The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM120604 District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Tittemess District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntlngford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of December 6, 2004 Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Dan Tittemess and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers. County Clerk Marianne Walters' Request to Appoint an Interim County Clerk; Lori Bailey: Marianne Walters is retiring on December 30,2004 which is before the end of her term as an elected official. The Democratic party has 60 days from the time she vacates office to notify the County Commissioners of their top three candidates to fill the vacancy. The County Commissioners make the final appointment. Commissioner Tittemess moved to appoint Lori Bailey as Interim Clerk ofthe Court effective when Marianne Walters leaves elected office until the permanent appointment process for the Court Clerk is completed. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Proposal for Amendments to the Conservation Futures Fund Ordinance and the Community Investment Fund Ordinance, and a Policy for the Use of Banked Capacity: Commissioner Rodgers presented public hearing notices for proposed ordinance amendments regarding three issues that the current Board has discussed frequently over the past year. · Establishing a Policy Regarding the Basis of Decision Makingfor the Use of Banked Capacity: In the case of an emergency, the Board would have to declare an emergency at a regular meeting and pass a resolution stating the specific nature of the emergency and the basis of determining the amount of banked capacity to be levied. In the case of a non-emergency, a resolution would need to be approved by the Board at a regular meeting to place specific proposed language on the ballot for the election closest to settling the ad valorem property tax levies. Ifthe emergency is early in the year, the funds will come from reserves and be paid back to the banked capacity. · Establishing a Policy Designating a Portion of the Community Investment Fund Revenue to the Design and Construction of the Tri-Area Sewer System: The intention of this policy is to set aside 50% of the revenue over the life ofthe Community Investment Fund to bond specifically for the infrastructure and the sewer system in the Tri Area. The Board concurred that this is currently a top priority project for the County. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 . ~.f 'SI¡tõÛ~ · Establishing a Policy that Will Limit the Use of Conservation Futures Fund Monies to the Acquisition of Easements: If easements are purchased, instead of parcels of property, more property will remain on the tax rolls. This is an ordinance giving guidance on how to use this funding in a way that is more beneficial to the County. Commissioner Titterness moved to have the three proposed ordinances advertised for public hearing on December 20, 2004. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of November 15, and 22,2004 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Notice of Meeting Cancellation; December 27, 2004: County Administrator John Fischbach noted that the Board doesn't have any business scheduled on their December 27 agenda. Commissioner Titterness moved to have the Chair sign the notice to be advertised in the newspaper canceling the December 27,2004 Commissioners meeting. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session with the County Administrator and the Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney from 8:45 to 9:00 a.m. regarding actual litigation. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: Emergency Management Program Manager Bob Hamlin reported that FEMA recently approved the Jefferson County Hazard Mitigation Plan. This approval will give twenty-three public entities in Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend an opportunity to apply for pre-disaster or post-disaster mitigation grant funding. Proposed projects include: relocating Station #42 in Fire District #4 which is currently located in a flood plain and relocating the Port Townsend Police Department. The Courthouse clock tower project may also benefit from this grant opportunity. Discussion and Possible Approval of Contract for Public Defender Services: (Tabled at the November 8, 15, and 22,2004 Meetings) John Fischbach explained that County Clerk Marianne Walters met with an ad hoc committee of retired judges who have agreed to develop detailed criteria for awarding this contract. They estimate that the process will take 4-6 months. The current contract expires on December 31. Ifthe contract is awarded sooner, it will defeat the purpose of the formation of the ad hoc committee. Since the committee's first meeting, the Clallam/Jefferson Public Defender's Office has withdrawn their bid and announced that they will be closing their Port Townsend Office by the end of the year. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 Terry Mulligan, Clallam/Jefferson Public Defender's Office thanked the Board for the opportunity to provide services to Jefferson County over the last 30 years. He recommended that the bid be awarded to the Critchlow Group because they will be able to assume the lease on the Port Townsend Office and several of the current local public defenders will work for them. The Board discussed a 2-year contract vs. a 3-year contract. Commissioner Huntingford stated his concerns about awarding a 3-year contract. Commissioner Rodgers moved to award a 3-year public defender contract to the Critchlow Group and that it be noted in the contract that an Oversight Board be established to provide an annual report to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. Commissioner Titterness and Commissioner Rodgers voted for the motion. Chairman Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: two claims for damages against the Sheriff s Office were denied and the incidents that brought about the claims have ruined a citizens' family and life and no one in the County will help them; data on employee internet usage was reviewed; a records request was refused due to internet security reasons but items can be redacted, and the user's manual states that County can convert the data to make it more readable by converting it to a different format. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 64-04 re: Establishing a Petty Cash Account for Superior Court 2. RESOLUTION NO. 65-04 re: Establishing One Additional Cash Drawer in the Auditor's Office 3. RESOLUTION NO. 66-04 re: Establishing a Petty Cash Account for JeffCom 4. RESOLUTION NO. 67-04 re: Maintaining a Positive Cash Balance for the Animal Services Fund 5. RESOLUTION NO. 68-04 re: Maintaining a Positive Cash Balance for the Parks and Recreation Fund 6. RESOLUTION NO. 69-04 re: Changing the Name of a Portion of Lower Hadlock Road to North Water Street and Changing Water Street in Port Hadlock to South Water Street 7. RESOLUTION NO. 70-04 re: Application for Funding Assistance for the Non Highway and Off Road Vehicles Activities Program (NOVA) Project; Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC); for the East Jefferson County OR V Area Feasibility Study 8. RESOLUTION NO. 71-04 re: HEARING NOTICE; Proposed Budget Appropriations/Extensions; County Funds; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, December 20, 2004 at 10: 15 a.m. in the Commissioners Chamber 9. AGREEMENT NO. G0400236, Amendment No.1 re: Northwest Straits Project - Marine Resources Committee Grant; Amendment to Add Special Terms and Conditions; WSU - Jefferson County Extension; Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE Lost Original Contract - Re-approved by BOCC 3/21/05) Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 .'o"~~' .... , ::I ~ :;,,-< ~"'\'II.Û~ 10. AGREEMENT NO. G0500015, Amendment No.1 re: Northwest Straits Project - Marine Resources Committee Grant; Amendment to Add Special Terms and Conditions; WSU - Jefferson County Extension; Washington State Department of Ecology 11. AGREEMENT re: Administration and Collection of Excise Tax on Persons Engaging in Business as Harvesters of Timber; Washington State Department of Revenue 12. AGREEMENT NO. 0563-63389 re: Nurse Family Partnership; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 13. AGREEMENT NO. 0063-42088, Amendment No.3 re: Administrative Match for Medicaid Outreach; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 14. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Brief Tobacco Intervention System (BTIS) Training; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Jonnae Tillman 15. AGREEMENT re: Purchase of Property (Acquisition of Parcel #932500502, #932500503 and #932500601) for Inclusion in the Quimper Wildlife Corridor; Conservation Futures Fund; Jack Landwehrkamp 16. AGREEMENT NO. 0463-60026 re: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) for Proctor Home Program; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration 17. AGREEMENT NO. 0463-63633 re: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) for South County Shuttle; Jefferson County Juvenile Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration 18. AGREEMENT re: Employment Services as JeffCom Director; JeffCom; Tracy Stringer 19. Advisory Board Reappointment: Jefferson County Substance Abuse Services Advisory Board; Three (3) Year Term Expiring November 19,2007; Caroleena Einarsen 20. Thank You Letter to State Representative Bill Hinkle re: Timber Excise Tax Legislation HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Authorizing and Establishing Fees For Juvenile Court Diversion Services: (Repeals and Replaces ORDINANCE NO. 05-0708-02 Adopted July 8,2002) The Chair opened the public hearing. Juvenile & Family Court Administrator Barbara Carr explained that the statute requires the Prosecutor to send a youth to diversion for their first gross misdemeanor rather than go before the court. The fee for the first diversion is $35. There is a discretionary second diversion to avoid criminal process. The revision in the ordinance is the addition of the second tier diversion fee of$50. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed ordinance, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 13-1206-04, authorizing and establishing a new fee for Juvenile Court Diversion Services. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 . ",t)o,; (I:, ~ .::_", -< t: I1fNû'f!t. HEARING re: Proposed 2005 Budget: The Chair opened the public hearing. John Fischbach presented the 2005 Budget proposal to the Board and reviewed several points: · The 2005 Budget complies with all statutory and constitutional requirements. · It was balanced with existing resources, prioritizing expenses using the priorities of government (law & justice, roads, and public health) expressed by the public in a 2003 survey, and the 2005 Budget goals and objectives adopted by the County Commissioners. · Issues not resolved in the budget include: wage costs associated with the union contract negotiations, although surplus funds have been set aside; and limited funds have been included for the development ofthe Tri Area UGA sewer system. · Changes include: a reduction in the County's portion for employee health insurance and an increase in new construction property tax revenue. · This budget proposal does not use any of the banked capacity that is available by action ofthe Commissioners. · The level of diversion of Road Fund monies to the General Fund remains at about the same proportion as in 2003. · District Court is anticipating a revenue reduction of $45,000 in fines and forfeitures. · Total staffing for all County operations was reduced by about .75 FTE and there was no change to the staffing level in the General Fund. The Health Department reduced staffing 4 FTEs by streamlining administration and the transfer of the Substance Abuse contract to a private contractor. Public Works staffing was reduced by about 1.4 FTE with the elimination of a project manager who is not being replaced. Community Development requested 4 additional FTEs. The County Administrator recommends that 3 ofthose positions be included: a Code Compliance Officer, Development Services Manager, and a Long Range Planner (Clerk Hire.) An Assistant Planner position is not recommended at this time. The DCD positions will be funded by existing fees for service at current activity levels. WSU/Extension added 1.3 FTE which are totally grant funded. Mid year in 2004, the Assessor hired a new appraiser and Facilities hired a new custodian. These positions become full time FTEs in the 2005 Budget. · Included in the proposal is the allowable I % property tax revenue increase for the General Fund, the allowable 1 % property tax revenue increase for the Road Fund and the .1 % sales tax for JeffCom based on the approval of the ballot proposition. It does not include an increase for the Conservation Futures Fund. · The General Fund, excluding the Non-departmental Fund, shows growth in operating costs of 2.7%. · This proposal doesn't anticipate any additions to short or long term debt. The County Administrator thanked the Auditor and her staff, the Elected Officials, and Allen Sartin for putting the budget together. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the 2005 Budget, he closed the public hearing. The Board agreed that they would put the resolution to adopt the 2005 Budget on the December 13 Consent Agenda. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 ~..o"" . ..~ .-.... ~ 'Ne. HEARING re: A Proposed Resolution Setting the 2005 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County for Levy in 2004 and Collection in 2005: The Chair opened the public hearing. Assessor Jack Westerman explained that the levy amounts are provided at this time and then the levy rates are set in mid-January after year-end changes to all assessments. The figures reflect a 1 % increase over the 2004 actual amount and estimated new construction and utilities. He reviewed the levy amounts for the various funds. The total County levy amount is: $5,416,500. The breakdown is as follows: $32,250 to the Veterans' Relief Fund; $33,325 to Mental Health; $33,325 to Developmental Disabilities; and the remainder of $5,314,600 to the Current Expense Fund. The Road levy is $3,069,000 with $386,617 diverted to Current Expense for Sheriffs Deputies. The remainder for County Roads is $2,682,383. There is no increase over 2004 for the Conservation Futures Fund except for new construction. The amount for this fund is $170,000. He noted that the proposed figures in the resolutions for the Total County Levy and the Road Fund are exactly a 1% increase over the 2004 actual because new construction, utilities, and refunds aren't included. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Al Frank, Port Townsend, stated that the Assessor does a good job educating the public about how property taxes work. Taxes have to reflect the working people's ability to pay, and this is getting more and more difficult in Jefferson County. People should be able to live where they work and a lot of people can't afford to live here anymore. He is concerned about future increases in valuations of property that people will be seeing soon. He appreciates the current Board's policy that the public should vote on the use of banked capacity because a government entity needs to present a clear case about why they need the money. Affordabilityand accountability in government is a good thing. Don't do what the City does. David Sullivan. Port Townsend, thanked the Board for creating a 2005 budget that he can work with and accept as Commissioner-elect. He feels that a 1 % increase needs to be applied to the Conservation Futures Fund also because it is an economic development tool. There is a lot of work to be done in the Tri Area and there are wetlands issues there including Chimacum Creek, agricultural lands, and shorelines. One percent for the Conservation Futures Fund is only $1,633. Jack Westerman stated that ifthe 1 % increase for the Conservation Futures Fund isn't taken in 2005, the County doesn't loose it and the new Board can capture it in the future by using the banked capacity. He feels proud that the County has been able to hold property taxes down and still provide the level of service to the public. This is a fiscally conservative Board and they have done a good job. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed levy amounts, Chairman Huntingford closed the public hearing. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 72-04, in the matter ofa 0% increase for the County Conservation Futures levy for 2005 Taxes. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Huntingford explained that the Conservation Futures Fund began with good intentions to protect environmentally sensitive areas, but the Board is concerned about continuing to take usable property off the tax roles. Funding is often used as leverage for other grants and a project can go on for several years. The applicants need to show steady progress as part of the process. Currently there is money in the fund that is earmarked for projects but hasn't been used. Commissioner Rodgers agreed. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6, 2004 it.'os,:. ~ - ~: ~-< ~.t !óG'(~ Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 73-04, in the matter of a 1 % increase for the County General Fund levy for 2005 taxes. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 74-04, in the matter of a 1 % increase for the Jefferson County Road levy for 2005 taxes. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Titterness moved to put the resolution for the approval ofthe 2005 Budget on the December 13 Consent Agenda. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Titterness moved to have the Board sign the letter to Assessor Jack Westerman setting the 2005 real and personal property levy amounts. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application 2005 Public Service Grant; and Close Out of the 2004 Public Service Grant: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing for the CDBG application for 2005 and the close out of the 2004 public service grant. Dan Wollum, Director ofOlyCAP, explained that community action agencies were created by Congress in 1964. The Federal Department of Health and Human Services awards a Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) through the State directly to OlyCAP. CDBG funding is another source that is provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the State, and requires a local municipality to enter into the contract before the money is received by OlyCAP. The grant amounts have remained the same for the past several years, but this year the CSBG funding was reduced and the CDBG funding has been increased. The funding is for services for both Clallam and Jefferson Counties and is based on the population and characteristics for both counties. Tim Hockett, Deputy Director of OlyCAP, who has direct oversight of the programs, thanked the outgoing County Commissioners for their past support. He explained that the net loss to OlyCAP ftom the CSBG funds and the CDBG funds is approximately $9,000. Some programs don't have enough money to cover administration and they have to make hard choices about continuing them. When the economy struggles, the need goes up. He reviewed the nutrition program, the homecare program, and the senior meals program. He said that the Head Start program and the health care access program are going well. They have a portable dental care unit that they can take to remote communities. Last week, they got a grant from the Washington Dental Service Foundation to install clinic equipment in their Port Angeles office, although they will need to come up with more money. Informational handouts were available on the 2004 Public Service Grant and Dan W ollum added that information about their services is available on their website. The groundbreaking on January 7 for the South Seven Senior Housing project in Port Hadlock was also noted and he thanked the Board for their support of it. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 .,0' . ' -~ ::: 1';..0: or .Co The Chair opened the public comment portion ofthe hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the 2005 CDBG application or the services provided by the 2004 public service grant, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 75-04 in the matter of certification of compliance for the CDBG Public Services Grant. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Barbara McColgan Pastore, Chair, Conservation Futures Oversite Committee re: Recommendation for 2005 Funding Cycle: Barbara McColgan Pastore explained that the committee is recommending three changes regarding the calendar, procedures, and the bylaws. · Calendar: Four ofthe nine members are actively engaged in farming and currently the bulk of their meetings fall in the Spring planting time. They want to eliminate the outreach workshop in February because they have found that it doesn't increase the quality or number of projects. They also want to add a formal presentation requirement for all applications. · Procedures: They are adding a procedure to video tape site inspections of the properties. This will provide an actual baseline on the property so that they can compare future changes that are made. They have had some problems getting the entire committee together with the property owner for the onsite inspection and this would create a record that any absent committee members could review. ADA access is also an issue. · Bylaws: A committee member must attend the formal presentation with the property owner and the sponsor, and view the video tape or have gone on the site inspection to vote on a project. They also want to change the wording on the application. It currently reads eligible applicants include: county, municipalities, park districts, state or federal agencies, private non-profit corporations or associations based in Jefferson County and private individuals. They want to strike the words based in Jefferson County. The change is based on the current ordinance and puts the responsibility for stewardship on the sponsor. They also recommend changing the application to require that appraisals and estimated acquisition costs be broken out by parcel. They requested that the Commissioners approve these changes before the application deadline of March 7, 2005. There was a discussion about good farmland becoming unusable if it is purchased by Conservation Futures Funds and the leverage aspect ofthe funds to buy adjacent properties and have them taken off the tax roles. The Commissioners are concerned about the potential for abuse in the program. Barbara McColgan Pastore noted that the committee, appointed by the County Commissioners, does the research and makes a recommendation on the projects which must be approved by the County Commissioners. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the changes recommended by the Conservation Futures Oversite Committee. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6, 2004 c: N('~ Declaration of Emergency: Commissioner Tittemess moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 76-04 declaring an emergency caused by flooding on local rivers and streams in West Jefferson County which resulted from heavy rains and runoff beginning November 24, 2004. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing with approximately 45 interested citizens in attendance. The Board agreed to accept written testimony until Wednesday, December 8, 2004 at 5 p.m. Al Scalf, Director of Community Development, reviewed the process for taking public comments on the four amendments on the docket. MLA03-232 proposed by the Port of Port Townsend: Associate Planner Kevin Russell explained that this proposal was carried over from the 2003 cycle. The County has worked with Port staff and various stakeholders. There are 2 overlay boundaries. Overlay #1 is based on the 55 DNL noise contour mapping that was adopted in the Airport Master Plan update. Certain regulations for incompatible uses recommended by State Department of Transportation (DOT) guidelines will be required inside the boundary. There will also be disclosure provisions on permits to state that they are in close proximity to the airport. There are nuisance provisions similar to farm and forest provisions that state that the airport is allowed to operate under normal standards within the overlay. After taking testimony from the Pilots' Association at the Planning Commission hearings, Overlay #2 was created which addresses the FAA mandated flight pattern based on the DOT aeronautical guidance for planning around an airport. It is more of an "awareness" zone and incompatible uses that deal with congregations of 100 or more people will be regulated. The Essential Public Facility zone is currently an overlay district and the overlay proposals would create a Euclidian (fixed zoning) district on the ground. The proposal also adds language to the Comprehensive Plan to investigate potential industrial or commercial uses in the future as allowed by State law. Every property owner in the area was notified of the creation of Overlay #2 and the information is also available on the website. Staff and the Port agreed to eliminate any type of disclosure for Type 1 permits for single family homes, shops, and garages in Overlay #1 although the Planning Commission didn't agree with the recommendation. The State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development commented on this issue but according to DOT guidelines, notice is not required. For conditional uses such as Type 2 and 3, a hearing is required. In Overlay #2, notification would be sent for Type 2 and 3. This overlay is an airport awareness operations zone and mapping on the website shows the airport. When people apply for a permit, they will be told that the airport is in close proximately. Type 2 and 3 are also referred to agencies for comment. It is up to a person who is purchasing property within these overlays to do due diligence. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez stated that the Port's proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is in conformance with the Growth Management Act which states that essential public facilities need to be protected. The County cannot deny a Type 1 permit as long as it is done correctly. The Chair opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Michael Felber, Port Townsend, stated that he does not agree with the sentence in the Port's proposal that states The County does not consider these inconveniences and/or discomforts arisingfrom such operations Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 to be a nuisance. Is there a definition for "normal" airport operations? This sentence would create a law that would not allow nuisance lawsuits. This could cause problems in the future. Is the airport expecting actions in the future that would create nuisances? A citizen should be able to contest the airport's future actions in court. This wording limits a property owner's ability to challenge the future expansion plans at the airport. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, stated that during the staff presentation the word "nuisance" was never mentioned. She agrees with Michael Felber's comments. The staff presentation did not mention future industrialization of the airport and she is very concerned about the proposed language regarding this issue. Larry Crockett. Executive Director for the Port of Port Townsend, submitted a letter from the Port. He stated that they have received letters from property owners in Overlay #2 who are concerned about the noise and the nuisance issue was mentioned in the presentation. The public process to this point has been going on for more than 5 years and the Port has made an effort to meet with all the affected landowners in the area. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their efforts. He noted that the State has written a letter supporting the compromise position. The Port supports the staff recommendation and encourages the Board to move forward with the adoption of this amendment. Eric Toews. Cascadia Community Planning Services, stated that he is appearing on behalf of the Port of Port Townsend. This amendment is necessary to clarify and describe specific actions needed to ensure that the airport continues to function as a safe and efficient essential public facility. It is consistent with State law and FAA regulations. It assures consistency between the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code and effectively implements the State law requiring the protection of general aviation airports. The amendment is necessary to carry out the settlement agreement between the County and the Port that was entered into in December, 2003, by enacting amendments that are consistent with, and implement, the County's Comprehensive Plan and the GMA. The amendment promotes and recognizes the economic viability of the Airport Essential Public Facility and clarifies the process for future consideration of non- aviation related industrial uses at the airport in subsequent planning processes. The amendment discloses airport operations for take off, landing, and the potential for low level noise and vibrations associated with routine airport activities, particularly in Overlay #1. The "no public nuisance" provision reduces the potential for successful future nuisance claims against the Port and the fact that there haven't been nuisance claims to date is not relevant. This is planning for decades to come and in many areas across the nation people have moved in and developed, and airport operations have become constricted. This amendment establishes regulations consistent with State statutes and Washington DOT guidelines that prohibit the siting of incompatible uses within the overlay zones. Bernie Arthur. Port Townsend, stated that he owns property in Overlay #2 which was added since the last meetings he attended. He likes the airport, but there may be a time in the future when something might happen that he doesn't agree with and he wants to have the right to object to it. This ordinance affects his rights. In the air and on the road, there are rules that people need to follow. What is said today, isn't what is going to happen in the future. He considers it a taking of his property rights without compensation. He doesn't agree with the nuisance provision. Ron Way. Port Townsend, stated that the airport is an essential public facility and it should have the zoning as proposed in the amendment. It needs the protection for growth. Adjacent properties need to be protected from encroachment. It is also a safety issue. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 .,0', ~ ':; _~ J. ,t:' \OIc.~ Dave Holt, Mats Mats Bay, stated he is a recreational user of the airport. The airport is 58 years old so most folks knew it was there when they bought their property. The Port has a huge investment at the airport and the financial impact to the County needs to be protected. The spirit and the language ofthe amendment is excellent. He was an airport commissioner and they nearly lost the airport because it wasn't protected. He strongly supports approval of this amendment. Johnny Odom. Port Townsend, stated that he lives up the hill from the airport and supports the noise overlay. He has flown small airplanes for about 50 years and flown commercial jets worldwide. He has 20 years experience on Airport Commissions and he knows about airports and what makes them work. The Port doesn't have some secret agenda for development. Everyone generates noise in everyday activities and the traffic on SR19 creates more noise than the airport. The legal system in this country allows anyone to go to court and sue anybody no matter what laws are passed. We need to protect the airport. Ande Grahn. Olympic Peninsula Planning, representing the People for a Rural Quimper (PRQ), stated that they have been involved all through this process and they appreciate the action the Board took almost 2 years ago to docket the PRQ amendment regarding the airport and formally bring the organization into the process. This isn't just about adopting a noise overlay, the Port and County staffhave worked together to create a comprehensive set of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that deal with protecting the airport by establishing the Airport Essential Public Facilities District that includes several overlays. Most ofthe work is exactly what the County is supposed to be doing and is what the County agreed to do in the settlement agreement with the Port. The PRQ is content with the majority of the staff recommendations. The County has done an excellent job of establishing the essential public facility, however, they have a few minor concerns. They have just seen the latest draft of the proposal and have not had a chance to testify. In previous testimony, the settlement agreement between the Port and the County hasn't been discussed because it came under the purview of the County Commissioners and not the Planning Commission. There is a State law that asks the DOT to promulgate rules regarding airports which discusses establishing overlays and restricting incompatible uses and the proposal does that. However, there is no requirement in the DOT guidelines that counties add a nuisance provision or adopt a noise overlay. The County needs to add findings about being consistent with GMA. GMA says that counties need to establish essential public facilities but it doesn't say anything about adopting noise provisions. That isn't the role of the County. She reviewed the staff report dated November 10. On page 2 of 22, under the airport overlays narrative, one of the bulleted points says The purpose of this overlay is as follows: 1) To disclose to permit applicants. They would like the language changed to say to notify because there is a difference between notifications and disclosures. They are not in favor of disclosures. They are in favor ofthe language in Overlay #2 where it says, to apprise the public and property owners. There are still references to subarea plan in the document which was dropped in favor of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Staff may want to remove those references. (page 5, EPP 2.2) On page 6 of22, EPP 2.2, item C says Enact regulations that provide notice and disclosure.... Strike disclosure from that sentence. Item F reads Enact a "no public nuisance" provision which acknowledges use inherent to normal airport operations at the JCIA. Strike Item F in total. Under Action Items; Airport Strategy #2 it says Provide notice and disclosure. Strike the and disclosure language. Strategy #8 says Enact a no public nuisance provision. Strike that language. There is a question about Policy 3.3 Notice Provisions, Land Divisions, Site Plan Applications, and Building Permits on page 13 which states, airport's area of influence defined in the interim is the area within the airport 65 DNL noise contour interval. This proposal is for permanent Comprehensive Plan provisions and the defined in the interim language is not necessary. In the same paragraph, it says, said notice of the following disclosure and Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 .0'.. o ~ ': ~ ot: , .,';;.Ç.'+. disclosure should be changed to notice. It also says, are not compatible with certain identified types of development. Add language that defines which types of development are effected by airport noise operations. She explained that there are a few places reserved for future use regarding the noise provision that have no text and they should be struck. The remainder of the document has similar language that they would like to have removed. She will submit their revisions in writing before the public comment deadline. Neal Liden. stated that he has lived on Adelma Beach Road for over 40 years and since that time, the airport has changed immensely. You couldn't see the airport from SR20 because there were trees. Now the airport is quite a significant operation and he finds it to be a nuisance. In the summer, when air traffic is heavy, they have to suspend phone conversations and outdoor parties while airplanes fly over. He keeps hearing about protecting the airport and not allowing incompatible uses but he doesn't recall the County saying anything about protecting homeowners from future airport noise and incompatible use problems. The Port is pursuing something that they may be entitled to by law, but the County Commissioners need to offer up some kind of protection for property owners. He doesn't know how this may affect his property rights or values, but the County owes him something for being a long time resident. Jerry Chawes. Port Townsend, submitted and read his statement into the record. (See permanent record.) Gabe Ornelas. Port Townsend, representing the PRQ, stated that the PRQ is concerned about the major consideration that is before the Board today that puts the future of the community at risk. The legal notice for this hearing stated that the County does not consider noise impacts related to normal airport operations to be a public nuisance. This wasn't mentioned in the staff briefing for this hearing. That statement will impact Overlay #1 which impacts 90 parcels of property and the recently created Overlay #2 which impacts approximately 300 parcels. Do the people in Overlay #2 know that noise won't be considered a nuisance by the County? This will impact not only current property owners, but also future property owners. The current airport operations are recreational and are not relevant to operations 10 years from now. People's health and safety are affected. Property owners should have the right to challenge the County without having this ruling in place. It is totally unfair and unreasonable. There is no State law or guideline that requires the Commissioners to adopt such extreme language. The Port confronted the County in 1998 because the adopted Comprehensive Plan did not include noise overlay language and threatened a lawsuit. A settlement agreement was created. This is where the issue began. Citizens want to have the same liberty that the Port took against the County. If a citizens' way of life is impacted because of airport operations, they should be able to go to court without any hindrance. Nancy Stelow. Port Townsend, stated that she is a realtor and from the beginning the realtors have had many discussions with County staff about notice to title vs. making maps available for the public to reference. Most realtors are comfortable with the current amendment because an individual purchasing property has a place to go to get information. Protecting the airport and allowing it to grow is a good economic decision. Mary Winters. Port of Port Townsend Attorney, stated that the noise overlay and noise ordinance are from the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Since that time there have been several iterations and a great deal of research has been done on how other jurisdictions handle the issue. There is not a State law that says a no nuisance provision or overlays should be adopted, but there is a State law that says the airport needs to be protected, and the Port can't do it because it doesn't have regulatory authority. This proposal which includes maps on the website, notice for applications on Type 2 & 3 permits, and a no public nuisance provision is Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 ",0" f' £ C""'~ .t:: I c,'f;D one ofthe least stringent. Public nuisance is the County recognizing that the airport is an essential public facility. The County isn't taking away people's property rights. Nancy Dorgan spoke about light industrial uses and the future. The Port felt that this language was necessary to clean up the Comprehensive Plan which anticipated that the Airport Master Plan would become a subarea plan. That isn't going to happen. Better language was needed for the future. She had heard a rumor that the decision on this would be continued to the new Board, but this Board has sat through countless meetings on the airport. The Port urges the Board to adopt the amendment. Paul Rogland. Port Townsend, stated that he is concerned about his right to speak and complain about the airport in the future. He objects to the declaration that the airport is not a nuisance. He is speaking more for future generations than for himself. He believes in the right of free speech and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Larry Bonar. Port Townsend, stated that he thinks it would be unconscionable for this Board to make decisions that will have such long lasting affects on the County and surrounding areas. There is no urgency about this matter. The proposal has just recently been redrafted. The current Board should allow the incoming Board to make the decision on this issue. The Jefferson County voters gave a vote of no- confidence for the current Board and action should be deferred. David Whipple. Port Townsend, stated that if the current Board passes this, they won't be able to carry through on it. He recommended that the current Board vote on the amendments but set the effective date for the ordinances to a future date because that wouldn't lock the new Board into a course of action. Marilyn Hoeft. Port Townsend, stated that she lives on the hill above the airport and is a pilot and a property owner. A lot of the concerns today seem to be a matter of language. 9/11 changed the Country and the FAA brought aviation to a standstill for 2 months. Weare so used to our freedoms that we don't understand that in a terrorist world safety and security are necessary. The plan addresses overflights and land use around the airport. Those same land use issues protect the property owners from smoke, dirt, and industry. This amendment doesn't hinder people's rights but preserves the privilege of flight which is a freedom that many people enjoy. Hearing no further comments for or against MLA03-232, the Chair closed the public testimony portion on the amendment. MLA03-244 proposed by the People for a Rural Quimper: Associate Planner Kevin Russell explained that staff is recommending approval of the Port's proposal for the airport. MLA03-244 is the PRQ airport proposal. Throughout the process, representatives from both entities were involved in many meetings and came to agreement on several items. Both proposals agreed on underlying zoning as an essential public facility, overlay zoning around the airport, using the 55 DNL noise contour mapping, and establishing regulations for incompatible uses. The proposals differ because the PRQ doesn't feel that there should be a nuisance provision or disclosure. The Department is recommending denial ofthe PRQ proposal. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on MLA03-244. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 eo' . , it ' -~ ~ ~~'- Michael Felber. Port Townsend, reiterated that the DOT guidelines for protecting the airport stress the essential public facility designation and incompatible use zoning. They don't recommend a no nuisance provIsIon. Larry Crockett. Port of Port Townsend, stated that the airways are publicly owned, they aren't like a State highway. There are normal flight operational guidelines proposed. It is the County's responsibility per RCW that through land use regulations, the airport will be protected. A simple designation of an essential public facility is not sufficient. The Port supports the staff recommendation. Eric Toews. stated that MLA03-244 would be inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the second settlement agreement from December, 2003. Gabe Ornelas. reviewed a chart showing the noise overlay chronology. Six years ago, he and several citizens stood before the Board to protest an overlay zone proposal that included 600 parcels of property worth $36 million and included a notice to title. The Board voted against that proposal. The community did not initiate any legal action against the airport or lodge any complaints. The Port kept saying that they just wanted people to be aware of the airport. He doesn't feel that the Port made concessions to satisfy the community, but that the citizens fought hard for their rights. The airport is already an essential public facility, and still wants a second layer of protection. The airport has always been a financial drain on the Port. However, the community is prospering and growing, especially in Kala Point and Cape George. It is clear who needs the protection. The Port wants the County to protect it from the citizens. He asked the Board to protect the citizens. Ande Grahn. representing PRQ, stated that when the Planning Commission considered their second amendment, that staffhad found diametrically opposed to the Port's amendment, it was only discussed in a subcommittee meeting. She asked the Board to consider the testimony received at the Planning Commission hearing, to consider the testimony from today, and to add a finding that it was considered. When the initial amendment was submitted, they didn't want a noise overlay, they wanted to see the airport protected as an essential public facility and they wanted an accountable land use process for zoning changes in the area. They are happy with the accountable land use process in the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but they are still concerned about the noise issue. She asked that the Board find merit in comments made today by citizens and that they add a finding to the final decision. Jerry Chawes. Port Townsend, stated that he has read the proposal both with the statement about the nuisance and without it. He can't see any reason that adding the statement about the nuisance contributes anything to protecting the airport. The rest of the language in the statement does what it has to do and the PRQ supports it. When the nuisance language is added, it creates a lot of doubt, confusion, and fear. Mary Winters. Port Attorney, commented on a statement that Ande Grahn made about the PRQ proposal to strike the word "disclosure" from the amendment language. Originally, the PRQ didn't like the word "notification" and a lot oftime was spent on that word. Disclosure is just letting people know before they buy and build. They went through a long process about notification vs. disclosure and she thinks that the language should stay as it is. The Port is not in control of the airport in many ways and it doesn't want to deal with law suits. This isn't really the Port's proposal, it's the County's proposal. By law, it is the County's job to protect essential public facilities. Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 .' i' , ~ ~~ '.-,... " ú Johnny Odom. Port Townsend, stated that he doesn't agree that this is a "lame duck" Board. This process has been going on for several years and the current Commissioners are still in office and have a right to make decisions that may affect future commissioners. He recommended that the Board pass the amendment today and get it done. Neal Liden. Port Townsend, stated that the pilots association and the Port are looking for protection. He, as a property owner who has lived here a long time, is also looking for protection from the County Commissioners regarding the nuisance issue. Hearing no further comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing for MLA03-244. MLA04-27 sponsored by Jefferson County: Senior Planner Josh Peters explained that this amendment has to do with the land use designation of "agricultural lands oflocal importance." He reviewed the revisions on the land use map. Per the Planning Commission and staff recommendation, 220 parcels of property will be designated, the majority being on the east side of Jefferson County. The number of acres is approximately 2,900. Originally 250 parcels were considered for the designation, but many of those parcels were already zoned for agricultural. Staff recommended against the designation for some parcels because of their current designation. Only one parcel was not recommended by the Planning Commission for this designation because it was surrounded by very small lots of less than an acre. This amendment is the completion of an action item from the Comprehensive Plan when it was adopted in 1998 that the County would establish a process by which landowners could petition for inclusion as "agricultural lands of local importance." The County asked property owners if they wanted to be redesignated in this one time opportunity. In the future, if a property owner seeks this designation, they will have to apply to the County as a formal site specific amendment. The Comprehensive Plan was amended to address this designation last year and development regulations were established earlier this year that establish accessory uses to agriculture. The maps are on the web site, as well as the parcels to be redesignated and the parcels that were denied. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion of the hearing for MLA04-27. Nancy Dorgan. Port Townsend, stated that the SEP A analysis did not provide information about how many ofthe rezoned parcels have water rights for agricultural uses and if they will use domestic exempt wells to water crops. State Department of Ecology representatives have stated that domestic exempt wells cannot be used for commercial agriculture. She thinks that some of the people going through the rezone have false expectations of water use that they won't have. It wasn't mentioned in the process document. Dana Roberts. Port Townsend, stated that he endorses the positive philosophy behind the Planning Commission's recommendations of November 15, 2004 for using planning and zoning designations to support the present and future place of smaller scale agriculture in Jefferson County. He hasn't studied the individual parcels, but is speaking to the philosophy. He is speaking as a citizen, and not as a PUD Commissioner. Dennis Schultz. Port Townsend, stated that he is a small scale farmer and he was the Chair for the Planning Commission Agricultural Subcommittee. In answer to Nancy Dorgan's question, a person in Kitsap County went through this and it was ruled that the person had a right to use 5,000 gallons of water a day to support a Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 e' 10; ";:,-<: .. s ,,,Ú small scale commercial agricultural operation. Most ofthese parcels that are being redesignated are small scale and many of them use a drip system. He encouraged the Board to pass the amendment because people who have started this new type of small scale agriculture in the County contribute a substantial amount of money to the economy and this designation gives them a protection they didn't have before. They can continue to do small scale farming even if the amendment isn't passed, but passing the amendment will give them protection for their investment. Herb Beck. Quilcene, stated that he has been involved in agriculture for most of his life. Without this amendment, much of the agricultural land in the County would probably be converted to houses. An investment in a facility needs to have a return. He supports the amendment 100%. He is speaking as a citizen, and not as a Port Commissioner. Hearing no further comment for or against MLA04-27, Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony portion on the amendment. MLA04-28 sponsored by Jefferson County: Community Development Director Al Scalf explained that the County had a statutory requirement to review and update the Comprehensive Plan by December 1, 2004. An extension was requested, but it was denied. There are 2 parts to the staff report. Josh Peters explained that Part A has to do with statutorily mandated requirements. Part B is a discretionary update by the Planning Commission. Part A deals with updating population projections. Through a resolution, adopted in 2003, the County, with the cooperation ofthe City of Port Townsend, adopted the middle projection of a range of population projections supplied by the State Office of Financial Management to be used for planning for the next 20 year period. The County must accommodate the projection by providing opportunities for housing, capital facilities planning, and transportation. The Development Code must also be reviewed regarding environmentally critical areas. The County contracted out a review of "best available science" (BAS) which is a code requirement from the State. When protections are developed for environmentally critical areas, BAS must be considered. In 2000, the County considered BAS when the Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted. Based on the review, staff developed a proposal for amending the UDC to incorporate BAS in terms of additional regulations and incentives. The Planning Commission and staff have reached a joint recommendation to the Board for amending the UDC. They have received considerable comment on this from State agencies, interest groups, and residents. They feel that in order to consider these comments, they need additional time. Staff is recommending that the BAS issue in Part A be deferred until early 2005 which would correspond with the City of Port Townsend's planning schedule. The DOE's 2004 Wetlands Program could be reviewed in detail and they could hold additional public meetings for public input. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez explained that if the current Board chooses to defer the decision about critical areas, the County will presumably face GMA appeals for failure to act. If the legislation is passed, then that too could lead to GMA appeals based on legislative action. The current BAS was adopted in the UDC, but since then new science has been developed. The County would need to explain why the local regulations differ from BAS. Ifthis is done in the first quarter of2005, there would be no time for an appeal. However, there would be a chance to improve public participation because the critical areas information wasn't available until September 22 which allowed a three week comment period with only 4 or 5 letters received before the deadline and more letters received after. A comment letter from DOE regarding wetlands protection guidelines doesn't fit with the amendment and deferring the decision would give staff time to review and understand DOE's proposal and ifit is right for the County. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 ~.< Commissioner Huntingford asked the other Board members ifthey were aware of this latest staff recommendation? The said they were not. Commissioner Titterness noted that the DOE has their perception of BAS, but they have a very narrow scope regarding this science and they fail to take into account human behavioral science which is also part of BAS. This needs to be considered by the Board when they make their decision on this amendment. Al Scalf reiterated that the three areas involved have to do with identified wetlands, channel migration zones, and shoreline setbacks. He is concerned about the public awareness. Last week he and Josh Peters, with representatives from several other jurisdictions, testified in Olympia in front of the Senate Land Use Subcommittee regarding this issue. In his opinion, the DOE's guidelines are not perfected publicly at this point. Chairman Huntingford asked if the proposed changes can be made to the Comprehensive Plan and the current regulations can be readopted with the provision that the DOE proposed guidelines will be reviewed by the County, and an additional amendment would be done at the end of 2005 to address critical areas? David Alvarez advised that this is possible as long as the Board sets a firm deadline for adoption. Chairman Huntingford explained that he knows how much work the County did to get a Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998 in dealing with buffers and setbacks by finding compromises to comply with the law. It seems as if it is happening all over again in the last minute, because some agency has come up with a new idea regarding BAS. What happens to the platted lots that people thought were buildable and now the rules change because of one agency's new opinion on BAS? There are many opinions out there. Whose do you take? Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that many of the BAS issues are UDC amendments that could be done at any time during the year. Commissioner Titterness stated that the goals of GMA are to be balanced and it is up to the local jurisdiction to determine that balance. Recent legislation has directed the GMA Hearings Boards to give more deference to decisions from local jurisdictions. He doesn't doubt that there will be an appeal but he wants to proceed with the amendment. Chairman Huntingford noted that this advice should have been noted by staff much earlier. Kyle Aim, Assistant Planner, explained Part B ofthe Comprehensive Plan update amendment. The Planning Commission was tasked with removing outdated language and references to the original adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, including repetitious language. A Planning Commission subcommittee worked on this task from April to November and prepared a proposal for the Planning Commission. After the review, a public proposal was developed for staff review and SEP A. At that time, there was a proposal to rezone the drive-in, but since that time it has been taken out. Staff generated a response to the Planning Commission's proposal and reorganized some ofthe elements for clarity. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6 and comments were accepted and considered. On November 3 and 10, the Planning Commission deliberated and reviewed the staff response and made their recommendation to the County Commissioners. Their recommendation includes language that staff suggested in response to their original proposal and additional recommendations. All the proposals are on the website as part of the public review process. On November 15, the County Commissioners made additional recommendations which included planned action under SEP A, stormwater development standards, septic exemptions for existing structures, and the make-up ofthe membership on the Jefferson County Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. On further review, staff recommended leaving four strategies in the environmental element regarding shoreline rules under BAS. Page 17 , Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 0"1 ( ¡ '~,..