street parking and loading code modifications. That package would go to the Planning Commission in October. It was expected that the Planning Commission would have a recommendation ready to go to the City Council by year's end with City Council hearings in January and February, 2005. The critical areas ordinance, because of the need to dovetail with the Shoreline Master Program update and the need to incorporate the recommendation of a peer review group and public concerns, would go to the Planning Commission in November for their review. The Planning Commission recommendation was 5 anticipated in January, 2005, and City Council hearings in February and March, 2005. He stated that it was expected that final action on all of the packages would occur before the end of the first quarter of 2005, which was a bit behind the statutory deadline of December 1, 2004. He thought that staff and the policy advisors and decision makers felt it was an appropriate timeframe necessary to factor in public concerns and do a good job, particularly on best' available science. Glen Huntingford asked if the City received grant funding from the state for the update. Michelle Sandoval replied that they did. Jeff Randall stated that the City could possibly receive up to $192,000, although that was for both the update and the SMP. Josh Peters stated the belief that the County received more money than the City for the update, noting that the County SMP was not due -for update until 2011. Mr. Randall stated that the significant difference was because the City was required to update its SMP by the end of 2005. Josh Peters provided an overview of the County's process for updating its Comp Plan and Unified Development Code [UDC]. He handed out a legal notice which would appear in the September 22 newspaper announcing the hearings, etc. for the County's amendments. He stated that the County would also not meet the December 1 statutory deadline, but only by about two weeks under the current schedule. He noted that under the County's UDC, the BOCC was required to make a final decision by its second meeting in December. Josh Peters stated that the update was packaged as MLA04-28 and was in two parts. Part A contained the statutorily required update amendments.. Part B contained the discretionary amendment proposals resulting from the.Planning Commission's 5 -year assessment of the Plan. He stated that he.would address the next agenda item [Update on discretionary County Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendment proposals] as part of his presentation. Josh Peters stated that staff and consultants developed the statutorily required update amendments [Part A] in MLA04-28. He stated that the final drafts would be available to the public on September 22, although pre=release drafts of the Transportation, Capital Facilities, and population elements had been available for awhile. He stated that the material available on September 22 would include the proposals themselves as well as the staff report and analysis of them. Josh Peters stated that Part B of MLA04-28 conta,ined__the Planning Commission proposals based on their 5 -year assessment of the Comp Plan. A Planning Commission committee conducted the review and made a recommendation to the full Planning Commission, which accepted the proposals with some revisions. That proposal was released to the public on September 1 in order to provide the public with additional review time. The proposal would be formally released on September 22. The Planning Commission proposal basically addressed all the other sections of the Comp Plan not addressed in Part A. Josh Peters stated that the County had a web site devoted to the 2004 Comp Plan amendment process. Josh Peters listed the Comp Plan elements for which the Planning Commission had developed line-in/line-out recommendations for amendments (Introduction and Implementation and Monitoring; Land Use and Rural; Housing; Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation; Economic Development; and 6 Environment). He stated that there was also one site specific redesignation for a parcel at the SR 19/20 intersection. Josh Peters stated that the amendment proposals would go to the Planning . Commission for formal hearings, review and recommendation to the BOCC. The Planning Commission hearing was scheduled for October 6 with the written comment period open until October 13. Michelle Sandoval asked about the criteria used for the proposed amendments. Josh Peters explained that the criteria came from the UDC. In addition, the Planning Commission developed criteria in response to a BOCC request to remove verbosity from the Plan. He explained the difference between the County 5 -year assessment and the state mandated 7 -year update. He stated that the County would change the County 5 -year assessment to correspond to the statutory 7 -year update for future updates. Mr. Peters clarified that the criteria used were a combination of the UDC criteria, the BOCC's direction, and the Planning Commission's own will. Josh Peters provided information on the other proposed amendments on the docket. Two related to the airport goals and policies and were carried over from 2003 (MLA03-232 and MLA03-244). Another docketed amendment was for potential redesignation of 253 parcels to Agriculture Lands. He explained that a Planning Commission committee 'had reviewed the subject parcels and made a recommendation to the full Planning Commission. He noted that some parcels were not recommended for redesignation, although most were. Glen Huntingford asked if the Planning Commission.had attempted to bring the two airport groups together (the Port and People for a Rural Quimper) to try to resolve some of the issues. Josh Peters replied that -the answer was „Yes" and "No". He stated that the two groups had not met directly. He stated that one meeting of the Planning Commission Airport Committee had representation from both groups in attendance. He stated that the most work had been done by County and Port staff to fulfill a settlement agreement, which was a result of a petition to the Hearings Board by the Port after the County adopted its UDC. He stated that staff had been in communication with both parties. He offered the opinion that the proposal to be released on September 22 fairly met all the original objectives in a way that staff hoped PRQ would be satisfied. with. He thought it was fair to say that the Port had shifted its position vis a vis the proposal .to such a degree to try to accommodate the PRQ concerns. Larry Crockett stated .that County staff had kind of - acted as the mediator for two originally divergent proposals. He thought staff had done a yeoman's job. He stated that everyone should recognize that there was a state law that the County must obey with regard to the airport specifically. He thought.the Port had compromised in regard to PRQ's and other citizens concerns. He thought most of the concerned citizens were, now satisfied. Freida Fenn asked about the general industrial area not related to aviation uses that had been proposed by the Port originally. Bob Sokol stated that issue was totally off the table. Josh Peters clarified that the February 1 proposal from the Port contained goals and policies about future industrial uses at the airport. That was still in that proposal. However, in terms of the actual proposal and the uses at the airport itself that would be considered industrial, there were some uses that were already there or were aviation related in some way. He stated that staff was able to reach a resolution on that issue. He stated that some uses that were proposed on 7 February 1 would be addressed in a future planning process. Mr. Peters encouraged the members to look at the proposal when it came out on September 22. He described the contents of the proposal. Eric Toews clarified that what was in the proposal would allow a future planning process to examine the range and scale of industrial uses permitted at the airport Essential Public Facility and to allow the Port to come forward with a proposal that would be docketed. He stated that there.was also very clear policy language that whatever future action was taken must be consistentwith the goals and substance of the planning requirements of the statute. He stated that the discussion was really for another day. What was in the proposal was really just a placeholder to allow that process to occur in the future. Michelle Sandoval asked for clarification about the placeholder provisions in the proposal, asking if it -was something that was agreed to by the elected officials. Josh Peters replied that what was in the proposal represented an agreement between County and Port staff about what staff was proposing as a compromise package for the airport. He did not know about any communication between the BOCC and the Port Commissioners. He stated that the ultimate decision about adoption of goals, policies, and regulations lay with the BOCC. Ms. Sandoval clarified that the proposal was not something that was brought forward in agreement between the policy makers then. It was pointed out that there was a settlement agreement between the County and Port and that future planning (the placeholder) was part of that agreement. Mr. Peters pointed out that the Port Commissioners and BOCC did agree on the settlement agreement. That set in motion the process by which the staff would prepare exact language to implement that settlement agreement. To that degree, they were in agreement. It remained to be seen whether they would agree to the proposed language. Bob Sokol stated that this issue came as the result of an appeal by the Port to the Hearings Board. The Port and County asked the Hearings -Board for the opportunity to work out their differences. That process had been going on for over two years. He stated that this proposal was the result of the respective staffs working together. He stated that Port staff had kept the Port Commissioners informed all through the process, so the Port Commissioners knew about it and were supportive of it. He stated that it could not just be negotiated between the electeds; it had to go through the public process. That was where it was in the process now. He stated that -part of the proposal was to make the public aware about the airport, which was one of the big criticisms that started this whole thing off. Freida Fenn commented that this issue was a good example of something that should have been discussed by the GMSC. Under the CWPP, part of what the GMSC was supposed to do was look at the economic impacts of land use developments and changes that were proposed in the county -wide area. She thought the new UGA issue was also something that would have been appropriate for consideration by the GMSC. Since growth and development was supposed to happen inside the UGAs and since Port Townsend was the. only other UGA, she was concerned from a compliance standpoint. For the health of a new UGA and the health of an existing UGA, the GMA concept was that the jobs were supposed to be where the people lived. She stated that these two issues should have been discussed at the GMSC level because there were domino effects. 8 Dan Titterness stated that the proposal only proposed a future planning process. That was where it could occur. Frieda Fenn responded that she would read the actual proposal when it came out. Al Scalf stated that the staff report and recommendation to be published on September 22 as it related to best available science would contain recommendations for additional environmental protections in the areas of channel migration zones and shoreline development, specifically setbacks and the functions of the near shore buffer. He stated that the package would also include a white paper on the issue prepared by Dave Christensen. Glen Huntingford stated that the issues of notice to title and an airport overlay, which had so disturbed people a couple of years ago, still concerned people. However, even after two years,:people still said.that it was an appropriate use of the adjoining property to have some type of light industrial development, or such use, to utilize that property. He knew that "flew in the face" of what we try to do with. the UGAs, but he thought a large majority of the people living around the airport thought it would be a good use there. He was not sure we could do it under the GMA. DISCUSSION of INDUSTRIAL LAND BANKS and MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Josh Peters stated that RCW 36.70A.365 allowed counties to establish a process by which applicants could approach counties for development of a major industrial development [MID]. He stated that we had not received an application for a MID. RCW 36.70A.367 addressed establishing an industrial land bank [ILB],.essentially.zoning an area on the land use map for urban style industrial development (a MID). That was something Jefferson County had to take advantage of by the end of 2007 or lose the opportunity. We would be allowed to develop two such areas. Michelle Sandoval asked about the 2007 date. Josh Peters replied that when the section was originally put into place, there was a sunset date included by which the counties must establish the land banks. Michelle Sandoval asked if a county could simply zone the area on the land use map or if the infrastructure actually had to be provided by 2007. Josh Peters replied that the original statute said that you had to "provide" infrastructure. Then it was amended to suggest that the county must plan for infrastructure. It would be like planning for a UGA. We would have to do the planning to do the zone and -plan for the infrastructure in order to put it on the map by 2007. We did not have to put the infrastructure in. For clarification, an ILB would be a type of a UGA. Michelle Sandoval stated that she thought the CWPP called for such planning to be done jointly through the GMSC as a cooperative effort, siting a specific reference to Essential Public Facilities [EPFs]. She stated that both the City and County had done such planning independently in the. past. Glen Huntingford wondered whether -it meant a cooperative effort or whether it meant an effort bf courtesy to make sure everyone was aware. He asked if the City Comp Plan currently contained criteria for siting and dealing with EPFs. Eric Toews replied that the CWPP indicated that the County and incorporated UGAs would jointly develop specific siting criteria. Then it went on to list elements of those siting criteria. They were adopted as policy in the Comp Plans of both the County and City. In essence, at least.the framework for the siting criteria was in the plan of each jurisdiction. In 1997, the City adopted its zoning code to implement its plan, which included the siting of E EPFs as either a conditional or permitted use in certain zones in the City. It did not include any specific regulatory process for permitting such uses. In 2000, the County adopted its UDC and did the same thing in its use table and adopted a special use permit process that governed such EPFs. It built on the siting criteria of CWPP #4. Mr. Toews stated that the City's assessment of its plan in early 2004 concluded that, while their code did not preclude EPFs, but allowed them, it did not contain any specific regulatory provisions to implement the policy language. Therefore, the City proposed a new draft chapter to implement the siting of EPFs during this cycle. He stated that, in summary, both jurisdictions had somewhat analogous processes that built on the framework of the criteria contained in the CWPP. However, the two jurisdictions never collaborated to further "flesh out" the criteria before doing the respective implementing ordinances. He did not know if that was a huge issue, stating that both jurisdictions met the statutory requirement to not preclude any EPFs. The City would have, after this amendment cycle, a process for reviewing and siting EPFs consistent with the criteria of CWPP #4. Bob Sokol asked if there had been any EPFs sited in the City or County since the adoption of the respective Comp Plans. There were none. Dan Titterness stated that the Transit Board was actually talking about siting an EPF for their facilities. He suggested that it may be appropriate to revisit the CWPP to further develop the siting criteria.' Mr. Sokol pointed out that the issue was siting of an EPF and not uses at an already established EPF. Michelle Sandoval stated that her point was that, if the jurisdictions were supposed to be jointly doing this, the GMSC possibly could have had some conversation that may have reflected upon the proposal that was going forward. She stated that she was just trying to get clarity about whether the proper process was followed. Glen Huntingford stated that it seemed to him that both jurisdictions had pretty much done what the CWPP called for in putting the criteria together. Both jurisdictions adopted their Comp Plans and development codes. It did not seem that there was any argument that we were not following our criteria in our plans. Freida Fenn stated that about a year ago the City had brought up to the GMSC that there should be some process for some joint discussions about siting of EPFs. It would be much better to settle on how that process would occur before.there was an actual siting proposal before the jurisdictions. She suggested that the issue be put on a future agenda item. Glen Huntingford questioned the point if both jurisdictions had implemented and were following the adopted criteria. Ms. Fenn stated that it would be so that we looked at the impacts of what any entity was considering doing so that they were not being done in an isolated form.- Mr. Huntingford asked whether she.thought it was more of a courtesy that we talk about these things ahead of time. Ms. Fenn responded that it could result in a somewhat different proposal. Bob Sokol stated that there was always the public process in which any entity or individual could comment on what was going through the public process, which was probably more direct than sitting in the GMSC. Glen Huntingford summarized that the GMSC would talk about the issue again. Dan Titterness stated the belief that the MID issue was fairly well addressed already. He thought the ILB issue should be discussed and developed further. He stated that Jefferson County had a date by which to act or lose the opportunity. 10 Glen Huntingford offered some scenarios for types of uses and locations for ILBs. Bob Sokol stated that particular uses would be more appropriate to an MID and that process. He stated that a ILB was an area that had been designated where more than one industrial business could site. Michelle Sandoval stated that there must be criteria and a process for siting an ILB. That should be the first thing to be adopted. Mr. Sokol stated that the statute indicated that the process was the same as that for an MID. Freida Fenn stated that the exception was that there could be multiple businesses sited in an ILB, whereas a MID was for one business. Larry Crockett stated that, since an ILB would be sited outside of a UGA, the infrastructure did not need to be to a UGA level of service. He stated; that a septic system could be appropriate for an ILB because it limited the ability of the IL$ to influence the more rural character of adjacent properties. He stated that the statute also said that the land banks, although they did not have to be, should be considered for siting adjacent to, or in the proximity of, existing UGAs. If there were sites near the Tri Area or Port Townsend, they should be looked at first before going out into other areas of the county. Mr. Crockett stated that the Olympia office had told them that other factors included cost. A small business that could not find appropriate land in the UGAs because of cost and just wanted to rent could site in an ILB. That could be a factor for using a land. bank area. Glen Huntingford suggested that the Committee begin considering the ILB issue more closely and get more information so the GMSC could have some discussions over the next few months. He stated that the GMSC could make a recommendation about whether to go forward. He thought it should be seriously considered to see if there were options we wanted to pursue. The Committee members agreed. Mr. Huntingford asked County staff to look into the topic further and schedule it back to the GMSC for discussion. PUBLIC COMMENT Glen Huntingford opened the floor to public comments. Herb Beck asked what this whole process [the Comp Plan updates] would cost the County and. where the money would come from. Glen Huntingford replied .that we knew it would cost more than the $80,000 grant money the County had received. He stated that it was something the County had to do, however. Larry Crockett stated that, concerning the landbank issue, Mary Winters had called DCTED and the actual legislative people who had drafted the statute language to make sure what their intent was. He reported that they were very excited about getting some land banks established in the state. He stated that it would be important to be on the same page as the DCTED staff to really understand it. Nancy Dorgan stated that she did not like the idea of placeholder amendments at the beginning of the Comp Plan amendment cycle. She stated that she at the last County Planning Commission meeting. She stated that they added on expansion of a LAMIRD, piggybacking on the 2004 update. She thought a way for the County to save some money was to not allow that kind of thing to happen. She stated that the County had some pretty specific input from the Hearings Board regarding LAMIRD.expansion, yet the County was considering something that was not docketed as a site specific rezone at the beginning of Eat the cycle and that was coming in just a few days before it goes to public comment. .l• The GMSC agreed to meet again in January, 2005. Agenda topics could be: (1) further discussion about the CWPP, (2) the respective Comp Plan updates, (3) the Industrial Land Bank issue, and (4) the composition of the GMSC. Glen Huntingford stated that it would be a good idea for the Port staff to share the information they had on the ILBs with County and City staff. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. 12 Sheila Spears From: geoffmascidc [geoffmascidc@olympus.net] Sent Wednesday, December 01, 200410:14 AM To: Sheila Spears Cc: The Leader Subject: Re: 12/2 Council agenda -BOCC comp plan proposed changes re JGMSC composition EEyoww!!!!! WHat!!! (Consider this uncivil e-mail) I was a JGMSC member for 3.5 years. I proposed that the port be seated. There was universal agreement with the exception of Richard Wojt. Even Dan Harpole voted yes. We also seated the PUD as observers ---all consistent with the County Planning policy documents and the GMA. Also consistent is the seating of representatives of the TriArea UGA. How that is done or chosen is probably spelled out in the County Planninmg Document. Calll Alvarez!! Do NOT place this on Dec.2 agenda!!! You have NO .Support from me on this with so many Councillors absent. The City needs and must support the seating of the TriArea members. This is about Faith and trust, not raw preservation of perceived City power over development. Oppose this at you peril,Council...... I will denounce any obstruction of this "Fair Play" issue as a ploy to control growth and deny self-determination to the Tri -Area residents. This is a natural outgrowth of the sale of the Hadlock water system to the PUD .... an established City policy and accomplishment. g.masci do----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheila Spears" <sspears@ci.port -towns end. wa.us> To: "Catharine Robinson" <crobinson@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Councilor Frank Benskin" <fbenskin@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Councilor Laurie Medlicott" <lmedlicott@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Freida Fenn" <ffenn@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Geoff Masci" <gmasci@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Kees Kolff" <kkolff@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Michelle Sandoval (E-mail)." <msandoval@ptcitycouncil.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:27 PM Subject: FW: 12/2 Council agenda -BOCC comp plan proposed changes re JGMSC composition > -----Original Message----- • From: John Watts > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:35 PM > To: City Council > Cc: David Timmons > Subject: 12/2 Council agenda -BOCC comp plan proposed changes re JGMSC composition > For your information, Mayor Robinson added to the Council's Thurs., Dec. 2, spec. bus. meeting agenda the BOCC's proposed comp plan change to add members to the joint growth management. For background, forwarded to you is an email below. Please call/email with any questions. > -----Original Message----- * From: John Watts > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:30 PM > To: David Alvarez (E-mail) > Cc: David Timmons; Jeff Randall; Al Scalf (E-mail) > Subject: BOCC comp plan proposed changes - JGMSC composition > David - At least one of the proposed BOCC comp plan changes in MLA 04-28 Part B (BOCC public hearing scheduled Dec. 6, 2004) has raised concerns among some Councilors. The particular amendment -involves changing the composition of the joint growth management steering committee (JGMSC) by .adding language allowing the. Port Hadlock C of C to submit two names to the BOCC to represent the UGA at JGMCS. According to JGMSC minutes of Sept 21, 2004, the matter of potential representation for Irondale/Hadlock (and Port Ludlow) was discussed, and "it was agreed that the issue would be discussed again in January." > Any comment you could provide on the proposed BOCC action, in light of the JGMSC decision, would be appreciated. Also, the County comp plan section proposed for amendment refers to the formation of the steering committee. If you have copies of formation documents, and could forward them to me, it would save me tracking them down. Do you know if the documents authorize BOCC action to amend steering committee membership? Where does the authority for the proposed BOCC action come from? What was the process to add the Port as member to the steering committee? > FYI - Council, at its Dec. 2nd special meeting, will be discussing this matter and possible City comment to the BOCC for its 12/6 meeting. > John Watts > City Attorney - City of Port Townsend > Waterman & Katz Bldg., 181 Quincy St., #201 > Port Townsend, WA 98368 > Telephone: 360/379-5048 Fax: 360/385-4290 > > MAIL DISTROUTION: (Date& Name) DATE RECEIVED: City Council: Staff (identify who) _n7 Committee Packet Info Pack No Response Required: Other. 2 I (!r z-5 HEARING RECORD In 1996 as a Housing Authority Commissioner I was part of the original GM process. I was involved in writing the Housing Component for both the City and the County. In reviewing the proposed amendments I have come across various errors and omissions. I understand that the Planning Commission was trying to make the document "more streamlined and reader -friendly" but certain information is still necessary. At the beginning of the document is a table that summarizes the housing issues that have been identified and addressed in other elements of the Plan. This table has been removed and I remember this table being created because it was a congruency requirement of the GMA itself. As a lay person, I found this table very readable and helped me understand the relationship of all the elements to each other. It was the string and glue that linked it all together. The next problem I have is with the math in various tables. First there is no reference to where the raw data was obtained and the actual arithmetic is wrong, if one can presume to check the work when no formulas are provided. An example of this is table 5.2 where the explanation says that nearly seventy percent (69.5%) of]efferson County were comprised of one or two persons. In reality the actual number is 72.80ro which is clearly over 70%. Etc. I am handing you a repaired copy of Table 5-4 where the percentage calculations for the 2000 data seem to be fairly off. I believe that percentages in a table such as this should total close to 1000/`0. On page 5-5, I found a discrepancy between your population statistic and the one published on Census website. Yours was $37,869 and the Census Bureau says it was 39,519. Another issue is deletions. In the explanation for Table 5-3 the word unincorporated has been stricken making the reader believe that the data below is for the whole county including Port Townsend, but I do not believe that is the case, since the statistical change is small enough that either the table was always both areas, or it still does not include Port Townsend. All throughout the document statistics are either removed or left with no change. It appears that redoing the statistics and knowing the amount of homeless or special needs populations is definitely not a priority to the current writers of this document and that saddens me. In housing Resources there are many factual errors. The Section S Certificate Program is now Housing Choice Vouchers and the program is significantly changed. The descriptive part of this text is incorrect as is the name of various agencies and their current role. k. / ` 1 I also clearly sense a philosophical change from beinAroactive in anticipating needs and looking for resources to reactive to the minimum action needed for the population who is in need of affordable housing. And that saddens me. As I watch the national priority focus on war at the expense of Head Start and HUD, I am astounded by the lack of concern from the local governments at the demise of our local Housing Authority and its ability to help with the housing issues of those most in need. It is time to be proactive in creating local capacity to solve our problems, because it is abundantly clear that there will be no assistance from the feds. This document could create a clear path from our elected leaders for those in the business of housing to help those in need. 'Avis -is an opportunity, don't just through it away. Thank you. Julia B. Cochrane PO Box 1654 Port Townsend 379-3978 s. r 0 U1000M O 1.01 O p 0 0 O O O 03 w CO A O 0 0 w N N V N wO� A w O O O OD W W Q — 90 90 p 9) O 0) Co CO - 0) O 00000 ►� p N � W 00 N N N O N V-1wCO W CO W wCnAN N Q Cfl W �-h -L N O CO -Ij0N-4 0 oagoo O OD 1 O t0 :-- co co Nin6 A I N IV WsNAco www p� m w ►-� 0"o ODOV a 0 co .01 - tOO W N N 0 w 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 o W CA —4 W �7 CO -► W W A -I W V �1 tQ -& " " 6 *i -+AN 0 0 0 0 0 ag * * * a 0 o� 016 -4 CD CD d PO Box 1610 1033 Lawrence Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Phone (360) 379-9501 FAX (360) 379-9897 1l0i JEFFERSON LAND TRUST H,eIping the community Preserve open space, working lands and habitat forever CLLEMATI N 6 OUR 15 th YLAK I! December 3, 2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County HEARING RECORD P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Subject: Formal Comment on Proposed Comprehensive Plan and UDC Amendments Dear Commissioners Huntingford, Rodgers, and Tittemess: E-mail: jlt@saveland.org Jefferson Land Trust wishes to formally acknowledge our strong support of and Web: www. saveland.org complete agreement with the comments already submitted in writing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments by several state agencies and organizations. Specifically, these include: BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mark Dembro, President . Letter from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to Jefferson Kate Burke County Department of Community Development dated October 13, 2004. Ellen Crockett a Letter from Washington Environmental Council to Jefferson County Don Dybeck Department of Community Development dated October 13, 2004. Heidi Eisenhour • Letter from Washington Department of Ecology to Jefferson County Department of Community Development dated November 1, 2004. Owen Fairbank Steven Habersetzer Echoing the sentiments expressed by these three organizations, we commend the Pat Hood County for its excellent study on "Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Kees Kolff Areas in Eastern Jefferson County" by Suzanne Tomassi. The information in this document will be most helpful to Jefferson Land Trust in its future conservation planning, and we look forward to collaborative efforts with the County based on EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR this document. Stephanie J. Reith ed@saveland.org We also wish to express our strong agreement with the following specific recommendations made by WDFW, WEC, and WDOE: PROJECTS MANAGER Sarah Spaeth programs@saveland.org • That Buffer Alternative 3 be adopted to determine wetland buffer widths based on the wetland category, adjacent land use, and the specific wetland OPERATIONS MANAGERS functions that require protection. Nancy Newman . That administrative exemptions for smaller wetlands be as minimal as admin@saveland.org possible and that the exemption threshold be based on data showing the Kristin Axtman cumulative effect on wetland functions in the County. jlt@saveland.org • That Shorelines Policy ENP 5.2 be restored to the Comprehensive Plan and that cumulative effects of shoreline development be required for STEWARDSHIP COORDINATOR consideration to prevent further degradation of marine and freshwater Orion Shannon steward@saveland.org shorelines in the County. 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. s Page 2 Board of County Commissioners December 3, 2004 cc: Jefferson County Josh Peters Al Scalf Jefferson Land Trust Mark Dembro Sarah Spaeth That the proposed marine shoreline buffer be increased to protect all shoreline functions, not just water quality, and that the County follow CTED guidance on establishing buffer widths for marine shorelines. That private and public structures be kept outside of the Channel Migration Zone, and that setbacks from the edge of the CMZ be increased in keeping with standard Type S, F, Np or Ns buffers to ensure protection of human life and structures, as well as critical habitat areas. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. JEFFERSON LAND TRUST r Stephanie Reith Executive Director CC tie � MLA o4 -2,5 FPr a`I I G od Afternoon everyone: INIQ I'm Dana Roberts, 438 22nd St. inM ofVETCQQoffice, my comments are my own: Jefferson PUD #1 has no adopted position on what I have to say. Thanks for the opportunity to comment at this stage. My statement is about the 2 sewer plans endorsed in various elements of the Comp Plan dealing with the Hadlock-Irondale UGA. One for storm water management; one for sanitary sewa e. f35cAvsE. IT cnN Ar i tJET'g&^,W-- +WW To BR(Ntrq Ag$ ! Im DeCtDtkC -rHrc frocrsS A►ot4 In deciding how to pay for these improvements, I urge adopting the principle of "Beneficiaries Pay". The fairest way to assure that those who benefit from public improvements pay proportionately for what they get is to use an existing process: Improvement Districts. They have an established track record of tying project costs to that part of the community receiving the service provided. Whether you use the ULID (Utility Local Improvement District) or the kindred LID (Local Improvement District), the underlying philosophy is to allow new development to pay the improvements' cost. That new development brings with it the need for the utility improvement. It's fair that it should pay for it. Across our state, PUDs and other entities use this approach very successfully in providing localized public utility improvements on a "beneficiaries pay for it" principle, w Ke.►, 4k, vl" i5 ebiden--, This concept is especially relevant for providing sanitary sewers. So far as I am informed, there is no alarming concentration of failing septic systems in the UGA and surroundings to justify the need for widespread connection to a sanitary treatment system. If you cannot endorse this principle at this time, my encouragement is to leave the funding method for future decision. In formulating this recommendation, I reviewed The Storm Water Management Plan - pages 5 & 6 - and the General Sewer Plan - section 5 - Approach to Financing, including 5.2 on Funding Sources and 5.3 on User Fees and Payment Methods. I also reviewed the counterpart Transportation Plan, noting that page 2-6 assumes "[al..sanitarylsewer system available by 2011 to designated areas," and the related Critical Acquifer Recharge Areas element. Lastly, on a totally different topic: Agriculture. I want to endorse the positive philosophy behind the Planning Commission's Recommendations of Nov. 15, 2004 for using Planning and Zoning designations to support the present and future place of smaller scale Agriculture in Jefferson County. Thank you. Pfd �a17%`� �c 12/6/04 From: Jerry Chawes 6350 Cape George Rd, Port Townsend WA 98368 To: Jefferson County Board Of Commissioners Re: JCIA Airport Overlay MLA 03-232 As a citizen of Jefferson County, I want to take exception to language in the MLA 03-232 that in- ludes the phrase " THE COUNTY DOES NOT CONSIDER THESE INCONVENIENCES AND/OR DISCOMFORTS FROM SUCH OPERATIONS TO BE A NUISANCE". To me, that means the County is surrendering all autonomy and judgement from what the Federal Government is willing to impose on us. We have only to look at the environmental record of what the current Federal Government is proposing, to ask, Is legislation depleting wild salmon stocks a nuisance? Is possible legislation to drill in pristine wildlife areas a nuisance? Has it been necessary for citizens to sue the Federal Government for failure to clean up the Hanford Nuclear facility? The fact is, the Government may legislate, but it is the responsibility of the citizenry to decide what is or is not a nuisance. No Government may take that right away from us, and neither should you, the Jefferson County Board Of Commissioners decide that for the residents of Jefferson County. The fact that the airport operates within the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration does not annul that right. STA Vti ��i� �✓� O ��'t I889 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 December 3, 2004S� ` Mr. Josh Peters Senior Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Developmentcougy F 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Peters: Thank you for this opportunity to provide written comments on the Proposed UDC Amendments. Ecology is pleased to see that Jefferson County updated the CAO to adopt the latest version of Ecology's Wetland Rating System. This change represents a significant improvement in wetland protection. Use of this function based system will provide an increased level of information about the existing values of wetlands within Jefferson County's jurisdiction, and will help assure that wetland function and values are protected. We wish to reiterate several issues that were discussed in our previous letter dated November 1, 2004. There are areas of this ordinance that are not consistent with what the science has shown are protection standards likely to protect wetland functions and values. A primary area of concern is the widths of the standard wetland buffers proposed. The widths are those identified by CTED in the model code language as buffer widths adequate to protect wetlands where the adjacent land use activity is low intensity. These buffers widths generally will not protect wetlands where the adjacent land use activities are moderate or high. This strategy for determining standard buffer widths has not taken adjacent land use into consideration. If the County wishes to use a one -size -fits -all approach to establishing wetland buffers determined only by the category of the wetland, then we recommend that the buffers be large enough to protect the wetland resources from the types of impacts that can be anticipated from high intensity adjacent land uses. Of particular concern are wetlands that have a high or moderate level of wildlife habitat functions that require wider buffers to maintain the integrity of buffers and the ability to perform these habitat functions. In addition, the allowances for buffer decreases in the existing regulations are likely to further decrease wetland buffer widths and the protection buffers provide for wetland functions and values. Ecology believes it is inappropriate to designate standard buffer widths that are at the bottom of the range recommended by the scientific literature and then allow further reductions on a case-by-case basis. Further, the language regarding buffer reductions contains inadequate criteria for determining when reductions are appropriate and has no minimum buffer width requirements. Taken together these parts of the ordinance significantly decrease the protection that might be afforded by the standard buffer widths proposed. The ordinance also contains language allowing buffer reduction in exchange for enhancement of buffer vegetation. In light of the minimal standard buffers with which the calculation is begun, this reduction will further erode the protection that the standard buffer may have provided. 