HomeMy WebLinkAbout072 98
ST ATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING the Jefferson County Growth
Management Act Comprehensive Plan,
all attachments and findings of fact
}
} Resolution No.
}
}
72-98
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36,70A RCW (hereinafter the GMA)
requires Jefferson County (hereinafter the County) to adopt a comprehensive land use
plan in accordance with the GMA, including all attachments, and adopt findings of fact;
and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has determined that adoption
ofthe Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan is in the public interest, protects
the public health, safety and welfare, and complies with the Growth Management Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS by the Board of Jefferson
County Commissioners:
Section 1. The June, 1979, Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan is
hereby repealed.
Section 2. The 1998 Comprehensive plan as shown in exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted pursuant to the
Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A.
Section 3. The 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan shall govern all planning in
Jefferson County. Where any conflicts may arise between the 1998
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and existing County rules, regulations, policy or
ordinances, the 1998 Comprehensive Plan shall prevail.
Section 4. In order to provide continuity in implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan, the County hereby incorporates by reference the Interim Controls passed on
August 28, 1998, which shall be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan as
adopted by this ordinance until such time as the County adopts final development
regulations. The Comprehensive Plan as adopted by this ordinance shall govern
in the event inconsistencies occur between the Plan and existing or interim
development regulations.
Section 5. If any provision ofthis Ordinance or its application to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance or the application
of the provisons to other person or circumstanc:es shall not be affected.
'~o:-
?~ ,-.,,:-
-~t "."-
2097
Section 6. The effective date of this Resolution shall be August 28, 1998.
PASSED this
~
D?~ - day of
SEAL:
/J-u ð vJ1 f
,1998
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST
.VOL
2 4: rAr;~
2098
2
8-
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY
Findings of Fact in support of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan adopted
August 28,1998.
In support of adopting the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Map and the
Elements contained therein, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners enters the
following findings of fact:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.010: "The State Legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned
growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the
conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable
economic development, and the health, safety and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of
this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the
private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use
planning."
2. The Washington State Legislature adopted the Washington State Growth Management Act of
1990 and amendments thereto, Chapter 36.70A. RCW, (the "Act"), requiring selected
counties and cities to prepare comprehensive plans consistent with the provisions of the Act.
.
3. The Growth Management Act, Chapter 36. 70A RCW (hereinafter the "GMA" or the "Act")
requires Jefferson County (hereinafter "the County") to adopt a comprehensive land use plan
which will accommodate the next 20 years of population growth in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the GMA and which will facilitate the orderly and coordinated growth
and development ofthe County.
4. As required under the Act (Chapter 36~ 70A.21 0 RCW), and to ensure coordination and
consistency between the comprehensive plans of Jefferson County and the City of Port
Townsend, the County participated in the preparation and adoption of the County-wide
Planning Policy for Jefferson County (City Resolution No. 92-112 and County Resolution
No. 128-92, both dated December 21, 1992).
5. Throughout the County's planning process, the County-wide Planning Policy for Jefferson
County has been used as a policy guide for the development ofthe Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
6. Jefferson County adopted an Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-0509-94 on
May 9, 1994 and amended by Ordinance No. 14-0626-95, adopted on June 26, 1995, an
Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance (Ordinance No.08-0525-95, adopted on May 25,
1995), and an Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance (Ordinance No. 09-0525-95, adopted on May
25, 1995) that are in compliance with the GMA requirements contained in RCW 36.70A.060,
RCW 36.70A.170, and the Minimum Guidelines (Chapter 365-190 WAC).
8
7. Jefferson County adopted an emergency ordinance establishing interim land use controls, the
Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance, Ordinance No. 05-0214-96, on February 14, 1996 to
provide development regulations to prevent uncontrolled growth until adoption of the
,VOL
1
24 ¡-~[,~
2099
Comprehensive Plan and approval of final development regulations under the mandate of the
Growth Management Act.
8. Jefferson County has also adopted an Interim Forest Lands Ordinance (Ordinance No. Ol-
0121-97, adopted January 21, 1997) which is based on a Memorandum of 0 nderstanding (MOO)
dated December 4, 1996 entered into and between a number of parties interested in ensuring the
protection of Jefferson County's forest lands of long-term significance.
9. The Act, under RCW 36.70A.140, stipulates that jurisdictions planning under the provisions of
GMA shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program
identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development
and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing
such plans.
10, Jefferson County embarked upon a public involvement process that exceeds the requirements
of the Act, including: the development of a questionnaire ("Jefferson 2000") that sought
residents' opinions about the community's future; the establishment of community forums and
citizen task forces who helped craft interim ordinances and establish goals and policies; the
adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of the Community Planning Process which
established community planning groups who developed community plans that articulated their
community's goals and vision; the production and dissemination of an informative video ("It's
Your Plan"), and the release of a Discussion Draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Plan") on
February 24, 1997.
11. On February 24, 1997 Jefferson County issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Plan pursuant to WAC 365-195. A public hearing on the Draft Plan was held on April 2,
1997, and a public comment period was maintained until May 15, 1997.
12. The Draft Plan was rtlviewed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission for a period of
ten (10) months between April 1997 and February 2, 1998, according to a schedule of meetings
with assigned topics. During this time period the Planning Commission held thirty-three (33)
public meetings, three (3) public workshops, and regional meetings throughout the County.
During this period about 750 citizens attended meetings of which approximately 350 provided
testimony.
13. Regional public meetings that allowed public testimony were held on the following dates:
. October 1 st the Commission held a public meeting at the Queets/Clearwater
School in the West End.
. October 15th a public meeting was held at the Port Ludlow Bay Club in Port
Ludlow
. November 5th a public meeting was held at the Tri-Area Community Center
. November 19th a public meeting was held at the Gardiner Community
Center
. December 3rd a public meeting was held at the Quilcene Community Center
14. In their preliminary discussion of Rural Centers and Rural Crossroads, the Planning
Commission considered whether single lot commercial areas constituted spot zoning, infill
capacity of commercial areas, floodplain constrain,ts, level of service differences between centers
and crossroads, existing uses, and grandfathering. Preliminary boundaries for Brinnon, Quilcene
lVOL
24' '~;;:: 2100
r.". .
2
"
,
"
-.
.
.
.
Rural Village Centers and Port Ludlow Commercial Village Center were adopted on July 23rd
based on the Commission's findings that boundaries must:
. allow for infill based on ESB 6094 criteria,
. avoid irregular boundaries,
. provide local levels of service,
. consider topography,
. manage floodplains,
. avoid traffic congestion,
. consider the water situation in Qui1cene and a proposed water system,
. protect critical areas,
. avoid spot zoning, and
. establish a table of allowed uses.
15, Preliminary boundaries, based on the above findings, were identified for Chimacum, Four
Comers, Discovery Bay and Nordland at the Planning Commission meeting of July 30th. Also at
this meeting the Planning Commission discussed the criteria related to the proposed crossroads at
Wawa Point and Black Point.
16. On August 6th the Planning Commission decided they would accept public comment at all
meetings as opposed to the workshops on June 4th and July 2nd and 16th where public comment
had not been taken.
.
17. On August 6th, based on a recommendation from the Port Ludlow Planning Committee and
the projected 20-year population allocation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
decrease the proposed density for the southern portion of the Master Planned Resort to 1 :20.
18, On August 13th staff made a presentation to the Planning Commission concerning population
distribution, retail square footage analysis as compared to the projected population, ESB 6094
criteria, integration of community plans, County-wide Planning Policies, transportation factors,
and. levels of service for Rural Crossroads.
19. At the meeting on August 13th, the Planning Commission discussed Black Point as a
possible crossroad. The Planning Commission found that Black Point was not an area of more
intense development pre-dating July I, 1990, did not contain a convenience grocery, which was a
requirement for crossroad designation in the Draft Plan, and had topographic constraints of a
steep slope. A resolution regarding Black Point was not reached at this meeting.
20. Also on August 13th, the Planning Commission established boundaries for Mats Mats,
Beaver Valley, Gardiner and the West End:
. Mats Mats: The Planning Commission adopted a boundary based on the existence of the
convenience grocery and additional lots to accommodate infill and avoid spot zoning.
. Beaver Valley: The Planning Commission found that the crossroads commercial area was
not warranted based on the single lot use and the ability of the grocery/gas station to
continue as a grandfathered (non-confonning) use.
. Gardiner: The Planning Commission proposed and adopted a boundary for a crossroads
location not included in the Draft Plan, based on the recognition of Gardiner as an
historic community and the fact that a convenience grocery had been at that location in
the recent past.
.
-',..<
VOL
2 4 rM;~
2:101.3
. .
.
West End: The Planning Commission found a lack of a crossroads location in the West
End and discussed whether cottage industries and tourist related uses could meet the
needs of this area,
.
21. The Port of Port Townsend made a presentation on the Jefferson County Airport at the
Planning Commission meeting of August 20, 1997, presenting justification for industrial
development at the Airport and at Port property in Quilcene. The Planning Commission reviewed
and adopted staff recommendations for policies restricting industrial use at the airport, in
consideration of the protection of aquifer recharge areas and pending completion of the Tri-Area
study.
22. Having completed an initial review of all the elements by August 20th, the Planning
Commission began to review the goals and policies of each element in turn. At its meeting on
August 27, 1997 the Planning Commission discussed proposed goals and policies drafted by a
subcommittee for the Land Use and Rural Elements.
23. At the September 3rd meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Center store area
against the criteria for designating rural commercial crossroads and requested that designation
criteria be fonnulated by staff into policies that could be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
24. Goals and Policies for the referenced elements were discussed at the following Planning
Commission meetings:
. September 10th, Transportation, Utilities and Capital Facilities Goals and
Policies;
. September 17th, Natural Resource;
. September 24th, Open Space, Parks and Recreation;
. October 22nd, Historic Preservation and Environment;
. October 29th, Housing;
. November 12th, Economic Development;
. November 25th, UGA and Annexation; and on
. January 14, 1998 Essential Public Facilities Goals and Policies
.
25. In attempts to further refine commercial boundaries, on October 8th, the Planning
Commission began to review and integrate ESB 6094 into criteria for rural commercial
boundaries. The Planning Commission reviewed policies establishing logical outer boundaries
and established a definition for commercial crossroads.
26. On December 10th, the Planning Commission reviewed goals and policies regarding:
. Legal pre-existing uses, based on staff research, memos from the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office and public comment
. Small scale recreational and tourist related uses based on criteria established
in ESB 6094,
. Home-based business and cottage industry, based on public comment and
infonnation researched and provided by staff
. Revisions to the Quimper peninsula land use map based on the need for low
density development adjacent to UGA's, reduced densities on public
forestland parcels, critical area constraints, and public comment
27. At the meeting on December 17th, the Planning Commission approved staff revisions to the
crossroad criteria which elimin!.rted the convenience store as a requirement but retained it as
,,"--- -.'
.
~VOL
24 r~C;: . 2102
4
.
descriptive of the level of service of a crossroad and defined a "concentrated cluster" as "five or
more pre-1990 separate businesses and/or related structures," of which "at least three of the
legally existing main commercial buildings shall each house a separate business meeting the rural
crossroads level of service standard and uses." The change would eliminate the one lot/single use
crossroads and some uses would become non-conforming within a crossroads. The Planning
Commission also revisited other commercial areas and took the following action:
.
Brinnon: reconfirmed the boundary and proposed a strategy to be included in the Plan to ,
investigate establishing an additional area for commercial development outside of the
floodplain.
Four Comers: delete the intersection as a Rural Crossroads based on the fact that the
businesses, other than the convenience grocery, were industrial in nature and did not serve the
immediate, local neighborhood population and could be permitted conditionally outside of a
commercial zone.
Discovery Bay: reconfirmed the boundary based on concerns about traffic accidents,
construction in a floodplain, and protection of critical areas.
Nordland: delete the crossroads location, based on it being an isolated business on one lot.
.
.
.
28. On January 3, 1998, the Planning Commission, based on Health Department information on a
proposed community water system, voted unanimously to reconfirm the restrictive boundary
previously delineated for Quilcene noting that the community needed to resolve the water issue.
.
29. At their January 3rd meeting, the Planning Commission:
. Found that boundaries proposed by staff for new crossroads at Ness' Comer
and Irondale Comer were based on the establishment of a logical outer
boundary utilizing criteria established in ESB 6094.
. Reconfirmed the boundary for the Chimacum crossroad based on levels of
service, uses identified with the level of service, and the protection of critical
areas.
30, On January 3rd, the Planning Commission changed the crossroads criteria from "separate
businesses" to "separate buildings." The change was meant to preclude a cluster definition of one
building housing five businesses from determining a crossroad location.
31. Also on January 3rd, the Planning Commission found that as crossroads Wawa Point, Beaver
Valley and Gardiner did not meet the adopted criteria and should be deleted,
32. At the meeting on January 3rd, the Planning Commission found that the West End lacked
commercial facilities to serve the rural population, and voted to allow tourist related uses to also
serve the needs of the local population. The Planning Commission continued its review of revised
goals and policies regarding UGA and Annexation, Land Use, Rural, Economic Development,
Housing, Natural Resources, Environment, Open Space, parks and Recreation and Historic
Preservation Elements.
33. On January 7, 1998 the Planning Commission revisited Mats Mats as a crossroad location and
reaffirmed its previously delineated boundaries. The Planning Commission then continued its review
of revised goals and policies for the Transportation, Utilities, and Capital Facilities Elements,
.
34. On January 14, 1998 the Planning Commission reviewed goals and policies for the Essential
Public Facilities Element based...,9n.,,~CW 36.70A.200 and c2,.ntinued reviewing policies for the
, . ,,~.,',
vat
2',~" Pf:[;
. .' 't, ",\.1;'"
2 :103
5
Natural Resources Element. The Planning Commission found that a public request for a reduced
density in some areas of the Quimper Peninsula was consistent with the established criteria for
density designations in policy 4.3 of the Land Use Element, and asked staff to research and verify
this conclusion.
.
35. Also on January 14th, the Planning Commission:
. Discussed a proposal from Pope Resources to change the designation of the
southern portion of Port Ludlow from I :20 to 4: I. The Planning Commission
voted to affinn the existing I :20 designation, noting that the proposal to shift
densities needed to be considered as part of an entire plan and that the
Planning Commission needed more detail to propose such a shift.
. Affirmed their earlier decision to stop the commercial area in Port Ludlow
short of Ludlow Creek in accord with the Port Ludlow Planning Groups
desire to have a greenway or "reserve" along the creek.
. Affinned its designation of the Port Ludlow commercial area as a Rural
Center (Village Business District) based on the fact that Port Ludlow's status
ought to be guided by the goals and policies established for Rural Centers.
. Found that requests for elimination of the forest land designation on parcels
owned by Green Crow were unwarranted prior to the review and updating of
the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance.
. Found that additional policies were needed on investigating the feasibility of
establishing small-scale marine trades in Quilcene or Lower Hadlock and
considering residential clustering and the promotion of open space. A
majority of the Planning Commission failed to act on a policy that proposed
to allow lot averaging.
.
36. On January 31st, 1998 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Land Use Map,
including proposed changes to densities in the Quimper Planning Area, and voted to approve the
Land Use Map based on previously adopted goals, policies, and definitions and to forward it to the
Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation. The
Commission decided minority reports would be submitted to the Board at the workshop on February
10th, 1998 after review by the Planning Commission as a whole.
37. The Planning Commission submitted its recommended Plan to the Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners on February 2, 1998 and released it to the public for review and
comment.
38. On February 10th, the Planning Commission approved three minority reports on light
manufacturing, Rural Crossroads, and parcel averaging for submission to the Board of County
Commissioners.
39. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners held eight (8) public hearings, thirty (30)
workshops and took two field trips, one to the Glen Cove area and one touring Rural Centers and
Crossroads, during its review of the Plan from February 2, 1998 to August 28, 1998. During the
period from February 27, 1997 to August 28, 1998, the County received approximately 400
letters of comment on the Comprehensive Plan. The County has made good faith efforts to
acknowledge the receipt of all letters.
40. Based on extensive public comment received by the BOCC, a presentation on 1997 GMA
amendments through ESB 6094' by-members of the Land Use Study Commission, and minority
.
~VOL
24 r~Π" 2104
6 :""
, .
.
reports from Planning Commission members, the BOCC directed staff to revise the Planning
Commission's recommended criteria for commercial and industrial lands to be based on the
criteria of the Growth Management Act as revised through ESB 6094, and local circumstances.
The BOCC also directed staff to:
. Add, delete or reword goals, policies and/or strategies contained within the
following Plan elements: Land Use/Rural, Natural Resources, Urban Growth
Area! Annexation, Housing, Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, Transportation, Utilities, Capital Facilities, Economic
Development, Environment, and Essential Public Facilities.
. Revise the Introduction and Implementation chapters, include a Vision
Statement, and add terms to the Glossary.
. Alter the designation of the Port Ludlow Resort/Community to Master
Planned Resort, and the commercial area to Village Commercial Center.
. Alter residential densities in several areas of the County.
. Designate the boundaries of the following seven areas within the Glen
Cove/TriArea Study Area as interim, pending completion of the Glen
Cove/TriArea Special Study and revisiting of the boundaries: Glen Cove
light industrial/commercial area, Four Comers, Chimacum, SR 19/20, Port
Hadlock, Ness' Corner, and Irondale Comer.
.
41. Based on the revisions to commercial criteria, the BOCC directed the staff to revise the Plan
for commercial areas to:
. Alter the proposed commercial boundaries to enlarge the Rural Village
Centers of Quilcene and Brinnon, and the relocate the boundary of the
Village Commercial Center of Port Ludlow to the original proposed
boundary along Port Ludlow Creek.
. Alter the proposed Rural Crossroad boundaries of Chimacum, Discovery
Bay, Ness'Comer, Irondale Comer, and Mats Mats, reinstate crossroads at
Nordland, Beaver Valley, Wawa Point, and Four Comers, and add two new
Rural Crossroads at Gardiner and SR 19/20.
. Modestly expand the Rural Village Center for Quilcene and Brinnon;
. Add three Resource Based Industrial zones; and
. Make minor modifications to the goals and policies.
42. Based on the revision of industrial land criteria, the BOCC directed staff to:
. Designate the Quilcene Light Industrial area,
. Change the designation of three (3) existing Heavy Industrial areas to Forest Resource
Based Industrial zones to recognize existing forest resource based activities at Gardiner,
Center, and in the West End (Allen Logging),
. Alter the Port Townsend Paper Mill Heavy Industrial zone to include the entire mill
property,
43. These revisions were released on May 15, 1998 as the "Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan: BOCC Revisions to the Planning Commission's Recommendations."
.
44. On May 27, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the BOCC changes to
the February 2, 1998 Planning Commission Recommendations, and submitted recommendations
to the BOCC based on Planning Commission discussion and public testimony at the hearing.
" "";"
VOL
2 4 tàG~
'2:1 05 7
-'"
45. On May 27, 1998 Jefferson County issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan pursuant to WAC 365-195-610. The FEIS was adopted by
the SEP A Administrator on August 17, 1998.
46. On June 15, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on the
BOCC's May 15, 1998 revisions to the Plan.
47. Based on staff recommendations regarding the May 1, 1998 legal review by the Jefferson
County Prosecuting Attorney ofthe Planning Commission's Recommended Plan (February 2,
1998), further public testimony, recommendations made by the Planning Commission,
recommendations regarding consistency and legal defensibility made by a consultant (Driscoll
and Hunter), and recommendations made by other government or quasi-government agencies (i.e.
the City and Port of Port Townsend), the BOCC reviewed and discussed the recommendations in
public workshops, and made to the following revisions to the Plan:
. Deletion of the UGA/ Annexation Element and relation of pertinent goals, policies, and
strategies to other Plan Elements.
. Addition, deletion, or rewording of goals, policies and/or strategies contained within the
following Plan Elements: Land UselRural; Natural Resources; Housing; Open Space,
Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation; Transportation; Utilities; Capital
Facilities; Economic Development; Environment; and Essential Public Facilities.
. Deletion of the UGA and Annexation elements,
. Addition oftenns to the Glossary.
. Revision ofthe proposed commercial boundaries in two (2) Rural Village Centers (Port
Hadlock and Quilcene.)
. Amendment of the proposed Glen Cove Light Industrial/Commercial interim boundary to
include block 9 in its entirety.
. Reclassification of Neighborhood Crossroads to NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads;
. Redesignation of two (2) formerly designated General Crossroads to
NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (Four Corners and Chimacum.)
. Revision of the Land Use Table to restrict certain regional and community level of
service uses to the crossroads in which they currently exist, in order to prevent
inappropriate land uses in other crossroads and to protect the unique character of the
crossroads.
. Revision ofthe boundaries of three (3) designated Forest Resource Based Industrial
Zones (RBIZ) located at Gardiner, Center, and the West End based on the application of
ESB 6094 criteria.
. Minor revision of the Port Townsend Paper Mill Heavy Industrial zone boundary based
on clarification of the mill property boundaries.
. Revision of residential land use densities in several areas of the County.
. Revision of zoning densities within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort to indicate a
proposed development agreement for a 200-acre area south of the golf course from I
dwelling unit per 20 acres to 4 units per acre, and a 400-acre area in the southern portion
of the Master Planned Resort from 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres to permanent open space
with zero density.
. The amendment of the overall Land Use Map to reflect the above-referenced mapping
reViSIOns.
48. The BOCC revisions were included in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Final
Draft, released on July 31, 1998 for public review and comment
~ YOI-
24 rAG~ . 2 :106
8,
.
.
.
.
.
49, The BOCC held two (2) public hearings, on August 10,1998 and August 24, 1998 on the
Final Draft Comprehensive Plan of July 31, 1998. Based on public comment and testimony, the
BOCC directed the staff on August 17, 1998 at a regular public meeting of the BOCC to change
all commercial area designations and the Glen Cove and Port Townsend Paper Mill industrial
boundaries to interim boundaries pending the completion of the Glen Cove/TriArea Special Study
and revisiting ofthe boundaries.
50. On August 28, 1998 the BOCC held a public workshop to consider minor revisions to the
Plan. The staff was directed to make non-substantive changes to goals and policies in the Land
Use/Rural, Natural Resources, and Essential Public Facilities Elements, and to revise the Land
Use Map for Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort to:
. Change the density for an area of single family tracts in the northwest ofthe Master
Planned Resort from 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.
. Change the designation for a utilities property and a commercial property adjacent to the
golf course to single family residential at 4 dwelling units per acre.
. Add the Twin Islands in Ludlow Bay to the Land Use Map and designate as pennanent
Open Space.
. Designate the golf course as recreational.
. Add to the map a statement that the Master Planned Resort is subject to a cap of 2250
residential units,
.
51. Adoption of interim development regulations concurrent with the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan will partially implement the goals and policies and the Land Use Map ofthe
Plan on an interim basis, pending adoption of final development regulations. The Interim Growth
Strategies Ordinance (Ordinance 05-0214-96, adopted on February 14, 1996) will be repealed and
replaced by a revised ordinance that is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map, designations, and land uses, and will be adopted as an Interim Controls Ordinance
concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan.. Proposed Interim Controls that have been under
review since May, 1998 by the BOCC and the public will be reviewed and revised for adoption
within 60 days of Plan adoption following a public process and public hearing.
Land Use Map
1. RCW 36.70A.O70 stipulates that "the comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required
or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.O40 shall consist of a map or maps..."
2. RCW 36,70A.O70 further stipulates that".. .all elements shall be consistent with the future
land use map."
3. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan contains a Land Use Map that identifies land uses
and zoning boundaries for all properties located within Jefferson County, and graphically details
the location of land for various land uses, thereby establishing the character, quality, and pattern
of future physical development throughout the County.
.
4. The land uses depicted on the land use map include:
. Residential lands
. Parks, preserves and recreation
. Lands under federal control (i.e. Olympic National Park, military
reservations)
VOL
24 rM,~
2107
9
.
Lands under tribal control (i.e. Hoh and Quinaulttribal reservations)
Urban growth areas
Resource lands
Commercial and industrial lands
The master planned resort of Port Ludlow
Essential public facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Resource lands are identified and designated on the Land Use Map according to criteria
established in each respective resource ordinance, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170.
6. Residential land uses and densities are designated on the Land Use Map according to criteria
developed by the County, which are contained within the Land UselRural element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
9. Commercial and industrial land uses are designated on the land use map according to criteria
developed by the County, which are contained within the Land UselRural element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
10. Areas designated as essential public facilities, which include the County Waste Management
facility and the Jefferson County International Airport are depicted on the Land Use Map.
11, Between February 24, 1997 and May 31, 1998 four drafts of the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map were released.
12. The first draft of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, entitled Jefferson County's Draft
Comprehensive Land Use Map, was released on February 24, 1997.
.
13. Between April 1997 and February 2, 1998 the Jefferson County Planning Commission
deliberated the Draft Comprehensive Plan and made revisions to the Draft Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map.
14. Revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map were incorporated in the the
second draft of the land use map, entitled the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map As
Recommended By Jefferson County Planning Commission, released February 2, 1998.
15. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, over a period of three months,
conducted public hearings and workshops, deliberated the Comprehensive Plan as
recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission and made revisions to the land
use map.
16, Revisions to the Comprehensive Land Use Map As Recommended By Jefferson County
Planning Commission were incorporated in the third draft of the land use map, entitled the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Revisions To Planning Commission Recommendations, released May 15, 1998.
17. Between May 15, 1998 and July 31, 1998 the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners made minor revisions to the land use map based on legal review provided by
the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. These revisions were incorporated in the
fourth draft of the land u,:;e map, ,entitled the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Jefferson
.
l VOL
24 í.ÚJ~ - 210.8
10,
.
County Board o/County Commissioners Revisions To Planning Commission
Recommendation Final Draft Version, released July 31, 1998.
18. Revisions were made to the following areas of the Land Use Map during review of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan:
a). Commercial and industrial land uses, designations, and zoning boundaries were revised.
b). Residential densities were revised in several areas of the County due to the following:
. Mapping errors;
. Updated data which caused residential parcels to no longer meet the
designation criteria;
. Proximity of residential parcels to resource areas, UGAs or the Master
Planned Resort of Port Ludlow;
. Review of parcels according to the criteria for designation.
c). Land use designations were modified within the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
boundary upon its designation as a Master Planned Resort:
.
A 200-acre parcel in the southern portion of the MPR, south of the golf
course was rezoned from a density of I :20 to 4: I
A 400-acre area in the southern portion ofthe MPR was rezoned from 1:20
to perpetual open space, with zero density
Areas previously designated as mixed-use/commercial were changed
New land uses/zoning classifications that are more consistent with the
designation of Port Ludlow were assigned, including "Resort Complex" and
"Recreation Areas"
The commercial area designation was changed from Rural Village Center, as
designated in the Draft Plan, to Village Commercial Center.
.
.
.
.
.
Land Use/Rural Element
1. RCW 36.70A070 (I) and (5) identify Land Use and Rural as mandatory comprehensive plan
elements.
2. Jefferson County's Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997, contained a
Land Use element and a Rural element, both of which contained goals, policies and strategies
that addressed land uses in all areas of the County.
3, A ten (10) month review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan by the Jefferson County Planning
Commission resulted in the revision, addition and/or deletion of some of the goals, policies
and/or strategies contained within the land use and rural elements.
4. Revisions were made by the Planning Commission to commercial land designations and
classifications contained within the Land Use element. The Planning Commission released its
Recommendations to the BOCC for the comprehensive plan on February 2, 1998.
.
VOL
2 4 rá[~
2:l09 11
5, The Planning Commission's Recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed by
the BOCC, who made further revisions to the goals, policies, strategies and commercial land
designations contained within the Land Use and Rural elements the following criteria:
.
a. Criteria for the recognition and designation of commercial areas:
. The area is currently under commercial zoning.
. The area existed as a built environment on July 1, 1990
. The area provides basic necessities or multiple commercial services to the local
community and/or traveling public.
b. Criteria for the classification of commercial areas based on a rural commercial level of
service analysis in Jefferson County Rural Commercial Zones, Madrona Planning, September,
1996, and provisions of ESB 6094 as codified in RCW 36,70A070(5)(d) recognizing existing
uses and areas:
. Convenience Crossroads: Single commercial property with an existing commercial
level of service that is Local, and may include services for the traveling public.
. NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads: Multiple existing commercial uses serving a rural
neighborhood at a local level of services with limited community uses, and serving
the traveling public.
. General Crossroads: Multiple existing commercial uses providing limited regional
and multiple community levels of service in the TriArea/Glen Cove Study Area.
. Rural Village Centers: Historical rural community providing all essential goods and
day-to-day professional, public, and social services at a community level of service,
c. Criteria for establishing boundaries of commercial areas:
. Criteria from RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c):
. Contain or control rural development;
. Assure visual compatibility with surrounding rural area;
. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low
density development;
. Protect critical areas and surface and ground water resources;
. Protect against conflicts with the use of designated natural resource lands.
LVOL
.
.
Criteria from RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), the 1997 GMA amendments:
. Logical outer boundary of an area or use existing in July, 1990;
. Prevent new low-density sprawl;
. Clearly identifiable and contained area of more intensive development;
. Delineated predominantly by the built environment;
. May include undeveloped lands if limited;
. Preserve character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
. Use physical boundaries (bodies of water, streets, topography);
. Prevent abnonnally irregular boundaries;
. Provide public facilities and public services so as to avoid low-density sprawl;
. Existing industrial areas are not required to principally serve existing and
projected rural population.
.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A070(5)(a), the boundaries were also evaluated based on the
following local considerations that could affect boundaries or require the application
of special conditions:
.
2A 'u::
If ("",-
2 :1:10
12 ' .
.
.
.
,-
.
Regional transportation concerns, traffic volumes, access, and safety.
Proximity to incompatible uses.
Partial designation of large parcels that are not fully developed for existing uses,
to prevent sprawl.
Home businesses/cottage industries should not be used to determine boundaries.
Provide employment opportunities for local residents, in particular in areas of
insufficient economic growth or economic decline.
Support community planning goals and rural community cohesion.
Provide for multi-family and special needs housing opportunities.
Avoid creating new non-confonning uses.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6. The BOCC used the criteria in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a), (c) and (d) to determine logical
boundaries of industrial areas, and designated light industrial, light industrial/commercial, heavy
industrial, and forest resource-based industrial zones based on the following criteria:
. The existing zoning is industrial
. The area existed as a built environment on July 1, 1990
. The area is not located on designated natural resource lands
7. In an effort to minimize redundancy between the Land Use and Rural elements, and to reduce the
overall size ofthe Comprehensive Plan, the BOCC directed the planning staff to merge the Land Use
and Rural elements into a single Land Use/Rural Element.