-< ., !lnriú Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion for MLA04-28. Nancy Dorgan. Port Townsend, submitted additional written comments. (See permanent record.) She stated that a lot of issues have come up during the Comprehensive Plan update process. She attended many of the public meetings where she heard a tremendous amount of discussion on airport noise, a fair amount on agriculture, but not that much discussion on the update. She asked the Planning Commission what they had done and they said they hadn't changed any policies. They wasted a great deal of everyone's time by trying to rewrite the Comprehensive Plan which was not their mandate. They did redo the land use element, and they modified the chapter slightly after seeing the staff recommendations. Ande Grahn. not representing the PRQ, stated that, as a former Planning Commission member, she worked extensively with the interim ordinances. She understands the Commissioners feel they need to adopt something because the State has told them they have to. The County also needs to adopt something that is consistent and isn't going to have to go through a long, expensive cycle of appeals. She advised that the Board only take action on half of Part A. The rest of the amendment needs to go back for more public process. Dana Roberts. reiterated that he is speaking as a private citizen and not a PUD Commissioner. He submitted and read his statement. (See permanent record.) Julia Cochrane. Port Townsend submitted and read her statement. (See permanent record.) Owen Fairbanks. Port Townsend, stated that he is commenting as a Board Member of Jefferson Land Trust and as a private citizen. He submitted a letter from the Land Trust. (See permanent record.) He understands the Board's frustration with the changing BAS issue, but the exciting thing about science is that it does change. The letter encourages the Board to adopt the recommendations of the State Department ofFish and Wildlife, the DOE, and Washington Environmental Council in updating the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the Board to follow the staff recommendation and defer action on the critical areas issue. Nancy Dorgan. stated that at the beginning of each Comprehensive Plan element there is a table that shows how the element connects with the other elements. This is very useful because planning is interconnected. It was deleted during the update. She would like to see it retained. Sylvia Arthur. stated that she accessed the Comprehensive Plan information on the website and found it to be difficult to understand. She is the coordinator for the Continuum of Care Plan for the Homeless in the County. There is a need for housing for the homeless and the Comprehensive Plan needs to address that reality. Hearing no further comment for or against MLA04-28, Chairman Huntingford closed the public hearing. The Board agreed to accept written comments until Wednesday, December 8 at 5 p.m. Deliberations are scheduled for Monday December 13. Page 18 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 6,2004 .. ~~~ !f1\'Ólõ~ Recognition of Planning Commission Service; Tom McNerney and Jennifer Davis: Chairman Huntingford explained that the Board planned a get together to recognize the hard work ofthe all the Planning Commission members. He read a certificate of appreciation for out-going members Tom McNerney and Jennifer Davis. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Friday, December 10, 2004. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Rodgers were present. Commissioner Titterness was absent. Declaration of Emergency: Beginning December 9,2004 heavy precipitation washed out 100' of the Upper Hoh Road in the Westend. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 77- 04 declaring a state of emergency. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Approval Given (See Attached Document) Glen Huntingford, Chair "- -....... .fJiÁ{l1ð:;1i:/~ C (l)C - Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk ofthe Board Approval Given (See Attached Document) Dan Tittemess, Member ~~b& --- Page 19 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 DaD TtttemeR, Dl8tr1ot 1 OIeD ButJqfbnl, DIIItdot ::a Patdok M. Roc1pø, DIatdot 3 December 23, 2004 Commissioner Tittemess moved to authorize Commissioner Rodgers to review and give final approval for the minutes of December 6. 13. and 20, 2004. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. The motion carried. ATTEST: hl Glen Huntin ord, ¡¡Q (;tþ~j Dan qemess, Member SEAL: ~~~M~--- Clerk of the Board : ð Phone (360)385-9100 I'u: f360J385-9382 J.fIbocc@coJefl'.noa....... 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 rëgulations 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 núnutes. 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. TO: Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader [Iegals@ptleader.com] LEGAL NOTICE - Please publish in 7-point font Please publish one (1) time: Wednesday November 24, 2004 BILL: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend W A 98368 (Kyle Aim; 360-379-4482) DATE: Monday November 22, 2004 [Deadline: Monday 3:00 PM] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for Jefferson County will hold a public hearing on MoIIday,~eeDl~r>6, 2004 to take oral comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (DDC) amendments associated with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The hearing will occur at 2:00PM in the BOCC Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, l82l Jefferson St., Port Townsend. Fol1owing are brief descriptions of each of the four (4) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference. Each of the proposed amendments is considered a suggested amendment, as opposed to a site-specific amendment. Each amendment has a County staff recommendation and a County Planning Commission (PC) recommendation. The BOCC has added text to the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan under MLA04-28 for consideration. l. MLA03-232 proposed by the Port of Port Townsend suggesting the fol1owing: (l) Essential Public Facilities (EPF) district designation rather than an overlay for the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA); (2) the establishment of an Airport Overlay based on a 55-DNL noise contour map projected through the year 2022 and adopted in 2004 with the Airport Master Plan (AMP); (3) Comprehensive Plan and UDC changes related to the al10wed and prohibited land uses within the Airport EPF and the Airport Overlay; (4) a disclosure process by which prospective property owners and current owners who apply for certain land use approvals in the Airport Overlay would be informed about the close proximity to the JCIA and that the County does not consider noise impacts related to normal airport operations to be a public nuisance; and (5) a future planning process in which industrial uses would be considered in or adjacent to the Airport EPF in order to promote Airport self-sustainability. PC Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends two Airport Overlays. Overlay I corresponds with the 55-DNL noise contour interval as proposed by the Port. Overlay ß encompasses an area within a specific horizontal distance from the runway, as recommended by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSOO1). Overlay II is related to "airport operations awareness" and safety concerns and is intended to discourage the siting of incompatible uses. Overlay II extends to the south of the Airport, as planes fly over this area when approaching for landing. The PC also recommends disclosure notice on all permit decisions within Overlay I, whereas the staff recommendation developed in concert with the Port exempted UDC Type I permits (e.g., single-family residences and appurtenances). Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the two Airport Overlays. However, County staff and Port staff recommend that Type I permits continue to be exempt from the disclosure provisions in Overlay I. Both recommendations include some substitute language from the original proposal in order to clarify meaning. Additionally, staff rearranged the sections for integration into the UDC. 2. MLA03-244 proposed by a citizen group, People for a Rural Quimper (PRQ), suggesting the following: Proposed Comprehensive Plan policy changes related to the elimination of requirements for Jefferson County to adopt an Airport Overlay or Noise Overlay ordinance and to support implementation of Airport Master Plan policies regarding land use at the Jefferson County International Airport. PC and Staff Recommendation: The PC and staff recommend that Airport goals, policies, and regulations be amended/established through MLA03-232. 3. MLA04-27 proposed by Jefferson County suggesting the following: Proposal to consider a set of250 parcels of land for designation as Agricultural Lands of Local Importance on the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. This process is the final step in an Agricultural Lands planning effort initiated early last year and intended to complete tasks identified in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. PC and Staff Recommendation: After continued deliberation, the PC and staff recommend Agricultural Land of Local Importance designation on the land use!map for 220 parcels. Of the original 250 parcels, 18 are already designated Agricultural Lands (includiQg tidelands used for aquaculture) and l3 do not meet the criteria for designation, according to PC analysis, and one parcel was added to the list and recommended for designation. PIN 702-l44-008 was mistakenly not included in the list of parcels available in conjunction with the release of the Staff Report on September 22. With the addition of this parcel, the total set of parcels under consideration in this process is 25l. A list of parcels and a corresponding map is available on the DCD website and at the office. 4. MLA04-28 proposed by Jefferson County suggesting the following: Part A of this proposal consists of Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments developed by staff as part of the statutory 2004 growth management update requirements in the Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A. The principal areas for consideration are population alloc~tion, capital facilities and transportation planning, and best available science as applied to the regulatory protection of environmentally critical areas. Part B involves a Planning Commission five-year assessment of the Comprehensive Plan and corresponding amendment proposal pursuant to UDC Section 9.5.4. The Planning Commission proposal is intended to replace or eliminate outdated, redundant, and regulatory language and includes amendments to the following Comprehensive Plan chapters: Introduction; Plan Implementation and Monitoring; Land Use and Rural; Housing; Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation; Economic Development; and Environment. The original Planning Commission proposal also included one site- specific land use re-designation. Staff Recommendation: Part A - The staff recommendations for addressing the statutory update requirements in the Growth Management Act are contained in the Essential Public Facilities, Capital Facilities, and Transportation Elements, within the Housing and Land Use and Rural Elements in relation to population projection and allocation, and in the UDC amendments related to review of best available science and corresponding adjustments to critical areas protection. Since release ofthe Staff Report on September 22, information has been updated in the Capital Facilities Element and a reference to the 1993 Department of Ecology wetland rating system replaced with a reference to the 2004 Ecology wetland rating system inUDC Section 3.6.9. Part B - The staff recommendation for amending the Comprehensive Plan chapters considered by the PC is based on modification to the original proposal as 2 developed by the PC in the context of public comment and planning analysis. Staff does not recommend amending the land use map as part of this process. PC Recommendation: Part A - The PC recommends adopting the staff response to the statutory update requirements in the form of recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. Part B - The PC recommends amendments to all of the elements listed above. The PC recommendation is represented by complete chapters, as well as select pages demonstrating places where there are differences between the staff and PC recommendations. The PC recommendation to the BOCC does not include amending the land use map as part of this process. BOCC Additions: Part B - The BaCC has included a list of additions for consideration. The additions are related to text and policy language as part of the discretionary Comprehensive Plan assessment and review process. Public Comment Period: The BOCC will accept oral comment on each proposal at the. public hearing December 6 and written comment until the close of the public hearing. Written comments on the proposals may be submitted to the Dept. of Community Development (DCD) at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend W A 98368, via email toplanning@co.jefferson.wa.us. or delivered to the BaCC at the public hearing. Legislative Decision: The Bacc is expected to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny each of these proposed amendments during the Regular Agenda on Monday, December 13,2004. The BaCC adopted Resolution 63-04 on November 15 addressing the December 1, 2004 statutory deadline for the mandatory 2004 growth management update. Availability of Infonnation: Amendment applications, Staff Reports, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, parcels lists and maps, and the list of BOCC additions to MLA04-28 Part B are available at the County Library in Hadlock, DCD (address above), and on the DCD web pages: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment. Contact Assistant Planner Kyle Aim for more information: (360) 379-4482 or kalm@co.jefferson.wa.us. Date NOw. VY\ b'é\ .~ I ,:)co LJ GÆng 3 I I II ¡ © Memorandum To: BOCC From: Long-Range Planning Date: 12/2/2004 Re: Shoreline strategies Long-Range planning staff has made a recommendation regarding the Environment strategies regarding shorelines that were recommended for deletion. Staff recommends that the strategies remain in the Comp Plan. The shoreline strategies provide direction for developing policy and include review of best available science and an ongoing inventory of shorelines. Comp Plan language is frequently cited in grant applications as rationale to receive funding. The strategies that have been added appear on pages 8-31 thru 8-33 and have been included below. B. CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REGULATORY STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for resource protection is based on an ongoing effort to inventory and collect information related to the County's environmental resources and functions based on the best available science, and to protect the resources through implementing ordinances. Action Items 1. As funding becomes available, identify through revision of the shoreline plan the shoreline and water areas with unique attributes for specific long-term uses such as fish and wildlife habitat, water-oriented activities, storm water management, recreational, and open space uses, and designate these uses through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0) 2. Continue to inventory shoreline landforms, processes, and functions as funding becomes available so as to increase the scientific information on which to base permitting decisions. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0) 3. Incorporate measures to address the adverse impacts of invasive vegetation in lakes and bays into the Shoreline Management Master Program revision. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0) 1 ENVIRONMENT STRATEGIES A. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND HABITAT RECOVERY STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for management of environmental resources is encouraged to---wiH be conducted in the context of a collaborative watershed management approach to the interrelated functions of the resources, in order that land use activities are consistent with plans for the recovery of fish species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. ~ Action Items 1. Participate as a member of the Water Resources Council for Water Resources Inventory Area l7 and other areas of Eastern Jefferson County, and as a member of watershed management unit(s) formed by multi-jurisdictional and community interests for watersheds in Western Jefferson County. (Corresponding Goals: l.O, 3.0) 1. Partieipate iß the update anà implemeßtatiaß af the DuRgeRess QuileeRe Maaagemeßt Plaß BRà watershed plaßs far iRåepeßåeßt Elraißage hasiRS. (CaA'espaRàißg Gaals: l.9, 2.9) 3. Warl( with the Departmeßt af Beology ta resolve applieatiaRs fer ·.vater rights iß Jeffersaß Ceußty baseà aß seießtifie ißfarmatieß Ele:velapeà thraugh a watefShed maRagement plaa. (Carrespaßdißg Gaals: l.9, 2.9, 3.9) ~. Develap a surraee water maaagemeRt plaa haseà eR a wateFSheà appreaeh ta feSaUr6e maaagemeRt. (CÐA'espÐßàißg Gaal: 2.9) 5. Caaperate iß a phaseà series ef watefSheà stuàies te iEleRtify anà ekBf8eteriæ surfeee aaà greußà water resourees aad their iateFfelatieRShips, iR arEler te JM'Ð"liàe a seieRtifie hasis fer ,vater resouree maaagemeRt, anà te iEleRtify altemati':e anà future se\lfees øf S\:lpp~ s1lÍfieieRt te meet prejeeteà papulatiaß gra\vth. (CeRespaRàiRg Gaals: 1.9, 2.9, 3.9) 6. Wark iß regianal \vatefSheà maaagemeRt \:IRits State, Feàeral, &Rà Trihal &geneies ta Elevelep fish hahitat feeayery plaas te àetermine l&Rà use eeti'¡ities thet are alle"l/oo iR the eaAtext efpeteRtial legal ehallenges under the Bßàangereà Speeies Aet. (CaffeSpÐRàiRg Geel: 1.0) 7. '}.lark with the Water Utility CeafàiRatiRg Cemmittee te estahlish leRg term puhlie supply neeEls, te identify aad pfeteet future ·.vater supplies, and te establish regieRel e9ftservatien pregrams and fUAding meehaaisms. (CeR'espØhàiRg Geels: 3.9, ~.O) . B. CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REGULATORY STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for resource protection is based on an ongoing effort to inventory and collect information related to the County's environmental resources and functions based on the best available science, and to protect the resources through implementing ordinances. Action Items WfctI;~~~lWtt\hA9æ~~lan 8-31 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT l. De'/elap a eansalidated en':iranmeRtaI revie'.v praeess that pramates effieient and timely permit deeisians and a more eamprehensin enyiranmental review. (Cel'i'espanding Gaal: 1.9) 2. Eyaluate and develap standards far develapment~ where apprapriate, whieh iBelude iReenti'/es for the proteetian of enyiranmeRtal resaurees, puhlie aeeess ta sharelines, the ereetion of open spaee, the eenservatian of water resourees, Md the pr~teetisn sf viewsheds. (Carresponding Gaals: 2.0, 3.9, 4.9, 8.9) . 3. Identify eriteria Md designate Speeial En'¡iranmbRtal Overlay Diskiets far areas af Jeffersøn County in whieh enviranmental prateetian needs ar~ identif.ied. (Carresponding Goals: 3.9, 4.0) 4. Develop and adapt a Clearing and GFaEting O,dinMee that pravides valid eriteria Md defines a threshold for prateetion of eritieal areas and! assaeiated huffefS. (Cofftlsponding Goals: 2.9, 5.9, 12.9, 13.9, 14.9) 5. Develap anå implement standards fer mitigatianl measUfes far land 1:Ise aetiviâes that may advefSely impaet enviranmeBtaI resaurees. (Carrespaftding Goals: 2.9,4.0,5.0, l2.0, l4.0) 6. R-e·,ie·N staRd8fEls fer E¡1:Ialified eJEpeFts and far teehRieal studies 1:I5ed in permit revie'N, iBel1:lding praeedures for peer revie','I, ta premate data Bßd Malyses that He eonsisteRt with the hest a';ailable seienee. (CarrespeRdiRg Gaals: 2.9,4.0,9.9, 10.0, l4.9) 7. Centinue gathering data to identify atluifer reehðfge aad staFege areas aad &meRd the Critieal fareas Ordinanee ta prateet the tluality and tluantity sf the gfÐund water in these areas. (CaffÐspaRdiRg Goals: 2.0, l3.0) 8. Revie\v lMd use regulations ta ensure that they preteet &fjuifefs anEt ta minimi:æ anEt mitigate Iœa'llfl areas af salt water iRt-rusiaR, MEt panieipate in teehRieal stuEties to iEteRtify aElditioBal affeeteEt areas ret:Juiring regulatien. Wark with purveyafS te pramate the 1:Ise sf 1:IRaffeeted upland 'Nater seurees Md other altemative supplies, 'NheN apprapriate, ta supply Rev: MEt eKistiRg develapment in affeeted Heas. (CafftlspaRdiRg Gaals: 2.9, 3.0, 13.0) 9. Warle eaaperatively with the DeJMU1æeRt of Eeelagy aad watershed managemeRt uRits ta address C01:lnty s1:lrfaee '.\'ateFS ·.vhieh hw¡e heeR listed as 'Wftter tluality impaired aader the Clean Water Aet, SeetisR 303(d), aRd ta restere Md prate$t iftMream f.1a':: val1:lmes. (CslTespsnding Goals: 2.0, l2.9) I . lO. De'lelsp a sumee water mMagemeRt plan to! miaimi:æ peak fia".\' lenls and BaR paiRt souree pellutian, Md implement the plan thrauth an ameaElmeBt af the starm 'Nater erdiRaaee. (CarrespandiBg Goals: 2.9, 9.9) . ll. Reviev: C01:lRty ardiRanees to iReaFj!)arate hest I man&geæeRt pfaetiees o85ed oa the hest ayailable seieRee to prateat surfaee and grauRd \'\'et~r tl1:Iality ia land use regulatiaRs related to septiø systems, f-arest flfaatiees, agrieult-1ifal pfaetiees, iadusày, and ather de'/elopæeBt. . (CafftlspeRdiRg Gaals: 2.9,3.0, l3.9) l2. f.mend CØURty development steRdards as ReeEted ta pramate water eaRservatiaR measures oy allowing and, iR same eases, retluiriag ne'.vly develaped teelmalagy that mees stand8fEls for health and safety, Md hy pram sting apprapfiate IMdseape and df8inage EtesigR. (CalTespoRding Gaals: 3.0, 7.9) Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-32 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT H. Amend ordiRaflees te preteet future aød alternative water sypplies that are ideRtified iH the eØliFSe of watershed studies. (CerrespondiRg Geals: 1.0,3.0) l1. '}/ erk with the Water Utilities CeefEliRatiRg Cammittee t9 re':ise aHd update the C99rE1iRated Water System Phm, aød assist them iR eHsuriRg that water pun'eyers meet Dep8ftmeRt ef Health aød 6eelegy regulatieHs afld guideliRes. (CerrespeHdiRg Geal: 3.0) l5. ,A.ssist the 'Hater Utilities CeardiHatiRg Ceæmittee aød eeepemte with ·.\'ater purveyer's iH deyelepiftg \\'ellhead preteetieH pregrams, and implemeRt land use regulatieRs fer preteetieHefpublie water sl:lpplies. (CerrespeRdiRg Geals: 3.9, 13.9) l6. 6valuate aHd implemeRt, where apprepriate, eriteria aød stanå8fds fer elusteriRg that premete the preteetieH ef eRvireHmeRtal reseurees, shere liRe puhlie aeeess, aHd epeH spaee. (CorrespeHdiHg GeRls: 2.9, 1.9) I. As funding becomes available, identify through revision of the shoreline plan the shoreline and water areas with unique attributes for specific long-term uses such as fish and wildlife habitat, water-oriented activities, storm water management, recreational, and open space uses, and designate these uses through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0) 2. Continue to inventory shoreline landforms, processes, and functions as funding becomes available so as to increase the scientific information on which to base permitting decisions. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0) 19. Revise the ShereliRe MaøagemeHt Master Program to he eORsisteRt vtith the Gre·.vtb MaflagemeRt Aet, the CempreheRsi'¡e Plaø, the Critieal Areas OrdiRaøee, and the State ShereliRe Maøagemeftt Aet, iHeludiHg stæulafås to preserve and preteet the qu&:Btity and quality efwater reseurees aleRg shereliHes threugh sterm '.vater treatmeRt, eresieR aød dmiRage eeRtrel, restef8tieR ef failiRg septie systems, aød ether apprepriate measures. (CerrespeRdiHg Geals: 2.9, 1.9, 5.0) 3. Incorporate measures to address the adverse impacts of invasive vegetation in lakes and bays into the Shoreline Management Master Program revision. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0) 2l. Revise the ShereliHe MaøagemeRt Master Pregmm te iRelyde staadards fer qyalified experts, teehRieal studies, aød peer review ta premete deeisieH makiRg hased eH the hest a"lailable seieHtifie iRfermatieR te pre'.'eRt haærdeys denlepmeRt aetivities. (CorrespeRdiRg GeRls: 1.0,5.0,9.0) 4. Review the Shoreline Management Master Program to ensure that setbacks, stabilization techniques, and other mitigation and protection measures are based on the best available science. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0, 9.0) 23. Establish staødards fer site develepmeRt permits whieh miRimize airbeme dYSt frem eeRstftletieR aød laRd eleariRg aetivities~ (CeA'espeRdiRg Geal: 6.0) 21. Evaluate aHd aile'.\', iH apprepriate areas, eR site weed '.\'asæ reeyeliRg faeilities (i.e., weed ehippiRg) that redyee the Heet! te hym dehria. (CeffespeRdiRg Geal: 6.9-) 25. EVRll:late, develep as apprepriate, aød implemeRt steRdarEIs te aveid aød mitigate laød uses that efeate er eempeYHd air quality preblems. (CeffespeRdiRg Geal: 6.0) W{t¡I;~qW~IWIt\&omR_~lan 8-33 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT 2é. DeveleJ3 and implemeRt staRdards to limit the glare Hem eutdeor IightiRg. (Cøn:espoRdiRg Geel: g.O) C. CRITICAL AREAS STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for protection and management of critical areas is based OR impreviRg the seientifie iRførmatien on whieh deeisioRs are based, aRd iR revie'¡IÍRg the IRterim· Critieal Areas OrdiRanee to be eORsisteRt with the gaals eRd J3elieies Elf the ComJ3reheRsiye Plan and re'/isiRg it as needed :}riar to adeJ3tiøR as e fiRal aråiRanee. should be based on best available science Action Items 1. Continue to inventory and map landslide an(f erosion hazard areas, as funding becomes available, to serve as the scientific basis for land use decisions. (Corresponding Goal: 9.0) 2. Based on ongoing inventory, identify shoreline areas of risk such as unstable coastal bluffs, areas of erosion and coastal flood hazard areas; designate them as critical areas where appropriate; and establish restrictions for uses and activities to protect public safety 8REt J3f9J3erty iR thase areas. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0, 9.0) 3. Revie'.y the IRterim Critieel :'.reas ÛfdiRaRee 8REt the StaAR 'Hater OrdiRaRse to eRSQfe that draiRage aRd desigR st8Rdards fer &term water wiIJ æeiRtaiR the COURt)' ·.\'ide }JatieRal Fleod lRsuF8Ree Prøgram CammuRity RatiRg System iR arder te de';elaJ3 Re'.\' J3regF&ms ta mitigate floed haærds and reduee iRsuranee rates. (CeffespeRdiRg Goal: Il.O) 4. RevievI the IRterim Critieal !"reas ÛfdiR8Ree to eRsure that eRgiReeriRg, åfaiRage 8Rd åesigR staRdards far storm '.yater m8RagemeRt iR l8Rdslide 8Rd eresioR haærd areas are based eR the best a-'¡ailahle seieRee iR the fiRal oråiRaRee. (Coff0sJ3oRdiRg Gaals: 2.0, 5.0,9.0) ~3. Work with local agencies and citizens in existing Flood District Boards and establish ß&W-Flood District Boards in flood hazard areas where they do not exist. (Corresponding Goal: ll.O) 4. Continue to inventory and map seismic haZard areas as funding becomes available, and amend the Critical Areas Ordinance to provide engineering and design standards based on the best available science to minimize seismic hazards. (Corresponding Goal: 10.0) 5. Seek funding to inventory public and essential facilities which do not meet current seismic construction standards, and prioritize facilitJes for seismic reinforcement. (Corresponding Goal: -10.0) .- 6. Review the floodproofing and storm water :management measures for development in the flood plain to minimize adverse impacts to property and to natural flood plain functions, such as channel storage and lateral migration of channels. (Corresponding Goals: 1 to, l2.0) 7. Re'/iew the Flood Damage Pre'/eRtieR OråiR8Ree fer eaRsisteRey with fteed maRagemeRt pl8R hased OR a v.'atefShed &J3preaeh, to J3reelude iReompatible uses, to J3reteet flood plaiR nmetiofts, te-fpromote non-structural solutions, to protect water quality and quantity, and to support habitat recovery plans. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-34 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT "Precluding incompatible uses and development does not mean a prohibition of all uses or development. Rather, it means governing changes in land uses, new activities, or development that could adversely affect critical areas. Thus for each critical area, counties and cites planning under the act should define classification schemes and prepare development regulations that govern changes in land uses and new activities by prohibiting clearly inappropriate actions and restricting, allowing, or conditioning other activities as appropriate." Chapter 365-l90-020 pursuant to RCW 36.70A050. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0,2.0, 11.0, 12.0) 8. Collect existing information, identify and map important areas of both private and public lands containing fish (including shellfish) and wildlife habitat areas, as funding becomes available. Examples of such areas are: · Stream corridors and wetland areas; · Habitat areas for endangered, threatened, candidate, monitored, and sensitive species; · Priority habitats as identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; · Known wildlife movement corridors; · Priority recreational and commercial shellfish growing areas as identified by the responsible State agency; · Kelp and eelgrass areas which are important to herring reproduction; · Naturally occurring ponds of less than 20 acres; · Raptor habitat areas; · Corridors which provide the only cover in high density areas and serve as connection to other habitat areas; · Other "habitats and species of local importance" (Chapter 365-190-080(5Xc)(ii) WAC) such as the winter range of the Roosevelt elk herd; and · Fish hatcheries. (Corresponding Goals: l2.0, 14.0) ll. Re',ie'N the IRteriæ Critieal Areas OrdiRMee priar ta adaptiaR as a f.iRal afEliRaRee ta ensure that lIuffers far fish and y¡ildlife hahitat areas are hased aR the hest ayailahle seienee. (CeffespaRdiRg .Geals: 12.9, 14.9) l2. Revise Critieal :'-reas maps te ideRtify areas impartaøt fer atjuifer reeh&l'ge eapahility as iRfaffÐatioR is develaped thr9ugh OR gaiRg study pendiRg fundiRg availahil~. (CalTespanåiRg Gaals: 2.9, 13.9) l3.Pravide standards far de'¡elapmeBt iR a watershed hased staAB '¡later maRagemeÐt plan ta prateet the rate af iRfiltfatieR af uneaBtaIBiRated staffÐ water where the efeatiaR af impervieus s1Hfeees ar draiAage measures may eempremise atjuifer reeharge eapahility. (CaffespaRdiRg Gaals: 2.9, 13.9) W\i¡I¡~'1WBIW1t\&<wmwM~lan 8-35 August 28, 1998 ENVIRONMENT D. PUBLIC SAFETY, EDUCATION AND .NVOLVEMENT STRATEGY Jefferson County recognizes that strategies for envitonmental protection are closely related both to public safety and the public enjoyment of resource values and functions, and that the County strategy must include measures for public involvement and education. Action Items l. Cooperatively implement, with available resources, a public education and involvement process to promote citizen understanding and support of water resource protection and conservation through watershed management. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0,3.0) 2. Support and implement programs for education of the public and the development community regarding development hazards and measures required and recommended for protection of environmental resources as funding becomes available. (Corresponding Goals: 5.0,9.0, 10.0, 11.0, p.O) 3. Conduct public education programs which toster an understanding of landslide hazard areas, and work with developers, homeowners, and communities to avoid and mitigate existing problems and to prevent future problems. (Corresponding Goals: 5.0,9.0) 4. Support public education programs that promote an understanding of issues related to boater safety. 5. Develop data and procedures to coordinate the declaration of burn bans to be consistent with local monitoring information. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0) 6.Revise the sign eaEle fa fefleet the ElesigR stenEl8l!Els pfBpBseEl ~ inEliyiElual eammunity plans, sa that 9utElBBr aElnrtising is in keeping 'Nith the ekarBeter Bftke eemøumity. (CeffespenEling GaBI: 8.Q) 7.Denlep anEl implement stand8:fEls sueh as vegetative hUffefS, sethaeks, anEl aeaustieal walls fa provit:le pfateetiaR af near~ areas fram exeessp¡e Reise levels. (Caft'espeøding Gaal: 8.0) 8:-6. Work with environmental education groups to collect and disseminate information on proposed listings of fish species as endangered or threatened and impacts of the proposed listings on lan~ use activities. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 12.0) Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8-36 August 28, 1998 NOV 1 9 2 If:: ~ 004 .t:...F¡-ER)l·\~1 ... BOARD OF;' Vi'; CÜUþ,¡-r,, . t.;O'\.{^, '~I ( 'Y:¡V1¡}~Cìr)t.l -vEL ¡~.'r::-f;'c JEFFERSON COUNTY~"" PLANNING COMMISSION f"-.::::;..... /'! -:1) 1"':::::-> (',-" r . ¡ -~ e.",.. '~,.j, I~::->,.f ì.!,,::::J Ii fl " I' r',) IJ::i ' ; /,':;:, í j ì 1// Ft' r:::;,\ ,¡ ¡ ( , '-', :. ¡" i ".,.1 '' ¡ '--.. ...~ -"-'" U ¡,_f t..!::~::: I ¡ f :,: .. " , it.}' ...._-~,.,,,..' 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 To: From: Date: Subject: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Planning Commission November 19,2004 Planning Commission recommendation on MLA04-28: Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments for statutory growth management update and Planning Commission periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission is pleased to submit its recommendation regarding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) for the 2004 growth management update and the Planning Commission periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. MLA04-28 consists of two related proposals. Part A includes updating population projections, capital facilities and transportation planning, and a review of best available science (BAS) in the context of regulatory protections for environmentally critical areas. Part A is Jefferson County's response to statutory obligations as set for in RCW 36.70A.130(4), a subsection of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Part B consists of line-in/line-out amendments to Comprehensive Plan Elements resulting from the Planning Commission periodic assessment process described at Unified Development Code (UDC) section 9.5.4.1 The GMA requires that, beginning in 2004, Jefferson County reviews and, if necessary, updates the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations every seven years for compliance with amendments to GMA. For the 2004 update, items for review included a review of the best available science concerning the protection of environmentally critical areas, an update of adopted population projections based on Office of Financial Management information, and a corresponding update to capital facilities planning. Capital facilities planning should identify areas where the County's ability to deliver 1 UDC 9.5.4 describes a five-year assessment. The intention of this code section is to establish a periodic assessment process to occur in conjunction with review required in GMA. The GMA review period was every five years, until the law was amended to change the review period to every seven years. UDC 9.5.4 will be proposed for amendment in 2005 so that the Planning Commission periodic assessment matches the statutory seven-year review. service has diminished below adopted levels of service. Staff has prepared the review of BAS and updated the capital facilities planning for all of the County facilities including solid waste, law enforcement, transportation, stormwater management, parks, and an improvement program that will maintain the County's level of service. The Planning Commission conducted its assessment using criteria in UDC 9.5.4. Some conditions have changed since the time of the adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan in August 1998. Examples include adoption of the Irondale and Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), ownership transfer of water systems between the City of Port Townsend and the Public Utility District (PUD) # I, a change in management at the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR), and the replacement of several interim ordinances with a Unified Development Code (UDC) and other established policies and code. There were several references in the narrative and goals and policies of the 1998 Plan that directed the County to establish new processes or develop and adopt implementing regulations. Many of these tasks have been completed, or are no longer relevant, and have been recommended for deletion. The Planning Commission has proposed removing much of the narrative that was part of the original Comprehensive Plan. The narrative sections of the Comprehensive Plan describe a great deal of the process that lead up to adoption and explain many decisions that were made in 1998. From the outset of this process it has been the intent of the Planning Commission to create a more streamlined and reader-friendly document, one that favors a concise arrangement of goals and policies related to land use and growth management in Jefferson County in the year 2004 over a verbose history of 1990s decision-making. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan, along with the information incorporated by reference that supported its adoption, will continue to be available for review at the Department of Community Development for readers who are interested in the story behind the updated Plan. In support of this recommendation for MLA04-28, the Planning Commission enters the following general findings and conclusions: I. With regard to Part A of MLA04-28, the Growth Management Act (GMA) at RCW 36.70A.130(4) requires that Jefferson County review its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations every seven years, and update as needed, to ensure compliance, particularly with regard to amendments to GMA. For the 2004 update, the principal issues to review included updated population projections, associated capital facilities planning, a review of best available science (BAS) and corresponding code amendments related to regulatory protections for environmentally critical areas. 2. The process included a public participation program. a. In conjunction with the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) and the Planning Association of Washington (PAW), Jefferson County hosted "A Short Course on Local Planning" in the Tri-Area Community Center on August 9. A key theme of the meeting was the growth management update required in 2004. Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-28 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update 2 November 19,2004 b. County staff hosted a "Roundtable Workshop on the 2004 Update" at WSU Extension in Hadlock on September 7. The purpose of the meeting was to present information on the 2004 growth management update to interested members of the public and to engage in discussion. c. The County Department of Community Development (DCD) created and maintained webpages dedicated to the 2004 growth management update process and the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. 3. With regard to Part B ofMLA04-28, the Planning Commission assessed the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to UDC 9.5.4 and developed preliminary proposals to amend Plan elements accordingly. 4. With specific reference to UDC 9.5.4.b(6), the Planning Commission determined that the conditions under which the Comprehensive Plan had been adopted have changed. By virtue of the fact that the UDC was adopted in December 2000 as the set of development regulations to implement the Plan, the Planning Commission recommends adjusting or removing certain policies in the Comprehensive Plan that were meant to be placeholder development regulations. Policies are now drafted as guiding principles rather than strict and detailed codes and regulations. The Planning Commission believes that its recommendation for amending the Plan will restore the proper relationship between Plan policies and UDC regulations. References to interim ordinances have been removed, as interim ordinances have been replaced with the UDC. 5. The Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Review Committee began reviewing the Comprehensive Plan in April. The meetings were open to the public. a. A legal notice in the paper of record announced a regular meeting schedule. b. DCD made efforts to provide notice of individual meetings through information in the "Eye on Jefferson" section of the Peninsula Daily News and the "Government Meetings" section of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader. c. The Planning Commission section of the DCD website also presented updated information about Committee meetings. 6. The full Planning Commission discussed the Committee-generated preliminary proposals on the following meeting dates: July 7, July 21, August 4, August 17, September 1, and September 15. These meetings were publicly noticed and informal public comments were welcomed. 7. DCD issued an integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on September 22 for whole of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which included proposals under MLA04-28. A formal written comment period lasted from September 22 through October 13. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments on October 6, where oral comments were delivered. Written comment was collected through October 13. 8. The Planning Commission discussed the public comments during deliberations. Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-28 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update 3 November 19,2004 9. DCD Long-Range Planning staff sent its response to the Planning Commission proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan under MLA04-28 Part B in the form of response versions of Plan elements on October 29 and November 5 via the US mail system. 10. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments on October 6, October 20, November 3, and November 10. II. The Planning Commission approved its recommendation to the BOCC on November 3 and 10. 12. The BOCC is expected to conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendments on December 6. Recommendation 1: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and UDC for Part A ofMLA 04-28. The recommendation includes updated information in the Capital Facilities Element, as presented by staff during deliberation, and the replacement of a reference to the Department of Ecology 1993 wetland rating system with the Ecology 2004 wetland rating system in UDC section 3.6.9. Recommendation 2: Regarding MLA 04-28 Part B, the Planning Commission recommends adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments for the following Plan elements: IntroductionIPlan Implementation and Monitoring, Land Use and Rural, Housing, Economic Development, and Environment. The Planning Commission understands that for the majority of proposed additions and deletions, DCD staff and the Planning Commission concur. For those instances where there is disagreement, two versions will be under consideration by the public and the Board of County Commissioners in the next phase of the process. Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under MLA04-28, the Planning Commission submits these recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. ~c1Jtt~ Planning Commission Chair ~~ Cheryl Ha orson Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-28 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update 4 November 19, 2004 List of Proposed Amendments under File Number MLA04-28: Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments presented in line-in/line-out bill format. These versions represent the staff recommendation, which for Part B is based upon Planning Commission deliberation: Ch.l Introduction (including integrated Plan Implementation and Monitoring)a Ch.3 Land Use and Rural Elementb Ch.5 Housing Elementa Ch.6 Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Elementa Ch.7 Economic Development Elementa Ch.8 Environment Elementa Ch.9 Essential Public Facilities Element (one page)b Ch.lO TransportationC Ch.ll Utilities Elementa Ch.12 Capital Facilities Elementd Proposed UDC amendments for the environmentally critical areas sections of the code pursuant to review of best available scienceb Excerpted pages of the following Plan elements representing the Planning Commission recommendation when different from that of DCD staff: Ch.l IntroductionIPlan Implementation and Monitoringa Ch.3 Land Use and Rural Elementb Ch.5 Housing Elementa Ch.6 Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Elementa Ch.7 Economic Development Elementa Notes: aThis document was transmitted to the Board along with the November 15 Agenda Request on November 10. bThis document was hand-delivered to the Board on November 15 during Regular Agenda discussion. cThis document has been unchanged since its presentation in the September 22 Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. dThis document was originally presented in the September 22 Staff Report and SEP A Addendum. The only change made to it since then consists of two pages of updated information from Central Services. The updated pages were transmitted to the Board along with the November 15 Agenda Request on November 10. Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-28 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update 5 November 19,2004 . ~ , . ., l"l'-:~1' œ..:J ,- ,-- - .J S (fD, ! c:J 1/ n /] ,";:',::: '-"0. JL C, ;". 1)'7 ! i ',Vi II~-:) "['-"'1,,\ . L. '., '..; i.:: d \.J IS! I' NO V 1 9 2004 L::r. JEFFE-Rc'í"" ,., ' 80' . ')UíJ. :.,OUNT"\,' .JEFFERS()N COUNTY ~RD OF COMMISSIOJ',Ù~R~ PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 To: From: Date: Subject: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Planning Commission November 15,2004 Recommendation for MLA04-00027: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations related to the Agriculture Lands of Local Importance. The Planning Commission is pleased to transmit its recommendations for designating 220- parcels as Agricultural Lands of Local Importance on the map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. This recommendation culminates from a comprehensive public outreach and involvement process. In addition, this process involved detailed work conducted by the Agriculture Lands Committee, which was formulated as a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. In support of this recommendation for MLA04-00027, the Planning Commission enters the following general findings and conclusions: I. MLA04-00027 was reviewed pursuant to the amendment process contained within UDC Section 9. 2. The County adopted its development regulations or UDC on December 2000, effective in January 2001. 3. The UDC outlined provisions related to agriculture uses and identified exemptions pertaining to development and activities within close proximity to the GMA identified "critical areas". 4, An unincorporated citizens' group know as the Washington Environmental Council (or "WEC) filed in March 2001 a timely Petition for Review (or "PFR") generally alleging that the UDC did not comply with the GMA with respect to designation and protection of what the GMA calls "critical areas", codified as "environmentally sensitive areas" in the UDC. 5. In March of 2002 the county and WEC entered into a Settlement Agreement by which the County agreed that it would limit the scope of the exemption to include only pre-existing or ongoing agriculture activities occurring on parcels designated "agriculture lands of long-term commercial significance" . 6. Numerous parcels in Jefferson County were being utilized for agriculture activities but lacked the underlying zoning designation, Le., the parcels were not deemed to be 'agriculture lands of long-term significance' . 7. County staff proposed a "suggested" CP amendment, providing a one-time opportunity for persons or entities having title to land(s) to be considered for designation of 'agriculture lands of local importance' or AL-20 as described under the CP. 8. Both the CP and UDC were amended in 2003 to reflect the creation of AL- 20 zoning which "paved the way" for the MLA04-00027. 9. The County's CP, at pages 4-10 and 4-11, lists the seven (7) criteria that should be utilized to determine eligibility to qualify for AL-20 zoning. 10. The Planning Commission established a sub-committee, the Agriculture Lands Committee (or "ALC) to facilitate discussion regarding the inclusion of parcels into AL-20 zoning. II. The ALC formulated additional criterion to be included to the original seven criteria. 12. The review committee reviewed 251-parcels for potential AL-20 zoning. 13. The ALC convened eight committee meetings to analyze and consider all 25 I-parcels. 14. The ALC recommended to the Planning Commission to include 220- parcels as candidates for re-designation to AL-20 zoning. 15. The 220-parcels encompass approximately 2,991-acres of land. 16. Of the 31-parcels not recommended for AL-zoning, 13-parcels were already zoned agriculture (AP-20) and the remaining 18-parcels did not meet one or more of the eight review criteria. The owners of record of the rejected parcels were contacted regarding the proposed decision by the Planning Commission. All known objections were resolved prior to the Planning Commission's final approval of this Amendment. 17. The time frame for public comment ran from September 22, 2004, the date when the County staff issued its report serving joint GMA and SEP A purposes, until October 13,2004, a period of21-days. 18. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 20th & November 3, 2004 respectively. Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-27 Jefferson County Agriculture Lands 2 November 15, 2004 19. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments at regularly scheduled meetings on October 20th and November 3, 2004. 20. Concerning the amendment proposal as presented in the attachment, the Planning Commission enters the following findings in relation to the applicable indicators set forth at UDC §9.5.4 and UDC §9.8.1.b: (a) Section 9.5.4(b)(I) of the UDC which asks whether the rate of growth and development for the County is greater or lesser than was anticipated at the time of CP adoption in 1998, the Planning Commission finds, that in the short-term the population of this County is not increasing as quickly as the CP envisioned in 1998, but that such a smaller growth rate is not relevant to this particular amendment, since the obligation to protect agricultural resource land and maintain and enhance natural resource based industries such as agriculture is stated expressly within the GMA at RCW 36.70A.020(8) as a goal that is not dependent on any particular growth rate or lack of one. (b) Pursuant to review §9.5.4(b)(2), the Planning Commission finds that the capacity of the County to provide adequate services have not changed and would not change as a result of the decision to adopt this MLA. (c) With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(3), which speaks of whether sufficient urban land has been designated, the Planning Commission found that this GMI is not relevant with respect to MLA #04-27. (d) With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(4), the Planning Commission finds that most of the assumptions that supported the policies and goals of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan remain valid, including the policies and goals that require the classification and designation of agricultural lands as well as the promotion and furtherance of the agricultural industry in this County. (e) With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(5), which discusses whether there has been any changes in county-wide attitudes, the Planning Commission concludes that designating these 220 parcels as AL-20 serves a clarifying purpose: to remedy the anomaly of land that is being farmed that is simultaneously farmland for real estate tax Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-27 Jefferson County Agriculture Lands 3 November 15,2004 purposes but rural residential land for GMA zoning and development regulation purposes. (f) With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(6), the Planning Commission finds that there have not been any changed circumstances to dictate a need for amendments, instead this amendment implements numerous CP policies and goals that maintain and enhance the natural resource industry known as agriculture. (g) With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(7), the Planning Commission finds that in 2003 the CP and UDC were amended to provide a process to allow parcels to be designated AL-20. This process aligns local goals and policies with the GMA. (h) Pursuant to §9.8(b)(I) of the UDC, the Planning Commission finds this amendment may in the future generate jobs located in the rural portions of the County, its adoptions supports the GMA mandate that any County planning under GMA must "foster... .rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas," pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.030(14 )(b). (i) With respect to the GMI codified at UDC §9.8.1(b)(2), the Planning Commission concludes that this MLA provided the County with additional information with respect to the various types of agriculture that citizens of this County are undertaking on smaller parcels throughout the unincorporated County. This additional information provides the Planning Commission with the rational basis for recommending that some 220 parcels be provided with a designation of AL-20. U) With respect to the GMI codified at UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), this Planning Commission concludes that the large number of applications, and the number of citizens conducting agriculture activities and ventures meeting the eight (8) stipulated criteria indicate that the proposed amendment to the CP Map reflects current widely-held values of this County's residents. (k) With respect to the GMI codified at UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), this Board concludes that the large number of applications, the Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-27 Jefferson County Agriculture Lands 4 November 15,2004 . ' . .''"' lack of public outcry or dismay at this MLA and the unanimous vote of this Commission in adopting this MLA indicate that the proposed amendment to the CP Map reflects current widely-held values of this County's residents. (1) With respect to the eight GMI codified at UDC §9 .8.1 (c), the Planning Commission finds that because this CP amendment effects 220-parcels rather than merely one, two or a few parcels it is not site-specific in nature, but is legislative, thus not requiring comparison to the GMI codified at UDC §9.8.1(c). Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under file number MLA04-0027, the Planning Commission submits these recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. ~~ 'Thomas C. McNerney Planning Commission Chair ~1~ Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA04-27 Jefferson County Agriculture Lands 5 November 15, 2004 , . ~~' [E, ~ C. f (ì.J r::J ,..., f1 .' .r~.' : ./' L II I-I' r-.-, f .' . _J I . .........- f· 1 ':::, \ .... i! ... If: If Î ! 1_.., ( '... , "', . I ,ï; ¡ r-· .. ..,' '-'-. ~ u L./ '~:'J NOV 1 9 2004 ...JEFFERso~ ., ....., '. . B.oA¡;jD OF I'll;()IJNTV' JEFFERS()N C()UNTY' COMMISt;;in~;.... " \',¿'P_ïf't'tJ\'S PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 To: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Planning Commission November 15, 2004 Recommendation for MLA03-00232: Comprehensive Plan & UDC amendments related to the Jefferson County International Airport. From: Date: Subject: The Planning Commission is pleased to transmit its recommendations for amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan & Unified Development Code (UDC) related to the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA). The establishment of provisions for the JCIA has been a lengthy and involved process. Several different proposals have been crafted and brought forth since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. These proposals included various overlay boundaries, noise disclosures, and notices to titles or easements to be placed on affected parcels. Although these proposals never came to fruition, the process prodded a second settlement agreement between Jefferson County and the Port of Port Townsend. This agreement dated December 22, 2003, outlines a framework for the creation of provisions pertaining to the JCIA. The "spirit" of this agreement has remained intact and has been incorporated into this final proposal submitted before the BOCC. These recommendations culminated from a lengthy, cooperative process involving the public, Airport Committee of the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development (DCD) Long-Range Planning (LRP) staff over a series of months. On September 22, 2004, under file number MLA03-00232, DCD issued a preliminary staff recommendation with a notice of threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act, and notice of public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission accepted comment until the close of the public hearing on October 13,2004 and proceeded to deliberate on the proposal. During the Planning Commission discussions, it became evident that protection of the Airport as "an essential public facility" for long term survival required some form of protection from encroaching development. , . With that objective in mind, notification of all development in the overlay zone, as suggested by the State's CTED, was included in the Planning Commission's recommendation. A decision, with one member absent and one abstaining, was reached on November 3,2004. The decision was to affirm staffs recommendation with a slightly modified version of the proposal. The modification included adding Type I permitting activity under the purview of the Airport Overlay I. There were several comments received both in favor and against the proposal. The impetus behind the comments expressing opposition, were due to the disclosure requirements pertaining to the Airport Overlay I. Several property owners in the vicinity conveyed that protection of the JCIA as an essential public facility should not encompass formalized noise provisions beyond a "good neighbor" policy. Comments were made that the opponents wanted to preserve the right to sue the JCIA in the event they considered it the airport a nuisance. LRP staff and the Planning Commission worked to integrate specific suggestions from the Jefferson County Pilots Association at the Public Hearing to create safety provisions which correspond with the aircraft flight patterns mandated by the FAA. The criteria for delineating a second Airport Overlay was based upon the southern half of the Accident Safety Zone #6 described through the "Airports and Compatible Land Use" manual published by the Washington State Department of Transportation. There was continued opposition for the inclusion of noise provisions within Airport Overlay I. This opposition was evident through an alternative proposal submitted by the citizen group People for a Rural Quimper (PRQ). Some of the areas of disagreement have been resolved, however, the proposals were divergent regarding noise provisions and a compromise could not be achieved on those matters. The Planning Commission is pleased to present to you its recommendation. The recommendation acknowledges the JCIA as an essential public facility and provides opportunities to further investigate and bolster the operations of the JCIA through clearly defined essential public facility provisions. The Comprehensive Plan & UDC line-in/line-out amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and DCD under MLA03-00232 are attached to this memorandum. In support of this recommendation for MLA03-00232, the Planning Commission enters the following general findings and conclusions: I. MLA03-00232 was reviewed pursuant to the amendment process contained within UDC Section 9. 