511 Mr. Josh Peters December 3, 2004 Page 2 Ecology's recommended buffers described in Appendix 8-C of Volume 2 of Freshwate3�� tl s fra s r i i 1 Y ' Washington State represent a moderate risk approach to establishing buffer widths for wetland protection. These recommended buffers are based on the premise that the existing buffer is well -vegetated with plant species that can perform the needed buffer functions. If the existing buffer is poorly vegetated, then either the buffer width needs to be increased, or the buffer vegetation enhanced in order to justify the standard recommended width. The provisions in the ordinance that allow for buffer width reduction in exchange for buffer enhancement are not consistent with the goal of protecting wetland functions and values, and will increase the risk to these resources when this section of the ordinance is applied. Ecology recommends that the County consider the more complex buffer strategy described as Alternative 3 in Appendix 8-C of Volume 2 of Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State. Used in conjunction with the 2004 Rating System, Alternative 3 provides the most flexibility in determining buffer widths with widths based on the wetland category, adjacent land use, and the specific wetland functions that require protection. Alternative 3 buffer widths for a wetland of a specific category rating vary depending on 1) the width needed to protect the existing functions and values of the wetland; and, 2) the intensity of the adjacent land use. This type of evaluation allows narrower buffer widths to be established where they are adequate to protect the existing wetland functions. For example, if a wetland rates high for water quality functions (as estimated with the 2004 Rating System) and low for habitat functions, the existing functions can be adequately protected with smaller buffers than would be needed to protect the wetland if it rated high for habitat functions. In addition to these more flexible guidelines for establishing buffer widths, there is information related to site-specific development design elements that could be incorporated in projects to further limit the impacts the project may have to existing wetland functions and values. Examples of these types of site- specific design alternatives can be found in Volume 2 of Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State, Appendix 8-C, Special Conditions for a Possible Reduction in Buffer Widths. These strategies could be incorporated in such a way that buffer reductions are allowed in conjunction with site-specific design criteria that would increase the assurance that the ordinance would provide the protection for wetland resources that is anticipated in the planning phase. Designation of Wetlands: Ecology recommends that the County designate wetlands without regard to size. While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are to be regulated, the County needs to be aware that such an approach is not supported by best available science. It is not possible to conclude from size alone what functions and values a particular wetland is providing. Adoption of the new rating system will allow the County to evaluate the functions and values of small wetlands and provide information critical to planning that protects these resources. When it is determined that wetlands must be impacted, an appropriate strategy for compensatory mitigation should be developed that compensates for the lost functions and values. Appropriate strategies for mitigating impacts to small wetlands may include off-site mitigation strategies, approved mitigation banking or a fee -in -lieu program. If the County decides that some form of administrative exemption for smaller wetlands is necessary, we recommend it be as small as possible and believe that the County should justify the threshold based on data showing the potential cumulative effect on wetland functions in the County. We believe that the Mr. Josh Peters December 3, 2004 Page 3 existing large size exemptions of up to 10,000 square feet will result in significant cumulative impacts to wetland functions in the County. Ecology recommends that monitoring be required for wetland mitigation projects that are developed to compensate for wetland impacts associated with development activities. Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004, contains guidance on developing monitoring plans necessary to evaluate whether compensatory mitigation projects are meeting the goals and objectives identified in mitigation plans. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Proposed UDC Amendments. We hope these comments are helpful to the County in efforts to develop reasonable and effective regulations for the protection of wetland resources. If you have any questions about these comments, please call me, at (360) 407-6221. Or, you may also contact Andy McMillan, our wetland science and policy manager, at (360) 407-7272. In addition, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with planning staff, planning commission members or county commissioners to discuss our concerns and how the County can include the best available science and protect wetland functions and values without unduly burdening County staff or the public. Sincerely, C�J'C� Gretchen Lux Wetland Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program GL:dn cc: Doug Peters, CTED Steve Kalinowski, WDFW Donna Bunten, Ecology p� ►��� jay '60cc December 6, 2004 I Jefferson County'' Board of Commissioners CQ Re: 2004 GMA Update/Amendment Cycle Maus I would like to add to my earlier comments regarding County maps. Despite the many maps listed in the Map Archive, we only have one county -wide "Land Use Map", the map titled "Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations". 3-63 The proposed changes to LNG 1.0 include deletion of "Land Use Map" substituting "land use and zoning, mates', indicating a new distinction in County mapping procedures that is not minor in any proposed new countywide zoning map. Changes to LNP 1.5 also indicate that some kind of mapping shift is underway for reasons not stated during the public process for the GMA update. One can only guess at the County's mapping intent by piecing together numerous isolated changes, like the deletions regarding specific LANIIRD designations being on the Land There is also the new distinction this year between "Land Use Designation" and "Zoning District" in Table 2-1 of the UGA Element, CP — 2. Before the adoption of the two UGA maps (one in the CP and one in the UDC), all adopted GMA designations were shown on "The Land Use Map", i.e. the map titled Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations", as noted above. Because a revision that countywide GMA zoning map was not included as part of the GMA review during this cycle, and because it will not be revised until after the close of the cycle, it is still unknown whether all the County's adopted GMA designations, as before, will be shown, including all the new zones created for the UGA in the CP and UDC. I question whether a mWed designation in the UDC is actually a GMA designation under the County's existing "one map for all designations" system. It shouldn't be, at least, until there is a clear, announced change in that direction. As part of the earlier phase of the 2004 cycle, the County adopted Fig. D-1 as a "zoning map" in Appendix D of the UDC. The question now is 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 1 of 14 how that map can possibly be incorporated as part of a countywide CP "Land Use Map", because the two adopted UGA maps aren't consistent with each other. It is difficult to see how an urban high-density residential zone on the UDC zoning map could be simultaneously depicted as commercial if the new UGA designations were consolidated on "The Land Use Map." Overall, I would have to guess that the proposed and adopted map -related changes during the 2004 Update Cycle are intended as preliminary to yet -unannounced changes during the scheduled rewrite of the UDC next year. Agriculture I recently submitted a records request to the County to inspect "all records related to watershed planning that were reviewed by the County for the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle". Given the proposed revision to LNP 14.6, I did not consider this an obscure request, but it was rejected in a letter from DCD dated 12-3-04. I was informed that I had not requested "identifiable" documents. I was further told that DCD "did not create and does not possess a file entitled "Watershed Planning" or a file entitled with any similar phrase." By adopting numerous references about watershed planning into the CP, and currently proposed changes such as LNP 14.6 below, the County has made watershed planning a GMA issue, and that automatically involves DCD as the County GMA planning agency. The County is the lead agency for VaUA 17 and has accepted considerable State funding for various aspects of watershed planning. It is time for integrated water resources planning by the accountable agency. LNP 14.6: Develop land use ordinances based on comprehensive watershed and salmon recovery plans for the conservation, protection, and management of surface and ground waters, in order to maintain water quality and quantity, provide potable water, and to restore and protect fish habitat The massive rezone in MLA04-27 carries on from preparatory CP and UDC amendments for regulation of agriculture. The SEPA for the current ML did not include a proper analysis of the impacts on water quantity/quality caused by increased water consumption of the new agricultural designations. There is no information about which parcels already have existing water rights for agricultural use and which do not. It is assumed that domestic exempt wells will provide the water for new small-scale agricultural activities. However, at several WRIA meetings, I heard 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 2 of 14 DOE representatives clearly state that water from exempt domestic wells under DOE's pending "Reserve" allocation of water cannot be used for commercial agriculture. No matter how much we way value and wish to encourage small-scale agriculture, the water issue is not one of local discretion. Given the constraints on available water supply, the County has not implemented LNP 14.6 and other policies related to watershed planning. While Jefferson County doesn't have direct authority over water withdrawals approval, it certainly has a responsibility to plan for development that protects instream flows and water resources. Airport: The County knows that it doesn't have to adopt CP provisions for airport noise in order to protect the airport, and it should heed public opinion against such actions rather than bending to Port pressure. The Port didn't want to have to do the kind of subarea planning required in 1998 CP text. Another plan has been adopted by reference without being adopted by reference. Page 3 of the Final Staff Proposal states: "Accordingly, the County and Port will work together to prepare amendments to this Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) addressing Port owned property in the vicinity of JCIA, based on the Airport Master Plan." Staff has said that the Port's recently adopted FAA -required "Airport Master Plan" (AMP) is not being adopted as a CP sub -area plan, but at EPP 2.4.A we read what appears to be the functional opposite in terms of land use planning. The AMP has not undergone public review as a CP amendment, and it is not a CP amendment, yet it is being adopted as the guiding plan for airport and adjacent areas in the CP. EPP 2A.A. The Airport Master Plan and subsequent Plan and Code amendments will provide for the safe operations of the JCIA and guide future development in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and the Airport's designation as an Essential Public Facility under the GMA. 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 3 of 14 EPP 2.6 Property proposed by the Port, and identified in the FAA -approved Master Plan or future Comprehensive Plan amendment for inclusion in the AEPF District, shall become part of the AEPF District, provided that: Note the word "shall" to direct the required adoption of any future County rezone of parcels identified in the AMP for inclusion in the airport essential public facility district (AEPF), or any others for that matter. The AMP has identified by parcel number the site of a future industrial park. That parcel is now in Port ownership, but it has not yet been proposed for inclusion in the AEPF, but EPP2.6 mandates that it be rezoned and included at some point in the future, as well as others parcels not even owned by the Port. . I am also concerned that the airport proposal contains multiple references about future Port/County cooperative planning actions for the AEPF, but there is no mention of the City as a participant, despite the regional impacts of industrializing the airport (with City water) and the requirements of the County -wide Planning Policies. Comp Plan Update BOCC Version: At the BOCC's November 15, 2004 workshop on the 2004 Cycle, the Board added its own proposed revision of LNG 8.0: ENG 8.0 Protect the habitability, environmental quality and natural beauty of Jefferson County from the adverse impacts of development with respect to viewsheds and noise and mitigate impacts based on the conditions. There was no BOCC/DCD discussion of what this proposed change meant or why it was being proposed. It is not known whether the insertion refers to SEPA conditions, as in those imposed on the Fred Hill Materials overlay, a pgrmit condition, or the environmental "conditions" of views, quiet, etc. requiring mitigation when impacted by development. The BOCC policy proposal needs clarification before it is adopted.. Here is another Nov. 15th BOCC proposal needing clarification before adoption: 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 4 of 14 "It is recognized that the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) low -impact development standards meet the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual". Any interest by the County in low impact development standards is welcome, but unclear policy directives are not helpful, and the manner in which such an important issue has been presented for public comment is with discussion or background information is unfortunate. I received an email on Dec. 5`b from John Cambalik, the County's liaison on the Puget Sound Action Team after I had asked him for clarification of the BOCC proposed language. He stated: "Thanks for the heads up on this issue. Unfortunately, I was not able to respond until now. Its unclear what "standards" they are referring too here. As staff to the PSAT partnership, we are not a regulatory agency, hence do not create "standards". DOE does, however. The DOE 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001 Manual) is also not a "standard", its a guidance document, though the county has adopted it, which was great! LID provisions are contained within the 2001 Manual. Its also unclear what they mean by the phrase "meet the requirements of within that sentence. DOE has recently proposed updates to the 2001 Manual. See this link for those updates (http://www.egy.wa.gov/prog rams/wo/stormwater/WW%20stormwater%2Omanual/manual update changes.htm). Included within the updates are some additional provisions for LID. My guess is that the "standards" that the BOCC might be referring to within this statement might be one of two items: 1. Reference to LID in Section SW -1.2 of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan available at this link: http://www.psat.wa.Qov/Publications/mant)lan00/20 stormwater.pdf Note: LID is one of many elements of a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program, as noted within this section. 2. Reference to the upcoming release of our new "LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound". We will be conducting outreach on this manual once its available in early January. We would welcome more specific reference to these items within this section of the Comp. Plan. Hopefully this information helps. I'll be traveling to all day Monday and Tuesday, so my ability to respond to additional questions will be limited. Since this will be going to hearing on Monday, I'll send an email to Josh Peters to try to get some clarification on these amendments. Thanks again for the heads up. John C. The extent of impervious surface coverage allowed within the county is not going to protect Port Townsend Bay and salmon -listed Chimacum Creek from the impacts of pollution carried by stormwater, even with the application of the engineering techniques in the 2001 DOE Stormwater 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 5 of 14 Manual. A serious discussion about low -impact development standards is needed, not just a few confusing words inserted at the last minute without discussion. Implementation and Monitoring — CP -1, Staff version Page 1-12 includes a deletion regarding County -wide Planning Policy No. 3 - Joint County and City Planning within Urban Growth Areas. If this deletion is intended as a deletion of the entire CWPP #3, then it is contrary to CWPP #10-3, which requires an amendment process that includes the City. Table 1-1 on page 1-13 lists only 9 of the 10 adopted CWPP, and CWPP #3 is still listed, but numbered as #2. Land Use and Rural — CP -3 Kala Square: On December 16, 2002, eight new commercial lots were approved by the BOCC that had never been part of a 1986 preliminary binding site plan approval. The SEPA approval for the preliminary was conditioned with a requirement that if anin changed from the original application, it would have to undergo additional SEPA review. In 2002, the County never conducted that further SEPA analysis for the new lots that had never even been drawn on the site plan that was reviewed under SEPA at that time. A tributary to salmon -listed Chimacum Creek runs right through the new plat. The final approval of this subdivision for commercial development was the most egregious land use action I have witnessed in Jefferson County. I have to let the existence of the new lots stand, because to challenge their creation would have required an expensive LUPA appeal in Court, but the lots should now only have their current official zoning — residential. Under GMA and as part of the GMA Update, I strongly object to actions taken by the BOCC to approve de facto commercial LAMRW status for those lots. In 1999 the Kala Square owners applied for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment to have the "area" officially rezoned as a commercial LAMIRD. They failed to get on the final amendment docket, but achieved their goal in 2002 anyway. In 1999, the new lots were unknown, and the original preliminary BSP map was larger. In 2002, however, the County cooperated with the end -run around GMA LAMIRD requirements and agreed to a "Declaration of Uses, Development Standards, and Construction of Site Improvements" that was tacked onto the remapped BSP site -plan at the last minute at time of adoption.. 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 6 of 14 The meeting during which the "Declaration of Uses..." was simultaneously released, reviewed, and approved had been noticed and scheduled only as a BOCC "discussion" of the BSP. Neither the "Declaration" nor the new lots were ever reviewed under SEPA, and the "Declaration" had never been given public notice or any other kind of public participation. In fact, the final BSP approval had been scheduled for quiet Consent Agenda approval without any discussion even by the BOCC, until complaints were raised during the general public comment period preceding that proposed Consent Agenda action. Complaints about the vesting and changed nature of the project were lodged by myself, a former DCD planner who had worked on the original BSP, and a septic -system engineer who was aware of the off-site sewage treatment design. By approving the revised BSP site -plan with the new lots, the County also agreed, without comment, to the accompanying "Declaration of Uses..." which listed allowed General Crossroads LAMIRD uses. Allowed building intensity was to be according to "standards and requirements specified in the Unified Development Code and attendant amendments as of December 16, 2002, for uses in a General Crossroad zone." Declaration 3.c twice specifically refers to required "on-site sewage systems", a UDC requirement, for the new lots in the BSP, and yet the original "no -lots" 1986 map had been redrawn, eliminating from the BSP what is now a large adjacent parcel outside the BSP. This parcel and the BSP been jointly engineered for off- site sewage treatment of waste from the BSP, using new easements that were also created and recorded for the BSP.. When the no -lots preliminary BSP "subdivision" was "vested" in 1986, the County did not have a zoning ordinance under which the subdivision could have vested. The first zoning ordinance was adopted in 1992. Even if there had been a zoning statute under which the BSP could have vested for commercial uses, vesting is not a proper GMA basis for LA 41RD designation — de facto or actual. Many built and undeveloped areas of the County have obviously been down -zoned from commercial use under GMA planning and zoning. That is why other techniques were used to obtain commercial status for Kala Square. The fact that the Declaration establishes the December 16, 2002 BSP final approval as the "vesting" date for UDC development standards is another indicator that the original BSP was not vested to zoning or development statutes in existence in 1986 at the time of preliminary approval. That's not the normal way of interpreting vesting. 