8. The Land Use/Rural element contained within Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan:
.
Designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of uses
for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open
spaces, public utilities/facilities and other appropriate land uses.
Includes population densities, building intensities and estimates of future population
growth.
Provides for the protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for
public water supplies as addressed in the Environment element.
Designates as rural lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest
or mineral resources as addressed in the Resource Lands element.
.
.
.
9. The Land Use/Rural element contained within Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan
contains goals, policies and strategies that:
.
Foster and protect rural character.
Designate and contain commercial areas throughout the County.
Designate and contain industrial areas throughout the County.
Identifies appropriate activities in the rural areas of the County.
Conserve and protect the County's natural resource lands and environment.
Establish and designate rural residential densities.
.
.
.
.
.
10. The Land Use/Rural element meets GMA planning goals: (1) to encourage development in
urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient
manner; (2) reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development; and (12) ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available
VOL
2 4 rAG~
13
2 :1:11
for occupancy and use. Jefferson County does not approve development permits unless a water
supply and other infrastructure is shown to be available.
.
Natural Resources Element
1. The Growth Management Act requires local governments to classify, designate and regulate
to conserve resource lands and includes a planning goal to maintain and enhance natural
resource-based industries, encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and
productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
2. Jefferson County has adopted an Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-0509-
94, adopted May 9, 1994 and amended by Ordinance No. 14-0626-95 on June 26, 1995),
Mineral Lands Ordinance (Ordinance No. 09-0525-95, adopted May 25, 1995), Agricultural
Lands Ordinance (Ordinance No. 08-0525-95, adopted May 25, 1995) and Forest Lands
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 01-0121-97, adopted January 21, 1997) that regulate and protect
Jefferson County's natural resource lands.
3. The County's interim resource lands ordinances support the conservation of forest,
agriculture and mineral resources by identifYing and designating these lands where the
principal and preferred activity is resource production and extraction.
4. Jefferson County's Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997, contained a
Natural Resource element that identified Jefferson County's agricultural, forest, mineral land
and aquaculture resources.
5. The Jefferson County Planning Commission, over a period of ten (10) months, deliberated the
Draft Comprehensive Plan in a public process and made revisions to the goals, policies and
strategies of the elements contained therein, including Natural Resource Lands. The Planning
Commission released their Recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan on February 2,
1998.
.
6. Between February 2 and May 15, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners made further revisions to the goals, policies and strategies of the Plan's
elements, including the Natural Resource element.
7. The BOCC, on May 15, 1998, released a document of BOCC revisions to the Comprehensive
Plan that included revisions made to the goals and policies of the Natural Resources element
8. Between May 15 and July 31, 1998, the Board made further revisions to Plan elements,
including Natural Resources, based on legal review provided by the Jefferson County
Prosecuting Attorney's office, recommendations made by a Comprehensive Plan review team
(the Consistency and Closure Team), and public comment .
9. Jefferson County, on July 31, 1998, released a Final Draft Comprehensive Plan that included
the final draft version of the Natural Resource element
10. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan contains a Natural Resource element that includes
goals and policies that address natural resource conservation and protection, and require that
interim resource lands ordinances be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
and amended as needed priori to adoption as final resource lands ordinances.
.
:\'OL
24 r~G~
21_:12
14
- .
- -,
.
11. The natural resource element also contains goals and policies that minimize conflicts between
resource-based land uses and adjacent non-resource land uses, and which support "the
sustainable use and conservation of Jefferson County's natural resources.
12. The natural resources element also contains maps designating forest, mineral, agricultural,
and aquaculture resource lands.
Housing Element
1. RCW 36.70A.070(2) identifies Housing as one of the six mandatory comprehensive plan
elements.
2. GMA Planning goal four (4), codified as RCW 36.70A.020(4), urges jurisdictions to
"encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population
of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage
preservation of existing housing stock."
3. Jefferson County's County-wide Planning Policy, which serves as a framework for the
development of the Comprehensive Plan, contains policies addressing affordable housing
throughout the County.
.
4. Jefferson County's Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997, contained a
Housing element that addressed existing and projected housing needs for all segments of the
population.
5. The Jefferson County Planning Commission, over a period often (10) months, deliberated the
Draft Comprehensive Plan in a public process and made revisions to the goals, policies and
strategies of the elements contained therein, including Housing. The Planning Commission
released their Recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan on February 2, 1998.
6. Between February 2 and May 15, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners made further revisions to the goals, policies and strategies of the Plan
elements, including the Housing element.
.
The Board included provisions that addressed the provision of affordable housing
through the inclusion of policy language that pennitted multi-family housing within
the County's Rural Village Centers
7. The Board, on May 15, 1998, released the Bacc revisions ofthe Comprehensive Plan that
included the revisions made to the Housing element
8. Between May 15 and July 31, 1998, the Board made revisions to plan elements, including
Housing, based on legal review provided by the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's
office, recommendations made by a comprehensive plan review team (the Consistency and
Closure Team), and public comment. Revisions include:
. A policy to consider the use of vacant public lands to accommodate low-income and
special needs housing opportunities through a study overseen by the Joint County-
City Housing Advisory Committee.
.
VOL
24 f~C~
2:1:13
15
.
A policy in which the County commits to. supporting the implementation of the
provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act, in recognition of the County's negotiated
agreement in resolution of the Gray Wolf litigation.
.
9. Jefferson County, on July 31, 1998, released a Final Draft Comprehensive Plan that contained
the final, revised Housing element that is consistent with the GMA and the County-wide
Planning Policy.
10. As required by RCW 36.70A.070(2), the Housing element:
.
Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected needs.
Identifies sufficient lands available for a wide variety of housing types, including
low-income housing, group homes and multi-family housing.
Includes a reference to the County's inventory of undeveloped publicly-owned lands
and the commitment to utilize these lands in order to accommodate affordable
housing needs.
Includes goals, policies and strategies addressing the preservation and improvement
of existing housing stock, and the development of new housing in order to meet the
need for affordable housing to serve all economic segments of the community.
Includes goals and policies that address that address affordable housing in all areas of
the County.
Contains policies and strategies that address special needs housing, such as assisted
care living facilities, group homes, and housing for the developmentally disabled,
mentally ill, persons with mvi AIDs, the elderly, and other special needs.
.
.
.
.
.
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation
.
I. RCW 36.70A.160 requires that jurisdictions identify open space corridors within and between
urban growth areas.
2. The Washington State Growth Management Act enumerates thirteen (13) planning goals,
codified as (RCW 36.70A020), to help guide the development and adoption of
comprehensive plans.
. Planning goal nine (9) urges jurisdictions to "encourage the retention of open space and
development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase
access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks."
. Planning goal thirteen (13) urges jurisdictions to "identify and encourage the preservation
of lands, sites, and structures, that have historic value or archaeological significance."
3. Jefferson County's Discussion Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997,
contained an Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation element that
identified Jefferson County's parks and recreational resources, wildlife corridors and
historical features,
4. The Jefferson County Planning Commission, over a period often (10) months, deliberated the
Draft Comprehensive Plan in a public process and made revisions to the goals, policies and
strategies of the elements contained therein, including the Open Space, Parks and Recreation,
and Historic Preservation element. The Planning Commission released their recommended
draft comprehensive plan on"February 2, 1998.
~.VOL
.
24 FAG::
2114
16
.
5. Between February 2 and May 15, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners made further revisions to the goals, policies and strategies of the plan's
elements, including the Open Space, Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation element.
6. The Board, on May 15, 1998, released revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that included the
BOCC revisions made to the Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation
element of the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Between May 15 and July 31, 1998, the Board made further revisions to plan elements,
including Open Space, Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation based on legal review
provided by the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's office and recommendations made
by a comprehensive plan review team (the Consistency and Closure Team).
8. Jefferson County, on July 31, 1998, released a Final Draft Comprehensive Plan that included
the final revised Open Space, Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation element.
9. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan contains an Open Space, Parks and Recreation and
Historic Preservation element that meets the planning goals enumerated in RCW 36.70A.O20
and in accordance with RCW 36.70A.160.
10. The Open Space, Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation element includes goals,
policies and strategies that strive to protect and enhance open space lands and parks, and link
them to a county-wide trail network.
.
11 ~ The Open Space, Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation element also includes a
parks and recreation strategy to ensure adequate park and recreational facilities are developed
to serve the needs of the general public.
12, The Open Space, Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation element contains an
assessment of current level of service standards for existing parks and recreational facilities
throughout the County in order to determine whether the County is providing an adequate
level of park and recreation service to the general public.
13. The Open Space, Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation element also contains maps
identifying potential lands for open space corridors and parks and recreation areas,
conservation easements, and areas for future cooperative preservation efforts.
Economic Development Element
1. GMA planning goal five (5) (RCW 36.70A.O20(5)) urges jurisdictions to "encourage
economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive
plans, promotes economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed
and disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient
economic growth, all within the capacity of the state's natural resources, public services, and
public facilities."
.
2. Jefferson County's County-wide Planning Policy, which serves as a framework for the
development of the comprehensive plan, contains policies that address economic
,..--
VOL.
2 4 rM;~
21;15
-.;
17
development within the County and calls for the inclusion of an economic development
element within Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan.
.
3. Jefferson County's discussion Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997,
included an Economic Development element in accordance with the County-wide Planning
Policy and in accordance with GMA planning goal five (5).
4. The Jefferson County Planning Commission, over a period often (10) months, deliberated the
Draft Comprehensive Plan in a public process and made revisions to the goals, policies and
strategies of the Economic Development element. The Planning Commission released their
Recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan on February 2, 1998.
5. Between February 2 and May 15, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners made further revisions to the goals, policies and strategies of the plan's
elements, including the Economic Development element.
6. On May 15, 1998 the BOCC issued revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that included the
BOCC revisions made to the Economic Development element.
7. Between May 15 and July 31, 1998, the BOCC made further revisions to Plan elements,
including to Economic Development, based on legal review provided by the Jefferson County
Prosecuting Attorney's office and recommendations made by a comprehensive plan review.
team (the Consistency and Closure Team).
8. Jefferson County, on July 31, 1998, released a Final Draft Comprehensive Plan that included
the final revised version of the Economic Development element.
.
9. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan, adopted on August 28, 1998, contains an Economic
development element that includes goals and policies that promote economic development
throughout the County and to all segments of the population, encourages programs to train
and retrain the population, streamline regulatory provisions, promote coordination among
economic development agencies and the County, and support a wide army of economic
development opportunities to all residents.
10, Jefferson County's strategy for economic development focuses on four key issues:
.
The retention of the existing business and industries.
The prómotion of new businesses and industry that complement the County's rural
development pattern.
Providing educational opportunities to retrain workers and train new workers.
Identifying and targeting new businesses and industries that the County wishes to
promote in order to diversity the economy of the County and meet the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Promoting cooperation and collaboration with the Economic Development Council and
other economic development agencies and organizations to develop a detailed economic
development plan for Jefferson County
.
.
.
.
.
lVOL
2A '.Ar~
If r",,-
21:16
18
"~ '
,.; "
Environment Element
.
1. GMA planning goal ten (10) (RCW 36.70A,020) encourages jurisdictions to "protect the
environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and
the availability of water."
2. Jefferson County has adopted ordinances such as Shoreline Management Master Program
(adopted on March 7, 1989, and revised on August 16, 1993, August 26, 1996, and February
6, 1998) consistent with RCW 90.58 (the Shoreline Management Act), and the Interim
Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-0509-94, adopted May 9, 1994 and amended by
Ordinance No. 14-0626-95 on June 26, 1995) which protects the values and functions of
Jefferson County's designated critical areas, as required by RCW 36.70A.060(2).
3. Jefferson County's discussion Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997,
contained an Environment element that identified Jefferson çounty's environmental
resources and included goals and policies that addressed environmental conservation and
protection and the protection of critical areas.
4. The Jefferson County Planning Commission, over a period often (10) months, deliberated the
Draft Comprehensive Plan in a public process and made revisions to the goals, policies and
strategies of the Environment elements. The Planning Commission released their
Recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan on February 2, 1998.
.
5. Between February 2 and May 15, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners made further revisions to the goals, policies and strategies of the plan's
elements, including the Environment element.
6. The Board, on May 15, 1998, released Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan that included the
BOCC revisions made to the Environment element.
7. Between May 15 and July 31, 1998, the BOCC made further revisions to plan elements,
including Environment, based on legal review provided by the Jefferson County Prosecuting
Attorney's office and recommendations made by a comprehensive plan review team (the
Consistency and Closure Team).
8. Jefferson County, on July 31, 1998, released a Final Draft Comprehensive Plan that included
the final revised Environment element.
9. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan contains an Environment element that includes goals
and policies that balance land development and environmental protection, and require that
Jefferson County review the Shoreline Management Màster Program and the Interim Critical
Areas Ordinance and other environmental ordinances for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and amend them as needed to meet the goals and policies ofthe
Comprehensive Plan.
10. The environment element outlines Jefferson County's environmental protection strategy
which focuses on four essential components:
.
Watershed and fish habitat recovery management based on plans developed in
cooperative stakeholder groups, in order to better protect and manage water resources
.
VOL
24 i'Mi
2:1:17
19
.
and in response to proposed I istings of fish species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
Regulatory strategies for consolidated environmental review and cooperation among
regulatory agencies in order to improve permitting efficiency and effectiveness.
Critical area protection strategy in order to improve the information identifying and
regulating critical areas based on the best available science.
Public education, and involvement in order to improve public participation,
understanding of, and compliance with environmental regulations.
.
.
.
11. The environment element also identifies Jefferson County's critical environmental areas,
including: aquifer recharge susceptible and vulnerable areas, frequently flooded areas,
landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, fish and wildlife habitat
areas, and wetlands, and contains goals, policies and strategies designed to protect these areas
form incompatible land uses. Maps of critical areas are contained in the Environment
element.
12. The Environment element includes goals, policies and strategies to guide the revision of the
Shoreline Management Master Program for the protection of shoreline resources consistent
with the Growth Management Act, the Comprehensive Plan, the Shoreline Management Act,
and other applicable laws. The policies affirm that upon completion of this revision, the
goals and policies ofthe Shoreline Management Master Program shall be incorporated as an
element of the Comprehensive plan, consistent with RCW 36.70A.480.
Essential Public Facilities
1. Jefferson County currently contains two designated essential public facilities: Jefferson
County International Airport (JCIA), and the Jefferson County Waste Management facility.
.
2. Jefferson County's County-wide Planning Policy, which serves as a framework for the
development of the Comprehensive Plan, contains policies addressing the siting of new
essential public facilities which are consistent with the provisions contained within the GMA
as RCW 36.70A.200.
3. Jefferson County's discussion Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997
which did not include an Essential Public Facilities element.
4. Subsequent to the release ofthe Draft Comprehensive Plan, an Essential Public Facilities
element was added to the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency with the County-wide
Planning Policy, to address the County's existing essential public facilities, identify
procedures for siting new essential public facilities, and ensure that new and expanding
essential public facilities are not precluded by plan goals or policies.
5. The Jefferson County Planning Commission, over a period often (10) months, deliberated the
Draft Comprehensive Plan in a public process, during which time, the Essential Public
Facilities element was reviewed and revisions were made to the goals, policies and strategies
of the element. The Planning Commission released their recommended draft comprehensive
plan on February 2, 1998.
- VOL
24 fAΠ- 2 :t~8
.
20
, "
"" J ':,
, "
.
.
.
6. Between February 2 and May 15, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners made further revisions to the goals, policies and strategies of the plan's
elements, including the Essential Public Facilities element.
7. The Board, on May 15, 1998, released Revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Plan that
included the revisions made to the Essential Public Facilities element.
8. Between May 15 and July 31, 1998, the Board made further revisions to Plan elements,
including the Essential Public Facilities element, based on legal review provided by the
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's office and recommendations made by a
comprehensive plan review team (the Consistency and Closure Team).
9. Jefferson County, on July 31, 1998, released a Final Draft Comprehensive Plan that included
the revised Essential Public Facilities element.
10. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan contains an Essential Public Facilities element that
includes goals and policies that identifY a process for siting new essential public facilities,
and address future development at Jefferson County's International Airport essential public
facility.
11. The Essential Public Facilities element contains guidelines and polices that provide for a
process and a set of criteria to be used to identifY sites for the development of those facilities
classified as essential public facilities.
12. The Essential Public Facilities element also provides for a coordinated interjurisdictional
approach to siting new essential public facilities and for the expansion of existing essential
public facilities.
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
1.
Amendments to GMA legislation in 1997, specifically RCW 36.70A.362, authorize
jurisdictions to recognize and include existing resorts as master planned resorts which
may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by RCW
36.70A.362.
2.
RCW 36,70A.362 defines an existing resort as a resort in existence on July 1, 1990 and
developed, in whole or in part, as a significantly self-contained and integrated
development that includes short-tenn visitor accommodations associated with a range of
indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property boundaries in a setting of
significant natural settings.
3,
RCW 36.70A.362 further states that an existing resort may include other pennanent
residential uses, conference facilities, and commercial activities supporting the resort, but
only if these other uses are integrated and into and consistent with the on-site recreational
nature of the resort.
4.
Port Ludlow is a planned community which prepared a phased development plan for the
area in 1967 that envisioned a community of 6,000 dwelling units with attendant
recreation and resort/conxention facilities.
,,;" ..
VOL
24 rA~t
2~1~9
2\
14.
15.
-
5.
Over time, the development plan was revised which entailed the decrease of the total
number of residential dwelling units and the addition of a marina, a golf course and a
commercial center.
.
6.
Since 1988, development at Port Ludlow has proceeded under the 1987 Port Ludlow
Development Plan which outlined the continued residential build out and added a RV
park, a recreation center and a 9-hole expansion to the golf course.
7.
In 1993, the Port Ludlow Final Environmental Impact Statement was adopted by
Jefferson County which examined the environmental impacts associated with the phased
development of additional residential units, the addition of 47,500 square feet of
commercial space, a 36-room Inn, expansion of the existing marina, construction ofa
new golf course clubhouse, development of recreational trails and supporting
infrastructure, and designation of 815 acres as penn anent open space. Additionally, the
EIS provided for sewer and water connections to accommodate the 2250 residential units
and associated Master Planned Resort activities. The developers continue to address on-
site and off-site infrastructure impacts through project-specific mitigation and conditions
of approval.
8.
Because of its urban and suburban-style development pattern, Port Ludlow was
considered in Jefferson County's County-wide Planning Policy (#1.4) as being
"characterized by urban growth."
9.
In 1994, Jefferson County adopted Ordinance #02-0110-94, designating Port Ludlow as
an Interim Urban Growth Area,
.
10.
In 1994, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated the
designation of Port Ludlow as an Interim Urban Growth Area and stipulated that the
County must complete a land use and infrastructure analysis prior to designating Port
Ludlow an IUGA.
11.
In 1996, Jefferson County adopted an Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (#05-0214-
96) designating Port Ludlow as a Planned Rural Community based on criteria codified in
section 2.70 of said ordinance.
12.
In 1995, the Port Ludlow Planning Committee, comprised of Port Ludlow residents and
established at the request of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners,
submitted a 20-year Plan that articulated the Community's goals and policies for the
development of Port Ludlow, .
13.
In 1997, Jefferson County released a Draft Comprehensive Plan which included many of
the goals and policies identified in the Port Ludlow 20-year Plan and proposed the
designation of Port Ludlow as a Master Planned Community and Resort.
In 1997, during review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan by the Jefferson County
Planning Commission, Port Ludlow was designated as a Master Planned ResortlMaster
Planned Community because of its resort and residential components.
In 1998, during review of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan as Recommended by
the Jefferson County Planning Commission, the BOCC designated Port Ludlow as a
.
~VQL
24 rAC~
22
~ . .
2:120
- '
.
.
.
",
Master Planned Resort based on its phased development patterns and because it meets the
criteria for existing master planned resorts codified as RCW 36.70A.362.
16.
The BOCC finds that, because of its development history and patterns of development,
the land on which Port Ludlow is located is determined to be better suited and has more
long.term importance as a Master Planned Resort than for the commercial harvesting of
timber or agricultural production.
17.
Jefferson County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan specifically identifies policies to guide
development ofthe Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
18.
Jefferson County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the surrounding area as
rural residential and/or forest resource lands, which precludes new urban or suburban
land uses in the vicinity of the existing resort.
19.
Port Ludlow's development according to its master plan and 1993 EIS is consistent with
Jefferson County de'velopment regulations established for critical areas. All applications
for new development are reviewed for critical area concerns.
Capital Facilities Element
1. RCW 36.70A.O70 (3) identifies a Capital Facilities element as one of the six mandatory
comprehensive plan elements.
2. Jefferson County's Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997,
included a Capital Facilities Element that contained goals, policies and strategies
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.O70 (3).
3. Jefferson County Planning Commission public meetings conducted throughout 1997
culminated in a final public hearing on the Capital Facilities element on January 14,
1998 wherein the Capital Facilities element was adopted as amended. The Planning
Commission recommended Capital Facilities element was issued on February 2,
1998.
4. Based on public workshops conducted on February 23, 1998; March 9, 1998, and
April 23, 1998, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners proposed revisions to
the Jefferson County Planning Commission recommended Capital Facilities element.
In the public workshops referenced above, the Board of County Commissioners
reviewed the level of service standards and the six year capital facilities concept plan
adopted, and selected the adopted six-year capital financing plan that includes two
funding strategies.
5. The Capital Facilities element includes an inventory of existing capital facilities
owned by Jefferson County including name, location, and capacity; and a forecast of
the future needs for these facilities.
" ..
VOf-
24 uu
23
2121
6. The Capital Facilities element includes level of service standards for all existing and
future public capital facilities, and policies and strategies to ensure adequate public
facility capacity concurrent with development.
7. The Capital Facilities element includes a six-year capital facilities concept plan to
finance Jefferson County capital facilities based on identified revenue sources and
projected funding capacities.
8. The capital facilities element policy CFP 3.2 identifies the requirement to reassess the
Comprehensive Plan if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs;
therefore, ensuring that the Land Use element, the Capital Facilities element, and the
Capital Facilities element capital facilities financial plan are coordinated and
consistent.
9. The Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney conducted a preliminary legal review,
dated May 1, 1998, and a final legal review, dated August 7, 1998, of the capital
facilities element.
Utilities Element
1. RCW 36.70A.O70 (4) identifies the Utilities Element as one of the six mandatory
comprehensive plan elements.
2. Jefferson County's Draft Comprehensive Plan, released on February 24, 1997,
included a Utilities Element that contained goals, policies and strategies pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.O70 (4).
3. Jefferson County Planning Commission public meetings conducted throughout 1997
culminated in a final public hearing on the Utilities Element on January 7, 1998
wherein the Utilities Element was adopted as amended. The Planning Commission
recommended Utilities Element was issued on February 2, 1998.
4. The Utilities Element includes general current utility locations and existing and future
capacity needs and requirements of utility facilities in Jefferson County.
5. Based on public workshops conducted on March 26, 1998 and April 23, 1998, the
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners proposed revisions to the Jefferson County
Planning Commission recommended Utilities Element.
6. The Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney conducted a preliminary legal review,
dated May 1, 1998, and a final legal review, dated August 7, 1998, of the Utilities
Element.
~VOL
2 4 rAr,~
24
2 ':122
, ~
j
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,~,
7. To ensure consistency with the Capital Facilities Element and clarify Jefferson
County capital commitments, the Utilities Element adopted on August 28, 1998
contains revised narrative language specific to watershed planning.
8. To provide greater clarification of multiple party involvement in the growth
management planning and development of water utilities and service, the Utilities
Element adopted on August 28, 1998 contains one additional strategy.
VOL
24 rAr,'
25
2123
.
Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners
Glen Huntingford, Chair
Daniel Harpole
Richard Wojt
Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board
Jefferson County
Planning Commission
Phil Andrus, Chair
Vicki Eldridge
Stan Kadesh
Frank Ohly, Jr.
Pat Rodgers
Michelle Sandoval
Dan Tittemess
Janet Welch
Sylvia White
Cheryl Halvorson, Secretary
1997-98 Planning Commissioners Who Participated in Plan Development:
Will Gariss, Sr., Heidi Hall, Marjorie Jo Mueller, Leonard Palmer
.
Jefferson County
Department of Community Development
Director
Al Scalf
Long-Range Planning Division
Comprehensive Plan Team
Barry Berezowsky
Harriet Beale
Alice King
Blake Liebermann
Randy Kline
Nancy Solheim
Associate Planner
. Associate Planner
Assistant Planner
Assistant Planner
Planning Technician
Planning Clerk
.
Long-Range Planning
Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9123
. VOL
2.4 r:é,~ - 2 :l25
Jefferson County Staff
.
Department of Public Works
Transportation, Utilities Elements
and Capital Facilities
Klara Fabry
Public. Works Director
Gary Rowe
David Goldsmith
Director of Public Services
Deputy Director of Public Services
David Skeen
Paul McIlrath
Prosecuting Attorney
Chief Deputy Prosecutor
Jack Westennan
Jeff Chapman
David Nash
Pat Pel1)'llian
Assessor
Cartography, IDMS
Cartography, IDMS
Cartography, IDMS
Larry Fay
Environmental Health Department
Donna Gastfield
Auditor
Judi Morris
Treasurer
1997 -98 Planning Staff
John Holgate
Marion Taylor
F orrner Senior Planner
Office Assistant
.
Advisory Boards and Consultants
Berryman & Henigar
FEISIDEIS, Transportation, Existing
Conditions
Plan Elements
Capital Facilities
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.
Henderson & Young and Company
Madrona Planning and
Development Services
Transportation Planning Advisory Board
Watterson West Group, Inc.
Plan Elements
Transportation
Population Analysis
Many individuals who are not mentioned above also contributed to the development of
the Jejjërson County Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners would
like to acknowledge the participation of the many County staff and Planning Commission
members, past and present, who have been involved in this effort. Acknowledgment and
appreciation are also extended to members of the Community Planning Groups and to
the many Jefferson County residents who provided input and attended numerous public
meetings over the years of Plan development.
.
VOI~
2A 'H~
'f r....,,-
2 ~t26
.
.
.
Table of Contents
VISION STATEMENT .................................'........,."................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1
IN"TR 0 D U CTI ON ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
WlIA T IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................................................................................................. 1-1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN ........................~........................,...,..................................................... 1-2
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING....,...,..,.,.......................................................................... 1-2
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT .................................................................................................. 1-6
THE PLANNING PROCESSIPUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................... 1-7
The Comprehensive Planning Process ............................................................................................... 1-9
Planning Under GMA: Community Planning....................................................,........,..,.....,.."..,..,.... 1-9
Planning Under GAiA: Interim Plans and Regulations.............................................................,...... 1-10
ANALYSIS OF THE DISCUSSION DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .......................................... 1-11
The "Legs" Of Jefferson County's Compliance Strategy................................................................. 1-12
Organizing Principles: Planning Objectives ...................................................... .............................. 1-17
PLAN OVERVIEW........................................................ ....... ,..................................................... ........... 1-19
CHAPTER 2
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ........................................................................... 2-1
THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK ..................... ...................................................................................... 2-1
How the Comprehensive Plan Works .....,.....................................................................................,.....2-1
Components of the Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................................ 2-1
The Decision-Making Process........................ ...................~...............................,....,........ ..,.......,..,..... 2-3
Amending the Comprehensive Plan ................................~...............................................,.....,............. 2-3
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Appeals ......................................................................................... 2-7
MONITORING PLAN EFFECTIVENESS .............................................................................................,2- 7
CHAPTER 3
LAND USE AND R{JRAL ELEMENT ................................................................................................. 3-1
LAND USE STRATEGY GUIDELINES .................................................................................................3-1
POPULATION PROJECTIONS ................................,.............................................................................. 3-2
RURAL RESIDENTIAL LANDS: ALLOCATION OF GROWTH ........................................................ 3-4
Inventory and Analysis of Rural Development Patterns ...............................,...................................... 3-5
RURAL COMMERCIAL LANDS ...........................................................................................................3-8
Planning Assumptions and Goals ................,......................................................................................3-8
Designation and Classification of Rural Commercial Lands ........................................................... 3-10
Logical Boundaries of Rural Commercial Areas .............................................................................. 3-15
Evaluation of Commercial Boundaries With Respect to GAiA Planning Goals ............................... 3-26
INDUSTRIAL LANDS STRATEGY ........................,.............................................................,...,.......... 3-27
MASTER PLANNED RESORTS ................,.......,............. ................................,.............,...................... 3-31
VOL
24
-- 2127
'r I r ç',
...", -;
DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES """""",....................."""""...............".." 3-31
Existing Lots of Record.....................,..."",..".""."."...................................."................."....,..........3-32
Land Use and Zoning Densities................"......."...""."... "."...".............. """ "."". ".............."." ".., 3-32
Economic Activities Outside of Rural Commercial Areas """........................."""."................"..".. 3-34
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map .."......".................................................................................... 3-35
.
GOALS AND POLICIES ..................................................................................................................... 3-65
S TRA TE G IE S . .............................,....................................................... ........................ ...... .................., 3- 93
CHAPTER 4
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 4-1
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN .................................................".."".4-1
NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS STRATEGY ....................................""...."....................".................. 4-2
Introduction ..............."".................................................,..",.................."."."..,.....................,...,....... 4-2
Forest Lands.".."..."......................"."...""."........,."..................... ."".......".............." ...".................. 4-2
Mineral Lands .......................,.............................................................~...............,..........,.......,....,.......4-6
Agricultural Lands .". "..................................".."". "..."...... "................. ......".". "". ".............. ...."...... 4-8
Aquaculture Resources.........................." ""...................................""..."...., ...............". "..."........... 4~ 1 0
GOALS AND POLICIES ..................................................................................................................... 4-31
S TRA TE G IES ... ......... ...... ........ .......... .......... ..... ......... ......... ................ ....... .......... ...................... ........... 4-40
.