2. The proponent ofMLA#03-00232, the distinct municipal corporation known as the Port of Port Townsend or POPT, submitted a 33-page (with hundreds of pages of attachments) position paper to the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners on or about September 7,2004. 3. The Planning Commission members reviewed and considered the position paper submitted by the POPT and found it useful in their decision-making, particularly since about half a dozen attachments to that position paper indicate that other Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA03-232 Jefferson County International Airport 2 November 15, 2004 , ; airports in Washington State have much more stringent protections in place to preserve the health and welfare of those airports as 'essential public facilities' than have been proposed by the POPT in MLA #03-00232. 4. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 20th & November 3, 2004 respectively. 5. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments at regularly scheduled meetings on October 20th and November 3, 2004. 6. Concerning the amendment proposal as presented in the attachment, the Planning Commission enters the following findings in relation to the applicable indicators set forth at UDC §9.5.4 and UDC §9.8.1.b: (a) 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 POPT is desirous of having the County address noise, safety and compatibility concerns through amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. In furtherance of that objective and others, 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. On May 7, 2004, the Port of Port Townsend received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (F AA) for the Jefferson County International Airport Master Plan (AMP) Update. The adoption of the AMP, along with the progression of County and Port discussions regarding the most efficacious means to implement the requirements of RCWs 36.70A.510 and 36.70.547, have made the proposed amendments necessary. Furthermore, 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. (b) With the adoption of the Jefferson County International Airport Master Plan Update, 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 airport and its environs. The updated AMP, coupled with the second settlement agreement between Jefferson County and the Port of Port Townsend outlined several deviations from the original comprehensive plan language, and provided the impetus for proposing the amendment. (c) The proposed amendment reflects 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 Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA03-232 Jefferson County International Airport 3 November 15,2004 ofthe 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. In addition, the proposal has been modified substantially from prior proposals, which included recording notice to titles, utilizing avigational easements, and establishing various noise overlay boundaries. This proposal was modified to incorporate concerns and comments brought forth by various stakeholders. An additional overlay was created to correspond with the airport traffic pattern as mandated by the FAA, and include safety and compatibility regulations as recommended through safety zone #6, of the W ADOT 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 proximity to the JCIA and noise inconveniences which may occur due to normal airport operations (d) The Planning Commission has reviewed UDC §9.5.4(b) and conclude that items (1) through (5) inclusive and item (7) under that UDC Section are neither applicable nor relevant to MLA #03-00232. However, item (5) and item (6) ofUDC §9.5.4(b) are analyzed in paragraphs (a) and (c) above. 5. As proclaimed through RCW 36.70A.200, the comprehensive plan of each county shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. 6. More specifically, case law surrounding RCW 36.70A.200 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. 7. The proposed revisions would repeal the Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) as an Overlay and establish an AEPF as a Euclidean zoning district. 8. 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. 9. 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 recording notices to title. Based on comments received from stakeholders, the proposal was substantially modified to strike a balance with property owners, while assuring the proposed provisions adequately protect the airport. Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA03-232 Jefferson County International Airport 4 November 15,2004 . . . 10. The proposed amendments are consistent with the GMA and the County-Wide Planning Policies. II. 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). 12. The Planning Commission recommends that the BOCC approve the proposed amendments as presented in the 23-page attachment. Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under file number MLA03-00232, the Planning Commission submits these recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. ø:t~~ Thomas C. McNerney . Planning Commission Chair ~~ Cheryl Hal orson Planning Commission Secretary Attachment: PC Comp PlanlUDC line-in/line-out amendments Maps (Overlay/AEPF) Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA03-232 Jefferson County International Airport 5 November 15,2004 , ¡ " ' Proposed Revisions to Comprehensive Plan & UDC Amendments Pursuant to Planning Commission Airport Subcommittee Review of MLA03-232 Jefferson County International Airport Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan EDP 4.4 Succort the efforts of the Port of Port Townsend to identify the Jefferson Countv International Aircort (JCIA) as a self-succortina essential cublic facilitv. This mav include. but is not limited to. the sitina of accrocriatelv scaled aviation and non-aviation-related industrial/manufacturina activities in the Aircort Essential Public Facilities District. EDP 4.5 In accordance with Countv-wide Plannina Policv 7.5. recoanize the leaislative authoritv of the Port of Port Townsend as a valuable tool to imclement industrv. trade strateaies and cromote emclovment occortunities. JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Backaround The Jefferson Countv International Aircort (JCIA) is owned and ocerated bv the Port of Port Townsend a scecial curcose district aoverned bv an elected Board of Commissioners. The Port is authorized under the laws of Washinaton State to cromote. encouraae and carticicate in economic develocment activities. The Port has a strona desire to ocerate the aircort as a self-succortina entercrise. a aoal shared bv the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The JCIA has been desianated bv Jefferson Countv as an essential cublic facilitv in accordance with the crovisions of the Washinaton State Growth Manaaement Act and this Plan. This desianation is based on the recoanition of the critical role that the aircort clavs in crovidina transcortation services necessarv to the aeneral cublic. and in succortina emclovment aeneratina economic develocment activities. The aircort crovides an invaluable alternative to surface routes for emeraencv medical transcorts and services the shicment of aoods and materials. and access bv local residents. business travelers. and tourists. The oceration of the JCIA is aoverned bv crovisions of the Growth Manaaement Act (GMA) related to essential cublic facilities. and FAA Reaulations that include measures to crotect the cublic health and safetv and to serve as a auide for encouraaina comcatible land uses. This is accomclished in cart throuah the crecaration of an aircort master clan crecared in accordance with FAA auidelines. In 2002. the Port initiated a crocess to ucdate its Aircort Master Plan (AMP). that resulted in the adoction of the AMP bv the Port Commissioners on December 22. 2003. and accroval bv the FAA on Mav 7.2004. November 3, 2004 Page 1 of 22 . . AirDort Overlavs It is imcortant to recoanize that the JCIA is an essential cublic facilitv. As with other modes of transcortation. there is noise associated with its clanned and lawful ocerations. This is common to all aircort ocerations and the FAA has established standards to ensure that noise from normal aircort ocerations is not incomcatible. and does not unreasonablv interfere. with the use and eniovment of neiahborina crocerties. Aircort noise excosure is measured in a Dav-Niaht Averaae Sound LevellDNU and is used to analvze and characterize multicle aircraft noise events. and for determinina the cumulative excosure of such noise to individuals around aircorts DNL means the 24- hour averaae sound level. in decibels. for the ceriod from midniaht to midniaht. obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for ceriods between midniaht and 7:00 a.m.. and between 10:00 c.m. and midniaht. The vearlv DNL means the 365-dav averaae. in decibels. Fortunatelv. noise abatement measures at the JCIA have achieved comcliance with FAA reaulations reaardina residential comcatibilitv. In aeneral terms. the 75 DNL is considered to be sianificant and may have severe imcacts that would reauire further study and mitiaation. The 65 DNL level delineates moderate noise excosure and is the threshold for residential comcatibilitv. The 55 DNL level recresents minimal noise imcacts and is below the reaulatorv threshold of the FAA standards. The 50 DNL is a verY conservative measure of noise imcacts and is well below the accected standard of 65 DNL. Bv way of comcarison. 50 DNL is comcarable to the noise from a residential lawn mower. It must be recoanized. however. that noise abatement measures reduce. but do not eliminate all aircraft noise. In 2002. usina the most current and best available technoloaies. a revised noise analvsis for current and croiected ocerations at JCIA was conducted as a cart of the aircort master clannina crocess. This analvsis croiects noise levels throuah 2022. Documented noise levels in excess of the established residential comcatibilitv threshold of 65 DNL are limited to a verY small area located whollv ucon Port owned crocertv immediatelv surroundina the runways. However. DNL levels and noise and comcatibilitv concerns are also considered a matter to be addressed at the local level. Individual and community resconses to aircraft noise may differ. and for some individuals. even a moderate or low amount of noise from normal aircort ocerations at the JCIA may result in annoyance or irritation. To address noise. safety. aircort awareness and comcatibilitv concerns the County has established two Aircort Overlav Districts: an Aircort Overlav I and an Aircort Overlav II. The Aircort Overlav I boundarY is a fixed boundarY. reflectina the croiected 55 DNL contour interval maccina in the year 2022 as set forth in Exhibit 6.4 of the adocted Jefferson County AMP. The curcoses of this Overlav are as follows: . To disclose to cermit acclicants and croscective crocertv owners their croximitv to aircort ocerations includina take-off and landina catterns. and the cotential for low level noise and vibrations associated with such activities: and . To identify an aircort safety zone within which certain uses will be crohibited for cublic safety and comcatibilitv reasons (e.a.. mobile home carks. churches. nursina homes. hoscitals. day care facilities and other similar uses). November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 22 . ~, . . The Jefferson Countv Board of Commissioners finds that the Aircort Overlav I has a rational basis because it is based ucon best available technolocv and reflects those areas adiacent to the aircort that are most affected bv normal. routine aircort ocerations (Len aircraft take-off and landinc catternst It is acknowledced that areas ¡vinc outside this fixed Overlav mav also be subiect to low level noise and vibration. The Aircort Overlav II is an aircort ocerations awareness area delineated bv the ceocrachic area that is affected bv the FAA mandated aircort traffic cattern for the JCIA. The Overlav is defined on the basis of aircraft flicht catterns and safetvareas. It includes areas that lie adiacent and to the south of the Aircort Overlav I described above. and is based ucon the Aircraft Accident Safetv Zone #6 recommendations contained in the "Aircorts and Comcatible Land Use" cublication of the Washincton State Decartment of Transcortation's Aviation Division (2/99). to the extent that Zone #6 correlates with the FAA mandated aircort traffic cattern for the JCIA as set forth in the FAA accroved JCIA Master Plan The curcoses of the Aircort Overlav II are as follows: . To accrise the cublic crocertv owners and develocers of the existence of the aircort traffic cattern and imcacts from routine aircraft over-flichts: .and · To identifv an aircort safetv zone within which certain uses that involve hicher concentrations of ceocle will be crohibited for safetv and comcatibilitv reasons (e.c.. uses involvinc 100 cersons or more cer acre in buildincs). The Jefferson Countv Board of Commissioners finds that the Aircort Overlav II has a rational basis because it is based ucon the Washincton State Decartment of Transcortation Aviation Division recommendations for Accident Safetv Zone #6 as it corresconds to the FAA mandated traffic cattern for the JCIA. It is acknowledced that areas Ivinc outside this fixed Overlav mav also be subiect to aircraft over-flichts Future Land Use Plannina The County's current Unified Development Code (UDC) oenerally limits uses within the Airport Essential Public Facilities District to aviation support facilities and aviation related manufacturino and lioht industrial uses. The County and Port acknowledoe the need to consider permittino a broader ranoe of uses within the district in order to maintain the lono-term financial viability of this essential public facility. Accordinoly. the County and Port will work tooether to prepare amendments to this Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) addressino Port owned property in the vicinity of JCIA. based on the Airport Master Plan. The Port will assume responsibility for preparino the proposed Plan and Code amendments (in coordination with County staff). and the County will docket the proposal durino the applicable amendment cycle. The amendments will address the future use and development of property owned or aCQuired bY the Port in the vicinity of the JCIA. The amendments will ensure the continuino operations of the JCIA as an essential public facility. in accordance with FAA reoulations. the reQuirements of the Washinoton State Growth Manaoement Act. this Comprehensive Plan. and the County-wide Plan nino Policies. The ooal of these future amendments is to promote compatible land uses, provide employment opportunities. and facilitate the operations of the airport as a self-supportino enterprise in a manner consistent with the ooals and reQuirements of the GMA. The amendments may take the form of permittino non-aviation lioht industrial uses at an November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 22 · . appropriate scale within the AEPF, or amendments utilizina other GMA-compliant tools such as a maior industrial development or an industrial land bank (pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365 and RCW 36.70A.367). or urban arowth area (RCW 36.70A.110). As an essential cublic facilitv. the JCIA is also recocnized for its imcortant role in the economic health of the County. In accordance with the crovisions of the GMA. cities and counties may not creclude the sitinc or the excansion of essential cublic facilities. The County-wide clanninc colicies recocnize that the Port's statutorY authority is a useful tool to imclement economic develocment and emclovment occortunities (CPP 7.5t Further. the Port desires to run the aircort as a self-succortinc facilitv so that it is not a burden ucon the taxcavers of Jefferson County and does not necativelv imcact other Port ocerations. The County recocnizes and succorts this coal. The Port has exclored all occortunities to make the aircort self-succortinc. and vet it continues to ocerate at a deficit. The lonc-term economic viabilitv of the aircort. as well as the economic develocment coals and colicies contained in this Comcrehensive Plan. succort consideration of the excansion of the aircort uses to include accrocriatelv scaled non-aviation-related industrial develocment crovided that such uses are consistent with the GMA. The County recocnizes that aviation-related industriallmanufacturinc develocment is currentlv allowed on Port owned crocertv at the Jefferson County International Aircort. If the amendments take the form of an excanded rance of accrocriatelv scaled licht industrial uses. such a chance would not constitute a fundamental chance in the curcose of the Aircort Essential Public Facilitv (AEPF) Zone. Instead. such an amendment would remove a local limitation on the scecific rance of uses currentlv cermitted within the zone. Such cotential future revisions to the uses cermitted within the AEPF zone would also be consistent with the recuirement contained in earlier iterations of the Comcrehensive Plan (Le.. 1998) that the County reconsider the use limitations durinc a subsecuent clanninc crocess. GO.\l: &PG 2.0 Ensure the Gontinued 'liability of the Jefferson Count}' International Airport as a transportation hub. POLICIES: EPP 2.1 During the Port's preparation of a sub area plan for tho JCIA and appropriate surrounding properties, limit new development proposals at the JCIA site to only those uses which are clearly identified as aviation support facilities or aviation related development in conformance with the airport's designation as an essential public facility. IiPP 2.1.1 Aviation Support Facilities are those uses 'Nhich directly support tho operation of the Jef.ú3rson County Airport: Aviation Related Development are thoso uses which are reliant upon the airport for their business: &PP 2.1.2 November 3, 2004 Page 4 of 22 · EPP 2.2 GMA- GOAL: EPG 2.0 POLICIES: EPP 2.1 EPP 2.2 Cooperate with the Port of Port Townsend to dovelop a sub area plan to guido future development at the Jefferson County International Airport. This sub area plan may evaluate non aviation uses and activities that are compatible '::ith the airport facility and surrounding area. The sub area plan should address the following siting issues for all new. uses and activities proposed for siting at the Jefferson County International Airport :md all plans for facilities expansion: a. Compatibility with airport operations as an essential public facility; b. Provision of infrastructure consistent with the requirements of the o. Land use oompatibility with surrounding area; d. Potontial environmental impacts; e. Iwailability of alternative sites; f. Public hoalth and safety; g. Sub area plan amendment process for possible future acquisition of adjacent properties Ensure continuina oDeration of the Jefferson County International Airoort as a safe and self-suDDortina Essential Public Facilitv. The Jefferson County Unified DeveloDment Code will be reviewed and revised as aDDroDriate to imDlement the aDDroved JCIA Master Plan in accordance with the recuirements of the Washincton State Growth Manacement Act recardinc the comDatibilitv of land uses adioininc aircorts. and the status of the JCIA as a desicnated Essential Public Facilitv. and FAA reculations. A. Revise County Codes and Drocedures as aDDroDriate. to Dromote future land uses and develoDment activities in the vicinity of the JCIA that are comDatible with land uses and activities in the AEPF District. and in comDliance with RCW 36.70.547. B. Land use and develoDment activities shall comDlv with FAA reculations includinc but not limited to electrical emissions. lichtinc. and heicht restrictions. C. In cooDeration with the Port of Port Townsend. identify and reculate land uses within the aircort aDDroach zone and reculate obstacles in accordance with Federal Aviation Reculations (FAR) 77. D. Land use or develoDment activities that attract concentrations of birds or waterfowl in or near the desicnated Aircort Overlavs shall not be Dermitted. In cooDeration with the Port of Port Townsend. discourace the sitinc of new. incomDatible uses adiacent to the aircort. Drovide disclosure of Droximitv to the aircort to identified Darcels and address noise imDacts. November 3, 2004 Page 5 of 22 . ¡ . . EPP 2.3 EPP 2.4 consistent with local concerns. FAA Reoulations. State Decartment of Transcortation Reoulations. and the JCIA desionation as an Essential Public Facilitv under the GMA. A. Establish an Aircort Overlav I consistent with the Noise Contour Interval Mac that croiects aircort noise contours throuoh the vear 2022. as adocted bv the Port of' Port Townsend Board of Commissioners in the 2003 ucdated Master Plan. Adoct the noise contour mac showino the 55 DNL as the Aircort Overlav I. B. Precare and imclement crocedures for informino crocertv owners within the Aircort Overlav I (55 DNU of their croximitv to the JCIA and aircort ocerations includina aircraft takeoffs. landinas. and over- fliohts. C. Enact reoulations that crovide notice and disclosure· of aircort imcacts to crocertv develocers within the Aircort Overlav I. and include a "no cublic nuisance" crovision for normal aircort ocerations. D. Encouraae the Port of Port Townsend to continue its efforts to mitiaate noise conflicts at Jefferson Countv International Aircort. E. Establish an Aircort Overlav II to accrise the cublic of the existence of the aircort traffic cattern and imcacts from routine aircraft over- fliahts. and to restrict certain uses that involve hioher concentrations of ceocle for safetv and comcatibilitv reasons (e.a.. uses involvino 100 cersons or more cer acre in buildinas). Include a "no cublic nuisance" crovision for normal aircort ocerations. Discouraae the sitino of incomcatible land uses in the vicinitv of the JCIA as reauired bv the GMA. bv reviewina the uses within the Aircort Overlavs and revisina the UDC to crohibit or condition uses in the Aircort Overlavs that are incomcatible as set forth in auidelines established bv the Washinaton State Decartment of Transcortation Aviation Division. The Port and Countv will collaborativelv crecare Comcrehensive Plan and Unified Develocment Code amendments addressina Port owned crocertv in the vicinitv of JCIA. The Port will initiate the crocosed amendments. which will be docketed bv the Countv durina the acclicable Plan amendment cvcle. The amendments. as mav be modified throuah the cublic crocess. will be brouaht forth for finalleaislative action. A. The Aircort Master Plan and subseauent Plan and Code amendments will crovide for the safe ocerations of the JCIA and ouide future develocment in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reaulations and the Aircort's desianation as an Essential Public Facilitv under the GMA B. In crecarino the Plan and Code amendments. the Port and the Countv will review and evaluate revisions to the Countv's Unified November 3, 2004 Page 6 of 22 · . Develocment Code to consider cermittina certain non-aviation- related industrial! manufacturina uses that directlv or indirectlv succort the JCIA. If allowed. such uses should be accrocriatelv scaled. assure visual comcatibilitv with the surroundina area. crovide iob occortunities for Jefferson Countv residents. be comcatible with aircort ocerations. and consistent with the reauirements of the GMA. C. The Countv develocment code will contain desian standards to auide future develocment in the Aircort Essential Public Facilities (AEPF) District. Anv desian standards scecific to develocment in the AEPF includina. but not limited to: landscacina. screenina. and bulk and dimensional standards are to be contained in the develocment code. D. In the event that the amendments take the form of accrocriatelv scaled liaht industrial uses. the Countv. in cooceration with the Port. mav establish rural level of service standards to ensure that the future develocment of crocertv in the AEPF District does not result in scrawl. EPP 2.5 Jefferson Countv will desianate carcels owned bv the Port of Port Townsend creviouslv classified as beina in the Aircort Essential Public Facilities Overlav District as the JCIA AEPF District. This new District will sucercede and reclace the crevious Aircort Essential Public Facilitv Overlav District and will be incorcorated into the Countv's Unified Develocment Code as a distinct District within the Public Lands Classification. EPP 2.6 Procertv crocosed bv the Port. and identified in the FAA-accroved Master Plan or future Comcrehensive Plan amendment for inclusion in the AEPF District. shall become cart of the AEPF District. crovided that: A. The crocosed excansion of the AEPF boundaries is considered in accordance with law. durina the Comcrehensive Amendment crocess: and B Parcels eliaible to be considered for inclusion within the AEPF District will be those crocerties identified throuah the aircort lavout clan (ALP), incorcorated within the FAA accroved JCIA Master Plan. and/or bounded bv State Route 19. State Route 20. and Four Corners Road a desianated Countv Arterial. EPP 2.7 In cooceration with the Port of Port Townsend. monitor state leaislation and evaluate the cotential redesianation of the JCIA and surroundina crocerties as an Industrial Land Bank. Maior Industrial Develocment. UGA. or related economic develocment land use cateaorv. B. JEFFERSON COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT STRATEGY Action Items November 3, 2004 Page 7 of 22 · 1 Jefferson County shall work cooperati'Joly 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 CovelTri I\rea Study, the County may re evaluate land use designations within the "Airport Overlay Zone." (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0) 1. Establish two Aircort Overlavs and accrocriate imclementina reaulations to crotect the current and future viabilitv of the JCIA as an essential cublic facilitv. Aircort Overlav I will be based on the accroved Noise Contour Interval Mac. while an Aircort Overlav II will be based ucon the WSDOT recommendations for accident safetv zone #6. to the extent that it correlates with the FAA accroved traffic cattern for the JCIA. 2. Imclement reaulations crovidina notice and disclosure of aircort imcads to crocertv develocers within the Aircort Overlav I. and include a "no cublic nuisance" crovision for normal aircort ocerations. 3. Establish a new Aircort Essential Public Facilitv District as a distinct District within the Public Lands Classification. which will include all relevant reaulations aovernina the develocment of the JCIA. 4. Continue monitorina federal and state leaislation affectina the develocment of Port owned crocertv and further amend the Countv's Comcrehensive Plan and Develocment Reaulations as accrocriate. 5 Durina a future land use clannina crocess for the JCIA. the Countv in consultation with the Port. will consider and evaluate cotential revisions to the Countv's Unified Develocment Code which would cermit non-aviation-related industrial. manufacturina and related activities on crocertv within the Aircort Essential Public Facilitv. and establish accrocriate levels of service and desian standards. includina but not limited to setbacks. landscace buffers. visual screenina. access reauirements and bulk and dimensional standards. 6. Encouraae the Port to continue its efforts to mitiaate noise conflicts at the Jefferson Countv International Aircort. 7. Review and revise the Unified Develocment Code to ensure onlv comcatible land uses are sited within the Aircort Overlavs. November 3, 2004 Page 8 of 22 . . 