Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout028 00 ~: ~ ,pe-Þ., 'f. 7-ó'l) STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson In the Matter of Rej ecting Certain Comprehensive Plan Amendments Proposed During the 1999-2000 Amendment Cycle } } } } 28-00 RESOLUTION NO, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (or "the Board") has, as is required by the Growth Management Act as codified at RCW 36.70AOI0 et seq., set in motion the proper professional review and public notice and comment with respect to the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, as is mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan have been rejected by the Board because that particular amendment was found to be not in conformance with the Growth Management Act; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it rejects certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that it makes the following general Findings of Facts applicable to all of the rejected Comprehensive Plan amendments that are described and listed in the attachment to this Resolution. 1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998. 2. The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the citizens of this County on a regular basis, although it need not be made available more than once per year. 4. This particular amendment "cycle" began in mid-I999, the deadline for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 5. Some 14 proposed amendments worked their way through the entire process laid out in state statutes for such amendments. 6. Those 14 proposed amendments went through professional review at the County and State level. 7. Those 14 proposed amendments went through reVIew by the County's P1alming Commission. < ' Resolution No. 28"...00 Page 2 8. 9. 10. Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the County's Planning Commission. Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of a vote to approve/reject by the Board of County Commissioners. 11. The six proposed amendments that are described in this attachment were rejected by the Board because they did not conform to the Growth Management Act. 12. The Board has generated for each of the six proposed amendments a set of Findings of Fact (marked as "FF") and Conclusions of Law ("CL") that relate solely and specifically to that rejected amendment. They are attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 13. County personnel have organized and numbered those documents that represent and constitute the official record relied upon in making the decisions that are reflected in this Resolution. 14. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for each of the rejected amendments are hereby incorporated in this Resolution as if stated in full here. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of April, 2000. Seal: "," , ",.\;\\\1'f CQ,.,I,,/' " .~c:~¡~~-;;1' ~ I ,oJ ", ~:~'":t:::,J' :->~ ' ð~;. , "..' \tï,~,:,,'):t :\" ',"~" .~ ::,':'.r\:,:it:~_i;::J'J )/' ~~ " ^" ,,' ...,-,"", ,/ ". '~'. . ~ ',',;<c.:",:, //( ~ -¡'l, / ':1 .' f;- ,.,":}. '4: i."" :' . '. #" :.-I ( , .. ' ',"-.......,..-':"':'-- ", , "5'.) ~ :;, ~"~ "<O~, - _c' ATTEST: if Ø1ht tL DJr' Loma Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board JEFE RSON COUNTY DE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM: rf)~ ~ 3J30JðÒ Prosecuting Attorney ~ . , Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page I CPA #003 (Livingston) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: The amendment proposed to change the zoning of Lot 2 of the Lopeman Short Plan located along Chimacum Road from Rural Residential 1:5 by instead including this lot within the bOlmdary of the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center. (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21c.010 et seq.) and made a determination of non-significance. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-003 on January 5, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF). The County Planning Commission was opposed to the enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment by a 7-1 vote. (FF) The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development reviewed this proposed amendment and concluded it should be rejected. (FF). The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9, 2000. One person testified. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CP A 99- 03 on February 14, 2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or 1eamed of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF). With respect to this particular amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated at the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) Inclusion or exclusion from a commercial zone of this Tn-Area real property is better discussed and resolved through the sub-area planning process recently initiated by the County Board of Commissioners for that portion of the unincorporated county. (FF) The lot in question is not adjacent to the zone it seeks to become part of, specifically the Rural Village Commercial Center zone. (FF) . , Exhibit A to Resolution No. ?R-OO Page 2 This property is located within the boundaries of the proposed urban growth areas ("UGA's") discussed by the County Commissioners in late 1999 and early 2000. Thus, the decision as to whether this tract will be placed within the UGA should be resolved by the sub- area planning process recently initiated by the Board of Commissioners in order to permanently set those boundaries (FF). Rejection of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment does not, pursuant to the County's current development regulations, prohibit certain commercial uses at or upon the subject property, e.g., a commercial nursery, assisted living facility or veterinary hospital. (FF) Enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would create an abnormally irregular logical boundary and such an irregular logical boundary would violate RCW 36.70A070(5)(d)(iv)(D). (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the Growth Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A070(5)(d), because it does not promote rural commercial growth in a pre-existing (pre-July I, 1990) limited area of more intensive rural development. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL). A majority of the Board of County Commissioners rejected this amendment, finding it was not in conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL) Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 3 CP A #009 (Finnila) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: This amendment proposed the creation of a new Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads district at the intersection of US 101 and Black Point Road in Brinnon. Some seven (7) acres were proposed to be rezoned from Rural Residential 1:5 and included within the boundary of a new commercial crossroad. (FF) The Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED), the state agency that assists counties with their Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plans, recommended that the County Commissioners reject this amendment. (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21c.Ol0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. The planners determined that not less than three studies (a storm water analysis relating to the cumulative impact of build-out and related increased impervious surfaces, capital facilities, study of growth management indicators) would have to occur before the County's elected officials could approve this proposed amendment. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding this amendment on January 5, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, concluded that the sub~ area planning process rather than an individual landowner, should be the primary factor in determining whether that region of the County (Brinnon) needs additional commercial acreage. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, concluded that the sub- area planning process would best result in accumulating and revealing the strategies and presence of growth management indicators that would best support the creation of new commercia11and in the Brinnon region. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, concluded that it lacks and will lack the information it needs, specifically the required SEP A-driven studies, to make an informed decision with respect to this application. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by majority vote, determined that this application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be docketed because there is an ongoing sub-area process proceeding with respect to that region of the County. (FF) A minority report favoring adoption of this proposed amendment was signed and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners by two members of the Planning Commission. (FF) Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 4 The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, part of the Office of the Governor, concluded, in a November 1999 letter to the Board of County Commissioners, that this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment may have adverse impacts on surrounding critical areas, e.g., fish and wildlife habitats and the destabilization of existing steep slopes. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9 and 10,2000. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) About one-half dozen persons testified orally at the public hearing. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 09 on February 15, 2000. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners expressed their intent to review the zoning of the acreage that constitutes this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment when the sub-area planning process for Brinnon is completed. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the Growth Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), because it does not promote rural commercial growth in an pre-existing (pre-July 1, 1990) limited area of more intensive rural development. (CL) LNP 4.8, which promotes and encourages a sub-area plan for the Brinnon region that will "investigate the feasibility of an additional location for future commercial development [,] through a comprehensive study to examine factors including but not limited to environmental issues, economic viability, future growth projections, and infTastructure requirements, consistent with GMA requirements" is supported by the Board's decision to deny this amendment and instead defer to the ongoing sub-area planning process. (CL) Exhibit A to Resolution No. ?R_OO Page 5 The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the County's Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development can not satisfy the requirements of LNP (Land Use Policy) 5.1 as found within that Comprehensive Plan. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the County's Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development can not satisfy the requirements of LNP 5.2 (and its subsections) as found within that Comprehensive Plan. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the County's Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development can not satisfy the requirements of LNP 5.5 (and its subsections) as found within that Comprehensive Plan. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) Determining that this amendment does not conform with the Growth Management Act, the County Commissioners unanimously voted to reject it. (CL) . ; Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 6 CPA #010 (Tudor) Findines of Fact. Conclusions of Law: This amendment proposed the creation of a new Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads at the intersection of Highway 101 and Black Point Rd in Brinnon. Approximately nineteen (19) acres were proposed to be rezoned from Rural Residential 1:5 and then included within the boundary of a new commercial crossroad. (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.OI0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. The planners determined that not less than three studies (a storn1 water analysis relating to the cumulative impact of build-out and the related increase in impervious surfaces, capital facilities, study of growth management indicators) would have to occur before the County's elected officials could approve this proposed amendment. (FF) The Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED), the state agency that assists counties with their Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plans, recommended that the County Commissioners reject this amendment. (FF) The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, part of the Office of the Governor, concluded, in a November 1999 letter to the Board of County Commissioners, that this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment may have adverse impacts on surrounding critical areas, e.g., fish and wildlife habitats and the destabilization of existing steep slopes. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-10 on January 5, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, concluded that the sub~ area planning process rather than an individual landowner should be the key factor in determining whether that region of the County (Brinnon) needs additional commercial acreage. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, concluded that the sub- area planning process would best result in accumulating and revealing the strategies and presence of growth management indicators that would best support the creation of new commercial land in the Brinnon region. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a majority vote, concluded that it lacks and will lack the information it needs, specifically the required SEP A-driven studies, to make an informed decision with respect to this application. (FF) Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 7 The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by majority vote, determined that this application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be docketed because there is an ongoing sub-area process proceeding with respect to that region of the County. (FF) A minority report favoring adoption of this proposed amendment was signed and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners by two members of the Planning Commission. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9 and 10,2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) Approximately nine citizens testified orally during the public hearing. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 10 on February 15, 2000. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners expressed their intent to review the region that is the subject of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment when the sub-area planning process is completed. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners concluded that the land use action proposed by this Comprehensive Plan Amendment fails to satisfy LNP 5.1 of the County's Comprehensive Plan, which describes the minimum criteria that must be met before a particular parcel or tract can be designated as a limited area of more intense rural development. LNP 5.1 is not satisfied by this proposal because the three criteria listed there (existed before 1990, commercial zoning, existing uses provide basic necessities) do not presently exist there and would not exist there as a result of this proposal. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the Growth Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A070(5)(d), because it does not promote rural Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 ~ Page 8 commercial growth in an pre-existing (pre-July 1, 1990) limited area of more intensive rural development. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the COlmty's Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development can not satisfy the requirements of LNP 5.1 as found within that Comprehensive Plan. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the County's Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development can not satisfy the requirements of LNP 5.2 (and its subsections) as found within that Comprehensive Plan. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, the governing body for Jefferson County, determined that this proposed amendment is not in compliance with the language of the County's Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development can not satisfY the requirements of LNP 5.5 (and its subsections) as found within that Comprehensive Plan. (CL) LNP 4.8, which promotes and encourages a sub-area plan for the Brinnon region that will "investigate the feasibility of an additional location for future commercial development [,] through a comprehensive study to examine factors including but not limited to environmental issues, economic viability, future growth projections, and infrastructure requirements, consistent with GMA requirements" is supported by the Board's decision to deny this amendment and defer to the ongoing sub-area planning process. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) Determining that this amendment does not conform with the Growth Management Act, the County Commissioners unanimously voted to reject it. (CL) Exhibit A to Resolution No. ?R-nn Page 9 CPA #011 (Whittaker) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: This amendment proposed to rezone a twenty (20) acre parcel known as Lot 1 of the River Valley View Long Plat Revised, also known as or located at 170 Moon Valley Drive, from "Rural Residential 1 :20" to "Rural Residential 1: 5." (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.01O et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination ofnon~significance. (FF) This proposal, if approved, would have probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations, specifically a habit management plan for the impacted portion of the Quilcene River. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) A majority of the Jefferson County Planning Commission voted to recommend rejection of this particular proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. (FF) The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended that the County approve this amendment. (FF) The County Planning Commission determined that despite the ultimate rejection of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, the applicant is still able to obtain his wished~for results by subdividing his tract through the County's Density Exemption Resolution (see County Resolution #10-98) (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission determined that the real property that is the subject of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment has been deemed a fish and wildlife critical area and that such critical areas should, pursuant to the County's Comprehensive Plan, be designated at either 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres (RR 1: 1 0) or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres (RR: 1 :20). (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-11 on January 12,2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9, 2000. (FF) No one provided oral testimony at the public hearing. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- lIon February 14, 2000. (FF) Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 10 Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or leamed of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) Because the real property that is the subject of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment has been deemed a critical area for fish and wildlife, the decision to not upzone this real property to RR 1:5 (one dwelling unit per 5 acres) supports and furthers LNP 3.3.3(d) ofthe County's Comprehensive Plan. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) The County Commissioners determined that a Comprehensive Plan amendment was not the proper methodology for this applicant to obtain his wished-for results when a less onerous procedure (use of the County's Density Exemption Resolution) also existed for this applicant. (CL) Determining that this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment does not conform with the Growth Management Act, a majority of the Commissioners voted to reject it. (CL) , , Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-.00 Page 11 CPA #020 (Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce) Findings of Fact~ Conclusions of Law: This amendment is a "text" amendment. This amendment proposed amendments to Land Use and Rural goals and policies governing the designation of commercial areas, including the deletion ofLNP 5.1. (FF) The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, in their December 1999 letter recommended against approval of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, concluding in that letter that the current criteria in the County's Comprehensive Plan are excellent planning tools intended to curtail the growth of low-density sprawl. (FF) County planners analyzed this proposal pursuant to SEPA (RCW 43.21c.010 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF) The County's planners determined that not less than two studies (a capital facilities study and a distinct study to determine if growth management indicators were present) would have to occur before the County's elected officials could approve this proposed amendment. (FF) The County's planning staff concluded that LNP 5.1 in its present form is consistent with their understanding of the interpretation of SB 6094 [codified at RCW 36.70A.070(5)] provided by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-20 on December 1, 1999, formulated findings on December 15, 1999 and finalized their recommendations on January 19,2000. (FF) The County Planning Commission voted to recommend against adoption of this amendment by a 7-2 vote. (FF) A minority report supporting adoption of this comprehensive plan amendment was signed and forwarded by two members of the P1arnùng Commission to the Board of County Commissioners. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9 and 10, 2000. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding this amendment on February 15, 2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 12 1eamed of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) Some 20 people testified orally at the public hearings. FF) With respect to this particular amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) A majority of the Board of County Commissioners came to the conclusion that the new development regulations are a "tool" to use to alleviate the concerns and problems of this applicant, rather than the generation and enactment of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. As an initial step towards eventually enacting those new development regulations the Board of County Commissioners has issued a Request for Proposal asking for bids from firms and persons to perform the work of generating those development regulations. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners determined that enactment of this proposed amendment would serve to delete from the County's Comprehensive Plan the policy goal of directing future rural commercial growth to pre-existing (before July 1, 1990) limited areas of more intensive rural development and thus violate the Growth Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). (CL) The Board of County Commissioners determined that enactment of this proposed amendment would serve to promote, generate or condone low density sprawl in the County's rural areas in direct contradiction to goals #2 and #9 of the Growth Management Act, codified at RCW 36.70A.020(2) and .020(9). (CL) To delete LNP 5.1, which is the basis for designating the rural commercial areas, would be contrary to the Growth Management Act, which mandates that rural commercial development be directed towards "limited areas of more intense rural development." (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of faimess" doctrine. (CL) Acting in their legislative capacity, and finding that the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the Growth Management Act, a majority of the Board of County Commissioners voted to reject this amendment. (CL) . . Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 13 CPA #022 (Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: This amendment can be categorized as a "text" amendment. It touched upon the policies in the Land Use and Rural Element which exempt the West End from certain policies goveming horne-based businesses and cottage industries and proposed to extend those exemptions to lands they chose to call "Rural Jefferson County," i.e., any site located ten (10) miles or more from an Urban Growth Area or "UGA" or city. (FF) The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended against approval ofthis amendment in its December 1999 letter. (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.OI0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated detennination of non-significance. (FF) The County's planners detennined that not less than two studies (a capital facilities study and a distinct investigation into the possible presence of growth management indicators) would have to occur before the County's elected officials could approve this proposed amendment. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-22 on December 1,1999, fonnu1ated its findings on December 15, 1999 and finalized its recommendations on January 19,2000. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted to recommend against adoption of this amendment by a 7-2 vote. (FF) A minority report supporting adoption of this comprehensive plan amendment was signed and forwarded by two members of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9 and 10,2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open - ' Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-.00 Page 14 record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) Approximatèly ten persons provided oral testimony at the public hearing with respect to this amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 22 on February 15,2000 (FF) A majority of the Board of County Commissioners came to the conclusion that the new development regulations are a "tool" to use to alleviate the concerns and problems of this applicant, rather than the generation and enactment of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. As an initial step towards eventually enacting those new development regulations the Board of County Commissioners has issued a Request for Proposal asking for bids from firms and persons to perform the work of generating those development regulations. (FF) Flexible planning policies developed for home-based businesses in the County's West End were not made applicable to the "South County" (e.g., Brinnon, Quilcene) when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 because of certain indisputable facts applicable only to the West End: its unique and isolated location and character, its distressed economy, its distance [TOm any urban growth area, the extant opportunities for tourist-related growth because of its proximity to a National Park and the ocean and a projection of little or no population growth over the next 20 years. (FF) The proposed Comprehensive Plan, which would lift limits on horne-based or cottage industries or tourist-related activities occurring more than 10 miles from a city or urban growth area, might encourage or create low-density sprawl. Why? Because it would serve as a disincentive for businesses to locate in urban growth areas, rural village centers or commercial crossroads since businesses could site themselves at any location more than 10 miles from a UGA or city. (FF) There has been no change of circumstances with respect to the inherent differences between the West End of the County and the "South County" (e.g., Brinnon, Quilcene) since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998, providing certain flexibility to West End residents and businesses. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners determined that enactment of this proposed amendment would work in opposition to an important policy goal of the County's Comprehensive Plan: the goal of directing future rural commercial growth to pre-existing (before July 1, 1990) limited areas of more intensive rural development and thus violate the Growth Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). (CL) . " ,. Exhibit A to Resolution No. 28-00 Page 15 The Board of County Commissioners determined that enactment of this proposed amendment would serve to promote, generate or condone low density sprawl in the County's rural areas in direct contradiction to RCW 36.70A.020(2) and .020(9). (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) Acting in their legislative capacity, and finding that the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the Growth Management Act, a majority of the Board of County Commissioners voted to rej ect this amendment. (CL)