CHAPTER 5
H 0 USIN" G ELEMENT.............. ...... .... .................. .............. ........... ..................... ........... .n.... ......... ........ 5-1
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ,.........................".........""..."......."". 5-1
HOUSING BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS..............".........""............"..."..."".."... 5~2
Introduction .... .........,.,............... ...... ........"...'.......",. """," ... ........... ........",...".......... ...... ... ...,...."..,..... 5-2
Demographics ....""...."..............."" "...." "........ ......................... ".... ".................".""".."................... 5-3
Housing Stock """""""...."........."..".....".....................~........".""...".. ..................""."...................." 5-6
Ajjordability ...... ...... ... ... ..,.. ................. ...... .......",....,...... ............... ...... ...".,.,.. ................." ..,.. .,... ... ..... 5-8
HOUSING RESOURCES ..............."................................"........ .."."................."."...",................"...".. 5-10
Assisted Housing...........................................................,....".,......................"."....................,...,...,...5-10
Special Needs Housing ......................."""..""..."."...........................""................"."......"..............5-11
Land Resources for Projected Future Housing Needs..".....".""................."......................"........... 5-12
Land Requirements for Multi-Family Housing................... ..."..................... ....."""................ ......". 5-13
Land Requirementsfor Single-Family Housing....."...".....".."................."..........................".......... 5-13
HOUSING STRATEGY.."."..............,....".....,..."...." ........ """" """""""""""""""""""""""""""'"", 5-13
Regionalism and Fair Share ......"..""."..."........... """" ......""."......................"".".............. ..."."".. 5-14
Regulatory Framework. ..."...................................". ..".,.... ........... ........".,.,..................",..",.,..,....... 5-15
Variety and Housing Alternatives ""."..""............................ ...". ..."............."."""".. ........... ......"".. 5-15
Special Needs Housing ...".........""...."."..."... ..."."."..."",...."................ """""""""......."....."""... 5~ 15
GOALS AND POLICIES ..................................................................................................................... 5-17
STRA TEG IES ......... ................. ........ ........ ........... ........... ............. ""nn ......... ............ "n'""", ............ ..... 5-20
.
.'<
',101-
2'4
r~C~
2~28
.
.
.
CHAPTER 6
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION,
AND mSTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT ................................................................................6-1
WASHINGTON STATE OPEN SPACE ACT ...............h................................................................. ....... 6-1
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN .......h.....h...............h......................... 6-1
OPEN SPACE STRATEGY ............................... ...................................................................................... 6-2
PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGY ...........................,................................................................ 6-4
The Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................... 6-4
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis ........................................................................................................... 6-6
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS .......h.........h................................,...............................h.................................. 6-7
HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION STRATEGY........... 6-8
Introduction .~...................................................................................................~..................................6-8
Process for the Development of the Historic and Prehistoric Preservation Strategy ........................ 6-9
GOALS AND POLICIES .....................................................................................................................6-17
S TRA TEG IE S ... ............ ......... ........ ................... ........... ............ ........... ...... ..... ....... ................................ 6-22
CHAPTER 7
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT ....................................................................................... 7-1
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ...........,................................................. 7-1
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 7-1
Economic Development Organizations ............ .................................................................................... 7-3
Economic Indicators and Trends .......................................................................................................... 7-3
Commercial Activity..... ................... ,................................ .......... ,............................. ........ ..... .........., .... 7-4
Economic Base and Inventory of Major Employers ........................... ................ .................................. 7-5
Industrial and Manufacturing Sites .......... ................ ..... ........ ............ ......................... .......................... 7-7
Commercial Development Sites............................................................................................................ 7-7
FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY....................... 7-8
Population and Labor Force ................................................................................................................ 7-8
Future Trends by Sector................................................................................................... .................... 7-8
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .......................................~......................................... 7-10
GOALS AND POLICIES ..............................,...................................................................................... 7-11
STRATEGIES ....................................................................................................................................... 7-17
CHAPTER 8
ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT ......... .............. ...................................... .......... ......... .................... '.......,.. 8-1
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ............................................................. 8-1
ENVIRONMENTAL STRA TEGIES........................................................................................................ 8-2
Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy ............................................................. 8-2
Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review ....................................~........................ 8-5
Critical Areas Protection Strategy ..................~....."'h"""....................................................................8-5
Public Education and Involvement Strategy ................................~....................................................... 8-6
VOL
24
¡-AU'
2:129
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .................................................................... 8-6
Shorelines .......................................,..........,........................,......,................................................,.........8- 7
Air Quality..............................,.....,..............................,.,.,.....,.................................................,.,..........8- 7
Natural Heritage Vegetation and Landforms....................................................................................... 8-8
View and Noise Conditions ...,..............................,..............................................,..............,.................8-8
GOALS AND POLICIES ..."""..."..."""".".n.......................................,.............................................. 8-33
STRATE G IE S ..... .... ............ ....... ..... n. n......... ..... ............. ............' ............. ................. .............. ."""'.".. 8-43
CHAPTER 9
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC F A CILITIES..................................................................................................... 9-1
RELA TIONSIllP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN .....................................................,....... 9-1
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES - ISSUE BACKGROUND ............................................................ 9-1
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES VS PUBLIC PURPOSE LANDS .................................................. 9-2
GMA GOALS...................................,........... ..,........... ..,.......................................................................... 9-2
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY ............,..........................................................,....,..,.......,..,.......9-3
GOALS AND POLl CIE S """."n............ ................... ............. ............. ..... ......... ..... .... ............... .... ......... 9-5
STRATEGIES .. ................... n.. .................. ......... ........... .................. .... ... ...................... ......... "..""" ...... 9-10
GLOSSARY....... ..... ....... ........... ........... ......... .............. ............. ... ......... .......... ........................ .... ........ ..... G-1
MATRIX OF OPPORTUNITY ............................................................................................................M-1
VOI-
24
r Ar~ ~
2 ~t 30
.
.
.
.
.
.
VOLUME II
CHAPTER 10
TRANSPORT A TI 0 N ELEMENT ...................................................................................................... 10-1
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ........................................................... 10-1
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT STRATEGY.................................................................................... 10-1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ....................................................................................10-2
Transportation Planning Advisory Board .......................................................... ................................ 10-2
Washington State Department of Transportation..................................................... .......................... 10-3
Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization.............................................................. 10-3
City of Port Townsend............. on........... ...................... ............. ........... ............... ...... ....,..................... 10-4
Port of Port Townsend......................................... ............. .................................................. ..... ........... 10-4
Jefferson Transit.................................... .............................. ................... ............................................ 10-4
Community Planning Groups.. ...................... ........~.........................,.................................................. 10-4
CONCURRENCY..................... ,..........................~ ..~..... .......................................... ....,................... ........ 10-5
EXISTING CONDITIONS .......,..........,..........,.................................................................................,..... 10-7
Motorized Transportation System - Vehicular................................................... ................................ 10-7
Roadway Functional Classifzcation ,.............................................,....................,............................... 10-8
Accident Data... ............ ................. ..,............. ........... ................................................... ............,.....,.. 10-17
Weather-Related Traffic Hazards.. ....................................................................... ............................ 10-19
Emergency Service Routes and Facilities .......................................................................................~ 10-19
Public Trans it,........ .............. ,.. ,.........,..,.................. ...... .............................................. ............ ..,...... 10-19
Air, Waterborne, & Freight Travel .................................................................................................. 10-21
NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.......................................................................... 10-24
Pedestrian Circulation and Bicycle and Equestrian Trails .............................................................. 10-24
EXISTING ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES .......~................................................................................... 10-26
CRITERIA USED IN TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS.................................................................. 10-27
Level of Service Standards ... ,....,.. ,........ ............................................................................... ............ 10-27
PROPOSED PLAN ..,..... .................................................................................................... ................... 10-31
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 10-33
Capacity Analysis......................, ............................... ........................................................... ..,......... 10-33
Non-Capacity Analysis ....................... .............................................................................................. 10-34
GOALS AND POLl cms ........................ ...... .... ...... ............ ............ ............... ..................... ............... 10-35
S TRA TE G IES .... .......... .... ...... .... ........................... ........ ........ .................. .... ............ .... .... ........ ............ 10-43
CHAPTER 11
UTIl.ITIES ELEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 11-1
RELATIONSlllPS WITH ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ....................................11-1
EXISTING FACILITIES............~...............,..........,................................................................................ 11-1
Electrical Utilities. ..............,......................................................... ......................... ,............ ............... 11-1
Telecommunications Systems.... ,..................................... ........ ............................................... ............ 11-3
Sanitary Sewer ..... ................ ,..,..................... ,............. .................................................... ..,..... ............ 11-7
Solid Waste Management....,.............................. ............ .................................. ,...............,..... ............ 11-8
Water.... .................. ................ ...................~..... ........................ ...............;................. ........... ............. 11-10
lVOL
24
rAG~
2~:11
SURFACE/STORM WATER UTILITIES .........................,......................,.......................................... 11 ~ 14
PROPOSED FACILITIES """"""""."""""""""""""""""""""""""..................,...,...........................11-23
Electricity................"...................................................................................................................... 11 ~23
Telephone..................................,...............................~..........................................,.......................... 11-23
Sanitary Sewer .........,...................................................................................................................... 11~24
Solid Waste .....,...........................................................................,................................................... 11-26
Water...............,...............................................................................,............................................... 11-28
Water: Assessment of Needed Capacity """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""............ 11-29
GOALS AND POLICIES """""."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".................................... 11-37
STRATEGIES """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".""""""""".................................................. 11-43
CHAPTER 12
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT """""""""""'."""""""""."""""""""""""""""..................... 12-1
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN """""""""""""""""""""""""""" 12-1
ADOPTING LEVELS OF SERVICE """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""......................... 12-2
METHOD FOR USING LEVELS OF SERVICE """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 12-3
ESTABLISHING THE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS ................................................ 12-5
POPULATION GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 12-7
SIX YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) COST PROJECTIONS: 19911-2003..................... 12-8
SIX YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) FINANCING STRATEGY: 19911-2003.............. 12-8
LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS .... ................ """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" ......... 12-11
CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN 19911-2003 ..................................................................... 12-12
Animal Control Shelter ...,....................................................................................................,.......... 12-15
Community Centers.......... ........... .....,..... ..... ........................... ......,.,."...........................,................. 12-17
Corrections Inmate Facilities .......................,..................,.".........................,...,........................"... 12-20
Sheriff Facilities. ......,.,.......... ......... ... ..... .......,........ ..... .....,.,............. ... ..".".,.".......... .............,..,..... 12-22
Justice Facilities ...............................................................................,........................"................... 12~24
Government Administrative Offices.. ..... .........,......... ............. .................. ...... .......... ................. ...... 12-26
Maintenance Shop Facilities.,.....................................................................,...,............................... 12-29
Parks and Recreation................".........................,......................,.,..........................,.,.................... 12-32
Solid Waste ...................,..........................."..,....................,....................,....,.........................,........ 12-40
Storm water/Flood Control Facilities.,...................,...................."."..........................."..,.............. 12~42
Transportation........."............. .............,.,..,.............. .......,.................................................,..,........... 12-44
GOALS AND POLICIES """""""""'.""""""""""""""""""""""'."""""""""""""""""""""""'" 12-49
S TRA TEG IE S .............. ..... ............. ........................ ..... .... ...... ........ .............. .............. .......... ................ 12-55
VOL
24
2i32
FAr,;'
.
.
.
8.
8
8
LIST OF MAPS
VOLUME I
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON .................................................,................................,.,......."..,.............. 1-3
PORT HADLOCK RURAL VILLAGE CENTER - INTERIM COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RVC) ............3-36
QUILCENE RURAL VILLAGE CENTER - INTERIM COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RVC) ....................... 3-37
BRINNON RURAL VILLAGE CENTER - INTERIM COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RVC) ........................ 3-38
NESS' CORNER GENERAL CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (GC)................................................. 3-39
IRONDALE CORNER GENERAL CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (GC) ....................................... 3-40
STATE ROUTE 19/20 INTERSECTION GENERAL CROSSROAD. INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (GC) ........... 3-41
CHIMACUM NEIGHBORHOODNISITOR CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (NC) ........................ 3-42
DISCOVERY BAY NEIGHBORHOODNISITOR CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (NC) .............. 3.43
FOUR CORNERS NEIGHBORHOODNISITOR CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (Nq ....,........... 3-44
GARDINER NEIGHBORHOODNISITOR CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (NC) ..........................3.45
MATS MATS NEIGHBORHOODNISITOR CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (NC)........................ 3-45
W A W A POINT CONVENIENCE CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (cq ......................................... 3.46
NORDLAND CONVENIENCE CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (cq.............................................. 3.46
BEAVER VALLEY CONVENIENCE CROSSROAD - INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE (CC) .................................. 3-46
PORT LUDLOW MASTER PLANNED RESORT - VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER (Vcq......................................3-47
GLEN COVE INDUSTRIAL AREA - INTERIM LIGHT INDUSTRIAUCOMMERCIAL ZONE (uq ............................... 3-48
QUILCENE INDUSTRIAL AREA - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (LI) ........................................................................ 3.49
CENTER INDUSTRIAL AREA - RESOURCE -BASED INDUSTRIAL ZONE (RBIZ) ...................................................... 3-50
GARDINER INDUSTRIAL AREA - RESOURCE -BASED INDUSTRIAL ZONE (RBIl) ................................................. 3-51
WEST END INDUSTRIAL AREA - RESOURCE -BASED INDUSTRIAL ZONE (RBIZ).................................................. 3-52
PORT TOWNSEND PAPER MILL INDUSTRIAL AREA - INTERIM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE (Ill) .................. 3-53
1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLANNING AREAS ........................................................................................ 3-55
POPULATION DENSITY, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY........................................................................... 3.57
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY...........................................:......................... 3-59
.VOL
2A '~n:
'i (",,-
2:133
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION, WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ...h"""""",'..........h.h"""".........h............... 3~61
.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP """'..................h"""""""""""""""""""""...........h...............hh. 3-63
FOREST RESOURCE LANDS, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY....h................,....h...............,..h................h 4-13
FOREST RESOURCE LANDS, WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY """','.............h""""".........hh................... 4-15
FOREST LAND GRADES, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY """""",'...............h""""'...........h"""'.......h..... 4-17
FOREST LAND GRADES, WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ""................h""""""........h""""".........h........ 4-19
INTERIM MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS.............................,..,.............................,..................,..,..............,......4-21
GEOLOGY MAP, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY".....,.....................,..,....................""""""""""........h...... 4-23
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ......hh""""'.............h""".............h............... 4-25
AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF LONG TERM COMMERCIAL SIGNIFICANCE,
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ..............,...,........................,.....,.,......................"..........................................,4-27
COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVEST AREAS, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY .........h........................ 4-29
LANDS IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL OPEN SPACE CORRIDORShh....................hh...................h............... 6-11
PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, CONSER V A TI ON EASEMENTS, AND AREAS FOR FUTURE
COOPERATIVE PRESERVATION EFFORTS - EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY .h.h................................. 6-13
.
PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS, WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ,,".............hh"""'..........h.h........... 6-15
CRITICAL AREAS - WETLANDS, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ...h"""""..........h""""'............h........... 8- 9
CRITICAL AREAS - WETLANDS, WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY "............h"""""'..........h""""'.........h 8-11
CRITICAL AREAS - AQUIFER RECHARGE SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS,
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY ,........................,.,.".........................".,........................".,................,..............8-13
CRITICAL AREAS - FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY h"""'...........h 8-15
CRITICAL AREAS - LANDSLIDE HAZARD, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY """'.............h.................... 8-17
CRITICAL AREAS - EROSION HAZARD AREAS, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY "'.............h............... 8~19
CRITICAL AREAS - SEISMIC HAZARD, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY................hh................h........... 8-21
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS, EASTERN JEFFERSON
COUNTY......h""""""""......,...h.............................."""""""""'h..............,........................,..""""""""""'h"....... 8-23
CRITICAL AREAS - FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY """'..........h...... 8-25
CRITICAL AREAS - FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY.....h.................. 8-27
TOPOGRAPHY, EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY............................,....................,........""""""""""'.........,.. 8-29
TOPOGRAPHY, WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY """"""""'h......................,........................""""'.............h 8-31
.
VOI-
24 rM;~
2 "i34
ii
.
.
.
VOLUME II
LOCATION OF CURRENT ELECTRICAL UTILITY FACILITIES ......................"'.""""'......."'.."""............ 11-16
LOCA TION OF CURRENT CONVENTIONAL TELEPHONE FACILITIES ................................................... 11-17
LOCATION OF CURRENT CONVENTIONAL CELLULAR PHONE FACILITIES",......,.....................",..... 11-18
LOCATION OF CURRENT CABLE TELEVISION FACILITIES ..................................................................... 11-19
LOCATION OF CURRENT SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES........................................................................ 11-20
LOCATION OF CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES .................................................. 11-21
PROPOSED JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER SERVICE AREAS ................"'................................................. 11-22
-i
'" VOL
24 r~r,~ - 2135
Hi
VOLUME I
TABLE 3-1:
TABLE 3-2:
TABLE 3-3:
TABLE 3-4:
TABLE 3-5:
TABLE 3.6:
TABLE 3-7:
TABLE 3-8:
TABLE 4-1:
TABLE 4-2:
TABLE 4-3:
TABLE 5-1:
TABLE 5-2:
TABLE 5-3:
TABLE 5-4:
TABLE 5-5:
TABLE 7-1:
TABLE 7-2:
TABLE 8-1:
TABLE 8-2:
TABLE 9-1:
LIST OF TABLES
.
JEFFERSON COUNTY AND CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
20- YEAR POPULATION PROJECTION AND DISTRIBUTION ......."""..................,...... 3-4
RESIDENTIAL LOT DEMAND COMPARED TO EXISTING VACANT
RESIDENTIAL LOT SUPPLY PROJECTED OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS
1996-2016 ............................................................................................................................................3- 7
NUMBER OF LOTS AND TOTAL ACREAGE FOR ALL PLATS FROM 1990 TO
MAY 1996 INCLUDING SUMMARY APPROV ALAND PROPOSED PLATS ..".............3-8
REDUCTION IN COMMERCIALLY ZONED ACREAGE FROM 1994 ZONING....".... 3-22
INFILL ACREAGE FOR RURAL CROSSROADS .."."...""....................".....,..,.............. 3-23
INFILL ACREAGE FOR RURAL VILLAGE CENTERS ............"".............................".. 3.24
INDUSTRIAL LAND DESIGNA TIONS.....................,..,..........................."......................3-30
SUMMARY OF LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ...................................... 3-33
GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FOREST RESOURCE LANDS
IN JEFFERSON COUNTY .........,...................................."......................,............................4-3
.
GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE
LANDS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY....."....................."".....,............................................... 4-8
MATRIX FOR ASSESSING MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................."............. 4-35
PROJECTED JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS, 1996-2016"",..............................5-4
HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND SIZE """""""""""""""""'..............,.............."....................... 5-4
HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE ................"........"................"....,....,.......................".""".......5-6
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY LEVELS BY INCOME GROUP..............."....................... 5-9
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AVAILABILITY BY INCOME GROUP .......................""...... 5-10
COMPARISON OF WAGES BY INDUSTRY IN 1995............"........................"...."........ 7-4
MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, 1996....................................."."........ 7-6
WATER RESOURCES: USES, REGULA TORY ISSUES, AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS ...................,.........................,...............................8-3
WATER RESOURCES: RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND APPLICABLE LAWS"....... 8-4
DISTINGUISHING PUBLIC PURPOSE LANDS FROM ESSENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES ...."...".."..............................,........................".................................,.9-2
.
VOL
24 Ln-
r" '"
2 :136
iv
.
.
.
VOLUME II
TABLE 10-1:
TABLE 10-2:
TABLE 10-3:
TABLE 10-4:
TABLE 10-5:
TABLE 10-6:
TABLE 10-7:
TABLE ll-IA:
TABLE II-IB:
TABLE 11-2:
TABLE 11-3:
TABLE 11-4:
TABLE 11-5:
TABLE 11-6:
TABLE 11-7:
TABLE 11-8:
TABLE 12-1:
TABLE 12-2:
TABLE 12-3:
TABLE 12-4:
TABLE 12-5-A:
TABLE 12-5-B:
TABLE 12-6:
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS, JEFFERSON COUNTY................... 10-17
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
BY LOCATION ........... ... .............. ............................. ............ .......... ................................. 10-18
JEFFERSON TRANSIT ROUTES: RIDERSHIP - JANUARY 1998.............................10-20
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS - ROADWAYS .........................",......................,10-29
PENNISULA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
LOS SUMMARY ANALYSIS .............................................................."'.........."'............ 1 0-30
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TRAFFIC
VOLUME FORECASTS, 2016..............................................",.....",................................ 1 0-46
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT EXISTING &
FORECAST ADT LOS.................................................................................".,.,.............. 10-53
CURRENT P.U.D. NO.1 SEPTIC SYSTEMS ......................................................"'.......... 11-8
FUTURE SEPTIC SYSTEMS .........................................."'................................................ 11-8
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND WATER SUPPLY........................................................... 11-13
JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER SYSTEMS OF INTEREST......................................... 11-14
2018 PROJECTED LOAD LEVEL..........................................",..",................................. 11-23
SOLID WASTE FORECAST AND RECYCLING LOS FOR JEFFERSON
COUNTY ...........,...,.."..........,."'....................,..."',..,."..,.,..,,............................................. 11-27
JEFFERSON COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS ............................. 11-28
WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY ......................"'.............................................................. 11-32
JEFFERSON COUNTY LARGE WATER SYSTEMS GROUPED BY
PLANNING AREA...... ................... ............... ......... ...................... "'.................."'....... "'.. 11-33
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) UNIT MEASUREMENTS ............"'......"'.......................... 12-3
POPULATION GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS...................................................................... 12-7
COUNTY-OWNED/OPERATED PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPITAL COST
SUMMARY ............,..,........,..,..,..."'..,.................,..,..,......"'................................................ 12-8
REVENUE SUMMARY ...........................................................................,......,..........,....." 12-8
PRIMARY FINANCIAL STRATEGY, FUNDING THE UNFUNDED
BALANCE SUMMARY .......,.,.........,...........................................................................,..,.. 12-9
SECONDARY FINANCIAL STRATEGY, FUNDING THE UNFUNDED
BALANCE SUMMARY ............................................................,..,..,.....,.......................... 12-10
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD: STATUS QUO.......................................... 12-11
VOI-
24 rM;~' .. 2 :137
v
TABLE 12-7:
TABLE 12-8:
TABLE 12-9:
TABLE 12-AC-l:
TABLE 12-AC-2:
TABLE 12-CC-l:
TABLE 12-CC-2:
TABLE 12-CC-3:
TABLE 12-CC-5:
TABLE 12-CF-l:
TABLE 12-CF-2a:
TABLE 12-CF-2b:
TABLE 12-CF-3:
TABLE 12-CF-5:
TABLE 12-CJF-l:
TABLE 12-CJF-2:
TABLE 12-CJF-3:
TABLE 12-CJF-5:
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD: INCREASED ...............................,............ 12-11
.
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD: REDUCED................................................ 12-11
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN OPERATING
COST IMPACTS.. ........... .......... ................... ................ .......................... .................. ......... 12-13
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, ANIMAL CONTROL..................................... 12-15
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL
PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS....................................................................... 12-16
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COMMUNITY CENTERS ............................. 12-17
COMMUNITY CENTERS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS
LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 12-18
COMMUNITY CENTERS, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN,
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ................................................................................. 12-19
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .....................................................12-19
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY CORRECTIONS
INMATE F ACILITIES..................".,...,........................................,......,....................,....... 12-20
COUNTY CORRECTIONS INMATE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS..................................................... 12-21
COUNTY SHERIFF ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................. 12-22
COUNTY CORRECTIONS INMATE FACILITIES & SHERIFF
ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND .FINANCING
PLAN, SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS ...............................,....................................... 12-23
.
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE........................................................ 12-23
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY mSTICE FACILITIES ..--.............12-24
COUNTY mSTICE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL
PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS....................................................................... 12-25
COUNTY mSTICE FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING
PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS.................................................................... 12~26
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE........................................................ 12-26
TABLE 12~CGAO-l: CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY GENERAL
ADMINISTRA TIVE OFFICES.,................................".."................................................. 12-27
TABLE 12-CGAO-2: COUNTY GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOSW CAPACITY ANALYSIS............................... 12-27
TABLE 12-CGAO-3: COUNTY GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, CFP
PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ................ 12-28
.
TABLE 12-CGAO-5: OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................... 12-28
vi
VOL
2A 'fr~
...'f r"j:
21-38
.
.
.
TABLEI2-MF-l:
TABLE 12-MF-2:
TABLE 12- MF-3:
TABLE 12-MF-5:
TABLE 12-11:
TABLE 12-PR-l:
TABLE 12-PR-2a:
TABLE 12-PR-2b:
TABLE 12-PR-2c:
TABLE 12-PR-2d:
TABLE 12-PR-2e:
TABLE 12-PR-2f:
TABLE 12-PR-3:
TABLE 12-PR-5:
TABLE 12-SW-3:
TABLE 12-SW-5:
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY MAINTENANCE SHOP
FACILITIES .,.......................................................,...."......,.............,................................. 12-29
COUNTY MAINTENANCE SHOP FACILITIES, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS..................................................... 12-30
COUNTY MAINTENANCE SHOP FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND
FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS .............................................. 12-31
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE ..................................................... 12-31
ACRES OF COUNTY OWNED PARK............................................................................ 12-32
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, PARKS AND RECREATION ........................ 12-32
PARKS AND RECREATION: REGIONAL PARKS, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................. 12-33
PARKS AND RECREATION: COMMUNITY PARKS, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY....................................................... 12-34
PARKS AND RECREATION: NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ....................................................... 12-35
PARKS AND RECREATION: TRAILS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS..................................................... 12-36
PARKS AND RECREATION: OPEN SPACE, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS.................................................... 12-37
PARKS AND RECREATION: CAMPGROUNDS, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY..................................................,...................... 12-38
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING
PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ..................................................................... 12-39
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE ..................................................... 12-40
SOLID WASTE, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES
AND USES OF FUNDS .................................................................................................... 12-41
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE ..................................................... 12-42
TABLE 12-SWM-3: STORM WATER/FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES, CFPPROJECTS
AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS .................................... 12-43
TABLE 12-TR-l:
TABLE 12-SWM-5: OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE ..................................................... 12-44
CURRENT FACILITEIS INVENTORY, ROADWAY FACILITIES.............................. 12~44
TABLE 12-TR-3:
TABLE 12-TR-5:
RURAL & DESIGNATED TOURIST ROAD FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS
AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCE AND USE OF FUNDS......................................... 12-46
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................-................... 12-47
~VOL
2 4 r~G~- 2139
vii
VOLUME I
FIGURE I-I:
VOLUME II
FIGURE 10-1:
FIGURE 10-2:
FIGURE 10-3:
FIGURE 1O~4:
FIGURE 10-5:
LIST OF FIGURES
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS DIAGRAM................................................... 1-8
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN,
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICA TIONS..............................,................................................ 10-10
TRANSIT ROUTES ......,.......................................,.".,..............................,....................... 10-22
AIRPORTS AND PORTS ................................................................................................. 10-23
BICYCLE TRAILS.........................,.,....,....,..............................,..",..,...................,.."....... 10-25
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, EXISTING
VOLUMES AND LOS ..,.,.,..................................,........,.,................................................, 10-57
VOL
24 rAC~
2 1- 40
viii
.
.
.
.
.
.
VISION STATEMENT
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
VISION S T A TEMENT
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
From the shores of the Pacific Ocean to the tranquil waters of Puget Sound and Hood Canal, the area
now referred to as Jefferson County has been an inspiration to the generations who have called it home.
The stories and legends of native tribes who inhabited the area speak eloquently ofthe spirit of this land;
and the journals of the early explorers are replete with descriptions of the awesome beauty and bountiful
natural resources found here.
First explored by Spaniards in 1775, it was several decades after Capt. George Vancouver's extensive
exploration of the inland waters ofPuget Sound and the Strait of Juan De Fuca in 1792 that settlers began
to arrive. Coming by land and by sea, these early settlers found refuge in the harbors and bays that today
bear the names of Discovery Bay, Port Townsend, Port Hadlock, and Port Ludlow. Soon shipbuilding,
logging, sawmills, farming and canneries became the mainstay of the economy. The harbors were filled
with sailing vessels representing nearly every maritime nation in the world. The more adventurous
settlers moved farther out from population centers. Many of the rural communities of Jefferson County,
such as Nordland, Brinnon, Gardiner and Discovery Bay, have their names and roots tied to these early
settlers.
The native people who inhabited this area long before the arrival of the first explorers and settlers, were
integrally linked to the land, its bounty and its beauty. Through the signing of the Point No Point Treaty
with the United States in 1855, followed by the Quinault Treaty, local Indian tribes ceded their lands and
waters to the United States, reserving the right to continue fishing, hunting, and gathering activities in the
ceded territories. In addition, the tribes reserved lands for their people represented today by the
reservations of the Skokomish in Mason County, and the Hoh and the Quinault. Following the signing of
these treaties, non-Indian settlement proceeded rapidly.
Jefferson County's economic history reflects the enthusiasm and disappointment of the events of the day.
The excitement of positioning itself to be the terminus of the transcontinental railroad in the 1870's
became an economic disaster when the railroad stopped on the eastern shores of Puget Sound. Then,
after the economy was buoyed by the military build-up of World War I and II, the post-war
decommissioning of coastal defense system at Forts Worden, Townsend, and Flagler dismantled dreams
of a strong economic base.
While many people chose to leave this area to pursue a more stable economic future, some remained.
Their love for the area and its resources and their commitment to the community overcame the unknowns
presented by a changing world,
The qualities that brought the early settlers to Jefferson County continue to attract new immigrants with
the beauty, resources, people, and unique way of life offered here. Unguided and undirected, however,
the growth and development necessary to accommodate these new residents may unknowingly alter the
very qualities that attracted them in the first place.
. VOI-
2 4: ~A[~
2 :t,ll
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ix
August 28, 1998
VISION STATEMENT
In 1990 the Legislature of the State of Washington detennined that statewide assets and community
qualities were becoming increasingly at risk as more and more people were attracted to the resources and
lifestyles offered. To address these issues, the Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA),
which established a statewide land use planning framework for individual communities, regional bodies
and state agencies. For the first time, efforts at all levels of government were to be coordinated and
conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts on the natural environment and preserves the natural
resource base of the State, while accommodating anticipated growth and development,
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is a reflection of the wide variety of individual and
community desires, needs, aspirations, short-comings, and accomplishments, all of which are tempered
by the parameters established by the GMA. The Plan is a set of guidelines; goals, polices, and strategies
to give growth and development both context and direction, aimed at promoting the best environmental,
social and economic future for Jefferson County citizens.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITS PROMISE
The Comprehensive Plan as presented herein has been eight years in the making, Discussed, debated,
revisited and revised, it represents the time and energy of hundreds of citizens contributing thousands of
hours, It also represents a fundamental restructuring of the delivery of community services by
prioritizing public expenditures to areas designated to accommodate new population growth, and
requiring the coordination of services to maintain stated service levels.