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 Planned Resort Airoort Essential Public Facilitv Overlay Designations ESA Environmentally Sensitive Areas Mineral Resource Lands West End Planning Area-Remote Rural Brinnon Planning Area- Remote Rural Airport essential Public Facility Public PPR CWMEPF 8.E.EE MRL WEPA-RR BRPA-RR A Parks, Preserves and Recreation Countv Waste Manaaement Essential Public Facilitv AQ Airoort Overlavs . AirDort Overlav I . Airoort Overlav II Small-scale Recreation SRT and Tourist 5. Public. This land use class consists of non-federal public lands used for special purposes. It includes one main district 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 November 3, 2004 Page 9 of 22 of the County and preserve significant natural amenities of special or unique character. b. County Waste Manaaement Essential Public Facilitv c. AirDort Essential Public Facilitv IAEPFt This land use district consists of land owned bv the Port of Port Townsend that directlv and indirectlv SUDCOrts the ocerations of the Jefferson Countv International Aircort as an Essential Public Facilitv. It is intended to cromote comcatible land uses and the lonc- term economic viabilitv of the JCIA consistent with Countv Goals recardinc essential cublic facilities. the creservation of rural character. and economic develocment. 3.3.6 Jefferson County International AirDort Essential Public Facilitv District IAEPFt a. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section is to regulate land uses within the "Airport Essential Public Facility" overlay District (AEPF) 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. The overlay district (see Omcial Comprehensive Plan Map) applies to all Port of Port Townsend o'Nned property '.,,'ithin the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA). The JCI.~, aviation airport that pro':ides recreational, business, flight training, charter and air taxi services and other uses. Ib.e Jefferson Countv International Aircort (JCIA) is a ceneral curcose. cublic aviation aircort that crovides recreational. business. flicht traininc. charter and air taxi services and other uses. The Aircort Essential Public Facilitv District desicnation (see the official Jefferson Countv Comcrehensive Plan Land Use Desicnations Mac) shall acclv to the followinc: (1) Parcels desicnated as an Aircort Essential Public Facilitv on the official Jefferson Countv Comcrehensive Plan Land Use Desicnations Mac: (2) Anv carcels or carcels (a) subsecuentlv accuired bv the Port in accordance with the crovisions of the accroved JCIA Master Plan. or (b) currentlv owned bv the Port. which are accroved for inclusion in the Aircort Essential Public Facilitv District throuch the Jefferson Countv Comcrehensive Plan text and land use amendment crocess. or anv other acclicable crocess. c. Allowa~lø Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses. 1\11 new development within the Jefferson County International Airport shall be restricted to uses which ara clearly identified as aviation support facilities or a':iation related de\'elopment. New develocment within the AEPF District shall be restricted crincicallv to Aviation Succort Facilities and Aviation Related Manufacturinc/Licht Industrial Uses that directlv or indirectlv succort its oceration as an essential cublic facilitv However. certain cublic and cuasi-cublic non-aviation related uses mav be cermitted as scecificallv set forth in this subsection (0) November 3, 2004 Page 10 of 22 (1) Permitted Uses: i. Aviation Support Facilities. Aviation Support Facilities are those uses which Aviation SUDDOrt facilities and activities that directly support flight operations and the operation of the Jefferson County International Airport, and include, but are not limited to: Dilot and passenger service facilities including food service; charter services and aircraft rentals' aircort-related aovernment offices: navigational aids; runway aprons; terminal buildings; hangars; fuel storage facilities; operations/maintenance facilities; aviation museum and/or visitor intercretive center; automobile parking; and. restaurants. ii. Avi::ttion Related Development: I\viation Related Development are thoEe uses which are reliant upon the airport for their businesses, '::hich include but are not necessarily limited to: Aviation related manufacturina and liaht industrial uses and activities that comDlv with FAA auidelines and which contribute to the oDerations of the JCIA as an economicallv self-suDDortina entercrise 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/ eauiDment storaae shoDs: iv. Park and ride lots/transit facilities: v. Roads. Dublic or Drivate: and vi. Public trails and Daths. vii Port-related aovernment offices. (2) Conditional. Discretionarv and SDecial Uses (classified as "C." "C(a)." "C(d)" and "D" as described in the notes Drecedina Table 3-1. infra): i. Larae scale reaional transDortation facilities (State owned) (e.a.. freewavs) (C): ii. Unnamed Essential Public Facilities (C): iii. Emeraencv services (Dolice. fire and EMS) (C): iv. Utilitv develoDments. maior (C): v. Utilitv develoDments. minor (C(a)): vi. Unnamed transDortation uses (0): vii. Unnamed utilitv uses (0): and viii. Commercial communication facilities (note: this is a sDecial use under section 4.13. infra.). (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. SYQb uses include. but are not limited to caretaker residences. November 3, 2004 Page 11 of 22 .' (4) Prohibited Uses: In ordor to determine whether or not 3 proposed sue fits within the .^.irport Essential Public Facility o':erlay, tho use must be spocifiod. Uses not scecified within this section are crohibited. 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. These protective standards prevent the establishment of The followinc develocment standards are established to crevent 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 equi~ment. (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 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 November 3, 2004 Page 12 of 22 , ' Highway Design Manual and Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. (5) NotiGe Pro'Jisions. Land division, site plan applioations, nd building permits within the airport's area of influenoe (defined in the interim as that area within the airport's 55 DNL noiso oontour interval) shall be submitted to the Port of Port Townsend for comment. In addition, these applications shall contain or be aooompaniod by a notioe provided by the administrator, Said notice shall inolude the following disclosure: "The subject property is near an airport ':there a variety of airport dependent uses occur that are not oompatible '::ith development. Potential disoomf-orts or inoonvenienoos may inolude, but are not limited to: noise, aircraft take ofts and landings." Such notice to be affixed to the plat and recorded v:ith the Jefferson County Auditor. (6) Noise Pro\'isions. [Reserved fer Future Use]. 3.6.11 Airport Essential PubliG FaGility DistriGt (A). a. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section is to rogulate land uses within the ",^.irport Essential Public Facility" overlay district in order to enoourage orderly eoonomic development in a manner compatible '/:ith airport operations and adjacent properties and to protect existing general aviation public use airports from oonflicting or incompatible adjacent land uses or activities. b. Designation. The overlay district (see Official Comprehensive Ph:m Map) applies to all Port of Port Townsend owned property within the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA). The JCI.'\ is a general aviation airport that provides recreational, business, flight training, oharter and air taxi services and other uses. G. Allo\-Jable and Prohibited Uses. All new development v:ithin the Jefferson County Intern:Jtional Airport shall be restricted to uses which are olearly identified as aviation support facilities or a'Aation related development. (1) N,iatioR Support FaGilities. Aviation Support Facilities are those uses which directly support flight operations and the operation of the Jefferson County Airport, and inolude, but are not limited to: i. Passenger servioe terminals, inoluding food servioe; ii. Navigational aids; iii. Runway aprons; iv. Terminal buildings; v. Hangars; vi. Fuel storage faoilities; vii. Operations/maintenanoe faoilities; viii. P.utomobile parking. (2) Aviation Related Development: Aviation Rolated Development aro those uses which are reliant upon the airport for their businesses, which inolude but are not neoessarily limited to: i. Airoraft repair facilities; ii. Airoraft remodeling faoilities; November 3, 2004 Page 13 of22 · iii. i" . . i' . . 'II. vii. viii. ix. x. I\ircraft sales and related aircraft equipment, services and supplies; Aircraft manufacturing; I\irborne freight facilities; I\ir pilot training schools; Aviation clubs; Taxi and bus terminal; I\utomobile rental and associated parking; I\ircraft related manufacturing authorized and appro'led by the Federal Aviation Administration. (3) '.GGessery Uses: Other uses accessory to uses allov.'ed in 3.6.11 (c), above, are permitted in the /\irport Essential Public Facility Overlay District subject to approval by the Federal :\'Iiation Administration. (1) Prehibited Uses: In order to determine 'Nhether or not a proposed use fits within the Airport Essential Public Facility o'lerlay, the use must be specified. Additionally, uses or activities that may affect flight operations including, but not limited to the following, aro prohibited: i. Any use that releases airborne substances, such as steam, dust or smoke; ii. Any use that attracts concentrations of birds, waterfowl or othor'l:ildlifo; iii. Uses that are determined to pose a hazard to the safe operation of the Airport as an aviation facility. d. De\.'elepmerd Standards. This section provides standards to minimize the conflicts between the Jefferson County International Airport and proposed future development proximal to the airport proper. These protective standards prevent the establishment of future incompatible uses and airspace obstructions in airport clear zones, approaches and surrounding areas and shall comply with the standards established in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Part 77 (Objects affecting na-ligable airspace). VVhere the standards contained in this section conflict with FAR, Part 77, the more restrictive shall apply. /\11 other development standards and re'lie..... and approval criteria in this Code shall also awtY:- o. Electrical Emissions. Any use or activity that emits olectrical currents shall be installed in a manner that does not interfere with communication systems or navigational equipment. f. Lighting. New development that creates glare of lighting that interferes ':/ith the lights necessary for aircraft navigation, including landing and take off, shall be prohibited. g. Height RestriGtiens. New development or alteration of existing development within the airport's navigable airspace shall be in accordance with "Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77: Objects I\.f.focting Navigable .^.irspace." h. Ground Transportation Fasilities. All uses shall be served by adequate transportation facilities, including appropriate facilities for transit, pedestrians, November 3, 2004 Page 14 of 22 and bicycles. \Nhere transportation facilities are not adequate to serve a proposed use, the applicant shall make pro'.'ision for neoessary improvements. Transportation facilities shall be deemed adequate if neoessary improvemonts 3re planned and funded in the Jef.ferson County Comprehensive Plan Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Transportation facilities shall meet the design standards of the Department of Publio Works and Jefferson Transit. These st3ndards include, but are not limited to, the Amerioan Assooiation of State Highw3Y and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) P.o.'icyon Geometric Design of Highw3YS and Streets, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Genoration Manual, and the VVashington Department of Transportation High'tWly Design Manua! 3nd Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and MuniÐi{:Jal Construction. i. Notise Provisions. Land division, site plan applications, and building permits within the airport's 3rea of influenoe (definod in the interim 3S that area within the airport's 65 DNL noise contour interval) shall be submitted to the Port of Port TO'Nnsend for oomment. In addition, these applic3tions shall contain or be accompanied by a notice provided by the administrator. Said notioe shall includo the following discloE>ure: "The subject property is near an airport 'Nherea variety of airport dependent uses ooour that are not oompatible with development. Potential discomforts or inconveniences may include, but 3re not limited to: noise, aircraft take ofts and landings." Such notice to bo affixed to tho pl3t and reoorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. j. Noise Pro':isions. [Reserved for Future Use] 3.6 Overlay Districts 3.6.1 Purpose 3. Airport Essential Public Facility District (A) 3. Aircort Overlavs Aircort Overlav I AirDort Overlav II 3.6.11 AirDort Overlavs a Aircort Overlav Desianations. The JCIA has been identified as an essential cublic facilitv in the Jefferson County Comcrehensive Plans of 1998 and 2004. The aircort recresents a valuable cublic asset. It crovides both an imcortant transcortation service and a vital asset to facilitate economic arowth in the county. As such. crotection measures are needed to creserve the continued future viabilitv of the aircort. Therefore. two Aircort Overlav\) are hereby created. as follows: i. Aircort Overlav I: For the curcose of this section. the Aircort Overlav I is that aeoarachic area affected bv the aircort and defined on the basis of factors which include aircraft noise. aircraft fliaht catterns and aircort safety areas. It is based on the Noise Contour Interval Mac contained in the FAA accroved JCIA Master Plan. which croiects the 55 DNL contour throuah the year 2022. November 3, 2004 Page 15 of22 '. ' ii. Aircort Overlav II' For the curcose of this section. the Aircort Overlav II is that ceocrachic area that is affected bv the FAA mandated aircort traffic cattern for the JCIA and defined on the basis of aircraft flicht catterns and safetv areas. It includes areas that lie adiacent and to the south of Aircort Overlav I and is based ucon the Aircraft Accident Safetv Zone #6 contained in the "Aircorts and Comcatible Land Use" cublication of the Washincton State Decartment of Transcortation's Aviation Division (2/99), to the extent that Zone #6 correlates with the FAA mandated aircort traffic cattern for the JCIA as set forth in the FAA accroved JCIA Master Plan. b. Aircort Overlav I. (1) The curcose of the Aircort Overlav I is to cromote land uses that are comcatible with the imcacts of aircraft usinc the JCIA and normal aircort ocerations within the aircort environs. Because imcacts of low flvinc aircraft can lead to cressure to curtail activities at aircorts the Overlav is intended to croted the JCIA from such cressure. to accrise cut new crocertv owners and develocers on notice of imcacts from aircraft over- flichts and the crotect the cubHc health. safetv and ceneral welfare. The followinc reculations are intended to crovide a ceneral environmental disclosure to current and croscective crocertv owners of their croximitv to aircort ocerations. includinc flicht take-off and landinc catterns. to cromote comcatible land uses. and to discourace the sitinc of incomcatible uses. Thev are further intended to discourace thesitinc of incomcatible uses adiacent to the aircort. crotect the aircort as an essential cublic facilitv. and Dreserve the abilitv of the aircort to continue its ocerations into the future. (2) Disclosure Provisions. Information recardinc the Aircort Overlav I shall be crovided as follows: i. Jefferson Countv shall. in consultation with the Port of Port Townsend. crecare and maintain an Aircort Overlav I Mac and succortinc informational materials that identifv the carcels located within the Overlav. Such information shall also be made available to the cublic throuch the Countv website and the Countv Mac database file. and shall be included as a laver in the County GIS. The information made cubliclv available shall include a aeneral notation substantiallv statinc as follows: "JCIA is a communitv aircort for civil aviation and has been desicnated an Essential Public Facilitv bv Jefferson Countv in accordance with the crovisions of the Washincton State Growth Manacement Act and the Jefferson Countv Comcrehensive Plan. Procerties in the vicinitv of the aircort mav be subiect to cotential discomforts or inconveniences from noise and vibration associated with aircraft takeoff. land inc. over-fHcht. and normal cround ocerations at the JCIA site. The Countv does not consider these inconveniences and/or discomforts arisinc from such ocerations to be a nuisance as lonc as thev are consistent with Federal Aviation Administration reculations and standards. It is November 3, 2004 Page 16 of 22 .. acknowledaed that areas Ivina outside the fixed boundarv of the Aimort Overlav I mav also be subiect to low level noise and vibration. This information is intended onlv as a disclosure to crocertv owners and cotential crocertv owners of their croximitv to the JCIA. and the cotential for low-level noise associated with aimort activities. II ii. This section (2) acclies to aDDlications for all develocment as listed in UDC section 8.1.4. infra.· It acclies to all land division. site clan. conditional use. and all buildina cermit accHcations. located within the Aimort Overlav I. Such acclications shall contain. or be accomcanied bv the followina disclosure: "The subiect crocertv is near a aeneral aviation aimort where a varietv of aimort decendent uses occur that mav not be comcatible with certain tvces of develocment Potential discomforts or inconveniences mav include. but are not limited to: noise. aircraft take-offs and landinas and over-fliaht." iii. Proiect accrovals. as listed in UDC section 8.1.4. whether cermitted outriaht or conditionallv within the Aimort Overlav I shall contain as a condition of aDDroval the followina disclosure statement: "Jefferson Countv has determined that the Jefferson Countv International Aimort (JCIA) is an essential cublic facilitv. and as such is an imcortant use in the Countv. Both the Comcrehensive Plan and the Growth Manaaement Act reauire that the Countv discouraae the sitina of incomcatible uses in the aimort vicinitv. The Countv will not consider to be a nuisance those inconveniences or discomforts arisina from such ocerations if such ocerations are consistent with accected federal aviation reaulations and standards. the Port's noise abatement crocedures and acclicable local. state and federal laws. Since this real crocertv lies within the Aimort Overlav I (a cocv of which is available at the DCD Decartment and the POPT offices). vou mav be subiect to inconveniences or annovances includina. but not limited to. noise and vibration associated with aircraft takeoff. landina and over-flight. and noise and vibration due to normal around ocerations at the JCIA site." (3) Comment bv Port of Port Townsend The Port of Port Townsend shall receive notice for all Tvce II and Tvce III croiects that are located within the Aimort Overlav I. The Countv shall follow the referral and review reauirements as listed in UDC section 8.2.4. The Countv. in its discretion. mav also submit for comment develocment crocosals located outside the Aimort Overlav I. but in such croximitv to JCIA that the Countv deems accrocriate an occortunitv to comment bv the Port. (4) Nuisance Provisions. The followina shall not be considered a nuisance: uses inherent to a aeneral aviation cubHc use aimort. includina but not limited to on and off-site aircraft noise and aircraft take-offs andlandinas. as well as aimort maintenance. oceration. construction and excansion activities. conducted in accordance with normal aimort ocerations on land November 3, 2004 Page 17 of 22 / desicnated as Aimort Essential Public Facilitv District (AEPFt recardless of cast or future chances in the surroundinc area land use or land use desicnations. (5) Uses Prohibited. The followinc uses shall be crohibited within the Aimort Overlav I: i. Co-housinc/intentional communities (subiect to PRRD Overlav in RR districts): ii. Manufactured/mobile home carks (subiect to PRRD Overlav in RR districts): iii. Multifamilv residential units (3+ units): iv. Residential care facilities w/6 to 20 cersons: v. Nursinc/convalescentlassisted livinc facilities: vi. Bed and breakfast inns (4 to 6 rooms): vii. Dav care. commercial: viii. Education facilities (state owned): ix. Assemblv facilities: x. Collece or technical schools/adult education facilities (not state owned) : xi. Parks and clavfields' xii. Recreational facilities: xiii. Schools. crimarv and secondarv: xiv. Relicious assemblv facilities: xv. Outdoor commercial amusement facilities: and xvi. Recreational. cultural or relicious conference center/retreat facilities. Anv carcel or cortion(s) of carcels located within the Aimort Overlav I shall be subiect to the incomcatible use crohibitions listed above. Anv future chances to the underlvinc zoninc or uses within the Aimort Overlav I shall be reviewed for incomcatibilitv to the JCIA. c. AirDort Overlav II. (1) Pumoses of the Aimort Overlav II. The cumoses of the Aimort Overlav II are to accrise the cublic. croDertv owners and develocers of the existence of the aimort traffic cattern and imcacts from routine aircraft over-flichts. and to identify an aimort safetv zone within which certain uses that involve hicher concentrations of Deocle will be crohibited for safety and comcatibilitv reasons (e.c.. uses involvinc 100 cersons or more in buildincst (2) Aimort Overlav II Mac. Jefferson County shall. in consultation with the Port of Port Townsend. crecare and maintain an Aimort Overlav II Mac and succortinc informational materials that identify the carcels located within the Overlav. Such information shall also be made available to the cublic throuch the County website and the County Mac database file. and be included as a laver in the County GIS. The information made cubliclv available shall include a ceneral notation substantiallv statinc as follows: November 3, 2004 Page 18 of 22 - "The Aircort Overlav II includes areas that lie beneath the FAA mandated traffic cattern for aircraft ascendina or descendina from the JCIA. As such. this area is subiect to routine aircraft over-fliahts. It is acknowledaed that areas Ivina outside the delineated Aircort Overlav II zone mav also be subiect to aircraft over-fliahts." (3) Comment by Port of Port Townsend. The Port of Port Townsend shall receive notice for all Tvce II and Tvce III croiects that are located within the Aircort Overlav II. The Countv shall follow the referral and review reauirements as listed in UDC section 8.2.4. The Countv. in its discretion. mav also submit for comment develocment crocosals located outside the Aircort Overlav II. but in such croximitv to JCIA that the Countv deems accrocriate an occortunitv to comment bv the Port (4) Additional Findina/ADDroval Criterion· Conditional Use Permits Prior to accroval of conditional use cermit for a use located within Aircort Overlav II. the Administrator and/or Hearina Examiner shall make the followina findina: "The crocosed use is comcatible with onaoina fliaht ocerations conducted at the Jefferson Countv International Aircort Essential Public Facilitv." (5) Nuisance Provisions. The followina shall not be considered a nuisance: uses inherent to a aeneral aviation cublic use aircort. includina but not limited to on and off-site aircraft noise and aircraft take-offs andlandinas. as well as aircort maintenance. oceration. construction and excansion activities conducted in accordance with normal aircort ocerations on land desianated as Aircort Essential Public Facilitv District (AEPF) reaardless of cast or future chanaes in the surroundina area land use or land use desianations. (6) Uses Prohibited. Pursuant to The followina uses shall be crohibited within the Aircort Overlav II: i. Manufactured/Mobile Home Parks: ii. Nursina/convalescenUassisted livina facilities: iii. Hoscitals (medical. dental vision and veterinarv clinics which comclv with the densitv standards are cermissible): iv. Education facilities (state owned): v. Colleae or technical schools/adult education facilities (not state owned) : vi. Schools. crimarv and secondarv: vii. Anv crocosed use or develocment which conareaates more than 100 ceocle inside of a buildina or buildinas on a subiect carcel(s) and/or anv use or develocment which conareaates more than 150 ceocle outside of a buildina or buildinas on a subiect carcel(s), Anv Darcel or cortion(s) of carcels located within the Aircort Overlav II shall be subiect to the incomcatible use crohibitions listed above. Anv future chanaes to the underlvina zonina or uses within the Aircort Overlav I shall be reviewed for incomcatibilitv to the JCIA November 3, 2004 Page 19 of 22 3.7.1 JofforsÐn CÐunt}'lntornatiÐnal AirpÐrt Subarea Plan (ReserveEl Soo Comprehensi'/o Plan Polisy iPP 2.2) Table 3-1: Allowable and Prohibited Uses NOTES: 5. Land Use Districts: Agricultural Resource I Rural Industrial AG lands AG-20 Commercial Agriculture RI Resource Industrial AG-5 Local Agriculture LI/C Light Industrial/Commercial (Glen Cove) LI Light Industrial F Forest Resource lands HI Heavy Industrial CF-80 Commercial Forest RF-40 Rural Forest IF InholdinQ Forest P RR Rural Residential Public RR 1:5 Rural Residential - 1 DU/5 PPR Parks, Preserves and Recreation Acres RR 1:10 Rural Residential - 1 DU/10 CWM Countv Waste Manaaement Essential Acres E.E.E Pllhli,. .... . . RR 1 :20 Rural Residential - 1 DU/20 AEE.E Aircort Essential Public Facilitv (Refer to Acres 3.3.6) RC Rural Commercial UGA Future Potential Urban Growth Area (Reserved) RVC Rural VillaQe Center CC Convenience Crossroad NC NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroad GC General Crossroad November 3, 2004 Page 20 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 8.8.5 (8) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield within the Aircort Overlavs as defined in Section 3.6.11 of this UDC. November 3. 2004 Page 21 of 22 ~ -> t'Þ -. ....."" ~ ....."'C t'Þ 0 ~ "" "" fI) fI) ....... ::rQ _.:::1 N :::I n 0 ca 0 ::s o c: t'Þ :::I :::I fIJ ~ "< co " !! §!(I ~ ~ l- f 8 S' J¡: l i I" § :1111101 ! J 1 i ~I ;;1 t§ ~I ! r I Jill Ii II i ! ! r " " II " ..~~~:¡:ë; I~ - ¡tt 1"'- _II -i'Þ II '!(JQ "" ¡¡, t'Þ ~ è - = C- .. I ¡ 11II11 tf~~tl[J J § I I I r r !J 1(ll I ~ - J ¡ J t.~rf ~ !: ~;I' ;'f ~'Ii :; 0 i ~ .... ~ ... 51 VI .. '2 ~ ~ .a;:l. iT ::: ~ ... ~ g l5,r~ 3 ~ i ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~f.: t ~. 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ x: ~ ~ ~,I! g å g. =' ! i ~ ! i;41~ 2.ii :::I n-! ::I ~i~1S ¿' b' t b' g ~ htf1 3... § ~ 3. n.. 3 ~.:¿- -< ~ c:5 > ~ /"\ hIS,] i.a _.~ Q f[f ~ 0 .:¿- > -a ~ 3 IQ11f ~ ~ ~ !.. 1. ~ &,!l' l ~ ¡¡~t".g ..~. ~l . 3 III !:¡¡; ~ ..~ - _...hIp 29 North - + .~ , ~ / / I ~ i ~ I 7òwnohlp 30 North ~{ [f ~¡¡¡" :1!::Vb> ~~~ ~? ~~ "z;+ t J N i - - · , · . · . · . · . · . · . " . T own~hlp 30 North ~Ii -+- 8 L- (b rn ::+: \JI L- (b \JI (b """' (b =+: \JI :1 (b o IT """' :1 i.\i \JI o ()\I:1 o c: c: S[ () '<.~ ë) 2 ,,~ <~'< ~º-» ~..ž '" - ~ :1 N 0 & 0 ;+ IT :1 g (b ~ ~ oc · - ~ fn). r 1..) f f"'\\ ;' f ¡ ...: ~., !:. r¡~\:': ß~ f1 ; ..' ._~ .,..,' ';'..",,"-.' :.; NOV 1 9 2004 .JEFFERS(lN C()UNTY PLANNING C(lMMISSION I;:FF E-r:;")(,,, i í'('U ii, ","i ") "'.... n. ..)1'; '-'VUI"~! ¡ bOARD OF CO,U!\j~l¡c:ç·¡C~",":::n." , Vi...! \"'OÕ\....n ~J\L(\.:; 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-4450 To: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) From: Planning Commission Date: November 15,2004 Re: Recommendation for MLA03-00244: Comprehensive Plan amendments related to the Jefferson County International Airport The Planning Commission enters the following general findings and conclusions supporting the DENIAL of MLA03-00244: I. MLA03-244 was reviewed pursuant to the UDC amendment process contained at UDC Section 9. 2. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 20th & November 3, 2004 respectively. 3. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments at regularly scheduled meetings on October 20th and November 3, 2004. 4. As proclaimed through RCW 36.70A.200, the Comprehensive Plan of each county shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. 5. More specifically, case law surrounding RCW 36.70A.200 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. 6. The Planning Commission deliberated the merits ofMLA03-244 and attempted to identify commonality between the two proposals pertaining to the Jefferson County International Airport, specifically MLA03-232 (Port of Port Townsend) and MLA03-244 (People for a Rural Quimper). 7. The Planning Commission, after review of the two alternative proposals, concludes that either the Planning Commission proposal or the DCD staff proposal (items #2 and #3, respectively, made part of the Agenda Request to the BoCC from DCD dated November 15, 2004) are the preferred options that would lead to the enactment of regulations - . addressing incompatible uses, disclosure, and notification and for the Jefferson County International Airport and its environs. 