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 7 of 14 What happened for the benefit of Kala Square's owners, who are now actively marketing the new individual commercial lots, is not just an isolated issue that can be easily ignored. The BOCC Minutes for December 16, 2002 include a statement from the DCD Planning Director that 30 or 40 similar "vested" projects are still in the County's approval pipeline. Allowing that many more Kala Square situations to occur throughout the county slowly but surely unravels years of effort to maintain the rural character of Jefferson County by limiting commercial development to what is properly allowed under GMA. The Kala Square owners told the County during the final approval "discussion" that they had just been "waiting for water". As more and more large - diameter water lines extend throughout the county, these so-called "vested" projects will awaken from their long slumbers and expect the same generous "vested" approvals granted to the owners of Kala Square. CP -3 Planning Commission version: The Planning Commission is under the mistaken notion that LAMIRDs can expand and that LAMIRD designations can be changed from one type of designation into another. The PC has recommended that the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad be allowed to "grow up" into a Rural Village Center. The property owner who suggested the proposed Chimacum re- designation to the Planning Commission should be content with inclusion in the 2002 expansion that finalized that LAMIRD boundary. CP 3 Stag Version After lengthy litigation, it is good to see so many voluntary proposed deletions regarding "interim" LAMIRDs, as well as the deletion of language at what was CP 1-19 and 3-10 to "continuously" assess LAMIRDs as a tool of economic development. With the adoption of the proposed deletions, the Comprehensive Plan will be almost entirely rid of non-compliant LAMIRD language. However, the county still proposes to designate future 1990 -based LAMIRDs that aren't now within the "interim" category. The 2004 Update contains proposed language to encourage economic development in areas not necessarily already designated as (d)(i) LAMIRDs. Amended LNP 14.5 as proposed on 3-83 belongs in the economic development section, not the environmental section of Element 3, but there are other problems with it. Quilcene is mentioned in connection with encouraging the marine trades, but note that the Quilcene Rural Village Center 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 8 of 14 LAMIRD boundary does not extend to the shores Hood Canal, which is not to say the marine trades couldn't operate within the existing LAMIRD, but that does not appear to be what is intended in the proposed revisions. LAMIRDs are a one-time CP designation opportunity for existing areas, but because the County's CP "interim" LAMIRD language cross-linked to the unfinished Special Study, the Hearings Board gave the County a special second opportunity in 2002 to designate and expand its 1990 - based LAMIRDs. Trying now for a third, fourth, or fifth time to identify and designate "existing" areas of 1990 development in the CP is not GMA-compliant. Regarding residential areas, the County has already designated several Rural Village Center LAMIRDs for existing areas of residential and commercial development. Designating new residential LAMIRDs for existing areas such as Cape George or Kala Point in order to later justify subdividing large -lot "infill" into smaller lots contradicts the ample evidence in the CP of abundant buildable lots, even though that 1996 CP information has not been updated for the new planning period, as it should have been. Table 34 3, "Residential Lot Demand Compared to Existing Vacant Residential Lot Supply Projected Over the Next 20 Years, 1996-2016". 3-29 CP Language guiding regulations for bulk and dimensional requirements and lot coverage requirements should be retained, not deleted because it is only language that protects rural character. 3-32 Port Townsend Paper Co. ownership was the sole basis for designating the logical outer boundary of this very large, mostly undeveloped 282 -acre Heavy Industry LAMIRD. All that vacant land just drives developers crazy with visions of golf courses and such. With the above deletion, one does have to wonder what new uses are being considered. 3-42 The Stormwater section on this page required a several back -and -forth emails to DCD to sort out. I had noticed that a reference to Appendix G was proposed for deletion, and I asked Staff whether 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 9 of 14 that meant all of Appendix G was actually being proposed for deletion. I was told that the text on 3-42 had been imported from CP Appendix G, which had been adopted as part of Element 3. However, the inserted text hadn't been shown in underline format as a signal of something new in that location. A similar situation applied to the Goals and Policies from Appendix G that were moved into the Goals and Policies of CP -3 without an explanatory note of their origin or underlining to show the relocation. I have been assured that the rest of Appendix G will be taken care of later and that Appendix G is not to be considered deleted during the 2004 Update. 3-81 Major Industrial Developments (MID's) Approvals The County has now proposed the deletion of prior references to the conditional use process that I complained of earlier to the Planning Commission. Conditional use is the method by which the County would approve a new MID. However, substitute language now merely cites the UDC and -.365 as the basis. UDC 3.8 continues to cite the conditional use approval process, as adopted in the City/County MOU on MID's, and I would like to repeat my objection to the County using a non-GMA process to Vprove a GMA designation, even though a technical GMA amendment would follow the actual hearings examiner approval process. 3-70+ Home-based businesses and Cottage Industries I disagree with nearly every proposed deletion/change in this section and direct larger businesses elsewhere than residential areas. Cheaper land and operating costs aren't everything. It is important to retain the existing language in order to protect rural character. We shouldn't be opening up the residential areas to the intensity of commercial uses allowed by the revisions. The relaxation of standards for home-based businesses in this entire section of the CP is a misplaced attempt by the County to "fix" the problems identified in the Hearings Examiner ruling on D&D Electrical, but the "fix" should not be the deletion of CP policies that are inconsistent with the UDC. The consistency should be the other way around with another look at the UDC consistency. At the scale intended by the County in the current Update, there is even more reason why these (d)(iii) businesses should be designated LAMIRDs, not merely permitted uses that soon will not even be required to renew their permits routinely. 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 10 of 14 Housins CP -5 The County's residential planning for the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA is not consistent with CP HSP 2.9: "Encourage and promote housing development within UGA's". Despite the stated need in CP -5 for affordable housing for low-income persons, seniors, and special needs individuals, a large central large area of High Density Residential zoning (UDC map) is depicted on the UGA Future Land Use map as commercial zoning. Even if this were to me a mixed-use area, it would not be High Density Residential anymore. Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation: CP - 6 i think it would be good to mention in this Element that the Jefferson County Historical Society has relocated its library/archives from City Hall to the New Jefferson County Historical Society Research Center in the county. Economic Development: CP — 7 Planning Commission Version - It's a mess, and I disagree with all of it. Staff Version EDP 4.4 "SUDDort the efforts of the Port of Port Townsend to identify the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) as a self-supporting essential public facility. This may include, but is not limited.to, the siting of appropriately scaled aviation and non -aviation related industrial/manufacturing activities in the Airport Essential Public Facilities District.' The worthy goal of being a self-supporting AEPF should not obscure the need for GMA compliance where new rural commercial/industrial non -aviation uses are allowed. Also, any urban -scale non- aviation uses should be zoned outside of the AEPF zone, not within it. 7-16 EDP 6.1 Use land use designations such as Industrial Land Banks (ILSs), Maio Industrial Developments (MID), Urban Growth Areas (UgAs), Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD), Rural Village Centers, Rural 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 11 of 14 Crossroads, and the allowed uses specific to each designation to support regional alliances and economic clusters to attract investment and sustain economic activity.Townsend,, develop a 36.70A.366 and pursuant- te- the Ge--URty wide Planning Reky-. A LAMIRD is "an economic cluster", but this policy should not inappropriately be interpreted as encouraging LAMIRD designation or expansion of existing areas as an economic development tool. We've already litigated that issue. 7-17 These are good policies and worthy of being retained as individual policies for emphasis. EDP 6.8 Encourage businesses which focus on environmental management, research and restoration. 7-17 Protect the Port from what? How??. This is certainly the Port's year in the CP now that Glen Cove expansion has been settled. EDP 6.9 Protect the Port of Port Townsend's industrial properties, waterfront and all other public assets entrusted and managed by the Port and established by legislative mandate to enhance economic vitality and quality of life for the citizens of Jefferson County. 7-18 The alternative to the following deletion is unnecessary sprawl and conversion of undeveloped land for tourism rather than encouraging infill development in the Rural Centers. EDP 8.1 Build OR the GOURty'S GempaFative advantages and natuFal a#ra-.*ens 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 12 of 14 Environment: CP — 8 In the "View and Noise" section on 8-8, an interesting deletion points to something that is apparently needed in the UDC: "There are currently no regulations for the protection of views and viewsheds. A public discussion CempfekensWe Izlatt can be used to determine the extent to which citizens feel that view protection should be regulated." This is related to: ENG 8.0: Protect the habitability, environmental quality and natural beauty of Jefferson County from the potential adverse impacts of development with respect to viewsheds and noise. I interpret this to mean that noise and view impairment from development wouldn't necessarily be considered adverse impacts. Table 8-1: Per Hearings Board Order, the county is responsible for the water quality issue of saltwater intrusion, so the "County Issue" column in this table should be amended accordingly. According to the Table and UTG 2.0 the County is also responsible for water system planning. However, the County failed even to respond to the PUD's request to complete the planning consistency checklist needed for submission of its draft Water System Plan to the Department of Health for approval. "Retain and review the comprehensive system plans of each utility serving the County. Jefferson County will also coordinate with utility providers in the development and subsequent amendment of comprehensive system plans. The County will provide coordinated and timely review of utility plans and amendments proposed by the utility providers in order to maintain consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 2.0)° Utilities —Element 11 The county deleted references to the City of Port Townsend in various other parts of the CP, but not the Utilities Element, where the references to the City as potential regional water supplier were retained. The surface water being sought in lieu of PUD development of its water right is that quantity of Quilcene River water that was previously used to supplement TriArea groundwater before the City withdrew surface water from that system. 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 13 of 14 Development interests and the PUD now want the City to sell that water back. However, the City's Water System Plan has an adopted policy that requires as a first priority that any surplus water be first returned to the stream. Additional water is not available for purchase, and pending required secondary disinfection of City water will make the sale of treated water even less likely. The hopeful language to the contrary should be removed from the County CP. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Port Townsend 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 14 of 14 Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:42 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay > ---------- >From: L Swisher[SMTP:SUPERGAMA29@HOTMAIL.COM] >Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:37:01 PM >To: Glen Huntingford >Subject: Airport Overlay >Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioner I would like to commend the Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson County Planning Commission and County Commissioners for the work done to date to protect Jefferson County International Airport. As we all know the airport is designated an essential public facility and rightly so. In good times and bad the airport is there for the entire community. I believe that it is necessary to protect and nurture such an asset. The Airport Overlay is an important step toward that objective by helping to protect the airport. I urge you to approve the airport overlay as passed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Very truly yours, Linda Swisher 1 CC� � 1 Page 1 of 1 PG Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:21 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay From: Keith & Linda Swisher[SMTP:KJ7KW@CABLESPEED.COM] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1:22:02 PM To: Glen Huntingford Subject: Airport Overlay Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Sir: The Jefferson County International Airport having been established as an essential public facility requires protection from encroachment. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners as well as the Commissioners of the Port of Port Townsend and the Jefferson County Planning Commission have all worked hard to bring the proposed overlay to fruition. Enacting the proposed JCIAA overlay will help ensure continued protection for the airport. I urge you to approve the airport overlay as presented by the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Very truly yours Keith D. Swisher 11/18/2004 CAP T. A. C. ANDERSON USNP4:lET P.O. BOC 1837 PORT TOWNSEND. WA 98368 )c 1� / Page 1 of 1 Pc. 3 Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:49 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay From: Jim McKenna[SMTP:MOLLYMCKENNA@MSN.COM] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:48:06 PM To: Glen Huntingford; Dan Titterness; Pat Rodgers Subject: Airport Overlay Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioners Glen Huntingford, Dan Titterness, and Pat Rodgers: We are Jefferson County residents living in the Port Hadlock neighborhood. We also own a hangar at the Jefferson County Airport We think the proposed Overlay will protect the airport from incompatible uses of nearby land, and from noise complaints. The Jefferson County International Airport has been there much longer than many nearby homes, and those purchasers could have easily known of the existence of the airport at the time they purchased their property. The Overlay will help ensure that future purchasers are fully apprised of the impacts --both positive and negative --that proximity to an airport can bring. We are pleased to use and enjoy many activities at the airport --especially Pot Roast Day at the Spruce Goose Cafe! More knowledge about the airport will help property owners make informed purchases, and alleviate noise complaints addressed to the Port of Port Townsend and to County Commissioners. Please pass the Overlay. Thanks for guiding Jefferson County so successfully over the years. Sincerely, Jim and Kathy McKenna PO Box 270 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 11/29/2004 X I �,C I aJ4oq Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:55 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay From: Dean Robnett[SMTP: BOLLWEEVI L@OLYMPUS. NET] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:46:05 AM To: Glen Huntingford Subject: Airport Overlay Auto forwarded by a Rule Glen, Thank you for your many years of service to our community. I would urge you to support the proposed airport overlay plan. As you know, the airport has become a tremendous asset to the community and is well on the way to becoming a financial asset to the county. I am sure you are aware there are those who would, because of selfish financial or lack of research prior to locating here, relish seeing the airport closed or so severely restricted as to become an impotent relic. I have always appreciated your work for the county and know you will what is best for the community. Best regards, Dean Robnett Nordland 12/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Pat Rodgers Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:55 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay From: Dean Robnett[SMTP: BOLLWEEVI L@OLYMPUS. NET] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:55:19 AM To: Pat Rodgers Subject: Airport Overlay Auto forwarded by a Rule Pat, Thank you for your service and committment to our community. I would urge you to support the proposed airport overlay plan. The airport has become very important to the community and is on the verge of becoming a financial asset. Best regards, Dean Robnett Nordland 12/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Dan Titterness Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:55 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay From: Dean Robnett[SMTP:BOLLWEEVIL@OLYMPUS. NET] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:51:05 AM To: Dan Titterness Subject: Airport Overlay Auto forwarded by a Rule Dan, Thank you for your service and committment to our community. Because of the value and tremendous potential of our airport, I would urge you to support the proposed airport overlay. Best regards, Dean Robnett Nordland 12/1/2004 CC SCD VC December 1, 2004 Jefferson County Commissioners POB 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 REF: JCIA Airport Overlay Gentlemen: Lynn Sorenson PoB 65376 Port Lud7ow, wA 98365-0376 I encourage you to adopt the Jefferson County Planning Commission's proposal to create "Airport Overlays I & II" as formulated in their November 3, 2004 recommendation. RCW 36.70.547 requires local government to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to general aviation airports. The Jefferson County Commissioners have neglected their duty to make a decision on the Airport Overlay requirement far too long. The Commissioners are allowing the Airport to be incrementally destroyed by continually procrastinating on the Airport Overlay decision. Opposition leaders to the Airport Overlay use unfounded scare tactic of 747s flying out of the airport if the Airport Overlay is adopted. If a 747 lands at Jefferson County, it will never be able to takeoff on the runway available; I know because I've flown large commercial jets for 35 years. I am an airport user and hanger owner. Protect the future of Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) by adopting the Planning Commission's November 3, 2004 proposed Airport Overlays I & II. Sinrely, �o r. Lynn Sorenson cc,. PA mac_ 1;jbioq Leslie Locke From: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:22 AM : Cc Cc: Lorna Delaney Cheryl Halvorson HEARING RECORD Subject: FW: Board Additions to MLA 04=28 Part B Importance: High public comment -----Original Message ----- From: Cambalik, John [mailto:JCambalik@PSAT.WA.GOVI Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:13 AM To: Josh Peters Cc: Al Scalf; Beale, Harriet; Wulkan, Bruce Subject: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B Importance: High Hi Josh! I understand that the BOCC suggested some additions to the Comp. Plan that will go to hearing on Monday. One that was brought to my attention by a citizen states that: "It is recognized that the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) low -impact development standards meet the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual." It's unclear what "standards" they are referring too here. As staff to the PSAT partnership, we are not a regulatory agency, hence do not create "standards". DOE does, however. The DOE 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001 Manual) is also not a "standard", it's a guidance document, though the county has adopted it, which was great! LID provisions are contained within the 2001 Manual. It's also unclear what is meant by the phrase "meet the requirements of" within that sentence. DOE has recently proposed updates to the 2001 Manual. See this link for those updates (<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/WWo20stormwatero2Omanual/manu al_update changes.htm>). Included within the updates are additional provisions for LID. My guess is that the "standards" that the BOCC might be referring to within this statement are one of two items: 1. Reference to LID in Section SW -1.2 of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan available at this link: <http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/manplan00/20_stormwater.pdf> Note: LID is one of many elements of a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program, as noted within this section. 