While the Plan will impact the future delivery of services, its purposes go well beyond how public funds
are to be spent and services delivered. The Plan, in a very real sense, is a statement about Jefferson
County as a community, and how it will be in the future as a place to work and play, to raise a family or
retire, to get an education or start a business. To this end, the Plan represents a statement of basic
principles. And it is these principles by which its success will be judged:
.
Maintain and preserve the natural beauty, rural character, and variety of life styles that make up the
intrinsic character of this community.
Support a healthy, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy by recognizing existing
local businesses, making prudent and appropriate infrastructure investments, and encouraging new
business start-ups and recruitment which are compatible with and complementary to the community,
Protect and conserve the local natural resource base, balancing both habitat and economic values.
Reinforce and enhance the historic sense of "place" or "community" around traditional population
centers.
Prevent the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land in favor of infill and the
strengthening of local communities.
Provide a degree of flexibility and autonomy for local communities to address their own unique
needs.
Encourage yet unrealized opportunities in community education, technology, transportation
alternatives, habitat restoration and economic diversification.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To accomplish the above principles, our decision-making must take into account the need for local
communities to shape their own sense of the future within the guidelines contained in this Plan. We
must work together, tapping the strengths and diversity of the citizens of the community. We must
clearly understand the fiscal impacts of our decision making and create opportunities for those who have
less or are just starting out to be able to participate fully in all aspects of the community, And finally, we
must be consistent, coordinated, and flexible in the delivery of community services.
\'01-
24 "irr
(" ',':
2:t 4:2
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
x
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
VISION STATEMENT
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A LIVING DOCUMENT
The Comprehensive Plan is a living document and will change as circumstances, challenges and outside
influences change. Remaining to be answered are a number of questions such as classification and
designation of the Port Hadlock and Glen Cove areas; the designation of the airport and surrounding
area; the potential listing of a number of salmon species as endangered; and the availability of ground
and surface water resources. As issues are reviewed and the Plan is revised, the foundational principles
that guided the development of this document will in turn be applied to any change. For the Plan to
accomplish its stated goals it must be reflective of the values which make up the .community. To this
end, the Plan must ultimately support a community and a future that is liveable, affordable, and
sustainable. This is no small task, but neither is it an impossible task. The ingredients necessary for the
promise of this plan to be realized are an active and informed citizenry and an understanding and
responsive government.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR VISION
The Comprehensive Plan which follows is a statement about the future. We, the Board of
Commissioners, in adopting this Plan, are projecting a future in which the essence of the rural nature and
character of Jefferson County is retained, while accommodating new growth and development in
traditional community settings and specific designated areas. We see a future where new development
actively supports the public services and community assets necessary to accommodate the development.
We see the retention of our traditional natural resource industries, while providing opportunities for
private sector diversification of our economic base. We see active participation in the balancing of
competing uses for community resources, and the restoration of critical habitats and environmentally
sensitive areas. And we see a future that embraces options and opportunities for all citizens to fully
participate in a healthy economy and a clean environment within their local community.
To accomplish the above, the rules, regulations and requirements which will implement the provisions
contained in this Plan must: a) balance the needs of the community with the rights of individuals; b)
recognize and reflect the diversity of landscape and traditions found in various parts of the County; and,
c) provide for both consistency and flexibility in their application.
The development of the Comprehensive Plan has been a significant community undertaking. With
continued cooperative support of the community and its government, the qualities reflected in this Plan
which first brought people to this area and are cherished by those living here today, will be passed on to
future generations who will call this place home. .
.~"
VOL
2 A '~r~
If: (.-,,>-
2 ~l ~13
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
xi
August 28,1998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
JEFFERSON COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Jefferson County is located in the north-central portion of Washington's Olympic Peninsula. The County
is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and on the east by the waters of the Admiralty Inlet and
Hood Canal. Clallam County and the Strait of Juan de Fuca define the northern border, while the southern
boundaries are defined by Mason and Grays Harbor Counties. Jefferson County comprises 1,808 square
miles, and is the eighteenth largest of the State's thirty-nine counties. The Olympic National Park and
National Forest, which bisect the County into western and eastern halves, comprise approximately 65
percent of the County's 1.16 million acres ofland. The majority of the County's population, nearly 96
percent, resides in eastern Jefferson County. A map of the entire County is shown on page 3.
Jefferson County is largely a rural County with one incorporated city, Port Townsend, and one Master
Planned Resort, Port Ludlow. The County's population (25,754 as of 1996) is located primarily in the
northeast portion of the County, in the communities of Port Townsend, Tri-Area, Quimper, and Port
Ludlow. Quilcene and Brinnon are the largest communities in the southern portion of the County. Port
Townsend, the County's only designated Urban Growth Area, is the largest community, with 8,366
residents. The remaining communities of the County range in population from 400 to 1,200 people.
The County is comprised primarily of agricultural and forest lands, and is dotted by clusters of small
communities. This rural quality of life is what attracts many residents and tourists to the County and is
what most residents have expressed a desire to protect. Recent growth rates have made eastern Jefferson
County one of the fastest growing areas of the State. As a result of this rapid growth rate, Jefferson
County was required to participate in the State's Growth Management Act, which provides guidelines and
assistance for managing growth throughout the State.
Jefferson County has prepared a Comprehensive Plan that outlines goals and policies that help define,
direct and guide future growth and development throughout the County, The Plan was drafted with
considerable input from the community, which remains committed. to maintaining Jefferson County's
high quality of life while, at the same time, providing economic, recreational and other opportunities to its
residents.
WHAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan is a legal document that serves as a decision-making guide for both officials and
citizens, and is intended to serve as a tool for making decisions about future growth and development in
the County over the next 20 years. The Plan is comprehensive in that it identifies the major issues that
influence future growth and development issues. It proposes actions to address the issues, and it targets
use of the County's resources in the most efficient way.
. VOL
2 A 'Art:"
If r",,-
2:144
Jeffen;on County Comprehensive Plan
1-1
August 28, 1998
INTRODUCTION
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN
.
To date, Jefferson County's comprehensive planning process can be characterized as one of conflict and
challenges. Yet out of this charged environment has emerged a unique opportunity to direct the
participation of the community into a meaningful and enduring vision that is pragmatic and responsible.
This Comprehensive Plan has been crafted to incorporate the lessons learned in a difficult planning
process. It is the intent of this Plan to accept and build on the difficulties of the past; identify appropriate
solutions consistent with relevant laws, decisions, adopted policies, and community involvement; and
propose a responsible strategy with which the County can effectively face the future.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING
Comprehensive land use planning is a systematic process designed to define a iong-range community
vision. The process unites a clear understanding of existing conditions within a community with the
development of goals and policies that enable that community to make decisions from which its long-
range vision will be addressed, The process is a powerful tool for turning promising possibilities into
long-term realities.
Planning enhances our ability to weigh competing needs in our community and make judicious
allowances for each. It affords us the opportunity to balance the demands of development with benefits of
economic development and environmental protection. It provides us with tools for supplying family
wage jobs and affordable housing without compromising our rural character. In addition, it prepares us to
harness the rewards of a growing population while simultaneously meeting the challenge of providing
safe, healthy, and convenient community services for everyone. Planning enables us to address the
cutTent needs of the community before development begins and then directs how and where that growth
should occur.
.
The Comprehensive Plan includes assessments of existing conditions containing baseline data for key
areas. The data provide a "snapshot" of Jefferson County including:
.
Existing land use patterns;
Population projections and distribution trends;
Inventories of historical and cultural resources;
Housing supply, conditions and affordability; and
Critical areas located within the unincorporated portions of the County.
.
.
.
.
A more complete analysis of existing conditions and land use needs and demands are included in the
March, 1995 Existing Conditions Report Alternatives! and the February 24, 1997 Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEISi for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. This Draft Environment Impact
Statement was prepared to assist citizens and decision-makers in formulating a new long-range
Comprehensive Plan for Jefferson County as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The
DEIS is prepared according to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
I Benyman and Henigar, Existing Conditions Report Alternatives, Staff Drafts, Jefferson County, WA, March 1,
1995.
2 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Jefferson County, WA, February
24, 1997, 164 pages plus maps and bibliography.
24 rAG:
.
.1/01-
2i45
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-2
August 28, 1998
~
~
~
3:
Q
a
I
~.
~
~
;:¡
,--
N
;-Þo
"
N
~
-
a'J
{
'"
~
-...
ffij)
--+-
!
-- l
t!1
"!1
Þ'!j
rtI
:=
( ')
0
Z
("')
0
~
Z
~
to(
..
~
)0
( ')
::t
-
Z
C)
~
0
Z
z
;;j
Q
C'
q
ë
:z
~
"
lb.'
~ID~DIIOD
.~n.og"'i
'r~~i,;~,
¡¡.~~,.,.:[F
fn~".n
.."¡~["~...
[~='tt~!i
. :i"I'n
~ ~'q; q
~ j 1.'
~
~
õ
S"
¡;;
f
.~
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the DEIS is to compare and analyze the possible environmental impacts of the plan
alternatives which have been prepared by the planning staff and Planning Commission with input from
the County's community groups and residents. The alternatives include a Preferred Alternative as well as
three (3) other alternative means of distributing future growth throughout the County. The «No Action"
Alternative is the existing Comprehensive Plan which must be included in the SEP A review but which is
not consistent with the provisions of the GMA. The four alternative "Growth Scenarios" that are
presented and analyzed in the DEIS are:
.
The Focused Growth Alternative
The Dispersed Growth Alternative
The Moderate Growth Alternative
The Preferred Growth Alternative
.
.
.
The GMA requires that Jefferson County and the cities within it prepare comprehensive plans to manage
population and employment growth for the next 20 years (1998-2018), The County has worked to meet
this mandate with extensive public involvement and community outreach, including work with 14
community planning areas covering the County.
The DEIS evaluates environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of the proposed
alternative plans. Adoption of a plan is a programmatic or non.project action and SEP A requires that the
analysis of non-project actions, therefore, be general in nature in order to address the broad implications
of the alternatives.
In addition to the discussion of potential impacts, the environmental analysis is also intended to provide
for public review and comment, to assist the elected officials in making decisions, and to provide a
framework for subsequent environmental review that will be associated with implementation measures
such as development regulations and projects.
The analysis and findings resulting from the environmental review are based on technical studies which
were completed in the planning process. The DEIS and the Draft Comprehensive Plan are, therefore,
companion documents which together were considered in the public review and adoption process. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of May 27, 1998 includes additional analysis and findings
resulting from public comments on the DEIS. The FEIS includes all comments received in writing along
with County responses to the comments.
This Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies, and strategies which, when implemented, will assist
the County in achieving its desired land uses, which are depicted on the Land Use Map. The Land Use
Map illustrates how, and where, the County will accommodate future land uses. While interim controls
are being adopted concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan, more detailed development regulations that
implement the Comprehensive Plan will be established subsequent to the adoption of this Plan.
Individual "elements" of this Comprehensive Plan describe goals and policies that have been developed to
provide clear policy direction for community land use decision-making in the future, Each element also
includes strategies that implement the goals and policies.
The Plan includes provisions for:
.
Monitoring the effectiveness of the Plan in achieving goals.
An amendment process which allows yearly review and analysis of the Plan.
Implementing strategies or "tasks" which will ensure that the goals are met.
.
.
. VOL
24 'Ir~
r...,O:
Z1-47
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-5
August 28, 1998
INTRODUCTION
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
.
Through the Growth Management Act, the State of Washington provides a new framework for land use
planning and the regulation of development in response to challenges posed to the quality of life by rapid
growth.
Within the framework established by the Act, a wide diversity of local visions for the future can be
accommodated; however, certain procedural criteria must be met. Recognition of the variations and
diversity in local communities is implicit in the framework of Growth Management. A "Bottoms Up"
approach to planning is recommended. "Bottoms Up" planning originates at the community level with
the articulation of a vision statement, which encompasses the values of as many different community
members as possible. The vision is then translated into goals and policies, and eventually regulations.
The main requirement is that the vision is consistent with the goals and intent of the Growth Management
Act.
It is important to note that a "Bottoms Up" approach does not mean that procedural and regulatory
constraints may be ignored. Successful "Bottoms Up" planning is predicated on allowing a community to
choose the appropriate "tools" for the job, provided that those selected are located entirely within a "tool
box" defined by the Growth Management Act. It is critical in the planning process for a jurisdiction to
provide sufficient guidance so that a community understands the need to avoid selecting "tools" which are
found outside of the "GMA toolbox." Failure to provide adequate guidance will likely result in
inappropriate choices being made.
The Growth Management Act establishes a number of requirements for local comprehensive planning.
The Act identifies specific goals for all Comprehensive Plans, prescribes the elements each plan is to
contain, provides requirements for interim regulations, mandates the establishment of "Urban Growth
Areas," requires local governments to demonstrate how they will pay for the improvements and facilities
called for in their plans, and mandates extensive public participation in the planning process.
.
The Growth Management Act changed the process for developing Comprehensive Plans in a number of
important ways:
.
It established 13 statewide goals with which local Comprehensive Plans and regulations must be
consistent.
.
In addition to the mandated goals, local Comprehensive Plans must contain the following elements:
. Land Use Element
. Rural Element for rural counties
. Housing Element
. Capital Facilities Element
. Utilities Element
. Transportation Element
.
Local governments were required to adopt interim regulations to . protect critical areas and natural
resource lands.
.
Local governments must demonstrate how the capital facilities necessary to support the development
envisioned by their Comprehensive Plan will be provided and paid for as development occurs, or
within a specified time thereafter.
.
','01-
24 fAE
2~'lS
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-6
August 28,1998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
.
The Comprehensive Plans of counties, and cities or towns within those counties, must be consistent
with one another.
.
Counties and cities or towns must agree on Urban Growth Areas "within which urban growth shall be
encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature." The Urban
Growth Area must be able to accommodate growth that is expected to occur over 20 years.
.
Counties and cities or towns must jointly adopt County-wide Planning Policies which establish
guidelines on how their Comprehensive Plans will be developed in order to be consistent.
THE PLANNING PROCESS/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Figure I-Ion the following page describes how the various pieces of the planning process fit together.
Concurrent with environmental review, public hearings and workshop meetings have been held by both
the Jefferson County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
",
2 4: rM,~ - 2:14:9
, VOI-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-7
August 28, 1998
INTRODUCTION
.
Figure 1-1
Comprehensive Planning Process Diagram
~
~
:.¡
>
....J
0
>
2:
u
:¡
=
~
c..
,
i Jeffer:son 2000 SÞ1IIegiç Visioning
: prepnd br ciIizaI ...... I'wco
I
. 1
County-wide Planning Poliçies
WC )nd br Gn>wrII ~ SIooriq ~
1
IDtcrim PIIIIlS aDd ReguJuioDS
odopI.od "" Boord oI'CauI¡ y C"_m;..'--.
1
Plan Development CommllDÎty Plaos
Pw.w.a Camaûssiaa R"'"- ~ m.oa-
i 1
I Discussion DIõIft
pubi<...........
1
Resttuctwing
t
-c-
I)¡;¡ft Plan Draft Environmcntallmpeet SWemcnt
public -- public --
'f
1
Plmoing Coowission Review Final Environmeutallqlaa StataneDt
public -- public --
1
Board of County CommWionçn;
I public ~
1
Adoption
I -_-__1_____-
.
I
I
I~
I I 1
I Dçvçlopq¡çnt Rçguluions I
~ l______------~
VOL
2 4 rM;~
2:150
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-8
August28,1998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Planning Process
The State legislature, responding to the Growth Strategies Commission Report on Long-Range Planning
in the State of Washington, adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990.
Jefferson County Commissioners voted to "opt-in" to the Growth Management Act in late 1991. It is
important to note that Jefferson County subsequently would have been required to plan under GMA due
to the County's rapid rate of growth. Public involvement in the planning process began immediately with
the formation of citizen task forces to develop Interim Critical Area, Mineral Land and Forest Resource
Land Ordinances.
Concuuently, the County developed a questionnaire, titled Jefferson 2000, which surveyed County
residents' opinions about their vision for the future. Jefferson 2000 also asked residents to rank "values,"
such as economic growth, environmental protection, visual beauty, and the accessibility of services.
The County convened the Jefferson 2000 Strategic Planning process, which involved 26 separate taxing
districts and service providers responsible for water, fire protection, libraries, and similar services to
County residents. Jefferson 2000 Strategic Planning used information generated by the Jefferson 2000
questionnaire and analysis of existing services, facilities, and long-range plans of the service providers to
begin capital facilities planning required by the GMA.
The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee was created in 1991 to oversee the development of
GMA planning in Jefferson County. The Steering Committee consisted of three representatives from the
City of Port Townsend, the only incorporated city in Jefferson County, and the three County
Commissioners. The Steering Committee was formed with a provision that, should additional Urban
Growth Areas be designated, the Steering Committee would be expanded to accommodate representation
from the newly designated UGA. The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee was staffed by
representatives from the City and County planning departments and other agencies as necessary,
including the State Department of Community Development (now the Department of Community, Trade
and Economic Development), State Department of Health (water issues), and State Department of
Ecology.
The County-wide Planning Policy (CWPP) was developed cooperatively between City and County staff
consistent with the requirements and procedural criteria of the Growth Management Act, and was
reviewed by the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. Public hearings were held on the
CWPP, and both City and County government adopted these policies by resolution on December 21,
1992.
The Planning Commission reviewed the existing 1979 Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the
criteria and requirements of the Growth Management Act and County-wide Planning Policy. The
Planning Commission also reviewed those community plans that were existing at the time and developed
a community involvement process to encourage ongoing participation consistent with the direction of the
Growth Management Act. In addition, the Planning Commission met to develop goals, review draft
elements prepared by consultants and staff, and hold public hearings on interim ordinances,
Planning Under GMA: Community Planning
The intent of the Community Involvement Process was to recognize the diversity of communities, life-
styles and interests found in Jefferson County. It afforded citizens a more direct, hands-on influence in
the planning process for their particular community. Some communities had existing plans adopted
VOL
2'4 r~C~
21-51.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-9
August 28,1998
INTRODUCTION
consistent with the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. For other communities, this was the first experience with
community plans.
.
Communities with existing adopted plans:
. Brinnon (1982)
. Coyle Area (1977)
. Gardiner (1989)
. MaITowstone Island (1978)
. Tri-Area (1982)
Communities which were identified in the Community Involvement Plan but which did not have formally
adopted plans:
. Discovery Bay
. West End
. Quilcene
. Shine
. Quimper
. Port Ludlow
. Paradise Bay
Additional Communities which requested permission to develop community plans:
.
North Port Ludlow
Lake Leland
.
.
Draft Community Plans were reviewed by both Planning Commission and staff. The results of the
Community Planning Process and the Draft Community Plans have been integral to the identification of
goals and policies included in this Plan.
Planning Under GMA: Interim Plans and Regulations
To ensure protection of critical areas and resource lands, the Growth Management Act required the
speedy adoption of specific interim plans and regulations prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan. The adoption of these interim regulations was significantly delayed because a consensus-based
solution could not be reached between community members.
Four interim ordinances have been adopted:
Critical Areas Ordinance
Forest Lands Ordinance
Agricultural Lands Ordinance
Mineral Lands Ordinance
July 8, 1994 (amended June 26, 1995)
January 21, 1997
May 25, 1995
May 25, 1995
The Growth Management Act also requires that counties, in consultation with their cities, designate
Interim Urban Growth Areas. The Act requires that growth which is urban in nature is only to occur in
those areas which are designated as "Urban Growth Areas". Designation ofInterim Urban Growth Areas
is intended to provide guidelines for comprehensive planning and establish certainty for land owners as
the planning process proceeds.
.
VOL
24 fAr,:
2:152
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-10
August 28,1998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
Jefferson County has taken several steps to comply with these interim planning requirements, The first
Jefferson County Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance, Ordinance #02-0110-94, was passed in
January, 1994, and included the designation of the City of Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and the Tri-Area
(Port Hadlock, Chimacum and Irondale) as Interim Urban Growth Areas (IUGAs).
The designation of the Tri-Area and Port Ludlow IUGAs was appealed to the Growth Hearings Board,
and the designation was invalidated. Jefferson County, in compliance with the Hearings Board ruling,
rescinded the initial IUGA designations, and designated the City of Port Townsend as the sole IUGA in
Jefferson County (Ordinance # 15-1028-94). The Tri-Area, Port Ludlow and Glen Cove were identified
as "study-areas." The County enacted the Growth Strategy Ordinance, No. 05-0214-96, an emergency
zoning ordinance declaring all lands outside of the Port Townsend IUGA as "rural."
In January, 1995, The Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance #01-0117-95, which amended
Ordinance #15-1028-94, and included the designation of Port Ludlow as an Interim Urban Growth Area.
The designation of Port Ludlow as an Interim Urban Growth Area was appealed to the Growth Hearings
Board, where the designation was invalidated, and Ordinance # 01-0117-95 was repealed in October,
1995.
In the decision overturning Jefferson County's designation ofInterim Urban Growth Areas, the Hearings
Board cited the need for land use analysis, capital facilities feasibility study, and continuous public
involvement as the basis for interim Urban Growth Area designation~ Jefferson County is currently
undertaking a land use analysis study, the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study, in cooperation with the City
of Port Townsend to detennine the Countywide need for commercial and industrial lands, and to provide
options for addressing commercial and industrial growth in Glen Cove and the Tri-Area. During the
study, which is to be reviewed and addressed at the first amendment cycle of this Plan, all commercial
area boundaries and the boundaries of the Port Townsend Paper Mill and Glen Cove industrial areas will
be interim.
ANALYSIS OF THE DISCUSSION DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Following extensive review of preliminary draft plans by the Planning Commission, Jefferson County
released a Comprehensive Plan - Discussion Draft on June 1, 1995. This Discussion Draft included goals
and policies organized by GMA elements, an Executive Summary of Existing Conditions, and an
Executive Summary of Comprehensive Plan Alternatives.
This Draft Plan was reviewed with mixed results. On the one hand, an analysis of the Discussion Draft
by County staff indicated that many of the plan's goals and policies (as proposed) were inconsistent with
the Growth Management Act and recent Hearings Board decisions. On the other hand, the analysis
indicated that many of the proposed goals, policies, and strategies accurately reflected community
concerns, were consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, and would be
appropriate for inclusion in the final Comprehensive Plan. As a result of this analysis, it became apparent
that the Discussion Draft should be substantially restructured and revised.
The results of the Jefferson 2000 Visioning process also were used to more fully develop existing goals,
policies, and/or strategies, or develop new ones. In instances where compliance with the above-mentioned
criteria was assured, but additional guidance was required to appropriately revise a previously proposed
draft goal, policy, and/or strategy, additional infonnation was obtained through a series of Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioner's Workshops on specific elements. These public workshop
, VOL
2 4: r~Œ
~-2 :153
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-11
August 28,1998
INTRODUCTION
meetings were a vital link in keeping the community updated on the progress of the plan and integrated
into the continuing planning process.
.
The "Legs" of Jefferson County's Compliance Strategy
This Comprehensive Plan has been crafted based on four fundamental sources of support and guidance.
Like legs of a table, each is essential to the stability and functionality of the whole. These "legs" include
two provided by State government and two developed locally. Together, they provide the framework for
a Comprehensive Plan which is responsive to local needs and regionally unique land use patterns, and is
in compliance with the goals and requirements ofthe Growth Management Act.
.
The first "leg" is compliance with the goals and procedural criteria of the Growth Management Act
and its accompanying legislation.
.
The second "leg" is compliance with County-wide Planning Policy (CWPP), adopted jointly by the
City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, to ensure that local plans are consistent with each other
and with the GMA.
.
The third "leg" is continuous, open public participation in the planning process.
.
The fourth "leg" is analysis and compliance with the Growth Hearings Board decisions and decisions
made by Washington State courts.
The GMA goals and procedural criteria, and analysis of the Growth Hearings Board decisions, set the
State-wide framework. The County-wide Planning Policy and public participation supply local detail for
realizing the broader GMA goals within Jefferson County,
.
Discussions related to each of the four legs in relation to each of the Plan elements are included as
appendices to the Plan.
The First "Leg": Requirements of the Growth Management Act
The opening section of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) sets forth the following legislative
finding:
"",uncoordinated and unplanned growth together with a lack of common goals expressing the publics
interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable
economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by the residents of the
state. "
The passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA) fundamentally changed the way comprehensive land
use planning is carried out in the State. The GMA requires that cities and counties update their
comprehensive land use plans consistent with State-wide goals and minimum requirements as established
by the statute and that they coordinate their planning efforts.
The central theme behind the Growth Management Act is that spontaneous and unstructured growth and
development is wasteful of our natural resource base and costly to the provision of public services and
facilities. By managing growth and development, the negative effects can be minimized and the benefits
can be maximized.
.
: VOL
24 r~G~
21-54
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-12
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
The GMA was originally passed by the legislature in 1990 and later amended in 1991, 1993, 1995 and
1997. The Act enumerated thirteen planning goals which are to be used to guide the development and
adoption of Comprehensive Plans and the development regulations that support the Plan. Local plans
must implement these goals in a balanced manner. The goals are:
1. Urban Growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services
exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
2. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-
density development.
3. Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans.
4. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage
preservation of existing housing stock.
5. Economic Development: Encourage economic development throughout the State that is consistent
with adopted comprehensive plans. Promote economic opportunity for all citizens of the State,
especially for unemployed and disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing
insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the State's natural resources, public services
and public facilities.
6. Property Rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having
been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions.
7. Pennits: Applications for both state and local governmental pennits should be processed in a timely
and fair manner to ensure predictability.
8. Natural Resource Industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including
productive timber, agricultural and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive
forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
9. Open Space and Recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water,
and develop parks.
10. Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the State's high quality of life, including air and
water quality, and the availability of water.
11. Citizen Participation and Coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process
and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
12. Public Facilities and Services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for
occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimwn
standards.
. VOL
2 4 r~Π- 21-55
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-13
August 28, 1998
INTRODUCTION
13. Historic Preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have
historical or archaeological significance.
.
Washington Administrative Code
The Growth Management Act provides the general legal requirements for the County's Comprehensive
Plan, and the Washington Administrative Code(W AC) provides guidance on implementation. The WACs
provide specific content requirements for the individual elements. Included within the WACs are
requirements to adopt interim ordinances to designate Urban Growth Areas, protect critical areas, and
mineral, agricultural and forestry resources. The WACs also contain specific minimum guidelines for
classification of agriculture, forest and mineral resource lands, and critical areas. In addition, the WACs
also include guidelines for public process and the adoption of ordinances and plans to implement the
GMA.
The discussion of the requirements of the Growth Management Act related to each of the Plan elements
are contained in Appendix A.
The Second «Leg": The County-wide Planning Policy
On December 21, 1992, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend adopted a joint resolution
establishing the County-wide Planning Policy (CWPP) as a policy framework to guide the development
of comprehensive plans,
The goal of the adopted County-wide Planning Policy is to ensure that local planning efforts will be
consistent with one another and consistent with regional growth management planning. According to the
Growth Management Act, each local Comprehensive Plan should demonstrate that such policies have
been followed in its development.
.
The County-wide Planning Policy recognized the need for counties, cities, special purpose districts, and
those agencies and jurisdictions involved in the delivery of public services, to coordinate the independent
development of local Comprehensive Plans. The implementing legislation to the Growth Management
Act required that counties and cities agree upon policy statements in eight subject areas, including:
1. The designation of Urban Growth Areas;
2. The promotion of contiguous and orderly development and the provision of urban services to such
development;
3. Joint county and city planning within Urban Growth Areas;
4. The siting of essential public facilities of county or state-wide significance;
5, The need to develop county-wide transportation facilities and strategies;
6~ The need for affordable housing for all economic segments ofthe population;
7. County-wide development and employment; and
8. Rural Areas.
.
In addition, the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County agreed to include policies pertaining to:
VOL
2 4: r~G~
21-56
Jefferson County Comprèhensive Plan
1-14
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
9. The requirements to analyze fiscal impacts associated with the impacts of growth; and
10. The context within which the County-wide Planning Policy is to be used.
The County-wide Planning Policy was developed through a collaborative process between County and
City service providers, utilities, and community organizations, and represents a composite framework, not
a series of individual, stand-alone concepts. The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee had
oversight of this process.
The following table offers a guide to the relationship between the County-wide Planning Policy and the
Comprehensive Plan Elements. Compliance with the County-wide Planning Policy has been integral to
the development of individual elements of this Plan. A detailed analysis of relevant CWPPs has been
included for each element in Appendix B.
Table 1-1
Relationship Between County-wide Planning Policies and Plan Elements
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT
1. Contiguous and Orderly Development and Utilities Element
Provision of Urban Services Capital Facilities
2. Joint County and City Planning within Urban Land UselRural Element
Growth Areas
3. The Siting of Essential Public Facilities of Essential Public Facilities Element
County or Statewide Significance
4. County-wide Transportation Facilities and Transportation Element
Strategies; Essential Public Facilities Element
5. Affordable Housing Housing Element
6. County-wide Development and Employment Economic Development Element
7. Rural Areas Land UselRural Element
8. Fiscal Impacts Analysis Capital Facilities Element
Transportation Element
All elements
9. County-wide Planning Policy: Use and Plan Implementation and Monitoring
Amendment
Compliance with the County-wide Planning Policy ensures that Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan
is consistent with the plans of other jurisdictions and service providers within the County, and that future
plans proposed by service providers or jurisdictions will be consistent with the County's Plan.
The Third «Leg": Public Involvement
Public involvement is the cornerstone of long-range comprehensive planning for any community.
Complying with the requirements of the Growth Management Act in Jefferson County has engaged
community leaders, interested citizens, developers, property rights advocates, environmentalists, and
neighborhoods in a dynamic, active public process.
The citizens of Jefferson County have participated in the development of the Comprehensive Plan in
many significant ways. Early in the planning process, "community forums" brought together residents
with varied backgrounds and interests to discuss growth management and its application in Jefferson
.~, " ".
VOi-
24 rAC~ - 2:157
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-15
August28,1998
INTRODUCTION
County. The success of these forums provided the foundation for public participation in the Community
Plans and the development of the interim ordinances. Citizen task forces have helped develop interim
ordinances and helped to establish goals and policies throughout the planning process.