8. The Planning Commission, after review of the two alternative proposals, concludes that either the Planning Commission proposal or the DCD staff proposal (items #2 and #3, respectively, made part of the Agenda Request to the BoCC from DCD dated November 15, 2004) will be, if adopted by the County Commission, in compliance with the GMA, the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Second Settlement Agreement entered into by the County and the Port of Port Townsend as part ofWWGMHB Case No. 01-2-0016. 9. MLA 03-244, as proposed by the organization known as PRQ, would not place the County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations in compliance with the GMA, the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Second Settlement Agreement entered into by the County and the Port of Port Townsend as part ofWWGMHB Case No. 01-2- 0016. 10. In light of the above, the Planning Commission recomme~ds denial ofMLA 03-244. Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under file number MLA04-00244, the Planning Commission submits these recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 'l Thomas C. McNerney Planning Commission Chair c~~ Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Recommendation: MLA03-244 Jefferson County International Airport Page 2 November 15, 2004 Ce: ~CD ? ) N~5~~($) I~~ oV JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Com rehensive Plan Amendment Docket DATE: Monda, December 6,2004 at 2 .m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? ~ ~ YES NO MAYBE IVCI,t'$.' b 7 £ì ßDE2/I1 J1- v£7lt'1I /è-'6 1: T I ;07 \J ~OO CH1So 0JOO ~IÆJOO fOO 1<10 0 Æt 0 o þ(rO Oo~ ra.OO '" ~s () ~p~rrl;{)Jt..Ç£ rZZ~St 5 '7 ? t.). oo~ o ~O 000 0"0 0 >' ( ) ¡ fDDB- lWDD DDQ ~D /DDr;/ DDD D~D I D D (X1 ~ {(t}e~¿/ t ( D D ~ 'D D~ DD~ ~DD D ØD D~D DDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Com rehensive Plan Amendment Docket DATE: Monda, December 6.2004 at 2 p.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY ò;, It \3 D e (/9 N¿~'VL-~~ QUI C <2- f Wit b~N\$~lþ 'Sh"'-\ t~ ~ ~ Testimony? .'" ~ YES NO MAYBE t2-{ 0ftA- ::2-PM h 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. CPa f17t!Jh(/Vì1e 11+ f!:J Tes;; rnun! Noise Overlay Chronology NOZ - Agreement Between BOee and PORT. IMPACT: 600 Parcels/$37mil./Title Notification Port Proposal Tabled. soee and PORT Settle to adopt NoZ IMPACT: Notification to Title Companies Feb - Overlay #2. IMPACT:420 Parcels $16.5mil. 50 DNL Mar - Overlay #3. IMPACT: 99 Parcels $6.4mil. 55 DNL May 1 - PRO Submitted Amendment July - PORT Removes Title Req. IMPACT: Disclosure Notification on Owners Dec. - Amendment Docketed Placed in 2004 cycle. August - Merits of amendment. HEÞü:~~r'JG RECORD GOAL: Amendment Approval OC: uéI) çc Ç)fi ePce HEARING RECORD City of Port Townsend City Council Waterman-Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-6122 December 3,2004 Board of County Commissioners P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ;...., 1. , , ,', :-~,~ (, 'J 2004 w._.V c.' ù 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: 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. Weare 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. Si2:;~ 0?ti~ ¡>h- Catharine Robinson Mayor A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT " œ: 1)cD þ~ &rc 1:1-\ 1104 City of ~ort To~n"'lIflR'NG RE ~ City CouncIl I:t\ ..., Waterman-Katz Building ~ .. ~ f ¡ ~ 181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368 ~~~ (360) 379-5047 FAX (360) 385-6122 December 3, 2004 t [5) fT: (:-1" r~ í ¡ n (' ',--~: ~ : .. ..... .~~ r . ¡. 'f -... . - ¡ t,! .", ! ~ DEC 0 3 2004 ~ : .. ~r::rFL:r (};., CX):ji~A~S~~:lt::'/,:':-' Board of County Commissioners P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: BOCC Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes JGMSC MembershiD ComDosition - ComDrehensive Plannine: 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 (- , œONTli MA1QGIMBlft. SDBRDtG C<Ha~ MINO'.rBS FOR SZP'1'J:MBlŒ 21, 2004 CALL m ORDD The meeting was called to order by County Commissioner Glen Huntingford· at 10:00 a.m. in the first flôor conference room of the Jefferson County Courthouse. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Jefferson County: Cömmissioners Glen Huntingford, Dan Titternèss, and Pat Rodgers. . City of Port Townsend: Council members Michelle Sandoval, Freida Fenn, and Laurie Medlicott substitutlng·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 P~osecuting Attorney David Alvarez. Jeff Randall, City Buildi~g and Community Development, and Eric Toews, consu1tant. Herb Beck, Port Commissioner, and Larry Crockett, Port Executive Director. ,. Guests:· Tom McNerney, County· Planning Commission; J?hil Johnson; and Nancy ~~. - CODNTY-wmz PLANNING POLICIES (CNPPs) The ~genda topic related to pote~tial updates of the CWPP for 2005. Al Scalf began the discussion by providing an qverview of the policies and raised . areas staff thought may need to þe updated~ The CWPP were statutorily mandated by the state under 36.10A.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 availåble 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 ~vailable 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 Camp 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 theTri Area. Mr. Scalf stated that one question he had was 1 ~~ whether we needed community plans, stating that they added complications to our codes. '" AI 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 [36.70A.350] which" addressed fully contained c~mmunities. He stated that the Essential Public Facilities section needed to be updated. Transportation required ongoing updating. Affordable hou3ing continued to be a major concern in our county. ~here was now a Task Force addressing the issue and there wa~ recent data that could be integrated into the CWPP "on the topic. Economic development, although not a mandatory element of the GHA, 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 af 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. AI Scalf described possible scenarios for updating the CWPP, including the possibility of forming"ã-sUbcommíttee 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. AI 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. ~ Scalf responded that he saw it coming individually from the City, County, or Port with suggestions for proposals, l~ne-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, theGMSC could work out the differences. Mr. Scalf suggested that the GMSC set a meeting for January and provide direction to staff about how the Co~ttee 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 suggestèd 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 stàted 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. POTD'.rXAL GMSC iŒPRB~:ION for t:h4iI :œcRDALB & HADLOClt tJGA and/or ~ LUDLOIf' 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 wou~d take.anamendment to theCWPP 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 fróm those communities. His question was how to go about doing that.~ He asked for the .other Committee membe~s' thoughts. Michelle Sandoval agreed that there should be representation. She had a ·concern about how to pick someone from Port Ludlow to ~epresent 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 evèn 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 FÊmn 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 di4 have an elected body. The fact that they had a divergence of opinion among their communities could be equated to Bort Townsend or other ~ommunities as well. He thought that a lot of the controversy in Pòrt Ludlow seemed to be the Village Council versus ÞLA. He noted that the. Village Council was elected by geographical area. His suggestion to the GMSCwas 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 Iròndale/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 "I j 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 ~nd 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 UGÄ. Dan Titterness replied that the BOCC had considered the con~ept. 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 probably others. on that county's researched. that Skagit Cóunty had an unincorporated UGA and there were Glen Huntingford wondered whether there was representation Steering Committee. He thought the topic should be Michelle Sando~al stated that, if there was no precedent we could learn f~om, 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 representative$ themselves. She thought that whate~er direction the, County took, it should eve~tually'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 tQ 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 di$cussed 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 L~dlow 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, althpugh Port Ludlow would not become a real municipality unless it chose to do so. Dan,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 inv.itation 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 ho~ 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 ~ biqdifference 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 see 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 same ways she would haye a concern that people who would sit on the ßMSC would ~ave a broader interest than merely being on a homeowners association. Glen Huntingford suggested that the Committee talk about the issue again ~n 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 GHSC. One option would be for them to be non-voting members. Another option would be to assure that the CoUnty Planning Commission had members .fram those communities and then the Planning Commissioner could b~ the GHSC repre'sentati ve . ,It was agreed that th~ issue would be discussed again in Janu~ry. UPDAD on CouNTY and C:Ift' PROGRESS on 2004 UPDADS to CQŒ1ŒIŒNS:IVB PLANS and , . DBVBLOPMBRr 1Œ~:IœS . " i Eric T,oews provided an overview of the City's process for updating i.ts Comp Plan and development regulations. He reported that the City conducted jts review and assessment as part of establishing the docket for fQrmal review. That assessment and docketing process was done in April, 2004. A ~ota¡ of . ten legislative items we~e docketed and one site-specific. rezone. There were four Comp Plan amendments docketed which were mostly technical in nature. One significant item w~s updating the Plan languaqe 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 ordinanc~, 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 appli~able 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 Elanning 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 t~e 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 w~s a bit behind the statutory deadline of December 1, 2004. He thought that staff and the policy advisors and~ecision makers felt it was an app~opriate timeframe necessary to factor in public concerns and do a good job, particularly on best· available science. Glen Huntingford asked if the Gity received grant funding from the state for the update. Michelle Sandoval replied that théy 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 providéd an overview of the County's process for updating its Comp Plan and Unified Development Code [uot]. He handed out a legal notice which would appear in the September 22 newspaper announcing the he~rings, etc. for the County's ~endments. He stated that the County would also not meet the December 1 statutory deadline, but only by about two weeks under ~he 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 contai~ed 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 UDe 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 contained thA Pl~nn;ng Commission proposals based on their 5-year assessment of the Comp Plan. A Planning Commission committee conducted the review and made a recQmmendation 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, ~he 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 pårcels 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 Quìmper) to try . to resolve some of the issues. Josh Peters replied that-the_ answer was ~Yes" and UNo". 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 groupsiri 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 UÐC. 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 r~cognize 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 th$ 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 consistent with the goals and substance of the planning r~quirements of the statute. He "stated that the discussion was really for another day. What was in the proposal was really j~st 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 ~irport. He did not know ~out 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 thè 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 wheth~r they would agree to the proposed language. Bob Sokol statèd that this issue came as the result of an appeal by the Port to the Hearings Board. The Port and County asked the Hèarings'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 s~affs working together. He stated ~hat Port staff had kept the Port Commissioners informed all through the process, so the Pprt 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 grow~h 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. $ 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. AI 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 setba~ks 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. Howéver, even after two years, people still said. that it was an appropriate use of the adjoining property to have same type of light " industrial development, or such use, to utilize that property. He knew that Uflew in the fa~e" of what we try to do with the UGAŠ, 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. Dtsœss:tON of :INDt1Sm:tAL LAND BANKS aDd"MA.:J01l nmos~ DBVBLOØŒN'l Jòsh Peters stated t"hat 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],.essentiallyzoning 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 uprovide" . infrastructure. Then it was amended to suggest that the county must plan for infrastructure." It would be l~ke planning for a UGA. ~e would have to do the pla.-ming: 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 typè of a UGA. -/ Michelle Sandoval ~tated that she thought the CWPP called for such planning to be done jointly through the GMSC as a cooperativee~fort, sit~ng a specific rèference to Essential Public Facilities [EPFs). She stated that both the City and County had donè such planning independently in the. past. Glen Huntingford wondered whether "it meant a cooperative effort or whether it meant an effort öf 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 èlements 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 jurisdictiori. In 1997, the City adopted its zoning code to implement its plan, which ~ncluded the siting of 9 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 14. Mr. Toews stated that the City's assessment of its plan in early 2004 concluded that, while their code did not preclude EPFs, put allowed them, it did not contain any specific regulatory provisions to implement the policy la~guage. Therefore, the City proposed a new draft chapter to implement the si~ing of EPFs during this cycle. He stated that, ín summary, both jurisdi¢tions had somewhat analogous processes that built on the framework of the criteria contained in the CWPP. However, the two jurisdictions never collabora~ed 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 14. Bob Sokol· asked if there had been any !EPFs sited in the City or County since the adoption o~ the respective Comp Plans. There were none. Dan Titterness stated that the Transit Board was actUally talking about siting an EPF for their facilities. ~e suggested thati~ may be appropriate to revisit the CWPP to further develop the siting cri~eria" Mr. Sokol pointed out that the issue was siting of an EPF and not use~ 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 rlàns and development codes. It did not seem that there was any argument that we were not following our criteria ~~~~. I Freida Fenn stated that about a year a~o 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 wås an actual siting proposal before the jurisdictions. She . suggested that the issue be put on a future agenda item~ Glen Huntingf~rd 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 c9n~idering doing so that they were not being done i~ an isolated form. - Mr. Hùntingford asked whether she. thought it was more of a courtesy that we talk abQut these things ahead of time. Ms. Fenn responded that it could result inla somewhat different proposal. Bob . Sokol stated that there was aiways the Ipublic process in which any entity or individual could comment on what was gding through the public process, which was probably more direct than sitting ~n 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. liD 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 wþere 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 businésses 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 l~vel of service. He stated,that a septic system could be appropriate for an ILB because it l~ted the ability of the ILB 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 iil the proximity of, e'xisting' UGAs. If there were sites near the Tri Area or Port Townsè~d, they should be looked 'at first before going out into .other areas of the county. Mr. Crockett stated that the Olympi~ otficehad told them that other factors included cost. A smal} 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 Hunt!ngford suggested that the Committee begin considering th~ 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 mèmbers agreed. Mr. Huntingford asked County staff to look into the topic further and schedule it back to the GMSC for discussion. POBL:IC ~ 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 Hunti~gfQrd replied "that we knew it would cost more than the $80,000 grant money the County had received. H~ stated that it was something the County had to do, however. Larry Crockett stated that, concerning the land bank 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. Hè 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 ot placeholder amendments at the beginning of the Comp Plan amendment cycle. She stated that she attended the last County Planning Commission meeting. She stated that they added on expansion of a LAHIRD, 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 11 Sheila Spears From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: geoffmascidc [geoffrnascidc@pus.net] Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:14 AM Sheila Spears The Leader ~ Re: 1212 Council agenda -BOCC comp plan proposed changes re JGMSC com.........-. 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 ýes. 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. CallI 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. ~his is - about Faith and trust, not raw preservation of perceived City power over development. . Dppose this at you peril, Council.....,! 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.mascì dc----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheila Spears" <sspears@ci.port-townsend.wa.us> To: "Catharine Robinson" <crobinson@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Councilor Frank Benskin" <fbenskin@ptcitycoun~il.org>; "Councilor Laurie Medlicott" <~edlicott@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Freida Fenn" <ffenn@ptcitycouncil.org>; "Geoff Masci" <gmasci@ptcitycouncil.org>i "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. 1 > > > > > > > > > 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. 21, 2004, the matter of potential representation for Irondale/Hadlock (and ~~ . . 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. 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. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Mèss~ge----- From: John Watts Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:30 PH To: David Alvarez (E-mail) Cc: David Timmons; Jeff Randall; Al Scalf (E-mail) Subject: BOCC comp plan proposed changes - JGHSC composition According to JGMSC minutes of Sept Also, the County comp plan John Watts City Attorney - City of Port Townsend Waterman & Katz Bldg., 181 Quincy St., 1201 Port Townsend,WA 98368 Telephone: 360/379-5048 Fax: 360/385-4290 MAß., DISTRIBUTION: (Dat~ " Name) DATE RECEIVED: R ./·ð<l ;..:,~ v" City Council: Þ'0JV Staff (Identify who) Committee Packet Info Pack No Response Required: ~ Other: 2 ;.¡O,S ~ ;. 'CC'· j)c\) ~ ~c HEARING RECORD In 1996 as a Housing Authority Commissioner I was part of the original Gi:tÀ 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 CCmore streamlined and reader-friendly" but certain infonnation 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 fonnulas are provided An example of this is table 5.2 where the explanation says that nearly seventy percent (69.5%) of Jefferson County were comprised of one or two persons. In reality the actual number is 72.8% which is dearly 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 8 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. l.J'.- tv? . ~ç~ I also dearly sense a philosophical change from b~roactive in anticipating needs and looking for resources to reactive i9 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 dear that there will be no assistance from the feds. This document could create a dear path from our elected leaders for those in the business of housing to help those in need. ~is an opportunity, don't just through it away. ~.. () Mk<}~~ ~ P t9~,. Thank you. Julia B. Cochrane PO Box 1654 Port Townsend 379-3978 i W~l'\)l'\)ï UI UlOCD "#."#."#."#.= (n ~S'S'S's: 3~1'\)1'\)~ o CO.... ;"#."#."#.~ "#. - .... CO UI....I'\)I'\).... I'\) ~æ.þ.UlO 0 (X)....W I'\) ....-a.W -a. !»!»~~p> 8 g(X) 8-a. 0) o 00 "#. #."#."#.#."#. I'\) W (X)I'\)I'\)I'\)~ I'\) ........Ulf co WUIUI I'\) ~ w-a.........1'\) ........01'\).... 8 gèD8œ~ o 00 "#. "#."#."#."#."#. I I I P !» I p~ -a. COWI'\)UIUI .þ. I'\) j..) W-a.I'\).þ.(o UI ~~~~~ 0 ~ -a. 0) (X).þ. O)-a. CO 8 ~NN:""o, 0000 #. #."#."#.#.#. UI -a. I'\) b WUI....:.a.Ñ W ....(X)....w.... W .þ.....(X)........ -a.....1'\) .... ;"'I~~~ 8 ~~~gt #. "#.#.#."#.#. I I -a. I'\) p O....(X)OUl .... ëoOt~ëoo, .... \0 \0 o ~ ~ ; N § .... \0 \0 o f ; § ....0 0...... n ::r ~ · That Buffer Alternative 3 be adopted to determine wetland buffer widths based on the wetland category, adjacent land use, and the specific wetland functions that require protection. · That administrative exemptions for smaller wetlands be as minimal as possible and that the exemption threshold be based on data showing the cumulative effect on wetland functions in the County. · That Shorelines Policy ENP 5.2 be restored to the Comprehensive Plan and that cumulative effects of shoreline development be required for STEWARDSHIP COORDINATOR Orion Shannon consideration to prevent further degradation of marine and freshwater steward@saveland.org shorelines in the County. Jefferson Land Trust is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization. Our federal tax 1D number is 91-1465078. Your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. PO Box 1610 1033 Lawrence Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Phone (360) 379-9501 FAX (360) 379-9897 E-mail: j1t@saveland.org Web: www. saveland.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mark Dembro, President Kate Burke Ellen Crockett Don Dybeck Heidi Eisenhour Owen Fairbank Steven Habersetzer Pat Hood Kees Kolff ExECUTIVE DIRECTOR Stephanie J. Reith ed@saveland.org PROJECTS MANAGER Sarah Spaeth programs@saveland.org OPERATIONS MANAGERS Nancy Newman admin@saveland.org Kristin Axtman j1t@saveland.org JEFFEKSON LAND TKUST Helping the communít.:¡ preserve open space, working lands and habitat torever CELE5KATING OUK 15th YEAK!! December 3,2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box l220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 HEARING RECORD Subject: Formal Comment on Proposed Comprehensive Plan and UDC Amendments Dear Commissioners Huntingford, Rodgers, and Titterness: Jefferson Land Trust wishes to formally acknowledge our strong support of and 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: · Letter from Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife to Jefferson County Department of Community Development dated October 13, 2004. · Letter from Washington Environmental Council to Jefferson County Department of Community Development dated October 13,2004. · Letter from Washington Department of Ecology to Jefferson County Department of Community Development dated November 1, 2004. Echoing the sentiments expressed by these three organizations, we commend the County for its excellent study on "Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat 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 this document. We also wish to express our strong agreement with the following specific recommendations made by WDFW, WEC, and WDOE: Page 2 Board of County Commissioners December 3, 2004 . 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 ofthe 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 ( /9--~---:/~~,:-_.- .~~~~ Stephanie ~ Reith Executive Director cc: Jefferson County Josh Peters Al Scalf Jefferson Land Trust Mark Dembro Sarah Spaeth C('; 1)C.~ I þx. I~ì o~ e¢:G od Afternoon everyone: UI: ^ DIt\I~ DI:f'f\Dr\ I m Dana Roberts, 438 22nd St. in I'\ÇIWJ¡~b1N701&~~offjce, 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. 'Ke \ ML..^ 04 -28 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 sewaae. ~ Sn.ut.:. T'~ ~tc.AUSE. 1"( c.,,~ Thf<oE... IT "W.t\'LE.. (V P~l~ ~ "'tõ -........ êCVV 1 ~rM.M.-E:N.Þ D~U>tNG 1't'le ~c"SS ~aW . 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 ULlD (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... whe.n ~hoe. -ne..e.cl j~,- e.'idud-, 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 "[af...sanitary]sewer 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 V 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. CC: !'b ?:¡-/ìlo<J PiKLJ/' 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 HEARING RECORD As a citizen of Jefferson County, I want to take exception to language in the MLA 03-232 that ¡n- ludes the phrase" THE COUNTY DOES NOT CONSIDER THESE INCONVENIENCES AND/OR DISCOMFORTS FROM SUCH OPERATIONS TO BE A NUISANCEu. 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. 6-M~ Boê,.,(/ ~~-4 to'M~£.;~ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 · Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 . (360) 407-6300 December 3, 2004 h'£4RúVG Mr. Josh Peters, Senior Planner RECORD Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 DEe 6 JEFFERSON COUNTY DCO 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 infonnation 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 ordinànce 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. ~. o Mr. Josh Peters December 3, 2004 Page 2 ~D Ecology's recommended buffers described in Appendix 8-C of Volume 2 of FreshwateJfWj¡~fiDþJ COUNTY Washington State represent a moderate risk approach to establishing buffer widths for wetland protection. These recommended buffers are based on the prenlrise that the existing buffer is well-vegetated with plant species that can perform the needed buffer functiohs. 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 provisidns 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 I) 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 Qrdinance 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 I 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 ¢ounty 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 strategie~, approved mitigation banking or a fee-in-lieu program. ! If the County decides that some form of adminis~tive 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 curnuláfive 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 opportwrity 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, ~~~ Gretchen Lux Wetland Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program GL:dn cc: Doug Peters, CfED Steve Kalinowski, WDFW Donna Bunten, Ecology ~ . .. cc : DCD Pe- PA- we December 6, 2004 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners :(1f'- t¡"1,?úVG D '((CORD Re: 2004 GMA Update/Amendment Cycle MaPS 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 "L8:ftà Use Map" substituting "land use and zoning maps", indicating a new distinction in County mapping procedures that is not mirror 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 LAMIRD designations being Oft the LIIfKi U sø MIIf'. 