2. Reference to the upcoming release of our new "LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound". We will be conducting outreach on this manual once it's available in early January. We would, however, welcome more specific reference to both of these items within this section of the Comp. Plan. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the hearing on Monday. I would appreciate it if you could pass these clarifying points on to the BOCC in my absence. I'll copy Al as a back up if you happen not to be in on Monday. Thanks and hope all is well with you and the family! John Cambalik, Local Liaison Clallam, Jefferson, and Kitsap Puget Sound Action Team PO Box 3622 Sequim, Washington 98382 Phone: 360-582-9132 Fax: 360-582-9132 (please call first) Email: jcambalik@psat.wa.gov Website: www.psat.wa.gov O ° WD LesIiXdccc From: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:25 PM To: Leslie Locke Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B additional public comment from Action Team -----Original Message ----- From: Cambalik, John [mailto:JCambalik@PSAT.WA.GOV] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:51 AM To: Josh Peters Cc: Al Scalf; Beale, Harriet; Wulkan, Bruce; Kyle Alm Subject: RE: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B Josh, Thanks for passing my thoughts on to the Board! Here's some suggested language that they might want to consider: "Development and redevelopment projects should include and implement the low impact development principles and practices described within the most current Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington (i.e., currently contained within Section 5, Chapter 5 of the 2001 DOE Manual). These projects are also strongly encouraged to include and implement the principles and practices contained within the most current version of the "LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound" produced by the Puget Sound Action Team." I'll leave it up to you to recommend (or not) changing the word "should" to "shall" or "are required to". I'm guessing that since the DOE Manual was officially adopted for Jefferson, that, perhaps, the "are required to" might be more appropriate. Hope this helps! John C. CC_ Les ie L e From: Josh Peters Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:08 AM To: Leslie Locke Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B additional public comment - correction -----Original Message ----- From: Cambalik, John [mailto:JCambalik@PSAT.WA.GOV] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:45 PM To: Josh Peters Cc: Al Scalf; Beale, Harriet; Wulkan, Bruce; Kyle Alm Subject: RE: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B Josh, One correction on the reference to the DOE Manual. The correct reference should read: (i.e., currently contained within Volume V - Runoff Treatment BMPs, Chapter 5 of the 2001 DOE Manual). Sorry for the confusion! John C. -----Original Message ----- From: Cambalik, John Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:51 AM To: 'Josh Peters' Cc: Al Scalf; Beale, Harriet; Wulkan, Bruce; Kyle Alm Subject: RE: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B Josh, Thanks for passing my thoughts on to the Board! Here's some suggested language that they might want to consider: "Development and redevelopment projects should include and implement the low impact development principles and practices described within the most current Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington (i.e., currently contained within Section 5, Chapter 5 of the 2001 DOE Manual). These projects are also strongly encouraged to include and implement the principles and practices contained within the most current version of the "LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound" produced by the Puget Sound Action Team." I'll leave it up to you to recommend (or not) changing the word "should" to "shall" or "are required to". I'm guessing that since the DOE Manual was officially adopted for Jefferson, that, perhaps, the "are required to" might be more appropriate. Hope this helps! John C c� tc- Leslie o e From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:12 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Hearing Today > ---------- >From: Marilyn Muller[SMTP:MMULLER@CABLESPEED.COM] >Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:13:19 PM >To: Glen Huntingford; Dan Titterness; Lorna Delaney >Cc: Josh Peters; Lorna Delaney >Subject: Hearing Today >Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioners: It has come to my attention that the upcoming public meeting and subsequent BOCC vote on the Comprehensive Plan review includes provisions which far exceed the UGA mandate to review and update our Plan. Among the many and complex changes is a rezoning of a large parcel of land. Public notification of the changes and meetings came prior to Thanksgiving when many of the concerned public were out of town and distracted with this family holiday. Please reconsider taking action today. Changes of this magnitude demand careful public scrutiny with the necessary time to review the documents. Further, it is only proper that action be delayed until the new Commissioners are seated. Or is it your intention to plunge ahead with lack of public input and questionable changes inviting yet another legal challenge for the new Board to deal with? It would seem the taxpayers have already spent too much on the County's defense of actions not in compliance with the GMA. Sincerely, Marilyn Muller PO Box 1754/624 P St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 379-9553 PS. Please ask whoever is responsible to remove the Titterness campaign sign on Fir St. between Q and R Sts. which, according to the Auditor's office, should have been removed 10 days after the election. 1 cc '�� Leslie cke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:14 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Comp Plan Public Comment Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Bill Biery [ma I Ito: bbiery@ca blespeed.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:45 AM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comp Plan Public Comment Dear Mr. Peters: Idelaney@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Public Comment on MLA04-28 Page 1 of 1 HEARING REcoRD The sheer volume of the Comprehensive Plan amendment file number MLA04-28 amendment documents is daunting. I request that the BOCC honor the will of the voters and delay action on the amendments until Phil Johnson and David Sullivan, both Commissions -Elect, have been seated. The Commissioners -Elect have spent much time studying the proposed language and are prepared to guide this process. I know they are best suited to make the final decisions. I protest the narrow minded, hurried development of the documents far beyond the scope of need. The language considered during the Planning Commission public hearings has been drastically changed. Further, I insist on open deliberations after the new commissioners are seated. Sincerely, Bill Biery 406 T Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 385-3118 12/6/2004 Page 1 of 1 Leslie ocke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:15 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Comprehensive Plan amendment file number MLA04-28HEARIN(G& RECORD Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Shine1748@aol.com [mailto:Shine1748@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:57 AM To: Josh Peters; Lorna Delaney Subject: Comprehensive Plan amendment file number MLA04-28 Board of County Commissioners: We request that the present BOCC postpone action on the revision to the County Comprehensive Plan until the newly elected Commissioners Sullivan and Johnson formally take office in January 2005. This action will allow the new BOCC to properly deliberate on the Plan along with input from the voters of Jefferson County. It is obvious from the November election that the majority of voters have lost confidence in the objectivity with the present BOCC. Don't rush this action! Respectfully submitted, Robert & Sheila Bosanko 147 Longmire Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365-8246 Phone: 360-437-8175 12/6/2004 Page 1 of 1 WC Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:15 AM r' To: Leslie Locke 1H k N1 NG RiConn Subject: FW: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Elisabeth Haight [mailto:elisabethhaight@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:07 AM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 Dear Mr. Peters and Members of Board of County Commissioners; I request that the Board honor the will of the voters and delay action on the amendments (#MLA04-28) until the new commissioners are seated. It is not necessary or advantageous to hurry the important developement of these documents. The new commissioners bring studied expertise and representation that we, the public request. Sincerely, Elisabeth Rotchford 530 U. St. ,Port Townsend, WA 12/6/2004 . 0C : ,7 (cc WOOL-, W -C Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:15 AM HEARING RECORDTo: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Elisabeth Haight [mailto:elisabethhaight@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:10 AM To: rmcguire@cablespeed.com Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 Dear Todd, if you know anyone that will read this at the meeting that is fine with me; sorry I couldn't be there. Thank you so much for letting us know how we can help. Elisabeth Dear Mr. Peters and Members of Board of County Commissioners; I request that the Board honor the will of the voters and delay action on the amendments (#MLA04-28) until the new commissioners are seated. It is not necessary or advantageous to hurry the important developement of these documents. The new commissioners bring studied expertise and representation that we, the public request. Sincerely, Elisabeth Rotchford 530 U. St. ,Port Townsend, WA 12/6/2004 q Leslie Locke From: Rebekah McGuire [rmcguire@cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:40 AM To: 'Elisabeth Haight' Cc: Lorna Delaney Page 1 of 1 Subject: RE: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 Very good short concise statement, thanks Elisabeth! Any insights on what M. Aubin would appreciate or need given his loss of his dad. I do not know any history or have any idea what would be helpful to him in this time. Beyond the normal sympathy card. Your advise would be appreciated. Thanks rbm From: Elisabeth Haight[mailto:elisabethhaight@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:10 AM To: rmcguire@cablespeed.com Cc: ldelaney@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 Dear Todd, if you know anyone that will read this at the meeting that is fine with me; sorry I couldn't be there. Thank you so much for letting us know how we can help. Elisabeth Dear Mr. Peters and Members of Board of County Commissioners; I request that the Board honor the will of the voters and delay action on the amendments (#MLA04-28) until the new commissioners are seated. It is not necessary or advantageous to hurry the important developement of these documents. The new commissioners bring studied expertise and representation that we, the public request. Sincerely, Elisabeth Rotchford 530 U. St. ,Port Townsend, WA 12/6/2004 ce : ID Tlec- Les L(- ke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:28 AM HEARING To: Leslie LockeSubject: FW: Comprehensive amendment MLAO4-28 RECOnnD Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 -----Original Message ----- From: Barbara Moore Lewis[mailto:mooreleb@stanfordalumni.org] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:11 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comprehensive amendment MLA04-28 This email is to comment on Comprehensive Plan amendment file number MLA04-28, which I understand is to be considered today. I am strongly opposed to passing this amendment. The proposed changes will have significant effects on the plan. No one affected has had time to discuss or to consider them. We clearly elected new representatives who represent not only our views, but an approach to government which is open and inclusive. The current commissioners serve only a narrow constituency, one of hurried and ill considered development. I recently retired to Brinnon, after living on the Penninsula as a child and as a young adult. I retired here for the values the current plan represents, not for development which enriches a few at the expense of the rest of us. Please give us the process we voted for last month... new commissioners to conduct an open, timely, and thoughtful plan review and modification. Thank you for your attention. Barbara Moore Lewis, PO Box 303, Brinnon, WA 98320 Protest C0- : XD @c. "Y Leslie Locke From: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:45 AM To: Leslie Locke Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: Protest public comment From: Ramona Lee[mailto:rlee@victoriancrochet.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:46 AM To: Josh Peters Subject: Protest Page 1 of 1 pop I am in protest of the narrow minded, hurried development of the documents far beyond the scope of need. The language considered during the Planning Commission public hearings has been drastically changed. Ramona Lee HB Publications rlee@victoriancrochet.com http://www.victoriancrochet.com/ 12/6/2004 �al&/()q Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:54 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: commissioner's meeting Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Teri Nomura [mailto:nomura@windermere.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:35 AM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: commissioner's meeting Page 1 of 1 Hello, I have a concern that the current county commissioners are going to "rush through" some quick behind -the -back decisions will be made, that actually need more careful consideration. I am particularly concerned about the future of the Wheel -In Drive in Theatre land. Land use in Jefferson County is a big decision with many repercussions that will affect all of the citizens of the County. I do not trust the owner of the Drive -In either. Teri Nomura Windermere Port Townsend 1220 Water Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (across from the ferry terminal) nomura@windermere.com 1-800-776-9344 ext. 22 360-385-9344 ext. 22 cell: 360-531-1602 12/6/2004 D c Leslie Locke filo'ylc, From: Glen Huntingford HI.11RING RECORDSent: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:24 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update Comments September 14 October 13 December 6 ;omments to PC.do.--omments to PC.docmments to BOCC.dc > ---------- >From: Todd McGuire[SMTP:TMCGUIRE@CABLESPEED.COM] >Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:21:01 AM >To: Glen Huntingford; Dan Titterness; 'Pat Rodgers' >Cc: Josh Peters; Lorna Delaney; Al Scalf; 'Scott Wilson'; 'Jim Manders - PDN' >Subject: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update Comments >Auto forwarded by a Rule Please confirm receipt of attached comments for today's public hearing. Due to your daytime scheduling, I will be in Seattle and unable to attend the meeting. Todd McGuire 379-1749 cell 206-920-1531 1 September 14, 2004 Tom McNerney Chairman, Jefferson County Planning Commission RE: 2004 Comprehensive Plan update Tom, I am writing to post comment on the draft recommendations of the Planning Commission relative to the GMA required Comprehensive Plan update. It is clear from the material available that your group is intending some serious rework of the Plan that is far beyond the periodic house keeping that the GMA requires. To make sure you are receiving adequate encouragement to focus on the important issues I offer the following. From Unified Development Code 9.5.4 Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The Planning Commission's five (5) year assessment and recommendation shall be based upon, but not be limited to, an inquiry into the following growth management indicators: (1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize; (2) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased; (3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need; (4) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the Plan is based are no longer found to be valid; (5) Whether changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement; (6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments; (7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. It is not apparent to me that you have been serious about actually developing or tracking growth management indicators (GMI's) that would address these criteria. The line -in / line-out language that I have briefly reviewed is certainly not grounded in this required reality. As I'm sure you recall, the adoption of relevant, defensible GMI's was my main request while on the Commission. It is unfortunate that you have never elevated that to the status it deserves. It is also unfortunate that addressing these criteria did not occur before the extensive re -write, or the TriArea UGA recommendations, for that matter, was undertaken. In most circles setting the criteria is typically done before the document is begun. I encourage you and the rest of the Planning Commission to seriously consider not only the GMI's but also the ramifications to the community and the cost to taxpayers if you continue to pursue this reckless course of revisionism. Mr. Huntingford's desire to dispense with the "indulgence in verbosity" of the original community -adopted plan language does not constitute a defensible mandate nor is it an excuse to impose one's own ideological predispositions. The language you propose to delete and insert will be subject to far more scrutiny and challenge than that already adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan development process. Why this exercise, beyond the legal minimum requirements, is considered an important use of the Commission's time, given the other far more urgent issues that are pressing, is beyond me. Sincerely, Todd McGuire Port Townsend October 13, 2004 Josh Peters Senior Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 RE: 2004 Comprehensive Plan update Josh, I am writing as a follow up to my comments to Tom McNerney forwarded September 14 relative to proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments for inclusion in tonight's Planning Commission packet. RE: MLA -04-28: The Planning Commission has failed to address the requirements of UDC 9.5.4. I have reviewed the Criteria Memo of September 15 issued by the Planning Commission to belatedly attempt to address these requirements. Unfortunately, that memo's underscoring of the "..but shall not be limited to" language describes a fundamental problem with the proposed amendments. The criteria listed in the rest of the memo, while no doubt appealing to some on the PC, are not consistent wit the intent of the UDC provisions. In some cases, even these criteria are not followed. This represents a failure to develop and guide the process to achieve a proper outcome. One of the problems with this failure is described on page 74 of the September 22 Staff Report section on Land Use Element: "The 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update was largely completed to accommodate a change in the County population growth targets from 2016 to 2024, a planning update required under the GMA. The 2024 horizon year population is expected to include 40,139 individuals within Jefferson County, an increase of 13,840 over the year 2000 population. The OFM estimates include a loweryearly average growth rate that (sic) was assumed in the1998 Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson County, in response to the 1998 projections planned for vacant land, housing, services, and environmental projections to accommodate a population that was expected to grow at a faster rate than is now assumed based upon 2004 projections. As a result, Jefferson County is well prepared, in terms of population -based planning, for the 2024 horizon year population." (italics added for emphasis) In other words, because desired rezones of residential to commercial land — a true goal of the Planning Commission efforts as described in meeting minutes — are not justifiable under UDC Growth Management Indicators, other criteria are being introduced. To date, there has still not been a re-examination of true commercial land (and associated infrastructure) needs to address the results of the Special Study and these updated OFM projections that revise expectations downward. This should be of primary importance to the Planning Commission and BOCC as it will have huge impacts on our future capital facilities budgets as well as encouraging sprawl. It would appear that the PC, under policy directive form the BOCC, is more concerned with allowing rapid, sweeping change to the intents of the original Comprehensive Plan than about ensuring adequate future process that is consistent with GMA goals of planned, economically feasible growth. The burden of proof is on the PC to demonstrate in a clear way available to and understandable by the public why each of the many line in and line out changes are being proposed. The 1 Vh hour general criteria provided by the PC minority that has crafted these revisions in meetings which resulted in no public record do not answer this responsibility. The contention that "the history is in the record" does not stand up in the case of the subcommittee meetings where the real determinations were made. The actual time spent by the entire Planning Commission considering these modifications is miniscule. RE: Parcel number 001-282-007 located on Theater Road adjacent to the intersection of State Routes 19 and 20 is proposed for inclusion in the General Crossroad rural commercial district. This is a ludicrous attempt to spot rezone under the pretext of a "mapping error" consistent with the intent to rezone land to commercial use. The only justification sited in the minutes is the opinion of 2 Planning Commissioners (including the Chair of the Comp Plan amendment subcommittee) interpreting the reason based on historical hearsay. This is preposterous. At the least, this rezone should require a site specific application and hearing process. Recall the BOCC has determined that no site specific applications will be accepted in 2004. RE: MLA- 04-27: As described in meeting minutes, this proposal affects about 3,000 acres in the County under the current application level and significantly affects adjacent and neighboring property owners. No notice has been mailed to these people. Changes to setback requirements have huge potential to affect neighboring property owners. There are probably several thousand parcels affected by this - if not more. We need to know that the County is committed to full public disclosure and would not take away someone's property rights without everyone being notified and having a chance to weigh in. People have to do APO mailings for almost every kind of project, so why not for a wholesale rezone like this? Many people are going to be affected by this change as proposed. I would urge staff to undertake a proactive legal review of the defensibility of this whole recommendation package to identify likely areas that are out of compliance with local UDC and state GMA regulations. The taxpayers who will have to fund the County's defense of these sweeping changes deserve to know that the best efforts have been made to guard against a successful appeal. I will be following the process as described in part 1.2.1.4.5 of the Staff Report. Please alert me to any changes to that process. Sincerely, Todd McGuire Port Townsend December 6, 2004 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Glen Huntingford, Chair RE: Comprehensive Plan changes MLA- 04-27 and MLA -04-028, et al Gentlemen, I am writing to protest your proposed adoption of the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. I have attached copies of my previous comments to staff and Planning Commission for your review. Unfortunately, my previous comments were ignored so I now appeal to you as decision makers. To summarize those points: 1. The Planning Commission conducted a poorly organized and executed review of the Comprehensive Plan, relying on a subcommittee of inexperienced, narrow minded members to make sweeping changes to a formally adopted Plan created with long, extensive public participation. The review ignored GMA and UDC mandated criteria and created documentation that was extremely difficult to follow. The changes went far beyond the charge of regular updating and "housekeeping" resulting in language that significantly alters policies embodied in the Plan. This is a clear attempt to re -write the Comprehensive Plan in a subversive way. 2. There have been numerous changes to the documents presented for comment at the last Planning Commission public hearing in October. In fact, the current version you are considering was not released until November 10. This is a disenfranchisement of the public's right to participate. 3. You are conducting this hearing during work hours without any addition to the bare minimum legal requirements of public notice. It is clear that rather than wanting a broad public participation you intend to implement sweeping change with a minimum of public scrutiny. You bear the responsibility for creating an environment where the public's only option is a legal challenge. 4. The proposed rezone of the Wheel -In Theatre property is not defensible by mandated process and violates your own directive of not considering site-specific amendments this year. Is it a coincidence that this was the prominent road -side site of Titterness and Huntingford re-election campaign signs? 5. Pertaining to MLA -04-027: This proposal affects about 3,000 acres in the County under the current application level and significantly affects adjacent and neighboring property owners. No notice has been mailed to these people. Changes to setback requirements have huge potential to affect neighboring property owners. I have reviewed your November 15 resolution #63-04 seeking an extension to the December 1 update deadline. I disagree with the assertion that the Planning Commission has reviewed the entire amendment docket. That final material has only been available for 3 weeks after their deliberations. It is also true that the reason the process is far behind schedule is that you and the Planning Commission have been overly ambitious in your desire to rewrite the Plan. A moderate approach observing mandated minimum requirements would have allowed for timely consideration and adoption. You have created an artificial deadline to justify your radical rewrite. This has resulted in an inadequate amount of time for preparation by myself and other interested parties. You need to slow this train down, limit the scope of address and involve the public in a meaningful way. This is clearly a task for your elected replacements. I urge you to either adopt another resolution that addresses these issues in an honest and straightforward way for the benefit of our County's future and extends the date of completion until after the new electeds have been seated or consider the update closed with no modifications to the existing Plan. In the event that you keep to this schedule wit the current documents, I intend to provide detailed comment relative to the proposed changes including the following elements of the Plan: Introduction; Land Use and Rural; Housing; Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation; Economic Development; and Environment ; Essential Public Facilities; Transportation; Utilities; Capital Facilities prior to the 60 day appeal deadline. Sincerely, Todd McGuire Port Townsend Dint Or 04- Leslie Lock From: Dan Titterness Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 9:46 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport overlay FEARING RECORD > ---------- >From: Stig Osterberg[SMTP:OSTERSK@OLYMPUS.NET] >Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 9:47:24 PM >To: Glen Huntingford; Pat Rodgers; Dan Titterness; Gabe Ornelas >Subject: Airport overlay >Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioners. I have with interest read the latest proprosal from the Port of Port Townsend and the Planning Commision regarding the Jefferson County International Airport. I would like to make some comments and ask that this be included in the hearing. The first item under EDP 4.4 is the designation of JCIA as an Essential Public Facility. I was a bit stumped at first because I always thought that everybody agreed that it was. After reading carefully I realized that we were not really talking about an airport facility , but rather an Airport Essential Facility District., with the emphasis on "District" . Looking at the map which was provided shows that this "District" extends beyond SR20 and Rhody Drive and includes property owned by the Port on either side of the highways.The Port has requested that zoning in these areas be designated light industrial and that it may or may not be related to aviation industry. At the same time they request that properties located in areas designated as Overlay I and II has certain land use restriction imposed beyond their original zoning . The Port specifically declares as "incompatible use" Mobile Home Courts. There are already numerous existing Mobile Home Courts in these areas. We do not know how this will affect existing Mobile Home Courts. Will the owners of these Mobile Home Courts be able to modify and able to operate these without any further zoning restrictions from the County or the Port? Low income affordable housing is scarce in the County , while there has been no demonstrable need for an increase in the amount of land designated for industrial use since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. It seems ironic that the Port chooses to request zoning restrictions beyond what already exists for individual property owners in the Overlay I and II zones, while at the same time requesting that the County allow the Port to change the zoning so they can have unrestricted and unchecked capability to develop their property without anyone knowing what their specific future plans are. It has not beeen demonstrated that we have utilized all available industrial zoned properties set aside by the county. However, there is a substantial increase in demand for affordable single and multiple family housing . It seems logical that priority should be given to increase the availability of affordable housing rather than allowing an agency to impose restrictions on surrounding residential areas. So by insisting on restricted zoning beyond what is already there in the proposed Overlay zones you are really depriving an already limited housing market of potential solutions for accessible and affordable housing. Therefore I would urge you to turn this proposal down and find answers to the following questions. Has it been demonstrated that we do not have enough industrial zoning in the county? Why do we need more? Why should we not encourage the location of more single or multi unit housing in existing mobile home courts? Would this not increase the taxbase and provide a concrete solution to the lack of affordable 1 is aP housing.? I hope you take these suggestions into consideration. Thank you. Stig Osterberg Port Townsend p �,__ i"4610 15XC Leslie Locke From: Kevin Russell Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 7:59 AM Page I of 2 To: Leslie Locke HEARING RECORD Subject: FW: letter to Board of County Commissioners From: wes ludemann [mailto:wesludemann@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 1:00 AM To: Kevin Russell Subject: letter to Board of County Commissioners Dear Kevin, Here are the written comments I wish to be presented to the Board at the Dec 6 meeting. Thank you, Wes Board of County Commissioners December Dec 5, 2004 Gentlemen: Two years ago we bought a house in the Discovery Bay Heights community. We have found the Quimper Peninsula a beautiful place to live, and we enjoy the cultural benefits of Port Townsend and Jefferson county. At the time we bought the house, we were aware of the proximity of the airport. We were told of the so- called "good neighbor policy," by which pilots supposedly would avoid low and repeated flights over residential areas. A policy mostly honored in the breach. I (Wes Ludemann) called the Port of Port Townsend twice about low-flying aircraft. I know my complaints got transmitted to the airport, because each time on the next day, a parade of planes passed over! Showing me who was boss, I assume. Out of consideration for my neighbors I gave up calling. Our property taxes subsidize the airport operation, so the pilots can have low fees. And the County wants to build light industry at the airport to subsidize the low fees. Something is wrong here. What is the solution? Do we sell our lovely house and move? We wouldn't be the first to move away from Discover Bay Heights because of the nuisance of low-flying airplanes. I call a spade a spade and a nuisance a nuisance, unlike MLA03-232, which states that the "the County does not consider noise impacts related to normal airport operations to be a public nuisance." In fact, many communities are facing up to the fact that aircraft noise is a public nuisance, and are taking steps to mitigate it, including moving airports to more remote locations. An example is the closing of Buchanan Airport near Concord, California. More than just a nuisance, noise is stressful, and stress can cause or worsen diseases. Early aging is linked to chronic stress. Diseases that can be worsened by stress are adult onset diabetes, muscle 12/6/2004 Page 2 of 2 . I N atrophy, high blood pressure and atherosclerosis, arrested growth, impotence, amenorrhea, depression, and decalcification of bones. A Noise Overlay Zone is not the answer. I quote from the Jefferson County document on Airport Planning Issues: "In State law there is no explicit reference to a noise overlay zone or a district around an airport or requirement to establish such zone or district." Why us? Who wants it so badly? What good will it do? Who sets the boundaries? In the past two years, it has expanded and contracted like a rubber band. Neither the Port of Port Townsend or the County has any jurisdiction over an aircraft once it has taken off. Only the FAA, we are told. My advice to the County is to bite the bullet and move the airport. The present location is ridiculous, sandwiched between highways 19 and 20. As more houses are built in the proposed noise overlay zone, the conflicts will be greater. Consider the number of houses that are to be built at the Discovery Bay Golf Course. In conclusion: 1. Drop the Noise Overlay Zone. It is a very unpopular idea. 2. Start making plans for moving the airport. Judging from other communities, it is just a matter of time. It will be less expensive now than later. Wesley D. Ludemann Carolyn R. Hunt 116 Vancouver Lane Port Townsend WA 98368 --- Wes Ludemann --- wesludemannnearthlink.net 12/6/2004 I Ra ll Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:00 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: last thought > ---------- >From: Gabe Ornelas[SMTP:NULIFE@OLYMPUS.NET] >Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:10:05 AM >To: Glen Huntingford >Subject: last thought >Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioner Huntingford: We are all nearing the end of this long trail of debate relative to the Overlay issue. I am forwarding this to you on the basis of being fair for all those involved in this process. But I do want the best to come out of this process, for all of us including you who have served our community in the best manner for the best reasons. I want to share some thoughts and concerns with you, without broaching the issue that will be discussed during the scheduled hearing this Monday: The creation of Overlay 2 by the Planning Commission was abruptly conceived late in the year and rushed through thereby not allowing enough time for those impacted homeowners to digest and prepare for a thorough flushing of the implications this overlay might have. This overlay will impact approximately 300 parcels; During this fall season, a Planning Commission Airport Sub -Committee was formed with direction to meet with the concerned parties and County Staff. The committee was to submit a report to the entire commission of their findings. I attended the majority of these meetings and/or my representative. I was taken back to observe the presence of the Chairman, Mr. McNearney at each meeting. The committee had a delegated committee Chair at all times. In my humble opinion I found Mr. McNearney micro -managing the meetings and stifling what was hoped to be an open and constructive attempt in generating an dialogue amongst the parties. It appeared that he had a fixed opinion on the outcome of these meetings. My hope was dashed that this committee's report would look upon the merits of both contested parties. I think we failed in that regard. Because of the aforementioned and the fact that the positions of County Commissioner will change at this crucial junction of this issue, is it possible that the Port and PRQ's amendments be tabled, with a set -date for completion, for the incoming Board. I hope you will excuse any naivete on my part as my only intent is that we all come to a satisfactory solution for the greater good. I appreciate your consideration to my brief comments. Best of luck to you in the future. Sincerely, Gabe cc. Commissioner Titterness 1 cc: z< P� LeslieLoc( From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:11 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: > ---------- >From: Gabe Ornelas[SMTP:NULIFE@OLYMPUS.NET] >Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:20:49 AM >To: Glen Huntingford >Cc: Dan Titterness; Rogers@co.jefferson.wa.us >Auto forwarded by a Rule Gentlemen: Just to reiterate what has been said by those of us in the community but to say it in very plain terms to impress upon you the unfairness that " normal operations shall not be considered a nuisance". This is similar to a preemptive action taken by the Port against the community. Why would a governmental entity want to take such an action. What is it that they fear? The fear on their part I suppose is they know that operations like theirs have been compelled to get along with the surrounding community if they believe they can be sued. Lawsuits don't permanently protect our environment, but they do provide protection until things get on the right track. We need that leverage to be able to work together as good and reasonable neighbors. I am committed to that. The comments made by Port Counsel relative to a single example of another jurisdiction that had an avigation easement, which is a severe approach to easing a problem, was a poor argument why this airport needs additional protection. As you recall, we have submitted for the record, surveys of surrounding airports that operate without the intrusion of any sort of an overlay concept. Why is this small airport so unique? I believe all of us can work together to solve community problems without one party having an advantage over the other, as this proposal would have for the community. We have all come a long way in this growing and demanding community and we are better neighbors for all that has been discussed as difficult as it has been at times. Sincerely, Gabe Ornelas 1 cc y i")16/oy Leslie Locke From: Dan Titterness Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:06 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Amendment MLA 03-232 > ---------- >From: Janis Fisler[SMTP:JFISLER@EARTHLINK.NET] >Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:11:47 PM >To: Dan Titterness >Subject: Amendment MLA 03-232 >Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Mr. Titterness, As Jefferson County residents, we have followed the Airport noise overlay issue for several years. After reading Amendment MLA 03-232 proposed by the Port of Port Townsend, we have the following serious concerns regarding the content of that amendment. 