.
Public participation has occurred not only through citizen participation in task forces and goals-setting
workshops, but also under the auspices of the Planning Commission. Consistent with the Planning
Enabling Act, the Planning Commission has been actively involved in comprehensive planning in
Jefferson County.
The Community Planning Process was adopted by motion of the County Commissioners on June 7, 1993,
, and community planning groups were fonned in 12 communities. Additional community planning groups
were later fonned in Lake Leland and North Port Ludlow.
In each of these communities the community planning process recognized the diversity of communities,
life styles, and interests in Jefferson County. It afforded citizens a more direct, hands-on influence in the
planning process for their particular community. The results of this citizen-based process have been
incorporated in the development of this Plan.
In addition to citizen participation in development of interim ordinances, Urban Growth Areas
designations and community plans, numerous public meetings have been held, both by the Planning
Commission and by the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Commission held a series of 37
public meetings on the February 26, 1997 Draft Plan, prior to producing the February 2, 1998 Planning
Commission Recommendations. To ensure public input and awareness of the draft plan, the Board of
Commissioners (BOCC) held four public hearings followed by 29 public workshops during the spring
and early summer of 1998, On May 15, 1998, the BOCC revisions of the Plan were published for public
comment, and a public hearing was held.
.
Additional revisions developed in two public workshops were based on public input and a legal review,
and were published in the Final Draft Plan of July 31, 1998. A public hearing was held on the Final Draft
and additional public comments were considered prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Throughout the process, citizens have had the opportunity to speak in community workshops held in
various locations in the County, Board of Commissioner workshops, and public hearings, and written
testimony has been received and considered in the development of this Plan.
Furthennore, Jefferson County initiated a number of public awareness programs to infonn and involve the
public throughout the comprehensive planning process:
.
The County produced a video entitled "It's Your Plan, " which was widely distributed to libraries,
community centers, and video stores and was broadcast on local tel~vision~
The Comprehensive Plan was posted on the Internet, making it accessible not only to County
residents, but to interested parties elsewhere, as well.
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) toured the County (BOCC On the Road) and discussed
residents' concerns on a wide range of issues, including development ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
The local newspaper, The Port Townsend Leader, has published numerous articles and has provided a
written forum for residents to voice concerns about the planning process and growth management
issues.
.
.
.
Public involvement in comprehensive planning is required for compliance with the GMA and has been
identified by the Hearings Board as essential to proper development and adoption of plans. In addition,
.
VOL
2 4 r~G:
2 i58
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-16
August 28, ]998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
public participation is essential in adopting a Plan which preserves the character of Jefferson County as
envisioned by community residents.
Community participation specific to individual plan elements is discussed in Appendix C.
The Fourth "Leg": The Decisions o/the Growth Management Hearings Boards
The Growth Management Hearings Boards, which are comprised of three-member panels appointed by
the Governor, were created to review comprehensive plans and associated development regulations for
compliance with the goals and procedural criteria ofthe Growth Management Act, The Hearings Boards
provide guidance on questions of compliance through the review of plans in general or of specific plan
elements, goals or policies. For the purposes of developing this Comprehensive .Plan and its required
elements, these decisions are treated as "case law." As case law, the decisions can be used to establish
precedent and provide specific guidance on achieving compliance with the requirements of GMA. In
general, the decisions or rulings state how a plan, element, goal or policy is not consistent with GMA.
Through the analysis of these decisions, additional guidance can be obtained as to appropriate land uses
and implementation of the Growth Management Act within specific localities.
The Growth Management Hearings Boards' decisions provide not only legal guidance for Jefferson
County, but also a solid framework for preparation of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Individual Elements in this Comprehensive Plan have been crafted after review of applicable Growth
Hearings Board's decisions. A discussion of relevant decisions applicable to compliance for each ohhe
Plan's elements is contained in Appendix D of this Plan.
Compliance with Hearings Board and court decisions also ensures that the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the requirements of the State Growth Management Act and
with other communities within the State, and forms the final leg of the "table."
Organizing Principles: Planning Objectives
This Comprehensive Plan represents a synthesis between a thorough analysis of existing conditions, the
history of development patterns, anticipated population growth, the requirements of the Growth
Management Act, the opportunities for new land uses, and the planning objectives which were identified
by the community. These planning objectives or principles are the heart of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and represent the connection between community vision, existing land uses, and the
goals ofthe Growth Management Act.
Planning Objective I - Preserving Rural Character
The criteria contained within the GMA and the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions as they
relate to rural areas clearly indicates that the preservation and enhancement of rural character is a desired
outcome of the planning process~ The GMA and the decisions of the Hearings Board originally
approached the definition of rural character somewhat indirectly by providing guidance largely on what is
detrimental to the preservation of rural character. In 1997, the State legislature amended the GMA to
provide a definition of rural character. This important amendment to the GMA afforded greater latitude to
rural counties through recognition of local discretion in the planning process. The amendment enacted
through ESB 6094 is discussed in further detail in the Land Use/Rural Element,
Prior to the 1997 amendments, Jefferson County adopted a working definition of rural character for the
purposes of this Plan which is based on the relationship between three key elements: Environmental
Qualities, AppropriateLand Uses, and Rural Aesthetics.
24 rM,~
VOL
2159
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-17
August 28,1998
INTRODUCTION
These elements exist in a state of constant interaction and dependency. None of the component elements
taken independently can be used to adequately describe rural character. It is only through the
interrelationship of all three elements that a working definition can be crafted.
.
Planning Objective II - Letting the Land Speak First
Jefferson County has experienced rapid population growth over the past twenty years. In general,
development has occurred primarily in the northeastern portions of the County. The Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort has been the catalyst for a significant portion of this residential growth. However, other
areas such as the Quimper Peninsula and the Port HadlocklIrondale/Kala Point vicinity have absorbed
significant additional residential growth adjacent to the city limits of Port Townsend. Observed
limitations to development have been topographic features, critical areas, ownership patterns, and those
portions of the community which are not, and/or cannot be served by roads and/or utilities.
Current development patterns were identified through the analysis of aerial photographs, Assessor's
records, environmental mapping, and field inventories. Tables were prepared which illustrated the
relative development density throughout the County, the type of development, and the potential for
additional development. Review of these areas indicated those portions of the County which are fully
"built-out," as well as identifying those areas where new development and/or infill development might
occur. The results of the environmental analysis were used to identify appropriate strategies for
preserving rural character while accommodating anticipated rural population growth.
Planning Objective III - Enhancement of the Rural Economy
The economic opportunities historically provided by the County's natural environment are no longer as
abundant and/or profitable. Enhancing the local economy depends upon shifting from a primary reliance
on natural resource extraction activities to more diversified economic activities that utilize the natural
environment and other resources (i.e., labor pool) in new and innovative ways. The County is also
encouraging businesses that may not have considered locating in the area previously.
.
Because the nature of rural economies differs greatly from urban economies, opportunities for new
growth and development are dissimilar to those found in urban environments, Because of historical
growth patterns, rural areas are less likely to entertain economic development proposals that would have a
major impact on the local or regional economy. However, through 1995 and 1997 amendments to the
GMA, rural areas can accommodate, within limits, new economic endeavors that contribute to the growth
and evolution of a new economic base.
To ensure that Jefferson County can accommodate new economic development opportunities, policies are
contained within this plan which: encourage developing the necessary land base and rural infrastructure
and services to accommodate modern economic activities; promote the County's natural environment as a
basis of economic activities that are tourist or recreation-oriented; encourage and provide incentives for
businesses to create "family wage" employment opportunities; and ensure that the County's quality of life
is preserved as it is enhanced.
Restructuring the local economy is a process that is dependent on both the public and private sectors.
Efforts to strengthen communication and cooperation between these two sectors can provide a strong
foundation upon which a more diversified and flexible economy may emerge. The Comprehensive Plan
is the necessary foundation upon which this communication and cooperation will develop more fully,
.
..YQI-
24, r~C~
2:160
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-18
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
Planning Objective W - Allocation of Land to Meet Anticipated Needs
Through this Plan, Jefferson County has identified and allocated sufficient commercial and industrial land
to meet future needs based on the 1997 amendments to the GMA allowing rural counties to recognize
"existing areas and uses". This Plan includes strategies to ensure a land supply which is adequate to meet
future economic development by inventorying available commercial and industrial lands in the Glen
Cove/Tri-Area Special Study. The study will investigate the feasibility of expanded economic
development in both the Glen Cove and Tri-Area.
The County's land supply to accommodate projected rural residentiaL growth is sufficient..Because the
County recognizes existing legal lots of record, the County has included policies to consider for the
intensification of development of some existing areas of more intensive rural residential development if
environmental and health standards can be achieved. These areas constitute a relatively small proportion
of the County's rural residential lands. In all other areas, the County has.. substantially downzoned rural
residential land.
Associated with ensuring adequate lands for different land uses is the need to ensure that appropriate
services and infrastructure can be provided in a timely and cost effective manner. This Plan contains
policies which support development where services and infrastructure exists.
Planning Objective V - Continuous and Ongoing Public Involvement
Opportunities for. meaningful public involvement are key to successful comprehensive planning.
Jefferson County is committed to bringing community leaders, interested citizens, property rights
activists, environmentalists, and neighborhood groups together in a public process that resolves issues and
make choices in the implementation and future amendments to developed this Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Objective VI-Compliance with the Requirements of the Growth ManagementAct
Consistency with the thirteen goals of the Growth Management Act, the decisions of the Growth
Management Hearings Boards, and the County-wide Planning Policy were used as a framework to
develop a comprehensive compliance strategy.
PLAN OVERVIEW
In order to reduce the size of the Plan, much of the background infonnation in earlier drafts used to
educate and infono the public has been relocated to separate appendices to the Final Plan.
While much of the technical infonnation has been relocated to the Appendices, the Plan, as a
comprehensive policy document guiding future land use decisions, must contain sufficient detail and
discussion to provide clear and reasonable interpretation of the included policies and strategies. This can
only be provided through a large volume of infonnation and analysis. For this reason and in an attempt to
make the Plan more manageable, we have bound the Transportation, Utilities, and Capital Facilities
Elements in a separate volume.
The Final Plan provides brief narratives or abbreviated requisite background material necessary to the
understanding of the goals, policies and strategies of each element. Certain Plan elements, such as Land
UselRural, Economic Development and Housing are more detailed than others owing to the need to
identify existing resources and make assumptions regarding future trends. The remaining element
narratives have been reduced in size from previous drafts.
VOL
24 í'M;~- 2i61
Jefferson County Comprehensíve Plan
1-19
August28,1998
INTRODUCTION
VOI-
24 '~rç
.. r",,-
2 1-62
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
1-20
.
.
.
.
.
.
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN IMPLEMENT A TION AND MONITORING
THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK
How the Comprehensive Plan Works
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan provides a legally recognized framework for making decisions
about land use in the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. The Plan manages growth by directing
more intensive development to appropriate areas while protecting and conserving environmentally
sensitive areas and natural resource, rural, and open space lands. It is also intended to aid as both an
educational and a policy implementation tool for a broad range of public and private users, including
community groups, Jefferson County officials, and other government agencies. The Plan helps these
users in several ways:
.
It guides the development of community plans and implementing regulations. This Plan is the
framework for other plans and regulations that govern the location and intensity of land uses
throughout unincorporated Jefferson County. The Plan's policies provide the basis for
updating community plans (subarea, local, and functional), for evaluating proposed changes
in zoning and in reviewing proposals for development projects such as land divisions. It also
indicates to the public how Jefferson County would likely review and approve changes in
plans, zoning, or other regulations that apply to an area or a specific parcel.
.
It guides the provision of public facilities and services by integrating land use, infrastructure,
and delivery of human services. The Comprehensive Plan provides the framework for
decisions about public facilities and services (such as where facilities should be located to
support planned growth). The Plan also directs public spending to areas where growth is
targeted.
.
It provides regional coordination and consistency with other jurisdictional planning efforts. It
is intended that other public agencies (local, regional, state, federal, and tribal), in
cooperation with Jefferson County, use the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the
County-wide Planning Policy as regional perspectives or county-wide viewpoints when other
plans and growth policies are developed and when making project decisions.
.
It allows for citizen participation and involvement. Comprehensive planning is an evolving
process which allows for periodic review and updates in response to changing community
goals and vision as articulated by citizens, businesses, and interested organizations.
Components ofthe Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is a legal document consisting of a map or series of maps and accompanying
text and goals, policies and implementation strategies that is adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners to guide public and private land use decisions. A comprehensive planning program (with
its conforming implementing regulations) must constantly weigh the community's financial ability to
support development against its minimum population obligations and need for environmental protection,
Comprehensive planning provides the public with opportunities to give direction to Jefferson County's
anticipated growth. The Comprehensive Plan provides for an efficient and effective land use pattern that
. VOI- 24 UG~ ' 21.63
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-1
August 28, 1998
IMPLEMENTATION
respects community values by balancing land uses with natural systems and open spaces, by directing
urban growth to Urban Growth Areas, and by protecting and conserving natural resource lands and rural
areas. The Plan contains numerous goals, policies, and strategies to create a future in which most growth
is directed to areas where services can be provided in the most effective and efficient manner, and away
from areas where growth would threaten valued natural features.
.
Goals, Policies, and Strategies
Elements or chapters of the plan may include goals, policies, and strategies for the long-term development
ofthe County.
A goal isa direction-setter. It is an ideal future end, condition or state related to the public health, safety
or general welfare toward which planning and implementation measures are directed. A goal is a general
expression of community values and, therefore, is abstract in nature. Consequently, a goal is generally
not quantifiable, time-dependent or suggestive of specific actions for its achievement.
A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making. It indicates a clear commitment of the local
legislative body. A policy is based on a comprehensive plan's goals and the analysis of the data. A
policy is put into effect through implementation measures such as zoning, land division, and
environmental ordinances.
A strategy is the means of implementation which will ensure that the goals are met. Strategies should be
worded so that their progress or achievement can be monitored or measured. An implementation strategy
may only pertain to one particular aspect ora goal or it may be one of several successive steps toward
goal achievement. Consequently, there may be more than one strategy for each goal.
.
Designating Major Land Uses
The plan defines major land use categories, each of which has distinct and unique characteristics. These
categories are:
Urban Growth Areas: This term refers to areas designated for growth that make intensive use
of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to
be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural
products, fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources.
Rural Areas: This term refers to lands which are not within an Urban Growth Area and are not
designated as natural resource lands having long~term commercial significance for production of
agricultural products, timber, or the extraction of minerals. Rural areas may consist of a variety
of uses and residential densities at levels that are consistent with the preservation of rural
character.
Natural Resource Lands: This term refers to agriculture, aquaculture, forest and mineral
resource lands which have long-term commercial significance.
Open Space: This term refers to any land area, the protection of which in its present use would
conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; protect streams or water supplies; promote
conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes; enhance the value to the public of
abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations, sanctuaries or other
open space; enhance recreation opportunities; or preserve historic sites.
.
.VOL
2 4: r~C~
2i64
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Decision-Making Process
Planning decisions must be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is a legal,
binding document and cannot be disregarded; it is also a document designed to adapt to changing trends
and circumstances. The Plan serves as the basis for land use decisions, Over time the Plan's policies may
change to ensure that the development pattern occurring in the County remains consistent with both the
intent of the community's vision for the future, and the Plan's goals and objectives.
The Community Vision Statements found in Appendix C provide internal consistency within the Plan and
create a foundation for land use decisions. This is especially important in cases where there are
competing Comprehensive Plan policies and clarification as to the overall intent of the Plan is needed to
assist decision-makers. This characteristic is especially noticeable when applying broad policy language
to more detailed community plans, amendments to the Plan (site-specific or .general), land use regulatory
changes, or project-specific development proposals.
The comprehensive character of the Plan brings with it an inherent nature to address a wide variety of
community issues. The public participated in developing and defining Jefferson County's vision for the
future. The primary community concerns and goals are reflected in the following non-prioritized list:
Community Vision Statements
.
Preserve the high quality of life.
Strive for government efficiency.
Support economic opportunities.
Increase housing choices for all residents.
Ensure that necessary transportation facilities and services are available to serve development
at the time of occupancy and use.
Balance urban uses and environmental protection.
Protect and retain rural lifestyles.
Protect and conserve agriculture, forest and mineral resource lands.
Protect and conserve the environment, ecologically sensitive areas, and preclude development
and land uses which are incompatible with critical areas.
Respect property rights.
Encourage citizen participation and involvement.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Community Vision Statements reflect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and should be considered
collectively when making land use decisions, Community Vision Statements provide a decision-making
framework that can be referenced when considering the merits of a land use issue--particularly where
there are numerous competing goals, policies, or strategies. Appendix C contains charts that summarize
the community's vision statements for each element.
Amending the Comprehensive Plan
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan addresses long-range and County-wide issues that are beyond
the scope of decisions on subarea, local or functional plans or individual development proposals. The
Plan serves as a vital guide to the future and provides a framework for managing change. It is important
that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan retain the broad perspectives articulated in the community
vision statements, satisfy the goals, policies, and strategies of the Plan, and remain consistent with the
intent of the Growth Management Act.
VOL
24 rAC~ - 2:165
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-3
August 28, 1998
IMPLEMENTATION
.
Amendments are to be justified through findings from monitoring of "growth management indicators"
(i.e., population growth [actual v, projected], land capacity [actual v. projected], economic indicators
[property values/comparative sales compared to statewide averages and local trends], changes in
technology, omissions or errors, or a declared emergency).
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must conform to thefollowing:
a.
b. '
The requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter
RCW 36.70A and the State Planning Enabling Act, Chapter RCW 36.70.
Any proposed amendments to the Plan must be submitted by the County to the
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
at least 60 days prior to final adoption by the Board of County Commissioners
(RCW 36.70A.106).
c.
Proposed amendments must be consistent with Federal and State laws, the
Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policy, related plans, and the
comprehensive plans of other counties or cities with which the County has, in
part, common borders or regulated regional issues (WAC 365-195-630[1]).
d.
Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan will be considered on an
annual basis (no more frequently than once per year), except when the following
circumstances apply: (i) the initial adoption of a subarea plan, and (ii) the
adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program pursuant to RCW 90.58,
All proposals will be considered concurrently so the cumulative effect of the
various proposals can be ascertained (WAC 365-195-630[2]). The County may
consider adopting amendments more frequently than once per year if a declared
emergency exists,
.
e.
At least every five years, the County roust review all Urban Growth Area
boundaries, as well as the densities permitted within both the incorporated and
unincorporated portions of each Urban Growth Area. If necessary, the Urban
Growth Area boundaries will be revised to accommodate the urban growth
projected to occur in the County for the succeeding 20-year period. A five-year
cycle was selected because of past inaccuracies in state growth projections, and
will allow the county, cities and towns the opportunity to maintain an adequate
inventory of lands for residential and economic development with the
accompanying fiscal review,
f.
Amendments or changes to natural resource lands and critical area designations
should be based on consistency with one or more of the following criteria:
. Change in circumstances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan or public
policy.
. A change in circumstances beyond the control of the landowner pertaining to
the subject property.
. An error in designation.
. New information on natural resource land or critical area status (WAC 365-
190-040[2][g]).
.
VOL
24 '~r'~
, (, ,OJ ~
2 :166
2-4
August28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
IMPLEMENTATION
Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments
Policy amendments may be initiated by the County, or by other entities, organizations, or individuals
through a petition submitted on fonns provided by the County and subject to fees as determined by the
BOCC. The merits of proposed policy amendments shall be measured against the petition submittal
requirements listed below to ensure consistency in the review and decision-making process.
a.
A detailed statement of what is proposed to be changed and why.
b.
A statement of anticipated impacts to be caused by the change, including geographic area
affected and issues presented.
c.
A demonstration of why existing Comprehensive Plan policies should not continue to be
in effect or why existing policies no longer apply,
d.
A statement of how the amendment complies with the Comprehensive Plan's community
vision statements, goals, policy and strategy directives.
e,
A statement of how functional plans and Capital Improvement Plans support the change.
f
A statement of how the change affects implementing land use regulations (i.e., zoning)
and the necessary changes to bring the implementing land use regulations into
compliance with the Plan.
g.
A demonstration of public review of the recommended change.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Map amendments may be initiated by the County, or by other entities, organizations,
or individuals through petitions. The boundaries separating the Urban Growth Area, Rural Areas and
Natural Resource Lands designations are intended to be long-tenn and unchanging. Land use
designations may be subject to minor refinements, but only after full public participation, notice,
environmental review, and an official assessment of planning growth management indicators.
Amendments must comply with the same petition submittal requirements as policy amendments (see item
2 a-g above which are incorporated herein as a-g) and the additional following items:
a.
A detailed statement describing how the map amendment complies with Comprehensive
Plan land use designation criteria.
b.
Urban Growth Area boundary changes shall be supported by and dependent on
population forecasts and allocated urban population distributions, existing urban densities
and infill opportunities, phasing and availability of adequate services, proximity to
designated natural resource lands and the presence of critical areas.
c.
Rural Areas and Natural Resource Land map designation changes shall be supported by
and dependent on Growth Management Act criteria, population forecasts and allocated
non-urban populations distributions, existing rural area and natural resource land
densities, and/or infill opportunities. Natural Resource Land designations should also
satisfy the criteria in Section 1 (t) above (WAC 365-190-040 [2][gD.
VOi-
24 u~ç - 21.67
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-5
August 28, 1998
IMPLEMENT AnON
General Comprehensive Plan Amendments
.
A general Comprehensive Plan amendment is a policy or land use designation which is applied to a broad
class of situations and to a large number of parcels and persons that are not readily identifiable.
Petitions for a general amendment proposal are to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) by the last business day of January of any year for consideration. The Board mayor may not act
on the proposal (petition) to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Board is not required to take any action
on such amendment proposals, A decision by the Board to initiate the plan amendment process is
procedural only, and does not constitute a decision by the Board on whether the amendment will
ultimately be approved.
Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments
A site-specific comprehensive plan amendment is a policy or land use designation that is applied to a
specific number of parcels which are in readily identifiable ownership. A proposal which fonnolates
policy yet affects relatively few individuals will generally be characterized as a site-specific action.
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals (petitions) which apply to a specific site, frequently in
conjunction with an identifiable development proposal, may be initiated by a petitioner through the
following amendment process:
General requirements for a site-specific amendment include:
a.
Fees. The petitioner shall pay to the Department of Community Development the
application fee prescribed by the approved fee schedule as now or hereafter amended.
Fees for amendments to correct mapping errors may be waived by the Administrator.
.
b.
Petition. The petitioner must submit to the Department of Community Development a
written application, on forms provided by the Department, containing appropriate
amendatory language and, if applicable, a map drawn to scale, showing the proposed
change. The petition shall also address policy or map evaluation criteria as described in
Sections 2 and 3 above. Incomplete petitions shall not be accepted. Depending on the
nature ofthe application, the petitioner may be required to attend a meeting to discuss the
petition with Department staff.
c.
Timing. Petitions shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development by
the last business day of January of each year for consideration. Late or incomplete
applications shall not be accepted.
d.
Approval for Consideration. When a petition application is considered complete the
Department of Community Development shall submit it to the Board, with a
recommendation as to whether the Board should consider or reject the proposed petition.
After receiving the Department's recommendation, the Board, in a public meeting, shall
determine whether to consider or reject the proposed petition. A decision by the Board to
initiate the plan amendment process is procedural only and does not constitute a decision
by the Board as to whether the amendment will ultimately be approved.
e.
Environmental Review, If the Board approves consideration of the amendment, the
petitioner shall submit to the Department of Community Development an environmental
checklist. Upon receipt of the environmental checklist and supporting documentation,
.
'VúL
24 ~M)~
21-68
2-6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
IMPLEMENTATION
the Department shall issue an environmental threshold determination on the proposed
amendment. If necessary, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be published.
(State Environmental Policy Act Rules [Chapter 197-11 WAC]).
f.
Process. The Department of Community Development will process the amendment
pursuant to the procedures contained within Chapter 36.70 RCW and the Jefferson
County Zoning Code and/or the Jefferson County Procedural Reform Ordinance, this
process shall include at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission and one
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Emergency amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are allowed pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.130(2)(b):
"Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, all proposals shall be considered by the governing
body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after
appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive
plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a
comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court."
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Appeals
Growth Management Hearings Board Review
ChalIenges to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or related plans that are within the jurisdiction of
the Growth Management Hearings Board shall be processed according to the law governing such
chalIenges~
Judicial Review
Any judicial action to review any decision concerning the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan,
including related plans, shall be commenced within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the decision.
The plaintiff bringing any such action shall pay the full cost of transcription of the record prepared for
judicial review and other costs as may be imposed.
MONITORING PLAN EFFECTIVENESS
The monitoring of growth management indicators such as population growth, land capacity, economic
factors, natural resource consumption, and public health and safety improves the effectiveness of public
policy and allows progress in achieving the goals and objectives behind that policy to be measured. Use
of growth management indicators assures accountability to the public. It demonstrates how effectively the
County is moving toward identified goals. Ongoing monitoring alIows public resources to be prioritized
in order to meet goals and, if the desired outcome is not achieved, to consider modifying the goals or
implementing regulations. Growth management indicators work well with the public participation
process of the planning cycle. Through the use of growth management indicators, citizens and decision-
makers can review growth management policy and make changes that reflect present day realities.
VOi-
24 rMC - 21-69
Jefferso~ County Comprehensive Plan
2-7
August28,1998
IMPLEMENTATION
vaL
24 r~F
21-70
August28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
2-8
.
.
.
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LAND USE AND RURAL ELEMENT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Land Use and Rural Element is to identify specific uses, densities
and development regulations that protect rural character and are consistent with all other requirements of
the Growth Management Act.
INTRODUCTION
Jefferson County is a rural county. The City of Port Townsend, the County's only Urban Growth Area,
has a separate comprehensive plan and coordinates planning with the County through the Countywide
Planning Policies (see Appendix B for a discussion of County-wide Planning Policies). The integration
of GMA requirements to protect rural character and prevent low-density sprawl is accomplished by
integrating the Land Use and Rural elements, which were treated separately in the Draft Plan. An
exception to the County's rural designations is the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, which is
addressed in separately in this element.
The final Comprehensive Plan includes a number of changes in land use designations from the 1997
Draft Plan. The revisions reflect not only changes in the Growth Management Act through the 1997
amendments, but also reflect a lengthy public debate on interpretation of the 1997, amendments and their
application to Jefferson County,
LAND USE AND RURAL STRATEGY GUIDELINES
Based on the requirements of the Growth Management Act, County-wide Planning Policies, community
input, and Growth Management Hearings Board rulings (see Appendices), Jefferson County determined
that the County's land use and rural strategy must include the following key policy guidelines:
.
The County must ensure that an adequate supply of rural residential land is available to
accommodate the projected rural residential population growth.
The County must ensure that areas, which may have more platted "lots than needed to address
population growth (and allow for market factors), are designated for low-density residential
development such as 1 residential unit per 5 acres (1 :5), 1: 10, and 1 :20.
The County must ensure that rural areas of more intensive residential, commercial and industrial
development are contained in a manner that preserves rural character.
The County must ensure that rural commercial development located outside designated Urban
Growth Areas is appropriately scaled to serve the needs of the local rural community and the
traveling public, and to protect and enhance rural character.
Commercial area boundaries countywide and the Glen Cove and the Port Townsend Paper Mill
industrial land use boundaries must be interim designations in order to preserve options until the
results of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove study are available to provide additional information and an
analysis of options, at which time the designations shall be revisited.
.
.
.
.
In order to develop a land use and rural strategy that encompassed the policy guidelines, it was necessary
to:
.,. "
VOL
24 r.~r:: ~ 2:171
..
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-1
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
.
Identify rural population projections;
Allocate growth proportionately throughout the unincorporated areas of the County;
Develop an inventory of existing residential and commercial development and platting patterns;
Consider the effects of increased population in the rural areas on commercial, industrial, and
residential land use designations;
Consider local circumstances as they affect land use decisions; and
Recognize the deference given to local legislative bodies through ESB 6094 and identifY local
circumstances to be addressed.
.
.
.
.
.
Once this inventory and analysis was performed, the land use designations and the goals, policies, and
strategies were prepared to .define a residential, commercial, and industrial land use strategy consistent
with the provisions and intent of the GMA.
The GMA and Growth Management Hearings Board decisions did not. provide a definition of "rural"
prior to 1997. The following definition of rural character was included in the 1997 amendments to the
GMA:
"....Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the
rural element of its comprehensive plan:
(a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment;
(b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural. based economies, and opportunities to both live and
work in rural areas;
(c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
(d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
(e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development;
(j) That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
(g) That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface
water recharge and discharge areas," RCW 36.70A030(14)
The land use designations and the goals and policies of this element have been developed to meet these
criteria, Goals and policies of other elements of the Comprehensive Plan have been evaluated for
consistency with the protection of rural character as defined above, and by the other factors contributing
to local "rural character" as provided under the full text of the amendment.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
In January 1992, the state Office of Financial Management published countywide growth projections for
GMA planning purposes. This forecast provided a "fixed figure" projection for each county for the
period 2010-2012, and provided key data at ten year intelVals, but had the drawbacks of not
distinguishing between incorporated and unincorporated population and using an inaccurate population
figure for its 1990 base year, In addition, the review revealed that the average annual growth projected by
OFM for the 20-year planning period 1992-2012 was approximately half that being experienced at the
time and was notably lower than the rate of growth experienced by the County in the latter part of the
19805.
. VÓ,-
2 4 r.~G~
21-72
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
The County contracted a population study, the "Population Forecast for Jefferson County and the City of
Port Townsend" (Final Report, prepared by the Watterson West Group, Inc., January, 1995), known as
the Watterson Report. An addendum to the report was produced in February, 1995. The report
contained a 20-year population projection and distribution, together with a recommended 50-year
population projection.
The 1995 amendments to the GMA (RCW 43.62.035, as amended by Engrossed Senate Bill 5875, 1995
Regular Session) required that the OFM establish a population range for each county, rather than a fixed
figure. Official Growth Management Act Population Projections released by OFM in December, 1995
contained population projections for five year intervals through 2010, .and. annual projections from 2010
through 2020 (High Series, Medium Series, Low Series). The 2016-population numbers for Jefferson
County (high - 45,964, medium - 41,579, low - 38,086 residents) closely. correspond to the population
forecast prepared in the Watterson report and adopted by Jefferson County and the City of Port
Townsend as ajoint reference for GMA planning purposes under the County-wide Planning Policy.