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 befóre, will be shown, including all the new zones created for the UGA in the CP and UDC. I question whether a mapped 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-l 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-unanhounced changes during the scheduled rewrite of the UDC next year. Ae:riculture 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 ftom DCD dated 12-3-04. I was infonned 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 rIle 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 WRIA l7 and has accepted considerable State funding for various aspects of watershed planning. It is time for intelZrated 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 ftom preparatory CP and UDC amendments for regulation of agriculture. The SEP A 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 infonnation 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 /2-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 2 of l4 DOE representatives clearly state that water &om 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: "Accordinclv. the Countv' and Port will work toaether to DreDare amendments to this ComDrehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Unified DeveloDment Code (UDC) addressinc Port owned Drooertv in the vicinitv' of JCIA. based on the AirDort Master Plan. U Staffhas said that the Port's recently adopted FAA-required "Airport Master Plan" (AMP) is!lQ! being adopted as a CP sub-area plan, but at EPP 2.4.A we read what appears to be the functional opposite in tenns 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 2.4.A. The AirDort Master Plan and subseauent Plan and Code amendments will Drovide for the safe ooerations of the JCIA and cuide future develoDment in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reaulations and the Airoort's desicnation as an Essential Public Facilitv under the ~ 12·6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 3 of l4 EPP 2.6 Proœrtv DroDOsed bv the Port. and identified in the FAA-aDDroved Master Plan or future ComDrehensive Plan amendment for inclusion in the AEPF District. shall become Dart of the AEPF District. orovided 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. ComD Plan Uodate BOCC Version: At the BOCC's November l5, 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 mitiaate imoacts based on the conditions. There was no BOCCIDCD discussion of what this proposed change meant or why it was being proposed. It is not known whether the insertion refers to SEP A conditions, as in those imposed on the Fred Hill Materials overlay, a permit 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 recoonized that the Puaet Sound Action Team (PSATI low-impact development standards meet the reauirements of the Stormwater Manaaement 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 bas been pre$ented for public comment is with discussion or background information is unfortunate. I received an email on Dec. 5th 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. Ifs unclear what "standards" they are referring too here. As staff to the PSA T 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", ifs a guidance docI,Jment, though the county has adopted it, which was greatl LID provisions are contained within the 2001 Manual. It's 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 (httD:/I'NW'N.ecv. wa.aov/oroarams/walstormwaterJWW%20stormwater%20manuallmanual uDdate chanaes.htm). Included within the updates are some additional provisions for LID. My guess is that the "standards" that the SOCC 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: httD:/I'NW'N.osalwa.aov/Publicationslmanolan00I20 stormwater.Ddf 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 welcome more specific reference to these items within this section of the Compo 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 o£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. Imolementation and Monitorine: - 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 l-13 lists only 9 of the lO 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 SEP A approval for the preliminary was conditioned with a requirement that if anything changed from the original application, it would have to undergo additional SEP A review. In 2002, the County never conducted that further SEP A analysis for the new lots that had never even been drawn on the site plan that was reviewed under SEP A 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 LUP A 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 LAMIRD 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 fmal 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 Constroction 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 l4 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 SEP A, and the "Declaration" had never been given public notice or any other kind of public participation. In fact, the fmal 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 DOC requirement, for the new lots in the BSP, and yet the original "no-lots" 1986 map had been redrawn, eliminating :&om 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 :&om 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 LAMIRD 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 fmal approval as the ''vesting'' date for DOC development standards is another indicator that the original BSP was not vested to zoning Q! 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 of14 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 fmal approval "discussion" that they had just been "waitingfor 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 venion: 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 NeighborhoodNisitor 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 StafJVersion After lengthy litigation, it is good to see so many voluntary proposed deletions regarding "interim" LAMIRDs, as well as the deletion oflanguage 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 LNPl4.5 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 l4 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 343, "Residential Lot Demand Compared to Existing Vacant Residential Lot Snpply 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 'N-.in the ElesigFlated iFlEh:lstFial aFea, the CeyAty 'JAil 9110\\' the de'.'8lepment of only these Llses that are direoüy related to the mill. 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 of14 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 ofCP-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. 3-8l 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 $!>prove 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 (dXiii) businesses should be designated LAMIRDs, not merely permitted uses that soon will not even be required to renew their pennits routinely. 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 10 of14 Hounl! 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. Onen Snace. 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 Develooment: CP - 7 Planning Commission Version - It's a mess, and I disagree with all of it. Staff V ersion EDP 4.4 "Succort the efforts of the Port of Port Townsend to identifv the Jefferson County International Airoort (JCIA) as a setf-sucoortino essential cublic facility. This may include. but is not limited,to. the sitino of accrocriatelY scaled aviation and non-aviation related industriallmanufacturino activities in the Airoort 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-l6 EDP 6.1 Use land use desionations such as Industrial Land Banks (lLBs), Maior Industrial Develocments (MID). Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), limited Areas of More Intense Rural Develocment (LAMIRD)' Rural Villaoe Centers. Rural /2-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 11 of14 Crossroads. and the allowed uses soecific to each desianation to SUDoort reaionsl alliances and economic clusters to attract investment and sustain economic activity. In ooAjYAstieA '.wt:1 the City Ðf Pert T9':mseA~, c;le~w-ele3 a pr.eG8ss for s\:IthoriziAg the siting of n&':: majer inElYstrial Ele'Jelopments outsise Ðf sesigAateEl UFban GFe'Mth I'-"FeSS that is 6eAsi&tent ","lith the 3FÐ'w~isians Ðf RCt^J 36.70.4..365 anEl pursuant to the County wiEle Planning Policy. 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. ¡DP 5.7 Enoeur:age leGal reoY6liAg industries. 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 DroDerties. waterfront and all other DubUc assets entrusted and manaaed bv the Port and established bv leaislative mandate to enhance economic vitalitv and oualitv 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. liDP 8.1 Build an the Cal::lRty's oom3sFativ8 advantages and natl::lral attr:aGtiens for visiter services sy enGeyr:aging leEfging, retail sAd trans3eFtatien serviG8s te Ðe leGated in tt:1es8 Ruml CeRteF8 tt:1st ha\'8 tt:1e AeG86S9f)' iAfm6tR:J6I:yre. 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 EktÄøg the prøeess øf åe>;eløpiøg øfàiø8:Bees te impleæeftt the CelBpFekeøsive PI8:B can be used to detennine 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 tJ::\e potential adverse impacts of development with respect to viewsheds and noise. I interpret this to mean that noise and view impainnent from development wouldn't necessarily be considered adverse impacts. Table s..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, ~o~ Nancy Dorgan Port Townsend 12-6-04 BOCC Hearing Comments by Nancy Dorgan Page 14 of 14 CC: k'D 1I11~/"'l ~ Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: Glen Huntingford Thursday, November 18,20041:42 PM Leslie Locke FW: Airport Overlay HEARING RECORD >---------- >From: L Swisher[SMTP:SUPERGAMA29@HOTMAIL.COMj >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: ~f \I /Jglo"! Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 1 :21 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay HEARING RECORD ---------- 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 · fÇ i\ it=; Ie' HEARING RECORD CAPT. A. C. ANDERSON USNR-ÆT P.O. BOX 1837 PORT TOWNSEND. WA 98368 '. HEARING RECORD ''I'~ \ .j c'C : fc~D]fll(}1Þ1 Page 1 of I Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Sunday, November 28, 20044:49 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay HEARING RECORD --------- From: Jim McKenna[SMTP:MOLL YMCKENNA@MSN.COM] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 20044:48:06 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 cc: J?¿jl~~D4 Page I of 1 .- Leslie Locke From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:55 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay HEARING RECORD --------- From: Dean Robnett[SMTP:BOLLWEEVIL@OLYMPUS.NET] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 20047:46:05 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 I 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:BOLLWEEVIL@OLYMPUS.NET] Sent: Wednesday, December 01,20047:55:19 AM To: Pat Rodgers Subject: Airport Overlay Auto forwarded by a Rule Pat, Thank you for your service and commiUment 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 I Leslie Locke From: Dan Titterness Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 20047:55 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Airport Overlay ------- From: Dean Robnett[SMTP:BOLLWEEVIL@OLYMPUS.NET] Sent: Wednesday, December 01,20047:51:05 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 ec '.1)C1)~ldl~lOY ~c : . . HEARING RECORD Lynn Sorenson POB 65376 port Ludlow, WA 98365-0376 December 1, 2004 Jefferson County Commissioners POS 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dr~c n 5; 200'[) ~.'.,': .') T REF: JCIA Airport Overlay Gentlemen: 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. Sin re~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CC. ~Jd.J¡,IÔ4 Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Josh Peters Monday, December 06,20048:22 AM Lorna Delaney Cheryl Halvorson FW: Board Additions to MLA 04~28 Part B HEARING RECORD Importance: High public comment -----Original Message----- From: Cambalik, John [mailto:JCambalik@PSAT.WA.GOV] 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 Compo 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/WW%20stormwater%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/manplanOO/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 Compo 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 1 cc: 'Lt'D;J . ~ I d..vlo~ LeSlie~c- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Josh Peters Monday, December 06, 2004 12:25 PM Leslie Locke Cheryl Halvorson FW: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B HEARING RECORD 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. 1 ec: 'l)~~D1~1(O~ LC Les Ie L e From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Josh Peters Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:08 AM Leslie Locke Cheryl Halvorson FW: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 Part B HEARING RECORD 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. 1 cc: ~C1)l 1c J/lo/OL/ Leslie 0 e From: Sent: To: Subject: Glen Huntingford Monday, December 06,200412:12 PM Leslie Locke FW: Hearing Today HEARING RECORD >---------- >From: Marilyn Muller[SMTP:MMULLER@CABLESPEED.COM] >Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:13:19 PM >To: Glen Huntingfordi Dan Titternessi Lorna Delaney >Cc: Josh Petersi 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 Countyls defense of actions not in compliance with the GMA. Sincerely, Marilyn Muller PO Box 1754/624 PSt. 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 Auditor1s office, should have been removed 10 days after the election. 1 cc: lXD (t PA ~(L Lesli Page 1 of I From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11: 14 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Comp Plan Public Comment HEARING RECORD Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98386 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Bill Biery [mailto:bbiery@cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, December 06,200410:45 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 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 œ '. 1?2? r~ IJ-/& /0'-1 f(JXG {I Leslie ocke Page I of I From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11: 15 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Comprehensive Plan amendment file number MLA04-28 HEARING 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 06,200410:57 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 actionl Respectfully submitted, Robert & Sheila Bosanko 147 Longmire Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365-8246 Phone: 360-437-8175 12/6/2004 ~- 1):D] þ~ IdllP lo,-! 6CXC Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11 :15 AM HEARl ~:~ject: :i~~:C:: Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 NG RECORD 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: Com Plan amendment file #MLA04-28 Dear Mr. Peters and Members of Board of County Commissioners; I request that the Board honor the will ofthe 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, W A 12/6/2004 · cl'}îJ ~d-MOi Bæc-j I, Leslie Locke Page 1 of I From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06, 200411:15AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: ComPlan amendment file #MLA04-28 HEARING RECORD 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 06,200411:10 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, W A 12/6/2004 Œ~ ')CD] þ~ 1:l/~/OLI t£XL Leslie Locke Page 1 of I HEARING RECORD From: Rebekah McGuire [rmcguire@cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11 :40 AM To: 'Elisabeth Haight' Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: RE: Mtg. of Commissioners, re: Com Plan 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 06,200411:10 AM To: rmcguire@cablespeed.com Cc: Idelaney@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 tlÌat 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 cc: !D111 ~(L 12 V O~ Les Ie L ke From: Sent: To: Subject: Lorna Delaney Monday, December 06, 2004 10:28 AM Leslie Locke FW: Comprehensive amendment MLA04-28 HEARING RECORD 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 1 Protest ec: ND 7,;¡JLolo~ fJXcj I Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, December 06,200410:45 AM To: Leslie Locke Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: Protest HEARING RECORD public comment From: Ramona Lee [mailto:rlee@victoriancrochet.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:46 AM To: Josh Peters Subject: Protest 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 cc.; 1X;D] . ltc 1:J-/&!D4 PC Leslie Locke Page I of I From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, December 06,200410:54 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: commissioner's meeting HEARING RECORD 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 06,200410:35 AM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: commissioner's meeting 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-M(}j ic. ec: Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: ~ Glen Huntingford HEARING RECORD ~~~i~a[~~k~cember 06, 2004 7:24 AM . FW: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update Comments September 14 October 13 December 6 :omments to PC.do.:omments to PC.doanments to BOCC.dc >---------- >From: Todd McGuire[SMTP:TMCGUIRE@CABLESPEED.COMj >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 l4, 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 èapacity 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 (GMl's) that would address these criteria. The line-in I 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 GMl'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 GMl'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 W A 98368 RE: 2004 Comprehensive Plan update Josh, I am writing as a follow up to my comments to Tom McNerney forwarded September l4 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 ofUDC 9.5.4. I have reviewed the Criteria Memo of September l5 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 ofthe 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 20 l6 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 lower yearly 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 1l tit 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 00l-282-00710cated 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 ofthese 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 ofTitterness 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 ... j . ~ 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 oftime 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 ofthe 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 - CC\ JX-V~l}{plo~ Jfj' Leslie Locktf*' From: Sent: To: Subject: Dan Titterness Sunday, December 05, 2004 9:46 PM Leslie Locke FW: Airport overlay HEARING 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 mayor 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 ., cc: p~'Y:1"!tYJ ß/XL.· Leslie Locke Page 10f2 From: Kevin Russell Sent: Monday, December 06,20047:59 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: letter to Board of County Commissioners HEARING RECORD From: wes ludemann [mailto:wesludemann@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05,20041:00 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 of2 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: I. 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 W A 98368 --- Wes Ludemann --- wesludemann@earthlink.net 12/6/2004 C{',m7 ~J I . þC J Idfto/D~ Leslie Lo~ke From: Sent: To: Subject: Glen Huntingford Friday, December 03, 2004 12:00 PM Leslie Locke FW: last thought HEARING RECORD >---------- >From: Gabe Ornelas[SMTP:NULIFE@OLYMPUS.NETj >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: ~ ~ d-11?(D'1 Leslie ~0 ' From: Sent: To: Subject: Glen Huntingford Tuesday, December 07,2004 1 :11 PM Leslie Locke FW: HEARING RECORD >---------- >From: Gabe Ornelas[SMTP:NULIFE@OLYMPUS.NETJ >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 : 'fY'J./t./Oj Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: Dan Titterness Friday, December 03, 2004 1 :06 PM Leslie Locke FW: Amendment MLA 03-232 HEARING RECORD >---------- >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 Œroutine1 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 0(' ~ :;S '~/pIO'j Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 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 HEARING RECORD 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 Cc: ~c}J/&{C11 Page I of I Leslie Locke From: len zweig [Ieonardz@olympus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:32 PM To: Josh Peters Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: MLA04-28 Comp Plan amandment file HEARING RECORD 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 360385-1993 1059 Quincy Street, PT 12/6/2004 ~: ftJ1;;l119!01 Leslie Locke Page I of 1 From: dwhipple [dwhipple@olympus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 05,20047:13 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: CP amendments HEARING RECORD 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 SOCC 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 ~ 1)c:. 1)~' I I ßL IJ ~ ~ p . tJXL Leslie Locke Page 1 of I From: Rick [drd@cablespeed.com] Sent: Monday, December 06,20048:36 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: file#MLA04-28 HEARING RECORD 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 eC. ~0~o&/O'j Page 1 of I Leslie Locke From: Josh Peters Sent: Monday, December 06,20048:24 AM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: Cheryl Halvorson Subject: FW: comprehensive plan HEARING RECORD public comment From: George Bush [mailto:gbush@olypen.com] Sent: Sunday, December 05,20048:44 PM To: Josh Peters Subject: comprehensive plan 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 360379 1201 abush@olypen.com 12/6/2004 Comprehensive Plan changes MLA- 04-27 and MLA-04-028 Page 1 of 1 ~~l\l~~I~/OY HEARING RECORD From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Monday, December 06,200412:47 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 06,200412:57:08 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 QC ~ kDy þ~ í ~JG/Dlt ßDCL Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Pat Todd & Ken Hanson [patnken@olypen.com] Sent: Monday, December 06,200412:28 PM To: jpeters@co. jefferson.wa.us Cc: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comprehensive Plan review & Public Hearing HEARING RECORD 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 SOCC 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) 12/6/2004 t~\ 1ZDf p~ \?-lwlvll ßSC-L Leslie Locke Page 1 of I From: Bo Bricklemyer [bobrick@igc.org] 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 HEARING RECORD 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 - nearìng comme~ CC~ j D . I" - 1~1'iš d1 Leslie LI.f Page 1 of2 From: Glen Huntingford Sent: Tuesday, December 07,20049:30 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Hearing Comment HEARING RECORD --------- From: Karen Hackenberg and Michael Felber[SMTP:WETDOG@CABLESPEED.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 07,20049:27:15 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. 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 - - - 'Hearing Comment Page 2 of2 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 ofthis 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 <t : 'J::r:'1)1 I ~ ~- - fie ¡d-I~ 01 Leslie cke From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Josh Peters Tuesday, December 07, 20044:46 PM Leslie Locke Cheryl Halvorson FW: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 P.art B HEARING RECORD 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 Compo 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/WW%20stormwater%20manual/manu al update changes.htm». Irrcluded 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/manplanOO/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 re¡ease 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 1 cr', W 1J-/g!o'J ~ noise overlay letter TO: Jefferson county commissioners Glen Huntingford Dan Titterness Pat Rodgers subject: Airport noise overlay proposal r-::--" ,--' (.-.... t r-~~ 1 ¡ .-_~.J . ."; , t LJ~~ tL n ", \ \ ,'I '!,;'; DEC 0 8 2004 JEFFEF\~~~)~\j BOARD Or- COMM¡SSIONfJ:;~: December 7, 2004 HEARING RECORD 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 govenment. Thank you for your attention to this issue. ;Luò y;~ Thomas Blazey 154 Ridgeview Drive POrt Townsend page 1 .- œ: 7x7) Pc PIl (:l/sþy piKe HEARING RECORD r-*':-~-:·:'~\ ¡Lj) ¡ !..,\ ,¡ ~, U Ll December 6, 2004 DEC 0 '(' 2004 Janet Welch Box 1221 Hadlock, WA 98339 Jefferson County Commissioners Box 1221 Port Townsend, W A 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 ofthe 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 ofbeaurocratic 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 ofthe 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 oflife. 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. cr ~l)::'Dll . .- - fie jJ-l~ 01 Leslie eke From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Josh Peters Tuesday, December 07,20044:46 PM Leslie Locke Cheryl Halvorson FW: Board Additions to MLA 04-28 P.art B HEARING RECORD 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 Compo 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/WW%20stormwater%20manual/manu al update changes.htm». Irrcluded 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/manplanOO/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 1 cc ~ 1X:Dy . ~ 1d-~Ilf1 \:D(C Leslie Locke Page 1 of2 From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Thursday, December 09,20048:43 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Testimony: MLA03-232 and MLA03-244 HEARING RECORD 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 08,20044:13 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, W A 98368 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 Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232(version dated 11/10,2004) Prepared for SOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula PlanninQ 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 disclose to ~ 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, provide disclosure of notify as to 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 I (55 DNL) of their proximity to the JCIA and airport operations including aircraft takeoffs, landings, and overflights. C. Enact regulations that provide notice and disclosure of airport mpacts to property 3. 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). F. Enact a "no public nuisance" provision which acknowledges uses inher:ent to normal 4. 3irport oporations at the Jefferson County International Airport. Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for SOCC 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. II (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 and disclosure 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. 6. 8. Enact a "no public nuisance" provision which acknowledges uses inher~nt to normal airport operations at the Jofforson County International .^.irport. This provision shall correspond to the Airport Overlays. Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for SOCC 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 (2199), 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. disclosure 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) DisGlosure 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 Overlav. Such information shall also be made available Proposed Amendments to Staff Recommendation MLA03-232 (version dated November 10, 2004) Prepared for SOCC 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. The County doos not oonsider 9. these inconveniences and/or disoomforts arising from such operations to bo a nuisanoe as long as they are consistent ':.'ith Federal N,iation Administration regulations and st:md\Jrds. 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 disclosuro 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 disclosuro statement: "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 County ':,iII not consider to be a nuisance those inconvenienoos or disoomforts 3rising from suoh oporations, if El;;lch oporations are consistent 'I.Iith acoepted feder31 aviation regulations 3nd standards, tho Port's noise abatement procechJres and applicable local, state and feder3lbws. 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 SOCC 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. (-1) Nuis3RGe PrevisieRs. The follo'f:ing shall not be consicleF9d a nuisance: 12. uses inherent to a general aviation public use airport, including but not limited to on and off ßite aircraft noise and aircraft take offs and landings, as 'IIell aß 3irport maintenance, operation, construction 3nd expansion activities, conducted in accord3nce '..lith norm31 airport oporationß on land dOßignatod aß Airport ESßontial Public F3Cility District (I\EPF), regardloßß of past or future changes in the surrounding area land use or land use designations. Page 19 of 22 c. Airport Overlay II. (5) Nuis3RG8 Pre'l.'isieRs. Tho following shall not be considered a nuiß3nco: 13. usos inhoront to 3 gonoral aviation public use 3irport, including but not limited to on and off site aircraft noise and 3ircr3ft take offs and landings, as .....011 aß airport maintenance, operation, construction and expansion activities, conducted in 3ccordance with norm31 airport operationß on 13nd designatod aß Airport Essential Public Facility District (.^,EPF), regardless of past or future changos in tho ßurrounding area land uße or land use designationß. (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. b. DisGlesure. 1\11 ßhort subdi).'ision, long ßubdivision and binding site plans within the Airport Overlay I shall record the disclosure statement required undor Section 3.6.11 of this UDC. In addition, the statemont ßhall be signed and affixed to tho 14. plat 3nd recorded with tho Jefferson County /\uditor. 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 SOCC Consideration based on testimony given by Ande K. Grahn, AICP Olympic Peninsula Planning for PRQ: December 6, 2004 Page 5