1) The Amendment states in several ways that the County will not consider 'routine' airport use to be a public nuisance. What is now considered (Eroutinel is not well defined, nor is there provision for changes in technology. This extra layer of legal protection against potential justifiable community concerns about airport usage could prevent any successful community redress against airport nuisance of any kind. 2) The Amendment would allow a new use for the airport essential public facility land, i.e., industrial or public facility use not related to airport function. If the Port is allowed to locate an industrial park in an essential public facility district, will they use the argument that this is an essential public facility if there are complaints about industrial noise, smell, etc, and will the public have no legal recourse against such nuisance? This potential nuisance issue is not even mentioned in the Amendment. 3) There is now a second noise overlay that corresponds to actual traffic patterns as opposed to the idealized noise contour that is projected in noise overlay 1. Why should there be two overlays when the FAA mandated traffic patterns are where the noise actually occurs? This second overlay was inserted in the Amendment so recently that the community has not had time to consider its implications. We, therefore, urge the BOCC to deny Amendment MLA 03-232. Sincerely, Janis and George Fisler 1 comprehensive plan amendment MLA04-28 ee . PO3w-1qOq bDc Leslie Locke From: Peter Wiant [peter@wiant.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 9:32 PM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: comprehensive plan amendment MLA04-28 I item NAwk, Page 1 of 1 I'm writing to ask that nothing be done on the Comprehensive Plan amendment (file number MLA04-28) until the recently elected commissioners, Phil Johnson and David Sullivan are in office. thank you, Peter Wiant 1102 22nd St. Port Townsend, Washington, 98368 peter@wiant.net http://www.wiant.net 360-385-1188 12/6/2004 Leslie Locke From: len zweig [leonardz@olympus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:32 PM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: MLA04-28 Comp Plan amandment file Page 1 of 1 I strongly urge that any further consideration of the Comprehensive Plan and amendments be dropped by the current County Commissioners and left to the new board of Commissioners in January. The voters made a very clear decision about who they want to engage in the decision process -- and who they don't want -- and the voters deserve respect from the outgoing Commissioners. The outgoing Commissioners did their best, but their standards did not get the approval of an overwhelming majority of voters. Thank you. Leonard Zweig 360 385-1993 1059 Quincy Street, PT 12/6/2004 cc I-DWO1 Leslie Locke From: dwhipple [dwhipple@olympus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 7:13 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: CP amendments Page 1 of 1 The proposed changes to the comprehensive plan have been designed in a non-public process. It has been rushed and not thourough. The public has not been adequately informed. The series of land use redesignations along the road from Chimacum to Port Townsend will lead to a commercial stip zone from Tessoro to the end of Water St. These have not been assessed for cumulative effect. There have not been criteria applied. The applications were not submitted in a timely manner. The issue of reviewing the CP should be held over until the next BOCC that will be responsible for implementing it is in place. The discussion of the current amendment cycle should be limited to the amendments that were submitted in a timely manner and the clean up text changes that the initial place holder amendments stated they would. The expansion taken on by the planning commission in changing goals and policies was well outside the scope that this amendment was to cover. Thank you, David Whipple 12/6/2004 cc DCS Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Rick [drd@cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:36 AM To: Lorna Delaney HEARING RECORD Subject: file#MLA04-28 Dear Mr. Peters, I am asking you to put off a vote on the Comprehensive Plan file#MLA04-28 that will be discussed today at the meeting that I will be unable to attend. The residents of the county ought to have the commissioners that they voted for this cycle to review and vote for the above file. Please listen to the people who pay the bills and have to live with the results of the very important vote. Thank you. D.R.Dunlap 12/6/2004 Page 1 of i Leslie Locke From: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:24 AM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: comprehensive plan public comment From: George Bush [mailto:gbush@olypen.com] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:44 PM To: Josh Peters Subject: comprehensive plan 1 Lei I 11a"l -N I ki toll] N : I am writing to ask that the proposed changes to the Comprehensive plan be delayed until the new County Commissioners can make a detailed review and make their recommendations. Such a review would ensure the will of the voters who elected Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Johnson would be honored by allowing their chosen representatives to have reasonable input into the the final version of the Plan. If the Board rushes to put in place a Plan that does not meet the expectations of the new Commissioners, much effort and scarce County funds will have to be expended to make necessary changes. Such expenditures of time and money is totally unnecessary and would reflect poorly on the outgoing Commissioners. George Bush 100 McMinn Road Port Townsend 360 379 1201 gbush olypen.com 12/6/2004 Comprehensive Plan changes MLA- 04-27 and MLA-04-028 Page 1 of 1 �,�(� HkAILeslie L eREC®RD From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:47 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Comprehensive Plan changes MLA- 04-27 and MLA -04-028 From: Kees Kolff[SMTP: KKOLFF@OLYMPUS. NET] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:57:08 PM To: Glen Huntingford Subject: Comprehensive Plan changes MLA- 04-27 and MLA -04-028 Auto forwarded by a Rule December 6, 2004 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners RE: Comprehensive Plan changes MLA- 04-27 and MLA -04-028 Dear Commissioners, I urge you to delay action on the Comprehensive Plan Ammendments you are currently considering. They have not had the benefit of adequate public review and discussion and go well beyond the update needs required by law. Some of them may have significant impacts on how growth occurs in this County and should be further analyzed and debated. In Particular, the new wording for land use planning LNP 3.7 states "Provide a density exemption to allow the segregation of lots on a parcel containing more than one dwelling unit and one septic system." Appropriate development, provision of essential services and growth in UGAs versus the rest of the county are only some of the issues that need to be further considered before this change of policy becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan. Once again, I urge you to delay taking action on the amendments. Respectfully, Kees Kolff, Citizen of Port Townsend 12/6/2004 cc ,�cD I aWoy Lesli o e From: connie gallant [cg@conniegallant.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:50 AM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comprehensive Plan decision We would appreciate it if the current BOCC would honor the will of the voters and delay action on the amendments until the newly elected commissioners take office. One of the primary reasons that two of the incumbent commissioners were not reelected was because they did not listen to the people's voice. Therefore, we insist on open deliberations after the new commissioners are seated. Thank you. Respectfully, Connie & JD Gallant PO Box 490 Quilcene WA 98376 1 lot. ON . - gac�. Leslie Locke From: Pat Todd & Ken Hanson [patnken@olypen.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:28 PM To: jpeters@co. jefferson.wa.us Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comprehensive Plan review & Public Hearing Page 1 of 1 Mr Peters, I am writing in regard to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan annual review. I realize that a lot of time and work that has gone into preparing the final draft of amendments to the Plan and that we are now on the homestretch of Public hearing and comment before the final vote and implementation. However I would like to request that a bit more time be allowed for this phase of the project. I have had the opportunity to look at the summary of the process as presented on the web site and have started to look at the proposed amendments under MLA04-28. The scope of the proposed changes is vast and the public should have adequate time to carefully digest the material and comment before any of it is rushed into final approval and becomes the policy that guides all decisions made in Jefferson County. We have seen how policy can be a strong force in decision making and, as a Jefferson County resident, I would like to feel that the BOCC has a blueprint that is sound and supportive of the vision we have of a strong, sustainable and unique county. I urge you to give this process more time for review, consideration and comment even if it takes us just into the first of next year. This is too important a document to allow to slide through quickly and quietly. Sincerely, Pat Todd Port Ludlow (patnken@olypen.com) li► ZOTAi 1 cc Leslieeto e From: Don White [dwhite@olympus.net] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:23 PM Josh Peters HEARINGTo: Cc: Lorna Delaney RECORD Subject: Comp Plan amendments We urge the present Board of County Commissioners to delay action on amendments to the Comprehensive plan until the newly elected Commissioners take office. Don White Sylvia White 90 Bayview Lane Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 379-6833 CC c D PC DCC. Leslie L cke From: Don White [dwhite@olympus.net] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:41 PM : Josh Peters CcHEARINGRECORD Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Amendments to Comp. Plan We urge the Board of County Commissioners to eliminate requirements for Jefferson County to adopt an Airport Overlay or a noise overlay. Don White Sylvia White 90 Bayview Lane Port Townsend WA 98368 379-6833 eci. YD p Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Bo Bricklemyer [bobrick@igc.org] HEARINGRECORD Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:11 PM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comprehensive Plan changes MLA- 04-27 and MLA -04-028, et al Dear Commissioners: I would like to make the following comments on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments which you are considering today at 2 PM.. I think the current draft, as prepared by the Planning Commission and staff, should not be passed but should be deferred until the new Board is in place. We elected new County Commissioners to try to repair the errors of the past administration, especially as to compliance with the Growth Management Act. To pass these overreaching amendments (erroneously advertised as "language clean-up and simplification") on the cusp of a new direction, and to thus surely subject the county to further legal fees fighting what will certainly be an appeal if passed as is, seems pointless, inefficient and perhaps a bit vindictive. As to timing vis -vis the State deadlines, if we are tardy, we have been late before; and this time it is necessary. Thanks for your consideration of our opinions. Regards, Bo Bricklemyer Eugene C. Bricklemyer, Jr., J.D., LL.M. President Olympic Peninsula Office Aquatic Resources Conservation Group !233 Van Ness Port Townsend, WA 98368 360.385.7679 12/6/2004 Hearing Commen CC C Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:30 PM HWIRING T : Leslie Locke• Subject: FW: Hearing Comment From: Karen Hackenberg and Michael Felber[SMTP:WETDOG@CABLESPEED.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:27:15 PM To: Glen Huntingford Cc: Dan Titterness; Rogers@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Hearing Comment Auto forwarded by a Rule December 7, 2004 Hearing Comment to be added to the record for amendment MLA03-232 Dear Commissioners, I would like make a few additions to my remarks at Monday's hearing. Page 1 of 2 The central issue that we are discussing is how much protection do we want to give the airport. The Dept. of Transportation requires us to protect our airport, and we are already in compliance with the D.O.T. guidelines. The Port wants us to limit the community's legal abilities to sue the airport for any "normal operation". These are two different issues. If we want to limit our citizens legal options, then we should do that, and call it what it is — the reduction of our legal rights. If we want to give the airport more protection, then we should do that, and call it more protection. But we shouldn't reduce the community's legal rights, and call it more protection for the airport. (Also, the fact that "normal operations" isn't defined, gives the airport a gaping legal loophole). The Port claims that it doesn't have enough protection, but what they have been pursuing for over 5 years is a limit on the community's legal options. I think that the easiest way to insure that the airport's operations will become a nuisance in the future, would be to eliminate our ability to challenge them in court. You see, it's sort of like when a cop sits in his car by a highway — everyone slows down, and he doesn't even have to ticket anyone. If the cop isn't visible — that is, if we have no legal recourse, the airport will ignore the laws. 12/8/2004 fearing Comment Page 2 of 2 You are considering an ordinance that would limit our legal rights. The reason for this, Mary Winters, the Port's attorney says, is that the airport needs more protection. But she gives no evidence for this. She said that one or two airports have even more stringent protection than ours, but she gives no information on how these airports relate to ours. She doesn't mention that there are many more airports that are doing fine with no more protection than our own. I think that limiting our citizen's legal rights is a very serious thing that should only be done when absolutely necessary. We should try other options first. Please think very carefully about the repercussions of this ordinance. It's worse than using a shotgun to kill a fly, it's like shooting a fly that doesn't even exist - but we will still end up with a hole in our wall. There is one more troubling aspect to this proposal. No one has ever sued the Port over airport operations. It is not a problem. The Port says that they expect to be sued. They are so sure of this, that they want you to limit our legal rights preemptively. I urge you to stand with your community and deny the Port's amendment. Sincerely, Michael Felber 670 Adelma Beach Rd., P. T. 385-0202 12/8/2004 MWSC11a�8�°4 r71 ti DIE_ C 0 s 2004 noise overlay letter 3r';E°SG Oi ii ai 79V/Vi.+6i 1:,. .�- December 7, 2004 To: Jefferson county commissioners Glen Huntingford Dan Titterness Pat Rodgers Subject: Airport noise overlay proposal This noise overlay proposal is a fine local example of how there are always a few individuals in government who continually seek to enhance their own power/position at the expense of the public. The overlay, as worded, will lessen the decision-making restraints on the Port if allowed to pass. This overlay will benefit a handful of people at the expense of many. we the people of Jefferson county trust in you to help ensure that we have a healthy and fair local goverment. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Thomas Blazey 154 Ridgeview Drive Port Townsend Page 1 December 6, 2004 Janet Welch Box 1221 Hadlock, WA 98339 HEARING RECORD �t 0, ` 2004 Jefferson County Commissioners Box 1221 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Sirs, I am writing, both as an individual and as a member of the Olympic Environmental Council, to urge you not to adopt the proposed changes to our Comprehensive Plan. The amendment task, as described by you, is to `replace or eliminate outdated, redundant, and regulatory language' from the Plan and to `restore the proper relationship between the Plan and the UDC'. Your Planning Commission must not have understood that task, as evidenced by the sweeping deletions they have proposed. The amendment, as proposed, will seriously undermine both the Plan's compliance with GMA and the integrity of the implementing ordinances dependent on the Plan. I could go on all day with specifics, but will limit my examples to just a few: ENG 9.0 originally addressed the prevention of adverse impacts to public health, property, and the environment in landslide and erosion areas. The proposed replacement goal eliminates the reference to protection and replaces it with designation! Are we to believe that the goal favored by this Board is the simple creation of beaurocratic paperwork, and that the end result you want to achieve is the creation of a map? In only a slightly more covert manner, the tampering also quietly eliminated the word `environment' from the goal. I surely need not remind you that the Comprehensive Plan is not a map making project and is not just a means to protect investments, but a mechanism to prevent impacts to both those investments and to the quality of the environment on which those investments irreconcilably depend. The gutting of the Land Use section is a telling indicator of the agenda driving this amendment. One need only to consider the deletion of policies like this one: "Establish regulations which provide clear guidance on County land use permitting processes and standards..." Policies like these lay the necessary groundwork for the implementing regulations. Without them, the UDC cannot remain compliant with GMA. The same is true of the removal of the criteria for home based businesses. Far from restoring the proper relationship between the Plan and the UDC, the proposed draft literally paves the way for the subsequent gutting of the UDC. The basis for protection standards will have been eliminated. Gone will be the assurances that appropriately scaled home businesses will continue to be community assets rather than neighborhood nightmares. The same is true for Small Scale and Tourist Related uses, Essential Public Facilities (where the phrase "wherever practical" has been inserted to water down those protections), Rural Character, and most other components of the Land Use section. You do not have to adopt this agenda -driven can of worms. Leave the task to the men who will be seated in your place in a few short weeks. Let them sort through the proposed changes, retain the improvements, eliminate the agenda, and assure that our Comprehensive Plan continues to be the backbone for the long term protection of our communities and our quality of life. To do otherwise is simply to guarantee that the scarce financial resources of the county will once again be diverted from productive uses to futile attempts to defend your actions from appeals filed by citizens like me. Sincerely Janet Welch. R.S. Leslie 2cke From: Josh Peters Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:46 PM To: Leslie Locke UA Cc: Cheryl Halvorson HEARIN" RECOM � Subject: FW: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B public comment -----Original Message ----- From: Wulkan, Bruce [mailto:BWulkan@PSAT.WA.GOV] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:38 PM To: Cambalik, John; Josh Peters Cc: Al Scalf; Beale, Harriet Subject: RE: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B I agree with everything that John said. The Ecology "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington" (SMMWW) is a guidance document. It becomes required when adopted by a local government or made a requirement of an NPDES permit. Next, low impact development does not supercede the treatment and flow control standards contained in the SMMWW. LID is simply a means of meeting those standards in a more efficient, effective way. That said, if you develop a parcel using LID techniques, and if that project meets the overall goal of LID (matching the pre -developed hydrology of the site), then you will also certainly meet the flow control and treatment standards contained in the SMMWW. There is now a stronger link between LID and the Ecology manual that has ever existed before. This will result in new flow control credits (for sizing flow control facilities) when certain LID techniques are used. The credits will appear in the Action Team's new LID technical guidance manual (due early Jan) and in Ecology's update of the SMMWW (also due Jan). I hope this is all clear - feel free to ask clarifying questions. -Bruce -----Original Message ----- From: Cambalik, John Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:13 AM To: Josh Peters (E-mail) Cc: Al Scalf (E-mail); Beale, Harriet; Wulkan, Bruce Subject: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B Importance: High Hi Josh! I understand that the BOCC suggested some additions to the Comp. Plan that will go to hearing on Monday. One that was brought to my attention by a citizen states that: "It is recognized that the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) low -impact development standards meet the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual." It's unclear what "standards" they are referring too here. As staff to the PSAT partnership, we are not a regulatory agency, hence do not create "standards". DOE does, however. The DOE 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001 Manual) is also not a "standard", it's a guidance document, though the county has adopted it, which was great! LID provisions are contained within the 2001 Manual. It's also unclear what is meant by the phrase "meet the requirements of" within that sentence. DOE has recently proposed updates to the 2001 Manual. See this link for those updates (<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/WWo20stormwater%20manual/manu al_update_changes.htm>). Included within the updates are additional provisions for LID. My guess is that the "standards" that the BOCC might be referring to within this statement are one of two items: 1. Reference to LID in Section SW -1.2 of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan available at this link: <http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/manplan00/20_stormwater.pdf> Note: LID is one of many elements of a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program, as noted within this section. 2. Reference to the upcoming release of our new "LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound". We will be conducting outreach on this manual once it's available in early January. We would, however, welcome more specific reference to both of these items within this section of the Comp. Plan. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the hearing on Monday. I would appreciate it if you could pass these clarifying points on to the BOCC in my absence. I'll copy Al as a back up if you happen not to be in on Monday. Thanks and hope all is well with you and the family! John Cambalik, Local Liaison Clallam, Jefferson, and Kitsap Puget Sound Action Team PO Box 3622 Sequim, Washington 98382 Phone: 360-582-9132 Fax: 360-582-9132 (please call first) Email: jcambalik@psat.wa.gov Website: www.psat.wa.gov 2 cC' D P ►a�f Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 8:43 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Testimony: MLA03-232 and MLA03-244 Lorna Delaney; Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Ande K. Grahn,AICP [mailto:opp@olympus.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 4:13 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Testimony: MLA03-232 and MLA03-244 Olympic Peninsula Planning December 8, 2004 Glen Huntingford, Chair Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 Page 1 of 2 RE: 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment: MLA03-232 and MLA -3-244 Dear Mr. Huntingford and the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Attached please find the revisions entered in to the record during the BOCC hearing December 6, 2004. For many years now the community has expressed concerns about establishment of a noise overlay at the Jefferson County International Airport. These concerns have been expressed in many forums, and finally culminated in submittal of a request to amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, docketed as MLA03-244. Through continued dialog with the Port of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Planning Staff, and the Planning Commission many of the public concerns have been addressed in the Staff Recommendation on MLA03-232. We agree that the County has a duty to designate the airport as an essential public facility and to protect the identified uses at the airport from incompatible land uses and nuisance complaints. We believe the attached proposed revisions to the staff recommendation provide that protection and address the numerous concerns raised by citizens throughout the 2003 and 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. 12/9/2004 Page 2 of 2 We appreciate your careful consideration of the proposed revisions. Sincerely, Ande K. Grahn, AICP Principal Planner 12/9/2004 Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation M LA03-232 (version dated 11/10,2004) Prepared for BOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Ref # Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Proposed by the Port/County Staff) with PRQ Revisions Noted 1. Airport Overlay (Text Essential Public Facilities Chapter) Page 2 of 22 To address noise, safety and compatibility concerns, and to implement the directives of the Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1998, the County has established an Airport Overlay. The Overlay boundary is a fixed boundary, reflecting the projected 55 DNL contour in the year 2022, as set forth in Exhibit 6.4 of the adopted Jefferson County AMP. The purposes of this Overlay are as follows: • To dic^'�� notify permit applicants and prospective property owners their proximity to airport operations including take -off and landing patterns, and the potential for low level noise and vibrations associated with such activities; and • To identify an airport safety zone within which certain uses will be prohibited for public safety and compatibility reasons (e.g., mobile home parks, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, day care facilities and other similar uses). Page 6 of 22 EPP 2.2 In cooperation with the Port of Port Townsend, discourage the siting of 2 new, incompatible uses adjacent to the airport, pFevide diGGIGGUF8 Ofn ti t proximity to the airport to identified parcels, and address noise impacts, consistent with local concerns, FAA Regulations, State Department of Transportation Regulations, and the JCIA designation as an Essential Public Facility under the GMA. A. Establish an Airport Overlay I consistent with the Noise Contour Interval Map that projects airport noise contours through the year 2022, as adopted by the Port of Port Townsend Board of Commissioners in the 2003 updated Master Plan. Adopt the noise contour map showing the 55 DNL as the Airport Overlay I. B. Prepare and implement procedures for informing property owners within the Airport Overlay 1 (55 DNL) of their proximity to the JCIA and airport operations including aircraft takeoffs, landings, and overflights. 3 C. Enact regulations that provide notice and diGGIGGUFe of airport mpacts to property idevelopers within the Airport Overlay I (other than Type I permits (e.g. single-family residential building permits)). D. Encourage the Port of Port Townsend to continue its efforts to mitigate noise conflicts at Jefferson County International Airport. E. Establish an Airport Overlay II to apprise the public of the existence of the airport traffic pattern and impacts from routine aircraft over -flights, and to restrict certain uses that involve higher concentrations of people for safety and compatibility reasons (e.g., uses involving 100 persons or more per acre in buildings). 4. Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for BOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Page 1 Ref # Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Proposed by the Port/County Staff) with PRQ Revisions Noted B. JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT STRATEGY Action Items 1 Jefferson County shall work cooperatively with the Port of Port Townsend and aviation officials to develop and adopt an "Airport Overlay Zone" for Jefferson County International Airport. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0) 2. Based upon the results of the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Study, the County may reevaluate land use designations within the "Airport Overlay Zone." (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0) 1. Establish two Airport Overlays and appropriate implementing regulations to protect the current and future viability of the JCIA as an essential public facility. Airport Overlay I will be based on the approved Noise Contour Interval Map, while an Airport Overlay II will be based upon the WSDOT recommendations for accident safety zone #6, to the extent that it correlates with the FAA approved traffic pattern for the JCIA. Page 8 of 22 5. 2. Implement regulations providing notice anddiSGlesUfe of airport impacts to property developers within the Airport Overlay I (other than Type I permits). 3. Establish a new Airport Essential Public Facility District as a distinct District within the Public Lands Classification, which will include all relevant regulations governing the development of the JCIA. 4. Continue monitoring federal and state legislation affecting the development of Port owned property and further amend the County's Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations as appropriate. 5. During a future land use planning process for the JCIA, the County in consultation with the Port, will consider and evaluate potential revisions to the County's Unified Development Code which would permit non -aviation -related industrial, manufacturing and related activities on property within the Airport Essential Public Facility, and establish appropriate levels of service and design standards, including but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, visual screening, access requirements and bulk and dimensional standards. 6. Encourage the Port to continue its efforts to mitigate noise conflicts at the Jefferson County International Airport. Page 9 of 22 7. Review and revise the Unified Development Code to ensure only compatible land uses are sited within the Airport Overlays. Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for BOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Page 2 Ref # Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Proposed by the Port/County Staff) with PRQ Revisions Noted Proposed Amendments to the Unified Development Code Page 16 of 22 3.6.11 Airport Overlays a. Airport Overlay Designations. The JCIA has been identified as an essential public facility in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plans of 1998 and 2004. The airport represents a valuable public asset. It provides both an important transportation service and a vital asset to facilitate economic growth in the county. As such, protection measures are needed to preserve the continued future viability of the airport. Therefore, two Airport Overlays are hereby created, as follows: i. Airport Overlay I: For the purpose of this section, the Airport Overlay I is that geographic area affected by the airport and defined on the basis of factors which include aircraft noise, aircraft flight patterns and airport safety areas. It is based on the Noise Contour Interval Map contained in the FAA approved JCIA Master Plan, which projects the 55 DNL contour through the year 2022. ii. Airport Overlay II: For the purpose of this section, the Airport Overlay II is that geographic area that is affected by the FAA mandated airport traffic pattern for the JCIA and defined on the basis of aircraft flight patterns and safety areas. It includes areas that lie adjacent and to the south of Airport Overlay I and is based upon the Aircraft Accident Safety Zone #6 contained in the "Airports and Compatible Land Use" publication of the Washington State Department of Transportation's Aviation Division (2/99), to the extent that Zone #6 correlates with the FAA mandated airport traffic pattern for the JCIA as set forth in the FAA approved JCIA Master Plan. b. Airport Overlay I. (1) The purpose of the Airport Overlay I is to promote land uses that are compatible with the impacts of aircraft using the JCIA and normal airport operations within the airport environs. Because impacts of low flying aircraft can lead to pressure to curtail activities at airports, the Overlay is intended to protect the JCIA from such pressure, to apprise put new property owners and developers on notice of impacts from aircraft overflights and the protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The following regulations are intended to provide a general environmental 7. diSGIGGSUFe notice to current and prospective property owners of their proximity to airport operations, including flight take -off and landing patterns, to promote compatible land uses, and to discourage the siting of incompatible uses. They are further intended to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to the airport, protect the airport as an essential public facility, and preserve the ability of the airport to continue its operations into the future. 8. (2) OisslesUre General Notification Provisions. Information regarding the Airport Overlay I shall be provided as follows: i. Jefferson County shall, in consultation with the Port of Port Townsend, prepare and maintain an Airport Overlay I Map and supporting informational materials that identify the parcels located within the Overlay. Such information shall also be made available Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for BOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Page 3 Ref # Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Proposed by the Port/County Staff) with PRQ Revisions Noted Page 17 of 22 to the public through the County website and the County map database file, and shall be included as a layer in the County GIS. The information made publicly available shall include a general notation substantially stating as follows: "JCIA is a community airport for civil aviation and has been designated an Essential Public Facility by Jefferson County in accordance with the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Properties in the vicinity of the airport may be subject to potential discomforts or inconveniences from noise and vibration associated with aircraft takeoff, landing, over-flight, and normal ground operations at the JCIA site. g, thpc;p innnn�ieniennee �nii/er r1i6nnmfer1c Nriginn frnm nUnh e.neratieF;s to he a Al Iieanne as Inns as they aFe nnnnietent With FerlerW ,A �ic� iwtivn 4Mminitretinn•, � renletinnc� enii c�tenri..r`ic�` It is acknowledged that areas lying outside the fixed boundary of the 10. Airport Overlay I may also be subject to low level noise and vibration. This information is intended only as a diGGIOGUre notice to property owners and potential property owners of their proximity to the JCIA, and the potential for low-level noise associated with airport activities." ii. The County shall provide general notification to applicants for all development, EXCEPT Type I permits (e.g. single -family residences), proposed to be sited in Overlay I. The intent of this notification is to inform applicants of their proximity to the airport and the potential for inconveniences and discomforts as described in (2)(i) above. Such notification shall be sent to the applicant during the project review phase as identified under Section 8.2.3(a) of the UDC. iii. Project approvals, EXCEPT Type I permits as listed in UDC section 8.1.4, whether permitted outright or conditionally, within the Airport Overlay I shall contain as a condition of approval the following d;eolo66IFe tatement: "Jefferson County has determined that the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) is an essential public facility, and as such is an important use in the 11. County. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act require that the County discourage the siting of incompatible uses in the airport vicinity. The GOURty Will RGt .+ricins frnm ci 1nh eneratinnc if G Unh eneFatiens aFe ister.t fedeFal I..w Since this real property lies within the Airport Overlay I (a copy of which is available at the DCD Department and the POPT offices), you may be subject to inconveniences or annoyances including, but not limited to, noise and vibration Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for BOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Page 4 Ref # Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Proposed by the Port/County Staff) with PRQ Revisions Noted Page 18 of 22 associated with aircraft takeoff, landing and over -flight, and noise and vibration due to normal ground operations at the JCIA site." (3) Comment by Port of Port Townsend. The Port of Port Townsend shall receive notice for all Type II and Type III projects that are located within the Airport Overlay I. The County shall follow the referral and review requirements as listed in UDC section 8.2.4. The County, in its discretion, may also submit for comment development proposals located outside the Airport Overlay I, but in such proximity to JCIA that the County deems appropriate an opportunity to comment by the Port. (4) Nuisarre PFoviisions The -following -sh^Iall Rot be GGnsideFed 12. , ' limiter! to ran and e#_caite airnr•aft seise and airnraft take offs and landinne •... •..VV aV V�� G��V V�� VaV G�V�M�a ��VIVV GIIG G.1 , as well as aiFpeFt f 1 aGtivitiesf design ated as AmFpert E6sential Diihlin Cenility D!6trint (ACDC\ rer ..ales a..,Vy� �GaVG �...� , of past: erfUtUe Ghangeson the SUFFG Ending aFeaI•+n1QRd use r�rvr Iand use designatiran6 13. Page 19 of 22 c. Airport Overlay II. deeig Rated as Alrnert ESSP-ntl•Al PIlhliG FaGility Dietrir.t (ACDC)regaFdless of past GF fUtareGhaages OR the und'Rg aFe.a Iand i er I-anrl use desigRatien& (6) Uses Prohibited. Pursuant to The following uses shall be prohibited within the Airport Overlay II: i. Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks; Page 22 of 22 7.1.6 Compatibility with the Jefferson County International Airport a. Incompatible Uses. If the proposed short subdivision, long subdivision or binding site plan is within the Airport Overlay I, that it will not result in the siting of an incompatible use within the vicinity of the airport. 14. Plat and FeGGFded with the je#ersen GGURty Aud#Gr—. Section 8.8.5 (8) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield within the Airport Overlays as defined in Section 3.6.11 of this UDC. Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for BOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Page 5 Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for BOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Page 6