The 1996 "base year" population estimate for Jefferson County has been identified as 25,754 residents.
Jefferson County's population is projected to grow by approximately 13,640 people over the twenty (20)
year period for an estimated total of39,397 residents. The population must be distributed consistent with
the Growth Management Act, which states that the majority of the growth should be.directed toward the
designated Urban Growth Area of Port Townsend. The remaining population should be allocated to
various communities and rural areas throughout the unincorporated areas of the County, consistent with
the provisions of the Growth Management Act. The County and the City of Port Townsend fonnalized
their agreement to utilize the population forecasts and allocation figures contained in the Watterson
Report through County Resolution #17-96 and City Resolution #46-96.
It should be noted that the higher rate of population growth in Jefferson County is occurring in Eastern
Jefferson County, while relatively remote Western Jefferson County, known as the West End, is not
experiencing appreciable growth.
Table 3-1 summarizes the existing estimated populations for Jefferson County's unincorporated areas as
well as the projected population for the 20-year planning horizon. The planning areas listed in the table
are shown in the map on page 3-55.
Maps of population distribution and existing land use are located on pages 3-57 to 3-61.
VOl.
24 rM:~
2i73
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-3
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Table 3-1
Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend
20- Year Population Projection and DistributionI
.
Jefferson County and City of Port Tow rise rid . . Est. Population Est. Population
20-yearPopulatioriPrQjectÌon and DistriblItion 1996' 2Q16.
Incorporated Areas:
Port Townsend 8,366 13,876
Unincorporated Areas:
Quimper Peninsula (including Glen Cove) 2,927 4,076
Marrowstone Island 839 1,015
Tri-Area (Kala Point, Irondale, Port Hadlock, and
. Chimacum Crossroads) 4,324 5,489
Discovery Bay (including Gardiner) 1,085 1,470
S. Chimacum / Inland Valleys / Center 1,351 1,759
Port Ludlow Master Planned Community 1,326 3,950
North Port Ludlow 659 950
Paradise Bay / Shine / Thorndyke 897 1,471
Toandos Peninsula (including Coyle) 411 596
Quilcene Oncluding Lake Leland Valley) 1,308 1,797
Brinnon 1,299 1,943
West End 962 1,005
Total 25,754 39,397
.
RURAL RESIDENTIAL LANDS: ALLOCATION OF GROWTH
Existing residential land use and ownership patterns are only one of several factors for detennining
future development patterns in Jefferson County. The allocation of future population must be considered
when analyzing the overall need for the creation of additional residential lots and detennining where
those lots should be located to accommodate future growth. In order to develop a rural residential land
use strategy for this Plan, an inventory was prepared in 1996 to assess existing patterns of land use, and
to evaluate the supply of developable rural residential properties.
During the review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan of February 26, 1997 (Draft Plan) an inventory of
existing buildable residential lots in rural Jefferson County conducted in 1995 by Berryman and Henigar
was also reviewed. The 1995 study results and included in the Draft Plan differ from those derived in the
1996 inventory. Both the 1996 inventory performed by the Planning staff and the 1995 Berryman and
Henigar inventory are discussed in the following section.
I Population projections and allocation figures were derived from the Population Forecastfor Jefferson County and
Port Townsend: Final Report, December, 1994, and Addendum #1 to the Final Report, February, 1995, prepared by
the Watterson West Group, Inc.
2 "Land Use Capacity," Draft Existing Conditions REport: Alternatives, Berryman and Henigar, March, 1995, pages
120-131.
.
Vn\
24 r~C'
2 :174
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-4
August 28, t 998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Inventory and Analysis of Rural Development Patterns
In June, 1996, a Jefferson County Land Use Inventory was conducted by the Jefferson County Long-
Range Planning staff that included the following:
1. An inventory of all existing lots of record and "vested" parcels, Vested lots consist of any lot
approved in' a short plat or subdivision that has been granted preliminary summary approval by
Jefferson County, or any lot proposed in a short plat or subdivision that has been accepted by
Jefferson County as complete for processing.
2. Each mapped parcel was subjected to a Sensitive Areas Overlay (SAO) analysis. Critical Areas
overlay maps were used to detennine whether significant, environmental ,site constraints existed
which would preclude the parcel from being developed. Those parcels and lots. that probably could
not be developed because of critical areas constraints were then eliminated from the developable lot
inventory. Most parcels that had some environmental constraints still have the potential for
development on the remaining portion of the parcel beyond the critical area limits.
3.
Many ofthe County's small lots were platted during the economic "boom" period at the end of the
last century. An analysis of small lots of 2,500 square feet or 5,000 square feet in size was conducted
to detennine the number of lots that could be developed. The planning staff made the assumption
that because of septic constraints, four (4) lots could be combined to create one buildable lot (i.e.,
2,500 X 4 = 10,000 square foot lot).
The 1996 staff inventory relies on two assumptions producing results for the lot supply that differ from
the 1995 study conducted by Berryman and Henigar. The first assumption is that four (4) lots could be
combined to create one buildable lot. According to the Jefferson County Health Department and WAC
246-272, Table VII, the minimum lot size required for a residential structure relying on a septic system
and public water is 12,500 sq. ft., rather than 10,00O-sq. ft. as used in the staff inventory, Lots without
access to a public water system and relying on a private well require at least 43,560 sq~ ft (1 acre), The
1995 Berryman and Henigar inventory used the appropriate minimum lot sizes and took into account the
availability of public water. By factoring in the appropriate minimum lot sizes based on the availability
of public water, the number of buildable lots in the staff inventory is reduced from approximately 13,122
lots to 8,280 lots. This reduces the "excess" of buildable vacant lots cited in the Draft Plan from
approximately 9,584 lots to approximately 4,742 lots.
A second assumption made in the 1996 staff inventory but not in the Berryman and Henigar inventory is
that all timber tax and agricultural parcels in private ownership are assumed to allow one (1) residential
unit per parcel. This includes many parcels in forest and agricultural resource lands. Based on the GMA
definition of "rural development" (RCW 36.70A.030(15)), residential densities are to be detennined for
lands" u. outside agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands," Removing the forest and agricultural
resource parcels from the lot count using Jefferson County Assessor's data reduces the supply of
buildable lots by approximately 752 additional lots.
The 1995 Berryman and Henigar inventory found that the total number of available lots without
expansion of public water systems in the Tri-Area and the Quimper Peninsula is 6,238 and the lots
available with the expansion of public water systems is 7,925.
1.,'01-
24 'Ir~
r " ,,'
2i75
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-5
August 28,1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
The results of the two inventories suggest that the Berryman and Henigar figures represent the low and
the high points of the lot inventory. Removing the lots based on the two assumptions discussed above;
the staff inventory lot count is reduced to 7,528 lots, which suggests a mid-range figure.
These lot supply figures may be reduced further depending on site-specific soil conditions that, in some
areas of the County, result in lot sizes of 2 to 2.5 acres to meet Jefferson County Health Department and
state requirements for septic systems and wellhead protection.
Using the low figure from the Berryman and Henigar inventory of 6,238 available building lots and
subtracting the projected demand figure of 3,538 lots results in a lot surplus of approximately 2,700 lots.
Application of a 25% market factor reduces this figure to 2,025 lots. The same calculations for the high
figure of 7,925 lots result in a surplus of 3,290 lots. The range .of .figuresfrom 2,025 to .3,290 lots is
considered to be more realistic than the surplus of 9,584 buildable lots determined in the 1996 staff
inventory and presented in the Draft Plan.
The results of the 1996 staff Parcel Assessment and Inventory Analysis and the 1995 Berryman and
Henigar inventory are represented in Table 3-2 below. The residential lot demand is based upon the
twenty-year population projection discussed earlier in this element. Each of the twelve planning areas is
listed,
~VOL
24 a\'~
2i76
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
- - ----
LAND USE AND RURAL
. Table 3-2
Residential Lot Demand Compared to Existing Vacant Residential Lot Supply
Projected Over the Next 20 Years
1996-2016
Location Future 20- Existing Balance Vacant Lot
Year Lot Supply of (Excess' Oversupply
Demand Vacant Buildable, Percentage
Buildablé Vacant Lots
Lots of ófRecord)
Record' a) Lot Surplus
Incorporated Areas:
Port Townsend (b) 2690 8600 5910 220%
Unincorporated Areas:
Quimper Peninsula (including Glen 500 1735 1235 247%
Cove)
Marrowstone Island 77 458 381 495%
Tri-Area (Kala Point, Irondale, Port 507 2619 2112 417%
Hadlock, and Chimacum Crossroads)
Discovery Bay (including Gardiner) 167 1394 1227 734%
S. Chimacum / Inland Valleys / 177 785 608 344%
Center
. Port Ludlow Planned Community 1141 1354 213 18%
North Port Ludlow 127 367 240 ,188%
Paradise Bay / Shine / Thorndyke 250 730 480 192%
Toandos Peninsula (including Coyle) 80 1116 1036 1295%
Quilcene (including Lake Leland 213 1068 855 401%
Valley)
Brinnon 280 1189 909 325%
West End 19 307 288 1515%
1996 Staff Inventory 3538 13,122 9584 271%
Reduced by recalculation at a mini-
mum lot size of 12,500 sq. ft 3538 8280 4742 134%
Reduced by 752 timber and
agricultural resource lands parcels 3538 7528 3990 113%
Reduced by 25% market factor 3538 5646 2993 84%
Total buildable lots for the
unincorporated area:
. 1996 staff inventory 5646 2993 84%
. 1995 consultant inventory 4679- 2025- 43%
5944 3290 to 93%
Note: (a) Data compiled as of June I, 1996 (includes "vested" lots).
(b) The City of Port Townsend has addressed the accommodation of future population growth in its
. Comprehensive Plan. The figures above are provided for infonnational purposes only. The City's lot
inventory was calculated at a IO,OOO-sq. ft. lot size minimum, with some consolidation.
VOL. 24 rAG: 2í77
"
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-7 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
The conclusion from the data represented in Table 3-2 is that Jefferson County has no shortage of
existing, developable lots and parcels. The supply of buildable lots exceeds the demand for lots based
upon the 20-year population growth projections. A number of these lots and parcels were created
between 1990 and 1996, as shown in Table 3-3, In response to the potential impact of allowing lots to be
created in a manner inconsistent with the anticipated land use pattern, the Board of County
Commissioners enacted a moratorium on the division ofland on April 17, 1997 which will be lifted with
Plan adoption. The land use map adopted with this Plan will allow less than 1,000 new lots to be created
throughout unincorporated Jefferson County over the 20-year planning period.
Table 3-3
Number of Lots and Total Acreage for all Plats from 1990 to May 1996 Including Summary
Approval and Proposed Plats
Type of;L~l1id Division Num,berofLots ' . 'if otal'Acreage
..
Long plat 544 358.59
Short plat 313 772.88
Large lot 368 1,937.21
Mobile/RV park 1 park (43 spaces) 14.69
Condo (units) 80 18.00
Summary long plat* . 443 . 416.41
Summary short plat 119 406.77
Summary large lot 68 395.54
Summary mobile/RV park 6 parks (269 spaces) 64.54
Proposed long plat 653 768.41
Proposed short plat 14 52.17
Proposed large lot 50 265.27
TOTAL .. +,964 '5,470.48,.
* Summary long plat may include condo units, see Canoe Cove LPA92-0008
Compiled 6/3/96 by Jefferson County Integrated Data Management System (IDMS)
Portions of the County such as the Tri-Area and Cape George have been previously platted at what have
been identified as suburban residential densities. Table 3-8 of rural residential land use designations on
page 3-33 presents the density distribution criteria outlined in Land Use Goal 3.0 that have been applied
to prohibit the establishment of additional, new lots at residential densities greater than those appropriate
for rural areas.
RURAL COMMERCIAL LANDS
Planning Assumptions and Goals
Jefferson County recognizes that its rural commercial lands were largely fonned along historic
transportation corridors. These lands provide many necessary goods and services to rural residents, and
continue to support the viability of the rural economy. Jefferson County, in planning under the Growth
Management Act, acknowledges the following land use assumptions:
VOL
24 rAC~
2:178
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
.
The population will continue to grow countywide.
The County's established Urban Growth Area (Port Townsend) does not provide an adequate range
and variety of goods and services serving both the local and regional population. Some community-
level and several regional-level uses exist in the Tri-ArealGlen Cove Study Area. During the special
study to develop options for that area, interim controls on commercial development are required until
final land uses are designated.
The County has rural areas that include existing commercial development that serves the local
communities and traveling public; some rural communities may be deficient in some goods, services,
and public facilities necessary to the general health, safety and welfare of its residents.
Prior to the County's first interim zoning code in 1992, options for commercial development were
relatively unrestricted throughout the county. The 1994 zoning. ordinance recognized and limited
many established commercial areas and uses, and included adjacent-undeveloped land that may not
meet GMA criteria for rural commercial land.
Local circumstances vary considerably in different areas of the County in tenDS of issues such as
economic conditions, distance to the UGA, existing levels of service, and population growth.
The County transportation network's limited number of major highways and roadways are subject to
seasonally high volumes from tourism and to increasingly high volumes related to commuter traffic.
Local employment helps to limit local commuter traffic on Highway 101 and State Routes 19 and 20,
where traffic increases would require costly upgrades to meet level of service standards and prevent
congestion,
.
.
.
.
.
The proposed methodology for designating commercial land is aimed at preventing sprawling
commercial development from occurring outside urban areas and ensuring appropriate levels of
commercial services and a sufficient commercial base for tourist and recreation-oriented activities
throughout the county.
Rural commercial lands located in the unincorporated portions of the county should satisfy the following
criteria:
.
.
Serve an identified existing need;
Allow for the continuation of rural economic activities at a rural size and scale;
Provide a focal point for rural community identity;
Provide convenient goods and services for nearby residents and the traveling public;
Support natural resource-based industries; and
Provide local employment opportunities, especially in areas of distressed economic conditions~
.
.
.
.
Although rural commercial development should continue to provide the necessary goods and services
offered today and should not be expanded to serve regional needs, amendments to the GMA allow nonR
residential development in rural areas that is not principally designed to serve the local community. In
the Rural Village Centers, the County allows appropriate infill development. As the rural population
increases, so too will the demand for a range of goods and services. Rural commercial areas must serve
community needs and the traveling public while the Urban Growth Area must provide a greater variety
of goods and services and satisfy regional demands.
Planning Approach
The revisions of the Comprehensive Plan from the 1997 Draft Plan to the final Comprehensive Plan
reflect the evolution of Jefferson County's rural land use strategy through an extensive public process
directed at producing goals and policies consistent with the Growth Management A~~ .Jefferson County,
. VOL 24 rM;~ 2179
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-9
August 28. 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
like many rural counties, has local conditions and circumstances that were difficult to address within the
original GMA fÌ"amework. Changes from the Draft Plan also reflect the statewide evolution of the GMA
to a better understanding of the needs of rural counties.
.
Early iterations of the plan contained elements of a planning approach that continue to guide this Plan.
These elements are: recognizing the importance of existing historic development patterns found in rural
areas; providing for the economic vitality of the rural commercial base at appropriate levels of
commercial services, and preserving the character ofthe county's rural lands.
In the February 24, 1997 Draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Plan"),. rural commercial levels of service
were defined based on the provision of basic goods and services to service areas 'defined by drive times
of 10 and 20 minutes. The Draft Plan did not recognize the existing'varietyofuses in ,commercial areas
or the level of service that exists to meet the needs of the large number of visitors and commuters
traveling through areas of Jefferson County, The 1997 GMA amendments allowed the County to
recognize existing areas and uses of more intensive commercial development, and to provide for limited
infill within boundaries that contain commercial activities
As a result of the final review process, commercial land in rural Jefferson County has been designated in
this Comprehensive Plan by:
.
Identifying existing areas and uses of more intensive commercial development;
Designating rural commercial areas and land use classifications guided-by existing levels of service;
Establishing logical boundaries for existing rural commercial areas and uses based predominantly on
the pre-July I, 1990 built environment; and
Designating commercial areas as interim until they are revisited following completion of the Glen
Cove/Tri-Area Special Study.
.
.
.
.
Designation and Classification of Rural Commercial Lands
The commercial areas proposed in the 1997 Draft Plan included Rural Village Centers at Port Hadlock,
Port Ludlow, Quilcene, and Brinnon, The Draft Plan proposed Rural Crossroads at Chimacum,
Discovery Bay, Four Comers, Nordland, Mats Mats, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point, In the final Plan,
Jefferson County applied 1997 GMA amendment language to recognize existing commercial areas and
uses at Ness' Comer, Irondale Comer, Gardiner, and State Route 19/20 Intersection, in addition to the
crossroads originally proposed in the 1997 Draft Plan. The designation for the commercial area of Port
Ludlow was changed from Rural Village Center to Village Commercial Center within a Master Planned
Resort.
A discussion of Jefferson County's criteria for designation and classification of commercial areas
follows, while a discussion of criteria for drawing logical boundaries for those areas begins on page 3-15.
The criteria used to designate rural commercial areas are:
. The commercial area existed as an area or use of more intensive commercial development on July 1,
1990;
. The area or use presently has a commercial zoning designation; and
. The area provides basic necessities or multiple commercial services to the local community.
.
VOL
24 rAC:
- 2 1.30
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-10
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Classification of rural commercial areas was based on a Rural Commercial Level of Services (RCLOS)
analysis2. The study included an inventory of commercial development and an analysis of the nature of
the service area for existing rural commercial areas. The study recognized four rural commercial levels
of service:
8
Local- supplies basic goods and services with a limited selection.
8.
Community ~ supplies a large variety of goods and day-to-day services and a limited range of
professional, public, and social services.
8
Regional - supplies both the rural and urban population with additional public and social facilities,
access to government institutions, and a wide range of special retail stores and services.
8
TransportationlResource Related - serves the traveling public and provides for recreational activities
through uses such as motels, restaurants, RV parks, resorts, marinas, and gift shops, This level of
commercial services does not define any service areas and could be supplied by both types of rural
commercial zones: Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers.
Using the data from the 1996 study, County staff detennined that commercial areas exist that contain a
wider range of uses than those for a Local Level of Service, but not. as wide a range as the Community
Level of Service. In addition, several commercial areas in the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Study Area include
limited regional uses. Based on 1997 GMA amendments allowing for recognition of existing
commercial uses (RCW 36.70AO70(5)(d)), Jefferson County also recognized a Commuter- Traveling-
Public Level of Service for commercial activities serving commuters and travelers with goods and-
services that may not be associated with a destination resort, such as restaurants, specialty stores aimed
at attracting tourists, and overnight accommodations on a limited scale.
The following table describes the revised commercial area designations, which are interim designations
until the Special Study is completed and the boundaries are revisited at the first amendment cycle of this
Plan. Crossroads are hierarchical in tenns of allowed uses, so that uses allowed in a more restrictive
crossroad is allowed in a less restrictive crossroad unless otherwise noted.
A more specific list of uses will be provided in implementing ordinances. Pennitted uses will be
balanced with perfonnance standards to prevent urban-style development. In addition, the unique and
individual character of each crossroad will be preserved by limiting certain uses to specific crossroads in
which they already exist. For example, for NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads, motels will be allowed
only at Discovery Bay, and for General Crossroads, auto retail will be allowed only at the State Route
19/20 Intersection.
2 Jefferson CountY Rural Commercial Zones, Madrona Planning and Development Services, September, 1996,
_VOL
24: rAC: ~ 2 :181
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-11
August 28, 1998
Historical rural community
providing all essential goods and
day-to-day professional, public,
and social services at a
community level of service.
Residential uses include duplex,
triplex, assisted living facilities,
Commercial area designations are interim and shall be revisited on completion of the Glen Cove/Tri-Area
Special Study,
LAND USE AND RURAL
Designation *
Convenience
Crossroads
. Nordland
. Beaver Valley
. Wawa Point
Neighborhood!
Visitor Crossroads
. Mats Mats
. Discovery Bay
. Gardiner
. Four Corners
. Chimacum
General
Crossroads
. Ness' Corner
. Irondale
Corner
. SR 19/20
Intersection
Rural Village
Center
. Port Hadlock
. Quilcene
. Brinnon
*
Level of Service Characteristics
Single convenience/general store
servIng a lower intensity
population base at a local level of
service. May serve the traveling
public, as well.
Multiple uses servIng a rural
neighborhood at a local level of
service with limited community
uses, and serving commuters and
the traveling public,
Multiple uses providing limited
regional and multiple community
levels of service,
Examples of Services Provided
Basic food staples, basic house-wares,
gasoline and oil, basic hardware and
convenience items, video, espresso, café.
.
All convemence uses and grocery,
restaurant, tavern/bar, auto parts & repair,
gift shops, limited range of specialty stores
and professional services.
All convenience and neighborhood/visitor
uses and building materials, hardware and
farm equipment, clothing and accessories,
mini-storage, RV sales, carpeting, and an
expanded range of specialty stores,
professional services, and public and social
service offices.
All convenience, neighborhood/visitor, and
general crossroads services, a broad range
of specialty stores, professional services,
and public and social services.
.
The commercial area within the Port Ludlow Master Planning Resort is designated a Village Commercial
Center, a final Plan revision that recognizes the difference between a Master Planned Resort and
historical rural communities. These differences will be reflected in the land use classifications and
permitted uses provided in the County's development regulations,
Commercial development within rural commercial areas will be regulated by an interim controls
ordinance until final land use ordinances are developed in a public process. Land use ordinances will
include:
A Land Use Table with future permitted uses corresponding to levels of service for existing uses;
Development standards, including an upper building size cap for each zone and corresponding bulk
and dimensional standards designed to preserve the existing rural character of the neighborhood
through regulation of size and scale; and
Special conditions related to site-specific constraints.
.
.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
VOL
2 4 r;~:;:
2:182
3-12
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Local Circumstances
The 1997 amendments to the Growth Management Act legislated in ESB 6094 included the following
language allowing for local discretion regarding the application of criteria to local circumstances:
"Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses,
a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural
element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36. lOA. 020 and meets the requirements of this chapter,"
(RCW 36. lOA.OlO(a)
Jefferson County recognizes distinct circumstances and conditions in certain areas of the county that
have been considered in the designation of commercial areas and policies to address these circumstances,
The Tri-ArealGlen Cove Study Area
The Tri-Area of eastern Jefferson County includes the communities of Irondale, Chimacum, and Port
Hadlock and surrounding areas of higher population and commercial development than other areas of the
County. It is an area characterized by a dense development pattern that borders on urban densities in
some areas. Commercial development along State Route 19 at Ness' Comer and Irondale Comer, as
well as in nearby Four Comers, the State Route 19/20 Intersection, and Chimacum provide commercial
levels of service that include some regional uses and multiple community uses. The Tri-Area and an area
of existing light industrial and associated commercial development at Glen Cove have been identified as
potential urban growth areas, but more infonnationis required before a final detennination can be made.
The County, in partnership with the City of Port Townsend, has initiated the Glen Coveffri-Area Special
Study to collect and analyze detailed information regarding existing land uses, future commercial and
industrial land needs, and the cost and feasibility of infrastructure necessary to serve urban uses and
densities in the study area. The study will develop options for land use designations in Glen Cove and
the Tri-Area. The boundary of the study area is shown on the Land Use Map.
The options developed within the Special Study will be based on a countywide inventory of commercial
lands. For this reason, commercial boundaries countywide are designated on an interim basis, in order to
preserve options until the results of the study are available and the boundaries are revisited in a public
process (see LNP 1.4). Boundaries for these commercial areas and for the Glen Cove industrial area
have been drawn to contain existing commercial development during the interim.
The economy of Jefferson County is experiencing a significant "retail leakage" to Urban Growth Areas
in Kitsap and Clallam Counties, as well as Seattle metropolitan areas (see Economic Development
Element). Retail leakage is an economic signal that regional commercial levels of service are not being
met for County residents, and suggests that commercial development is inadequate to meet the needs of
recent growth. During the 20-year planning period, the County population (including the City of Port
Townsend) has been projected to grow by approximately 53%. Identifying commercial land to meet
regional needs is a goal of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove study, which will provide various land use options,
will identify the impacts of each, and will develop cost estimates for the public and private investment
required to support the growth.
The South County
The southern region of eastern Jefferson County, known as the South County, includes the communities
of Quilcene andt3rinnon and the surrounding areas. This region has not experienced the high rate of
. . VOL 24: fAr,": - 2 -183
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-13
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
growth that has occurred in the Tri-Area and Port Townsend but experiences a large influx of people
during the summer tourist season. Unemployment in this area is high as a result of the regional decline
in forestry and fishing, and the economy of the area is best typified as distressed, Opportunities exist for
economic activities related to tourism and recreation, as both Brinnon and Quilcene are on U.s. Highway
101 at the "gateway" to Olympic National Park. Adjacent Hood Canal offers a number of recreational
activities for visitors. The County recognizes the need to develop a more diversified economy through
businesses that serve the traveling public while providing jobs for local residents. Regional growth in
the Puget Sound area and an increase in visitors from national and international areas are likely to
support such efforts to diversify South County economic activities.
In addition, an existing industrial park in Quilcene may provide additional employment opportunities for
South County residents. Local employment for area residents may help to alleviate increasing commuter
traffic on Highway 101 and State Routes 19 and 20, where seasonal visitor traffic can be heavy.
Quilcene and Brinnon community plans and public comment from residents identified as a community
priority the need for local senior assisted living facilities, so that elderly residents are not required to
move 30-40 miles to facilities in Port Townsend. The need to allow for assisted living facilities and local
employment opportunities in a distressed economic area, the distance between the South County and the
Urban Growth Area, and the concern that higher traffic volumes will require extensive road
improvements are local circumstances used in designating Rural Village Centers in the South County.
The West End
The isolated western portion of Jefferson County has no existing commercial lands, and therefore no
commercial land for that area was designated in this Plan. The West End is not projected to experience
significant growth during the 20-year planning period, with a total 20-year population projection of 43
additional people. Convenience services are available at the Kalaloch Lodge store on National Park land
and at a Quinault Nation convenience store at Queets. The regional decline of forestry and fishing has
resulted in distressed economic conditions in this area. The decline of natural resource-based industries
requires that new employment opportunities in available economic sectors areas be developed for a
transition to a more diversified economy.
Although the population of the West End is limited, a significant number of people visit the tourist and
recreation attractions of the area year-round. During the tourist season, the area experiences a large
influx of visitors. Situated on U.S. Highway 101 between the mountain/rainforest and the ocean beach
portions of Olympic National Park, the West End receives visitors from Puget Sound regional
metropolitan areas, as well as national and international visitors. The Hoh and Quinault Indian
Reservation communities are concentrated population centers that both contribute to and rely upon the
West End economy.
In order to encourage employment opportunities in this economically distressed area, policies in this Plan
allow commercial activities serving tourist-related uses to carry a broader range of goods and services to
meet the needs of the local population (see LNP 7.1.8), In addition, policies for home businesses and
cottage industries allow for greater flexibility under criteria specific to the West End (see LNP 6.1.13 and
LNP 6.2.16).
VOL
2A 'Ar::-
If r"",
- 2 1-84
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-14
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Logical Boundaries of Rural Commercial Areas
Criteria for Determining Commercial Land Boundaries
The boundaries for rural commercial areas were determined according to criteria from the Growth
Management Act, including the 1997 amendments contained in RCW 36.70A070(5)(d). Factors related
to local circumstances as well as guidance from local community plans and public comment were also
considered in defining the boundaries ofthese areas.
The process for determining commercial boundaries included an internal County review to ensure
consistency with GMA criteria and Comprehensive Plan goals and ,policies. Proposed boundaries for
commercial areas were submitted to the Jefferson County Departments of Environmental Health,
Development Review, and Public Works for reviews of limitations on future development imposed by
water supply, septic constraints, critical areas, storm water, transportation, and capital facilities. County
departments with regulatory or management authority over these areas provided recommendations
regarding appropriate boundaries and issues of concern.
Final Comprehensive Plan boundaries for rural commercial areas resulted in a substantial reduction in
the amount of commercial land available for development in rural Jefferson County from 1994 zoning.
This reduction in commercial land was accomplished through the application of GMA criteria for rural
lands, including those established in 1997 legislative amendments. Boundaries were drawn based
predominantly on the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment. Logical boundaries were drawn around
existing commercial uses in order to contain and limit development to existing areas of more. intensive
development. The criteria used, including both GMA criteria and local considerations, were as follows:
1. Criteria from RCW 36.70A070(5)(c):
. Contain or control rural development;
. Assure visual compatibility with surrounding rural area;
. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development;
. Protect critical areas and surface and ground water resources;
. Protect against conflicts with the use of designated natural resource lands.
2, Criteria from RCW 36.70AO70(5)(d), the 1997 GMA amendments:
. Logical outer boundary of an area or use existing in July, 1990;
. Prevent new low-density sprawl;
. Clearly identifiable and contained area of more intensive development;
. Delineated predominantly by the built environment;
. May include undeveloped lands if limited;
. Preserve character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
. Use physical boundaries (bodies of water, streets, topography);
. Prevent abnormally irregular boundaries;
. Provide public facilities and public services so as to avoid low-density sprawl;
. Existing industrial areas are not required to principally serve existing and projected rural
population.
3. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a), the boundaries were also evaluated based on the follQ)Ving local
considerations that could affect boundaries or require the application of special conditions:
1,'01-
24 r~r)'
2:185
Jefferson Coun!)'Comprehensive Plan
3-15
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
.
Regional transportation concerns, traffic volumes, access, and safety.
Proximity to incompatible uses.
Partial designation of large parcels that are not fully developed for existing uses, to prevent
sprawl.
Home businesses/cottage industries should not be used to detennine boundaries.
Provide employment opportunities for local residents, in particular in areas of insufficient
economic growth or economic decline.
Support community planning goals and rural community cohesion,
Provide for multi-family and special needs housing opportunities.
Avoid creating new non-confonning uses.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Application of Criteria to Designation of Interim Rural Commercial Boundaries
Jefferson County applied the above criteria to existing commercially zoned areas based on local
circumstances and extensive public comments received during the planning and review process.
Historical commercial areas that seIVe as a focal point for community economic and social activities
were recognized for the multiple functions they provide to residents. A number of these areas also seIVe
the visiting public, a seasonal population influx that is increasing during other times of the year.
In the section that follows, individual commercial areas are discussed with regard to GMA criteria and
local circumstances. Maps of commercial lands and boundaries are provided on pages 3-36 to 3-47.
Rural Crossroads
.
1. Convenience Crossroads - Convenience crossroads consist of a single commercial property at a
historical crossroads. The existing commercial use is a convenience general store with associated
uses such as gas station, video, espresso, or café/deli, and provides basic goods and commodities for
the local population and the commuting or traveling public.
.
Wawa Point
At Wawa Point, the hardware/general store with an accessory building is designated, with limited
additional area for possible expansion and to meet parking requirements, The commercial area
designated within the large parcel of 24.3 acres on which the store is located is limited to 4.2 acres to
prevent commercial sprawl, and in order to focus development in areas of infill in Quilcene and
Brinnon Rural Village Centers. Safe access from Highway 101 is provided by a frontage road.
The Draft Plan proposed designation of the Cove grocery store in the RV park office. This parcel is
excluded in the final Plan in order to limit the area of infill between the Cove grocery and the
hardware/general store, which would result in inappropriate sprawl. In addition, public comment
indicated higher local use of the hardware/general store, while the Cove grocery store' is an area of
the RV park office that offers an extremely limited range of goods to seIVe RV park visitors. Because
the RV park is located next to a boat ramp on Dabob Bay, it qualifies as a recreational and tourist-
related activity and does not require commercial designation.
.
Beaver Valley
The Beaver Valley store is a convenience store and gas station with associated uses such as video
rental and a café/deli. It functions as a community center and "bulletin board" for nearby residents,
.
VOI-
2 4 rM,~
2i86
3-16
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Located on State Route 19 between the Hood Canal Bridge and northeastern Jefferson County, the
store also serves commuters and visitors.
.
Nordland
The Nordland store is located on State Route 116 on Marrowstone Island. The general store has a
post office and kayak rental, and provides the only basic goods and services available for the island
community. It is a historic enterprise which serves as a social and community center.
The Marrowstone Island community plan recommends designation of a small commercial' area for
the island which might also serve visitors to Fort Flagler State Park. Land Vse Policy 14.7 states the
County's intent to look at options for designating additional commercial land in this area based on
recognition of a neighboring pre-1990 construction business.' The Marrowstonecommunity planning
group will be involved in the Shoreline Management Master Program revision that will evaluate
concerns such as shorelines, marine habitat, traffic, and water supply, in a process allowing for full
public participation.
2. NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads - NeighborhoodNisitor crossroads are designated based on
multiple commercial uses that serve the nearby rural neighborhood and the commuting or traveling
public with a limited range of basic goods and services. Permitted uses include all Convenience
Crossroads uses as well as restaurant, tavern/bar, auto parts and repair, farm supply and equipment,
and a limited range of specialty stores and professional services, Performance standards for new
development will be consistent with the rural character, size, and scale of the existing commercial
area and the surrounding neighborhood.
.
Mats Mats
The Mats Mats General Store serves local neighborhood residents as well as visitors to the Oak Bay
and Mats Mats Bay shoreline areas. The logical boundary takes in additional uses including a
photography studio, a vacant former medical clinic, and a chiropractor's office. The southern
boundary is located along a stream drainage.
.
Discovery Bay
The Discovery Bay community was historically a thriving economic area on the railroad line, with a
sawmill and a cannery. The historic community declined in population as these uses ended, but the
commercial area has continued due to a location at the junction of State Route 20 and V.S, Highway
101. It serves nearby residents as well as visitors and commuters. Criteria for logical boundaries
have been applied with special consideration of critical areas and traffic issues.
The logical boundary to contain this commercial area allows for limited infill, but protects critical
fish and wildlife habitat in the Salmon and Snow Creek estuaries. Areas of infill are also limited
over estuarine lands based on seismic, frequently flooded, and wetlands critical areas. Existing uses
have been recognized, and limited areas of infill have been allowed farther from critical areas.
Several uses on the western boundary were excluded to address traffic concerns along Highway 101
and in order to prevent linear commercial sprawl, as development is constrained by the estuary on
one side and steep slopes on the other. . "
VOL
24 rM/
2i87
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-17
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
.
Gardiner
.
The Gardiner commercial area is located on u.S. Highway 101, and historicalIy served the
community with a grocery and gas station that closed during the 1980s. Current uses include a bird
feeding supplies store, U-fish pond, an antique store, espresso, and a fishing tackle store, The logical
boundary around the triangular commercial area has been drawn using Highway 101, the Old
Gardiner Road, and the Gardiner Beach Road, A limited. amount of infill is alIowed in order to
accommodate the community's desire for future development of uses such as a convenience store.
.
Chimacum
Chimacum is a historic commercial area that includes a post, office and is located adjacent to the
public school, therefore serving as a focal point for the local community. Based on 1997 GMA
amendments, the crossroad boundary has been extended north on Chimacum Road to recognize a
pre-1990 cluster of businesses that was not included in the Draft Plan. Existing uses such as a farm
equipment and supply store serve nearby agricultural activities in the Chimacum ValIey, while other
uses such as ministorage provide a community level of service. The logical boundary recognizes and
contains existing commercial uses and provides for limited infilI on a parcel along Chimacum Road.
InfilI will, be temporarily limited as a result of the recent downsizing of the City of Port Townsend
water system service area; an issue that will be addressed a revision of the Jefferson County
Coordinated Water System Plan by the Water Utility Coordinating Committee for consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan.
.
Four Comers
.
The Four Comers NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroads, which historicalIy served the nearby area with
a sawmill, contains a convenience store and gas pump, a construction'yard, and an auto recycling
yard, an UPS distribution office, and a ministorage rentaL The boundary of this commercial area
recognizes and contains the existing uses, and alIows for limited infilI development only through
subdivision or redevelopment of existing parcels, alI of which are developed. A water supply for
new development will not be available until purveyorship issues are resolved between Jefferson
County P.U.D, #1 and the City of Port Townsend during the revision of the Coordinated Water
System Plan.
3. ,General Crossroads - General Crossroads are existing commercial areas that provide a broad range of
commercial goods and services for a higher population base in the northeastern part of Jefferson
County. These areas provide several regional uses, as welI as multiple uses at community levels of
service. Uses in these areas will include Convenience and NeighborhoodNisitor uses, as welI as
building materials, hardware and farm equipment, auto repair with subordinate auto sales, appliance
sales and repair, clothing and accessories, ministorage, RV repair and sales, and an expanded range
of specialty stores, professional services, and public and social service offices. Performance
standards for general commercial uses will alIow for sizes and scales of new development larger than
those for NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroads, but more limiting than those for Rural Village Centers.
.
Ness' Comer
The Ness' Comer intersection, located on State Route 19, is a relatively large commercial area with a
number of specialized commercial uses and professional services. It serves the high population base
of the Tri-Area, and includes some uses that provide several regional, community, and traveling
.
VOL
2 4 r~~,~
.~ 2 188
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-18
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
public levels of service, as well as services for the local rural population. Existing commercial uses,
which have gradually extended along the highway, have been contained by the logical boundary,
with limited areas where infill will be allowed.
.
Irondale Comer
lrondale Corner is located north of Ness' Comer on State Route 19 and includes uses similar in level
of service to those at Ness' Comer. Under 1994 commercial zoning, these two areas were joined.
This Plan divides the previous commercial zone based on a strict application of the criteria for
recognizing and containing existing development. Residential development divides the Ness' Corner
from the lrondale Corner General Commercial Crossroads for approximately 1200 feet on the east
side of the highway. On the west side of the highway, an undeveloped area near the City of Port
Townsend's public water supply well for the Tri-Area service area separates the two designated
commercial areas for about 1200 feet.
.
State Route 19/20 Intersection
Under the criteria for commercial crossroads boundaries, this area has been downsized considerably
from 1994 zoning designations. Existing development on one side of State Route 19 was recognized
and contained, consisting of a nursery/garden supply store, an auto dealership under a Binding
Commercial Site Plan, and a vacant parcel with a vested building pennit application. Commercial
uses excluded from the crossroad include an auto repair business adjacent to residential uses, and a
drive-in movie theater. These uses have been excluded to limit traffic access at an intersection with
high traffic volumes and a relatively high incidence of accidents. Auto retail will be allowed in this
crossroad only, in order to limit this regional commercial use from occurring in other crossroads.
Rural Village Centers
Rural Village Centers are established, historically settled areas with commercial uses that address most
of the essential needs of the rural population, supply a large variety of goods and day-to-day services,
and provide a broad range of professional and social services. The three designated Rural Village
Centers contain mixed residential and commercial uses, and are designated for residential as well as
commercial uses according to historic patterns of mixed development.
1. Bdnnon
The historic community of Brinnon is located on U.S. Highway 101 at the mouth of the Dosewallips
River. The traditional community boundaries are the river on the south, the steep valley wall to the
north, and Hood Canal on the east. The designated core area consists of mixed commercial and
residential uses. The Draft Plan boundary has been revised to limit development in the frequently
flooded area near the river. Existing uses farther from the river, such as a nursery and a mixed
commercial/residential short plat with an existing ministorage and a vested application for a new
post office, have been recognized in the final Plan.
The boundary allows for areas of infill in Brinnon based on the distressed economy of the area as a
result of decreased employment in logging and fishing. The seasonal increase in the visitor
population is expected to increase in the future as a result of ongoing regional growth in Puget
Sound. Limited areas of infill in the Brinnon Rural Village Center will provide employment
opportunities for local residents in the transition to a more diversified economy as Brinnon attempts
YOi-
24 rM)~
~ 2 :189
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-19
August 28,1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
to promote small-scale tourist and recreation-oriented businesses based on a location on Highway
101 adjacent to the Olympic National Park.
Areas of limited infill are also provided in support of the community goal of an extended care or
assisted living facility. A high priority for the community is a facility that allows elderly residents to
stay in the community rather than moving 40 miles away from family and friends to facilities in Port
Townsend.
2. Quilcene
The historic community of Quilcene, similar to Brinnon, is distinct from the Port Hadlock and Port
Ludlow communities because of a location at a distance from the Port Townsend UGA and a
distressed economy due to the recent decline in forestry and fishing employment, Quilcene, located
on Hood Canal and Highway 101 at the gateway to Olympic National Park, has an opportunity to
serve visitors and seasonal residents to build a more diversified economic base.
Areas of commercial infill are intended to provide employment opportunities in a distressed and
changing economy, Commercial development can take advantage of a high volume of visitors based
on a location on both Highway 101 and Center Valley Road. The community is currently
considering a public water system with the assistance of the County Health Department and the
Jefferson County P.U,D. The amount of commercial infill development will depend on the
availability of a water system. A Local Utility District election planned for late 1998 will allow the
community to determine the future of the water system. The County will revisit the Quilcene water
supply issue following the election to assess the results in light of Comprehensive Plan issues.
Community concerns in Quilcene, as in Brinnon, indicate a priority need for areas of infill in the
commercial core area that might allow an assisted living or extended care facility for elderly
residents of the community. Although such facilities will be pennitted conditionally in residential
areas, both communities prefer that they be located in the Rural Village Centers. While recognition
of the existing commercial development pattern in Quilcene results in somewhat irregular
boundaries, several commercial uses southeast and southwest of the boundary have been excluded in
order to avoid creating a large area of infill that would promote sprawl.
3. Port Hadlock
The Port Hadlock Rural Village Center serves a large population base in the Tri-Area. The interim
boundary is limited to a core area rather than fully utilizing the 1997 GMA amendments to recognize
additional commercial development in the Hadlock area. Because of the relatively high density of
residential uses in the adjacent area, including multi-family housing units, the County elected to wait
for the completion of the Glen CovelTri-Area Special Study and to revisit the boundary in light of
study results regarding infrastructure needs and costs, potential designation as an urban growth area,
and commercial land needs.
Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center - Final Boundary
The Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow has a large residential community that is served by a Village
Commercial Center. The designated commercial area is consistent with the 1993 Environmental Impact
Statement, and has been agreed to' by community planning groups. Land use activities and perfonnance
VOL
24 rAt,:
2190
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-20
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
standards will be regulated by the County, but may be limited to a somewhat greater degree by the
Master Planned Resort's internal community codes, covenants and restrictions.
Legal Existing Commercial Uses
In order to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act, a number of commercial activities
were not included within commercial area boundaries designated in this Plan. Valid legal existing
commercial and industrial uses will be allowed to continue in business, to be replaced if destroyed, and
to expand modestly within limits. The Comprehensive Plan provides specifics on the regulation of
existing legal uses in Land Use Goal 8.0 that are intended to protect existing businesses that were
established legally under previous regulations, while at the same time limiting the impacts of the
activities on adjacent properties.
Evaluation of Rural Commercial Boundaries
The designation of Jefferson County's rural commercial areas was guided by GMA criteria as applied to
local circumstances. County decision-makers heard extensive public comment regarding the need to:
Support the economic vitality of existing historic communities for the 10ng-tem1 viability and
cohesion of those communities;
Provide for local employment opportunities in rural areas of the county, in particular those distant
from the City of Port Townsend UGA;
Provide opportunities for limited multi-family, special needs, and affordable housing;
Encourage diversification of the distressed economies of communities in the South County and the
West End that are suffering from the decline of resource-based industries;
Control the high traffic volumes on the limited number of major roadways which are frequently
congested due to a substantial increase in seasonal visitors; and
Preserve the rural character of communities.
Reduction in Commercial Land
The logical boundaries of commercial - areas prevent development from expanding beyond existing
developed areas. While areas of limited infill are provided within the designated built environment, a
significant amount of undeveloped land has been removed from commercial zoning status. Table 3-4
provides infom1ation regarding the reduction in size of the commercially zoned land in Jefferson County
by this Comprehensive Plan as compared to the existing zoning that was established in 1994.
The infom1ation in Table 3-4 shows that the total 1994 commercially-zoned acreage of 966,68 acres has
been reduced to 367.37 acres, an overall reduction of 62% from 1994 zoning. It should be noted that
while Rural Crossroads are designated commercial land, land within the boundaries of Rural Village
Centers is designated as both commercial and residential land, as the existing uses are mixed to a degree
that precludes separate designations within the boundaries.
VOL
(";4
C r~r;~
2i91
Jefferson County Comprehensíve Plan
3-21
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Table 3-4
Reduction in Commercially Zoned Acreage from 1994 Zoning
cO '....'::r"!!~ff!I\:!;t;'~I~~
RURAL CROSSROADS AREAS:
.
FOUR CORNERS 39.15 acres 26.41 acres 33%
2 WAWAPOINT 27.25 acres 4.20 acres 85%
3 MATS MATS 5.94 acres 5.94 acres No change
4 S.R. 19/20 INTERSECTION 54,83 acres 27.26 acres 50%
5 GARDINER 24.69 acres 4.47 acres 82%
6 CHIMACUM 68.11 acres 36.53 acres 46%
7 TRI-AREA HIGHWAY 99.45 acres 53.83 acres 46%
lrondale - 18.80 acres .
Ness' Corner ~ 29.28 acres
8 BEAVER VALLEY 2.97 acres 2.97 acres No change
9 BLACK POINT 12.85 acres 100%
10 CENTER 0.39 acres 100%
11 MARROWS TONE 1.00 acres 1.00 acres No change
ISLAND
12 DISCOVERY BAY 97.37 acres 9.11 acres 91%
RURAL VILLAGE CENTERS Residential and Commercial Land
13 QUILCENE 177.44 acres 48.41 acres 73%
14 BRINNON 67.16 acres 34.05 acres 49%
15 PORT HADLOCK 248.36 acres 75.35 acres 70%
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER Master Planned Resort
16
PORT LUDLOW
39.72 acres
38.34 acres
3%
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
ACREAGE
966.68 acres
367.87 acres
62%
.
VOL
24 '~r=-
r ..,,-
2í92
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-22
August28,1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Limiting Land Available for lnfill Development
Rural Crossroads
The following table provides figures for infill areas in rural crossroads, first presenting the acreage of
land in undeveloped parcels. In addition, the table presents the estimated acreage of total undeveloped
land that also includes undeveloped portions of developed parcels. The total undeveloped land is
estimated from air photos, and may include land currently removed from development due to critical
area requirements or because it is in use for septic systems, and in some cases, wells. This land is not
available for infill development, and therefore the figures shown below in Table 3-5 are a maximum.
The acreage for each is followed by the percent that the total undeveloped land comprises of total land
for that crossroad.
Table 3-5
Undeveloped Acreage for Rural Crossroads
Rural Crossroad Total Commercial Land Land in Undeveloped Estimated Total
Parcels. Undeveloped Land..
Acres/% Acres / %
0.5 acres
Nordland 1 acre 0 50%
2.0 acres
Beaver Valley 2.97 acres 0 67%
2.2 acres
Wawa Point 4.20 acres 0 52%
0.5 acres 2.21 acres
Discovery Bay 9.11 acres 5% 24%
.15 acres 2.8 acres
Gardiner 4.47 acres 3.4% 62%
1.4 acres
Mats Mats 5.94 acres 0 23%
10.64 acres 8.4 acres
Chimacum 36.53 acres 29.1 % 23%
9.98 acres 16.8 acres
State Route 19/20 27.26 acres 36.6 %*** 62%
1.53 acres 7.1 acres
Four Comers 26.41 acres 5.7% 27%
5.01 acres 4.2 acres
Ness' Comer 31.83 acres 15.7% 13%
4.76 acres 8.2 acres
Irondale Comer 22.0 acres 21.6 % 37%
* Undeveloped parcels are defined as parcels that have a land use code of 9100 (undeveloped and unused land area) in the
Jefferson County Assessor's database.
*'" Total acreage available for infill based on estimated lot coverage using air photos.
**'" Vested project parcel
The total designated crossroads acreage of 171.22 acres contains 32.57 acres in undeveloped parcels
available for infill. This is equal to approximately 19% of the total. The number of uses that may
develop in these infill areas varies with the size and lot coverage of the use, as well as the requirement
for septic systems, critical areas protection, buffering, access roads, and wells or water supply lines.
24rM;:: 2 :193
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-23
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Of the above crossroads, several are limited in infill opportunity, The convenience/general stores at
Nordland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point can expand the existing business under the criteria for a
Convenience Crossroads, but cannot subdivide for another commercial use. F our Comers and
Chimacum boundaries allow for expansion of existing uses, but currently lack water availability to allow
for new commercial development.
.
For the remaining crossroads, the total estimated undeveloped land based on air photo analysis is a total
of35.81 acres, for an estimated 21% infill acreage of those crossroads. Septic system, water supply, and
critical areas issues will limit development by an additional amount which is likely to be 30-50% of the
land required for a project. Should new water hookups become available for Four Comers and
Chimacum, an additional 15.5 acres of infill may be developed. These figures demonstrate that the land
available for infill development in rural crossroads has been limited by the designated boundaries.
Rural Village Centers
Rural Village Centers are intended to provide for a mixture of commercial, residential, and
community/public services uses. The infill allowed takes into account affordable housing goals through
limited multi-family (duplexes, triplexes) and assisted living/special needs housing, as well as by
preserving the existing housing supply (see Housing Element). In addition to residential and commercial
uses, land for community clubs, churches, public facilities, and. social services is needed to meet
projected population growth and to preserve community identity. The table below provides figures for
infill for all of these uses based on data similar to that in Table 3-5.
Rural Village Center Total Land within Land in Undeveloped Total Estimated
RVC Boundary Parcels Undeveloped Land
Acres / % Acres / %
19.04 acres 18.0 acres
Port Hadlock 75.35 acres 25.3 % 24%
5.26 acres 11.2 acres
Brinnon 34.05 acres 15.4% 33 %
13.16 acres 11.5 acres
Quilcene 53.30 acres 24.7% 22%
Table 3-6
Infill Acreage for Rural Village Centers
.
The projected 20-year population growth rates for these areas are: Port Hadlock 34%, Brinnon 50%, and
Quilcene 37%. Additional analysis was reviewed to evaluate both the adequacy and the justification for
areas of infill, the commercial area boundaries were determined based on a recognition of the
predominantly pre-July, 1990 built environment pursuant to RCW 36.70A070(5)(d).
Additional economic growth will be accommodated by focused commercial development in the Urban
Growth Area, by employment opportunities in home-based businesses, cottage industries, tourist-
recreation uses, resource-based industries, and in the South County by limited infill in the Quilcene
industrial area. Additional residential growth will be accommodated by allowing duplexes and triplexes
in Rural Village Centers and by the surplus of lots in surrounding rural residential areas,
.
.VOL
24 'tr-
r "l;~
2194
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-24
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
.
These figures demonstrate that Jefferson County has met the GMA goal for containing commercial
development by recognizing and minimizing clearly identifiable existing areas and by limiting the
amount of land for infill development. At the same time, the land use designations under this Plan
address local circumstances such as economic development in distressed economic areas and
transportation issues related to the distance to the City of Port Townsend and the limited number of
highways which experience seasonally high volumes of visitors.
The designated areas are based on the existing built environment to prevent the proliferation of low-
density sprawl. In several cases, large parcels were only partially designated, in order to prevent sprawl.
Areas of infill are minimized, yet provide employment and economic opportunities for local residents in
economically distressed areas of the county. Critical areas and adjacent uses have been protected and will
continue to be further protected under ordinances revised for consistency with policies in the
Environment element of this Plan.
.
The existing character of rural neighborhoods and communities has been protected by establishing
boundaries to limit the expansion of commercial areas. Additional measures to protect rural character
will be implemented through regulations that include a table of land uses balanced by performance
standards that limit the size and scale of new commercial development in order to ensure visual
compatibility with surrounding rural areas. Performance standards will be developed with the
participation of community planning groups in the process for revision of land use ordinances, following
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Regulations will be developed for standards such as lot coverage,
access, building bulk requirements, building design and height, road frontage, distance from public
roads, landscaping standards, buffering, parking, and signage. Community participation will ensure that
type, scale and design standards support rural community character and identity.
Because the designated commercial areas are existing areas, public services and facilities such as
transportation, fire districts, and water supply are available, The exceptions, with regard to water supply,
are Chimacum, and Four Comers, in which new development may be limited by a lack of new water
supply connections until water purveyorship issues are resolved. A lack of fire flow will restrict
commercial development in Quilcene, The development of a water system may occur pending a
community vote expected to occur in late 1998 for a water system Local Utility District, Land Use
Policy 4.9 for this element refers to the County's intent to revisit the situation following the community
election. Jefferson County ordinances prohibit approval of a building permit until an adequate water
supply is shown to be available to support the proposed development.
Commercial development in both Chimacum and Four Comers Crossroads is currently served by the
City of Port Townsend, but water connections are not available for future development due to the
reduction in size of the City's water system service area. While existing uses may expand, new
commercial development in areas of infill in Chimacum and Four Comers will be delayed until
purveyorship issues are resolved. There is a PUD water line as well as a City water line in the Four
Comers area which may provide an alternative supply, but there is no nearby alternative for Chimacum.
Four Comers and Chimacum are within the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Study Area, and the scope of the study
includes addressing water supply and infrastructure issues.
.
Water purveyorship issues will also be addressed within the context of the revision of the Coordinated
Water System Plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Water Utilities Coordinating
Committee has delayed addressing these issues until the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan identifying
areas of future growth or infill. Any new commercial development will be required to demonstrate the
. ,',.
.1,'01-
24 r:~~ - 2i95
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-25
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
availability of water service sufficient to meet the Jefferson County Fire Code. As a member of the
WUCC, the County will participate in the resolution of purveyors hip issues.
.
Evaluation of Commercial Boundaries With Respect to GMA Planning Goals
Urban Growth. The designation of rural commercial areas based on the requirements of RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d) prevents urban growth or urban-scale development outside of Urban Growth Areas by
containing existing commercial areas based predominantly on the pre-July 1990 built environment.
Commercial uses will be restricted in implementing ordinances by a land use table that prevents' certain
regional uses from occurring in other rural commercial areas. Policies will guide regulations for bulk
and dimensional requirements and lot coverage requirements that protect rural character.
Reduce Sprawl, Jefferson County has recognized and contained existing areas and uses by establishing
boundaries based on the built environment. The boundaries provide for limited infill and prevent the
identified pattern of development from extending beyond the designated boundaries.
Transportation. Impacts of commercial areas on the county's transportation network were reviewed by
the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. The Public Works Department concluded that the
designated commercial areas are consistent with the goals, policies and strategies contained in the
Transportation Element. Future development will be reviewed for consistency with the goals and
policies of the Plan. Because the areas designated are existing areas and infill is limited, traffic forecasts,
which are based on population projections, are not affected. Opportunities for local employment have
been provided to reduce traffic pressures that might otherwise require extensive improvements.
Housing. The commercial boundaries as drawn provide not only for limited commercial infill, but also
allow for duplex and triplex housing as affordable housing options within Jefferson County's historic
Rural Village Centers. Quilcene and Brinnon, at a greater distance from the UGA,have prioritized the
development of senior assisted living facilities in or near the Rural Village Centers.
.
Economic Development. Jefferson County's economy is in a state of transition from one based on
primary extraction of natural resources to a more diversified economy based on service and
manufacturing industries. The commercial boundaries as drawn provide for limited infill of commercial
development in contained commercial areas outside of the County's one UGA. Areas of infill in
Quilcene and Brinnon are intended to promote employment and business opportunities for these
distressed communities.
Property Rights. The rights of the property owner were an important consideration in making the
various choices necessary to develop a meaningful Comprehensive Plan. This is an issue important to all
citizens of Jefferson County. Policies regarding legal existing uses will provide for the economic
viability of businesses that are not included in designated commercial areas.
Permits. The Comprehensive Plan includes a "Matrix of Opportunity," including the Plan goal or policy
reference and the location of additional information sources. The Jefferson County Permit Center will
provide this and similar information to the public regarding changes in development opportunity and
regulations related to Comprehensive Plan adoption and implementation. Public participation during the
revision of County ordinances will incorporate priorities for more timely and efficient permitting.
.
. VOL
24 'Ir~
r ...,,-
2i96
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-26
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Natural Resource Industries. The commercial boundaries will contain uses which are incompatible with
natural resource-based industrial uses and prevent low density sprawl, thereby helping to ensure the
continuation of these industries.
Open Space and Recreation. The designated boundaries significantly reduce the area available for
commercial land use activities, The boundaries promote the protection of the County's scenic resources,
open spaces and recreational opportunities.
Environment. The commercial boundaries minimize the impacts on natural features and critical areas,
especially those connected to the County's water and fish and wildlife resources. The County
Development Review Department reviewed the boundaries for critical area concerns prior to their
adoption.
Citizen Participation. Citizen participation is a cornerstone of Jefferson County's planning process.
Comments and concerns expressed by the residents of Jefferson County have been seriously considered
in the delineation of the county's commercial areas. While the County understands it cannot satisfy
every resident, it can make balanced choices that provide for the greatest public benefit.
Public Facilities and Services. Review of the commercial area boundaries by the County's Public
Works Department concluded that the areas as defined are consistent with the goals and policies
contained in the Capital Facilities, Utilities, and Transportation Elements Plan. Such goals and policies
require that development not occur until it is determined that the facilities and services are either in place
or programmed to be in place prior to development, Because the County's capital facilities Level of
Service Standards are based on population forecasts, they are not affected by the designated boundaries.
A review of commercial boundaries by the Jefferson County Department of Environmental Health for
impacts on water quantity and quality, septic constraints, wellhead protection, and ground water recharge
identified no significant issues other than the water supply issues for Quilcene, Four Corners, and
Chimacum discussed above. Issues that were identified are manageable through current and proposed
regulations and processes.
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historic communities has been supported by the recognition
of existing commercial areas in historic rural communities. By focusing future commercial and
industrial development in clearly defined existing areas and strictly limiting growth outside of these
areas, the County is helping to ensure that valuable historic, archaeological, and cultural sites will be
protec~ed from inappropriate and/or incompatible development.
The interim commercial boundaries designated in this Plan are represented in the proposed zoning maps
for Rural Crossroads, Rural Village Centers, and the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center on pages
3-36 to 3-47.
INDUSTRIAL LANDS STRATEGY
Land designated as industrial land in this Plan is based on existing industrial uses in areas previously
zoned as industrial. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.O70(5)(d), Counties may recognize areas of more
intensive industrial development and contain them within logical boundaries to limit infill development.
Designated under this Plan are the following industrial zones: Port Townsend Paper Mill as Heavy
Industrial (m - interim), Glen Cove as light industrial and associated commercial (LC - interim),
. '.'01-
2 4: rAr,~
2 ~197
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-27
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Quilcene as light industrial (LI), and forest resource-based industrial zones (RBIZ) at Gardiner, Center,
and the West End. All areas met the following minimum criteria for designation of industrial land:
.
1. A pre-July, 1990 existing area or use of more intensive development;
2. The area is currently zoned as industrial; and
3. Is not located on designated natural resource lands.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Heavy Industrial Area
The Port Townsend Paper Mill has provided employment for several generations of Jefferson County
residents. The mill property has been designated as heavy industrial (m) for the mill and for activities
ancillary to the mill. The heavy industrial boundary is an interim boundary that will be revisited upon
completion of the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study. Within the designated industrial area, the County
will allow the development of only those uses that are directly related to the mill. The property includes
a water treatment lagoon and a port facility on Port Townsend Bay that are directly related to activities at
the mill. The mill is recognized as a heavy industrial activity because it is a large-scale and intensive
industrial activity that must meet extensive environmental pennitting requirements under industrial
standards for air quality, water quality, and wastewater treatment.
Glen Cove Industrial Area
Uses for the Light Industrial/Commercial (LC) designation at Glen Cove include commercial and retail
uses that are directly associated with the light industrial uses. Associated commercial and retail uses
may include commodities and products, mechanical or electrical supplies, warehousing and storage, or
may provide support services to those who work in the industries, such as a small café. Allowing
broader commercial uses at Glen Cove would require addressing concerns regarding pedestrian and
traffic safety, infrastructure, and incompatible uses both visually and in tenDS of hazardous materials
storage. Thus the commercial designation for Glen Cove is restricted to uses which differ considerably
from those in Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers.
.
Light industrial/commercial uses allowed at Glen Cove include but are not limited to: industrial parks,
light manufacturing, construction yards, engine repair, metal fabrication or machining, plumbing shops
and yards, printing and binding facilities (non-retail), research laboratories, excavating contractors,
furniture manufacturing, software development, lumber yards, vehicle repair and restoration,
warehousing and storage, boat building and repair, craft goods, blacksmith or forge, commercial relay
and transfer stations, boat storage, and associated commercial uses as discussed above. Also pennitted
as conditional uses are those such as: amateur radio towers greater than 65 feet in height, café, car wash,
electronic goods repair, fitness center, kennels, ministorage, and nursery/landscape materials~
The Glen Cove interim industrial boundary for light industrial/commercial uses recognizes a contained
cluster of existing uses, and is an interim industrial designation and boundary that will be revisited on
completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Study. The interim boundary for this Plan reduces the zone from
295,9 acres to 68.96 acres to contain existing uses. The study will evaluate issues for Glen Cove related
to infrastructure needs, countywide projected needs for industrial and commercial land, the potential for
a Final Urban Growth Area, and will present options for uses that may be allowed as well as options for
designation.
During the planning process, the County held discussions with the City of Port Townsend regarding the
designation of interim boundaries at Glen Cove, the Port Townsend Paper Mill, and all commercial
.
: VOL
2 A 'IroC"
If ("c-
2 :198
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-28
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
areas, to detennine that interim designations are consistent with Countywide Planning Policies. The City
may have an interest in annexing the Glen Cove area to the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area, an issue
that will be addressed following completion of the Special Study,
Quilcene Industrial Area
The light industrial area at Quilcene was recognized in the final Plan based on criteria in 1997
amendments to the GMA allowing Counties to recognize and contain existing areas and uses of more
intensive industrial development (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)). The industries need not be limited to those
serving the local population. Other criteria and considerations used for this designation include: a
minority report from the Planning Commission recommending a light industrial area in Quilcene, the
need to provide local employment in an area of distressed economic conditions located at a distance from
the Urban Growth Area, and the desire to reduce commuter-related traffic pressures on County
roadways.
The existing industrial uses include a sawmill, a machine shop, and industrial storage. A vested project
for additional industrial storage is the basis for recognition of an adjacent parcel. Light industrial uses
allowed in the Quilcene Industrial Area include but are not limited to those described above for Glen
Cove, with the exception of the associated commercial and retail uses.
Transportation access is adequate, as the area is on Highway 101. New development will be restricted
until water supply issues related to adequate fire flow are addressed following the community election
for a Local Utility District in late 1998.
Forest Resource-Based Industrial Zones
Forest resource-based industries at Gardiner, Center Valley, and the West End have been designated as
Resource-Based Industrial Zones to recognize active sawmills and related activities at those sites, based
on 1997 GMA amendments codified as RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i) recognizing existing industrial uses
and allowing for their intensification. The Resource-Based Industrial Zones are limited to forest
resource-based industrial uses in order to prevent the establishment of a wider range of industrial uses. It
is also intended to support employment in a distressed economic sector that, while it has seen a decline in
employment, will continue to have long-tenD economic importance for the County.
Forest resource-based industrial zone boundaries were detennined based on criteria in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d) for detennining logical boundaries. The reduction in acreage allows for limited infill,
and contains the industrial activity and associated uses to an area based on the pre-1990 developed area.
Jefferson County recognizes that the cyclical nature of the forest industry will continue to result in
economic upturns and downturns as reforested areas become available for harvest. In order to maintain
facilities that continue to operate, the County recognizes that conversion of machinery and facilities into
forest-related production activities would help to support this industry from one cycle to the next.
During the next year, the County will develop and evaluate criteria for the pennitting and regulation of
conversion and/or intensification of these areas for related uses that may involve adapting existing
equipment and facilities, recycling, or adding limited value to the forest resource products and
byproducts (see LNP 12.4). Such criteria and types of uses will be developed and reviewed in a public
process by the Planning Commission and will be adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
prior to allowing conversion or adaptation of these facilities.
"
, VOi-
2 4 r~r,',
2:199
Jefferson County Comprehensive PIau
3-29
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
The following table lists industrial areas, existing designations under 1994 zoning, current uses, and
designations under this Plan:
Industrial Area
Port Townsend Paper
Mill
Glen Cove Industrial
Area
Quilcene Industrial
Area
Airport Cutoff
Industrial Area
State Route 19/20
Center Valley
Gardiner Industrial
Area
West End
TOTAL
Table 3-7
Industrial Land Designations
1994 Designation and
Acreage
Heavy Industrial
292 acres
Light Industrial-
Commercial
295.9 acres
Heavy Industrial
20.2 acres
Heavy Industrial
11.5 acres
Light Industrial-
Commercial
70.9 acres
Heavy Industrial
12,6 acres
Heavy Industrial
32.2 acres
Light Industrial-
Commercial
193 acres
928.3 acres
Current Use
Pulp and paper mill
Multiple light industrial
and associated
commercial
Sawmill, machine shop,
industrial storage
None
Gravel pit and
associated processing
Sawmill and associated
activities
Sawmill and associated
activities, gravel pit
Sawmill and associated
activities
.
Comprehensive Plan
Designation and
Acreage
Heavy Industrial (ill)
interim
283.8 acres
Light industrial-
Commercial (LC)
interim
68.96 acres
Light Industrial (LI)
22.3 acres
Rural Residential 1: 1 0
0 acres industrial'
Mineral Lands of Long-
term Commercial
Significance
0 acres industrial
.
Forest Resource-Based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
3.84 acres
Forest Resource-based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
24,9 acres
Forest Resource-based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
122.5 acres
526.3 acres
The industrial areas designated as shown above result in a reduction in industrial acreage of 1994 zoning
designations from a total of 928.3 acres to 526.3 acres, an overall reduction of 43%. The application of
GMA criteria protects the economic viability of existing uses while restricting industrial activities to
existing areas. The Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study will provide the County with information on
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
, VOL
24 r~C~
3-30
.
"
2200
August 28, J 998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
which to base future decisions on industrial activities. It is anticipated that the Glen Cove area will be
determined to be the appropriate location for the majority of the County's future industrial development.
Maps of the designated industrial area are provided on pages 3-48 to 3-53.
MASTER PLANNED RESORTS
Master planned resorts (MPRs) are large-scale, self-contained developments that are based on an
integrated, conceptual master plan, yet are typically developed in stages depending on market demand or
other factors. Recent amendments to the Growth Management Act (GMA) allow jurisdictions to
recognize existing master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of Urban Growth
Areas as limited by RCW 36.70A.362.
Jefferson County currently contains one master planned resort, Port Ludlow, and prohibits the siting of
any additional MPRs. The master planned resort of Port Ludlow is characterized by both single-family
and multi-family residential units with attendant recreational facilities including a marina, resort and
convention center, and is one of Jefferson County's fastest growing communities. Located on Port
Ludlow Bay and surrounded by an area of significant natural amenities, Port Ludlow is suited to be
designated as a master planned resort.
Port Ludlow is managed by Olympic Resources Management (ORM), a corporation which is responsible
for the phased development of the community and resort. Although Port Ludlow is a planned
development, its overall phased development pattern may change according to changing market
conditions. Any change in the development plan will need to be reviewed for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and for compliance with Port Ludlow's FEIS and all applicable federal, state and
local regulations. Currently, a development agreement is being prepared between ORM and the County
that, if adopted, will allow for flexibility in the overall development of the Port Ludlow master planned
resort within the limits of a residential cap of 2250 residential units and a total of 65,000 sq. ft. of
retail/commercial development.
The Comprehensive Plan contains policies in LNG 25.0 that help guide development at Port Ludlow.
Many of Port Ludlow's goals and policies were drafted from issues identified by community residents
who, through the establishment of community planning groups, articulated their desired plan for Port
Ludlow's future development. The goals and policies identified by the community and included in
Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan focus on maintaining and enhancing Port Ludlow's recreational
and community amenities, and preserving the community's lifestyle.
DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
Jefferson County believes that the best means available to retain open space, environmental qualities,
traditional land uses, and other elements of rural character is through low density residential
development, small-scale rural village centers and crossroads, and where appropriate, resource-based
industrial uses that cannot be accommodated within the UGA of Port Townsend.
Density designations and development regulations ultimately guide the pattern and intensity of
development. While the Growth Management Act does not specifically identify appropriate densities, it
does state that a variety of rural land use densities should be provided for residential uses. The densities
determined are guided by the County's analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board rulings, and are
based on existing development patterns, available land, projected growth rate and level of service
standards.
~ VOL
2 4 r~(~ - 2201
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-31
August28,1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
The 1997 GMA amendments codified in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) that allow recognition of areas of more
intensive residential development have not been applied in this Plan, as additional analysis and public
process is required to develop criteria for such areas. During the next year, the application of ESB 6094
criteria in 1997 GMA amendments will be considered for existing platted developments such as Cape
George, Kala Point, and other areas of more intensive residential development. The County will
develop, evaluate, and apply such criteria in a public process for a future amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan (see LNP 3.4).
.
Existing Lots of Record
In addition to recognizing legal pre-existing land uses, Jefferson County recognizes existing lots of
record as legal lots. While some of these lot sizes may not meet current minimum lot size requirements,
they were created consistent with laws in effect at the time and are' considered legal lots of record.
However, in tenDS of development, some of the smaller lot sizes will require consolidation with other
lots to meet current Health Department standards and other regulations such as critical areas, resource
lands, and shoreline overlays. For example, lots which are served by a public water system but must
develop an individual septic system are required to have a minimum lot size of approximately twelve
thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet~ In some areas of the County, for property without public
water, a minimum lot size of one (1) acre or greater is required,
Strategies proposed to minimize the cumulative adverse effects of developing platted small lots include:
.
A recommendation to increase the minimum lot size required for a building penn it; and
Opportunities to encourage the replatting of some of these urban-size pre-existing lots to less urban
densities.
.
.
Land Use and Zoning Densities
As detennined by the Growth Management Hearings Boards' decisions, rural areas should provide for a
variety of rural land use densities. Clustering, density averaging, design guidelines, conservation
easements, transfer of development rights, and other innovative site planning techniques can aid in the
preservation of significant open space areas that are important for maintaining the rural character of the
County. The County will evaluate such techniques for inclusion in development regulations during the
public process for developing final implementing ordinances.
Jefferson County is proposing three residential land use densities ranging from five (5) acres to ten (10)
acres, to twenty (20) acres in size. Agricultural Resource lands have a designated twenty (20) acre
minimum density. Forest Resource lands have a forty (40) acre and eighty (80) acre minimum parcel
size (see Natural Resources Element),
Regulations will be developed to encourage residential "clustering" in the rural areas of Jefferson County
(see LNG 23.0). Residential clustering may occur in agriculture production districts if several criteria are
met (see Natural Resources Element). Subdivision of large parcels for residential purposes in designated
commercial forest lands is not pennitted. The criteria for designation of rural densities are provided in
Table 3-8 below. Table 3-8 includes various land use and zoning designations, criteria used for such
designation, and the principal land uses:
.
VOL
"'4
ëí~~G~
22.02
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-32
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Table 3-8
Summary of Land Use and Zoning Designations
Land Use/Zoning Criteria for designation Principal Land Use
Designation
RESIDENTIAL . ...
Rural Residential Located in areas of similar development; areas with Single family
1 unitl5 acres smaller existing lots of record; along the coastal area; residential
(RR 1 :5) adjacent to Rural Village Center and Rural Crossroad
designations; overlay designation for pre-existing platted
subdivisions.
Rural Residential Located in an area with similar development patterns; Single family
1 unitll0 acres adjacent to Urban Growth Area, transition density residential
(RR 1:10) between RR 1:5 and RR 1 :20; parcels in coastal areas of
similar size; includes land affected by critical areas.
Rural Residential Located in an area with similar development patterns; Single family
1 unitl20 acres Adjacent to Urban Growth Area, Resource Production residential
(RR 1 :20) Land or StatelNational Forest Land; parcels in coastal
areas of similar size; includes land affected by critical
areas; includes private timberlands; includes agricultural
lands.
COMMERCIAL .
. Interfm
Convenience Existing rural commercial uses which provide a limited Rural Commercial
Crossroads range of basic goods and services (basic foodstuffs, gas,
(CC) basic hardware, and basic medicinal needs); generally
located at the intersection of local arterials or collectors;
usually contain a convenience/general store associated
with gas pumps. May also serve the traveling public.
Neighborhood! Existing rural commercial uses which provide an Rural Commercial
Visitor expanded range of basic goods and services for the rural
Crossroads population and traveling public (grocery, hardware,
(NC) bakery, restaurant, tavern, auto repair, small professional
offices, public services, and medical offices).
General Existing commercial uses that provide a mixture of local, Rural Commercial
Crossroads traveling public, and community uses, and may include
(GC) limited regional uses due to proximity to population
centers in the Tri-Area.
Rural Village Existing rural commercial uses that provide for many of Rural Community-
Centers the basic daily needs of the rural population; typically based Commercial
(R VC) supplies goods and day-to-day services; provides limited and Residential
public and social services. Residential uses include
single family, duplexes, triplexes, and assisted living
facilities.
Village Commercial area identified in the 1993 EIS for Port Rural Community-
Commercial Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Commercial uses will based Commercial
Center (VCC) provide many essential day-to-day goods and services to
residents and resort visitors.
.
VOL
24 rM;;
2203
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-33
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
INDUSTRIAL
.
Heavy
Industrial
(Ill) Interim
.
Light
Industrial (LI)
.
Light
Industrial!
Commercial
(LC) Interim
. Forest
Resource-
Based
Industrial
Zones
(RBIZ)
RESOURCE.
Resource
Production
PUBLIC USE
Public Facilities
.
.
Port Townsend Paper Mill
Heavy Industrial
Paper Mill and
ancillary activities
.
Quilcene Industrial Area
Light Industrial
.
Glen Cove Industrial Area
Light industrial and
retail uses associated
with an industrial
use
.
Gardiner
Center Valley
West End
Forest resource-
based industrial
.
.
. . .
Refer to the Natural Resource Element of the
Comprehensive Plan for identification of criteria for
designation of land as Resource Production Land.
.
Rural Resource
Lands
.
Refer to the Capital Facilities, Essential Public Facilities,
and Open Space, Parks & Recreation Elements for
designation criteria for uses such as: solid waste, sewage
treatment, utilities, energy facilities, educational
institutions, medical facilities, public safety facilities,
neighborhood and community parks, public trails, public
open space.
Public Lands
Economic Activities Outside of Rural Commercial Areas
Jefferson County will allow the following types of economic activities in order to provide employment
opportunities outside of designated Rural Village Centers and Rural Crossroads:
1. New industrial uses may be allowed in rural areas when they are resource-based pursuant to RCW
36.70A.365, in that they are dependent on a location near the forest, mining, agricultural, or
aquaculture resource. Goals and policies in the Natural Resources Element provide for protection of
the resource activity as well as of surrounding land uses. Resource-based industries must be in
compliance with environmental and other regulations.
2. A major industrial development may be allowed outside of a UGA if the activity requires a parcel of
land so large that no suitable parcels are available within the Urban Growth Area, or if the nature of
the activity is incompatible with urban development due to its potential threat to the public health,
safety, and welfare. Such development is defined in an amendment to the GMA enacted in
.
. VOL
24 r~C' - 2204
3-34
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
Engrossed Senate Bill 5019 and codified as RCW 36.70A.365 as a master planned location for a
specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business, but it cannot be for the purpose of
commercial shopping development or multi-tenant office parks.
3. Small-scale recreational or tourist-related uses will be reviewed through the conditional use
permitting process according to criteria provided in the goals and policies of this element. The
activity must rely on a rural setting and nearby natural features for its location, Conditionally
permitted uses such as RV parks, boat rentals, marinas, horse arenas and stables, and campgrounds
are typical of this type of use. Land Use Goal 7.0 provides policies for these economic activities,
4. Home-based businesses may be permitted in order to provide opportunities to supplement a family
income, start up a business, or establish a work-place at home. Home-based businesses must be
clearly incidental and secondary to the primary use of the premises as.a residence. The goals and
policies of this element provide limits on home-based businesses designed to prevent adverse
impacts from such activity on the preservation of rural character (see LNG 6.0).
5. Cottage industries will be reviewed through the conditional use permitting process, and must be
clearly incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property. Cottage industry is defined
as limited small-scale commercial or industrial activities, and shall not grow beyond the scale
permitted unless it is moved to a location designated for commercial or industrial uses. The
limitations provided in land use policies are intended to prevent the activity from detracting from
adjacent land uses and the rural character of the area (see LNG 6.0).
This Plan includes a "Matrix of Opportunity" outlining development opportunities that references
policies in the Plan with more information on opportunities for development. The table also informs the
public of issues related to possible development restrictions, and will be available to interested parties at
the Jefferson County Permit Center.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map on page 3-63, adopted as a part of this Comprehensive Plan, is
the graphic representation of the density and locational criteria outlined above, and the goals, policies
and strategies contained within this plan, The Land Use Map was developed based on community
involvement, the mitigation measures contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; the
results of an inventory of existing rural residential and commercial development patterns, the 1996 Rural
Commercial Zones Study, 1997 amendments to the Growth Management Act, and the specific criteria
contained within this element.
The Land Use Map has zoning designations to guide Jefferson County in the revision and adoption of
development regulations, and in future land use decisions. The Growth Management Act requires that
the zoning designations be consistent with the Land Use Map designations. This requirement will be
met by Jefferson County with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
YOI-
24 "or"
(,.",
2205
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-35
August 28, 1998
....
n
~
~
::I
(')
0
C
::I
>~
(')
0
3
"C
II
::r
n
::I
!II
:ë'
n
"!:I
g
IJ.J
I
IJ.J
0\
--
=
'-----:.
N
~.
,",,'
);oÞ.
r;co
",
N
l'J
>0
~~
~
oJ
?'
\0
\0
00
PORT HADLOCK
RURAL VILLAGE CENTER (RVC)
INTERIM COMMERCJAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE
ø
.
.
;¡
.....-
"'...""
:¡
~
~
<
..'" Ø>
~,
SCALE,
1- .. ð7ð'
\lTI1
@
.mODO
8
8.
LEGEND:
r-
;Þ
2
C
C
(.I
"
:;.
2
C
,:
C
V,F.W. HAlL
RED CEDIUI REALtY
PGRT HADLOCK WGRSHIP CENTER
DINAH'S YARN SHOP
LAUNDROMAT
QUALITY FGOD CENTER
RAmPORT
DEKE'S DEÞ.lS
OLD TRASH k TREASURE SHOP
9 NORTH SOUND HANK
10 HEAR ARMS GUNS '" SPORTING GOODS
II ¡lITER'S DESSERT SHOPPE
12 nowKRS PLUS
13 SUSIE'S SlI'EET CREATIONS HAKERY
a MINI MANTA HOBBIES
15 HADLOCK MEDICAL CUNIC
18 HADLOCK DENTAL CENTER
17 AJAX CAFE
18 PORT HADLOCK LAUNCR RAHP-
PORT OF PORT TO'II'NSKND
19 SEArtRST BANK
20 VAUEY TAVERN
21 TRESSES HAIR DESrGN
22 .HADLOCK FELLOWSHIP HALL
23 PEmNSULA CHIROPRACTIC CLJNJC
24 MARY RUITER'S SECOND-RAND
COLLECTIBLES SHOP
25 JOY LUCK CHINESE RESTAURANT
28 UQUOR STORE
27 BOEITIŒR'S RESTAUItANT '" LOUNGE
28 THREE SISTER'S GALLERY '" FRAMES
29 SPA SHOP
30 NAPA AUTO PARTS
31 1I11J OLnlP1C SALMON
'1fEADWATERS'
32 COtTAGE COLlECTIBLES
33 COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
34 COUNTY PUB11C WORKS HADLOCK SHOP
35 PORT HADLOCK POST OFFICI
38 PORT RADLOCK VISION CUNIC
37 HADLOCK APARTMINTS
38 BILL'S BARBER SHOP
39 JACKPOT roOD MART - EXXON GAS
40 STORMIN NORMAN'S RBSTAURANT
41 VERINO'S PIZZERIA
42 PENINSULA VIDEO
43 HADLOCK BUIU)ING SUPPLY -
TRUE VALUE HARDWARE
44 OLYMPIC TAl: ""°N DO
4Ii GLENN'S AUTO SHOP
4ð MONTANA'S FLOOR Ie 1I1ND01I'
COVERING
47 HADLOCK THRIFI' STORE
48 BLOOMER'S UNDINe
49 DUPRAS BARBER SHOP'
liD WEINSTEIN'S CUSTOM SJLKSCIIDrmm
51 SflORT'S MINI-STO!L\GE
112 'IIlND GYPSY OUTDOOR POWER
EQUlPMBNT
59 HADLOCK DENTAL CUNlC
54 GBNERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
55 IlASONIC IJAU,
51! fUTVRII poST OFFICB
I
2
3
4
5
8
7
I!
,.
;Þ
r-
may It, ....
8
LANLJ U:st. ANLJ KUKAL
.
QUILCENE
RURAL VlUAGE CENTER (RVC)
INTERIM COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE
l.i7i.m~
QUILCENE CO'UNTY .[] ~.-;-. ~
PARK ,. CAMPGROUND ~ ~ ~ @
~~11~~~.m_1 @~\~~:o~
..... .
II I ¡ ¡ ,II
...""""
....'
...,-
7021JJOO<
I
~
__0
_mm>
...-.
.... ",..
----
---
-----
...,.....
....-.
.
-""'"
i
i
.
, u.s-B.UOJ:
: ~~:V<a$
. U<II/OO smu:
0_-
I IIINt-Sl<lR&CE
~ rœ; nAn.... IP"""'cr .E)
I II1II11. GAS "TAn.... .... oU'fO ,-
I CIIOTQ" ovro .........
'0 COUIm""""""'--
" ""'0"""" nwwoG CMODS"--
IZ """","""",
.. -..........
.. 10- OEoLTY
.0 ...... ~ ""'"
IIZBTIIIItAIIT IND -
LEGEND:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
I
-
-
702134011
--,
:7O2,34OOa
--
!;i
..
:;¡
..
..
~
,.....".,
@
. . . . . . . o .
.. ~.. n. -. 1O" "
.. .. .. .... .. M" ..
. ., . . . 0..
.. .. M .. .. .... .. .. "I
. . . .. . . 0 0
'" Q,,=~~#"""'"
6IM'II COIllft'Y IŒDICII. WIfIC
QVW;JOQ! """",CAI. ......,.,.
,? ...... on'ICE
'" IIQSJIII'S co. """"""'" """"'"
'0 COUIITT'UBUC"'" SHOP
.. Wlll!llUNG ØYn"III LOUNGE
E' 8IIUC -. "'"
.. J.OGGEII's......"o!lln-
n QIJII.CIIII COIIIIUIIItY -
E' IIII'U:""" 11-'
20 ......ILY or 501> œUIICII
I!tI 'IIUGl STOIŒ
~ I UIIaIIO I/IJaUII
I!tI QUII.CUII!!NII
ZI _'II_dE
t
SC¡\LE:
I" = 525'
........ ,..
3-37
24
rAC:~
--2 :4Q:ï:28,1998
~VOL
LAND USE AND RURAL
BRINNON
RURAL VILLAGE CENTER (RVC)
INTERIM .COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE
002333007
O~....OOS
.. TAX J
'.M a.
'i-'
1
I
I
I
,
~
fAX 11
<D
~
rr::
....
.....,.,.
æ.:"
~
~
!)I
ð
~
0
z
fi
;
TA' .
GOV'T
......"",
,A' "
....~
0""~D22
TAX 25
(W ΠHIClHWA'I)
6.80 a.
'So'
~.. I
~..õ I
~
270'
@
...""""
~~
'"
.....-
'OT ,
....~
6O2~JO12
TAX 7
\>.00 a.
~
.........
~-:..
OD'
27D'
D..
ci
II::
, ,
, .
. . ,
"""""""" " " "
:lD20~
TAX o,'D,l1 I,£SS TAX
.. n;> 45
SuBJ To EASE
0.70 a.
GOV'T
LOT
SO2CI2""'"
1>O2D22O00
TAXa
0.60 0..
STAT£: PARK
- -
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
24
3-38
~VOL
...-
TO> ..
~,. ~
2
I
... I
%!I
",
I
I
~I
i-I
I
1:':1
- I
rM)~
.
~GEND:
1 BR1NNON SCHOOL
2 'tUUTNßY GA1\DI!NS
AND NURSERY
3 SBVERN'S AUTO
PAINT
" . BRINNON GINE1W.
STORE AND
CHEVRON PUMPS
5 JOHNSTON RUtTY
6 HALF'tI..t.Y HOUR
RESTA.UIIANT
7 UQUOR STORE
6 VOUfflTEI!R
A)IJII11ANΠ"
FIRE DEPARTMENT
P . BRlNNON BOOSTER
CLU6
lOA UTO IWUNE
REPAIR
11 IIJIINNON 1IIN1 STORAGE
.
SCALE:
1. ; 400'
my... ,..
.
o. .
22Q§Ust28,1998
.
.
-
.
NESS' CORNER
GENERAL CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
..b
".."""';"""" ì'-\"
.cR'1S ~ """..'""...,
, ~ ~
j ~'ì """""""""""""
....'
"""'........",..,....
.".
.,,-
.. .
..
'Õ
. I,~~\
" ,~\
J IQ ~
I~
.... ..
: ~,~~~b::t=~,,':::; ::::
! ... r! ... . ... . ~-:r
-,r -' - ¡¡- - - ,.-
""~~- --
~ I ,~...,---.----,
F'- ~\~,;::::,~:;~~~ ~---~-'-~ 'i -l
I I I ;\¥I'---'--"
'---~~~~--~ I I.. '", r-
G~~ ~(.~ ,
""--~~~T-- ..
~:::::\:::::~:::~:;.~' -. -=~ ' B' ~llW "M" ""~
-'I 90,004003 I I I I' @\~
- ~u..B....(I£S5.- T.6X ~ ,""
;_,~~~36~~'~~~~--r-: ~ ~ ~ ~. \-,~:l COLWELL
Ir"IIIIIII'11111 \'3.~
::::::::=::=:~;::~::i3:::=::::::~~f*:J: TAX -42 \ ~ "M" ,n,.." ,
'~IIIIIIIIIII/IIII "BJ!!]J ~.
='=~~~~"t~;-~~;=;=:~~~~~~,~ 1-=-=--hW\%~ ~:BELLE
~ L..L~~ ~ """"."'"" ""
f'1 T'.,.,...,==::::==:;,::=~þ*~
1..1 I II\¡ I I I I I I I ~
,-'--L..L...J..J_I_I_,-,_J...J.....L.".,J ,1Ô'1 rii'I\
.... '-' '-' \ .""""""" """
..:ö!- ',,',:"'"T"-'-'-'-r-r,.. "
:"{" ":¡J'II"II"" co" ..~I)¡ \~
q ~r-~*-'.,J-,~~....~,--J.....L..,J ~ ~~ \
'? I ~"T .., -'-'-1--'- ,.... ,... T " ,
~ ,, .q)~II' .;j;'" '"\--
~ ~'LJ...#..J.~_I--I-LJ...L~ ~,~, \
VI..i:f un" """"""" ".."""
~ ,-r{'r' Tll-'--'-rrT~ TWIGG"
'" I ~II"I III! " ==\'\i8 ""","""""'"
,'TII'" , 't~'T ~
¿>L L L 1.1.J -'d .;.I_I'"-"'I:'.l ~
, Tllìì-'-,-, rrrT \ ,"'-. "~;;"" "".""1"
- JIII/i" IIII R'~
' rrr I I , I I I I I I I ,
U-LLl._I_I_I_LLLL -' I , I., iiïI ?J~"'~ ¡:tof',Q ~-
~ I<I-IEI--, . .
lTl-CI-rrTT-'-""-" ,r-r-,....,..õ ~ ...'
IIIJ:";t'IIIII' "II'Y"""""",,'I ì~\V.\'
,lJ.J.JIILLl'IIIII1II -'I '"
- - ... .... .... --' '-' '- L --' :::==-
'8.00 =... -.,. 1 1
SrAVIlr-v LAND COW ANY "".. ,-,,"
00\\134013 INC. SHO T PLAT .. ~~
LOr 3 ...-. -
2-15. ~~~~ ~~. ~'. .. SIMMS
2.30 .,
. ,. ,
. .
, ,
.
, ,~
=
. ..1..
~
~..
"""'" '" ".\.
~ STREET "'1:
..".."............~
STREET .....
MARGARET STREET
.. .. .. .." .. . . , " . , . ,
It
,.,
f---
..
..
..
----1
@)
~
l@
~
..
STREET
SOMMERVILLE ROAD
1
.
~L
[2 ~ -f< I
\-~ .
P
~ ....
.
,
.
3E
3C'
.
to..""", '
T.. NO. I, , ~ 17
LESS T"" 30
'---------' ~-""
...'
,.¡.>,'~ ~ '~ ¡" :':'"
~ ,,~
-I! ¡;<,..-'
..' ~ ;o!."
...' ì ....
I
I
I
I
I
I
6t ';1
5::;1':" I
~~!E I
,
I
'I
.... "
LILLiAN
3 2
If 11
...'
. . , . '"
...'
I
I
!
"""."""..................,..¡"¡"ì \..
~ ti:!'j"""""""
"""""""""'I"¡..""Œ:'ì ~,i
HILDA ST, AUU'I~O'¡;\ì\. 'l' "'" ,
l -'ç
""""""';;",.........,F'I LT '.
~ ~,.o'"
208'
¡
- -
OQ1tOlOZ!
,.. 30
'-" .,
co
~ §". ..
.. ~ËS ;;
"<,
..
~. ...~ -~~. ...~ ...........,~
t
SCAlE:
1" = .50'
LEGEND:
I SMITII'S TOWIIIG
2 þ," G þ,GTQ YoRD
3 11.. R SUJll'Ll S
-4 IEITERSOII IIAiIIO " n-
1\ SIIþ. I Fþ.JIIIS
8 CAROUSEl. FLORISTS
, CAJIt'S JlU1UIING SUPPLY
8 SIJIISIß!(E PROPANE
g IßNI-SJORþ.GI:
10 NANCY"S CU'E
11 CIIICU! þ. O/D SQUÞ-IŒ þ,11T\)
U: GROtIS GtaSS
13 SONNY'S tV
14 TIIWŒA COIOIIBRCIAL
18 ENCUIIŒ
18 I'£I'IIIØ'S
l' TIΠSCOND - STOll!;
18 TIΠSIGN STOllE
1 g V..cANT
20 LV. PARlI
m.T'" ....
Jefferson County Comprehensivi: Plan
3-39
24
í-AC::
22Q9
- August 28, ]998
~VOL
""1"">""'" U""" """" "'U"""""
IRONDALE CORNER
GENERAL CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
.
DO'13430'40
TAX 40
9.990-
-"
001343010
TAX 38
LESS R/W
5,70 o. '
001343039
TAX 39
4.06 O.
"
+
"" ,.
SCALE:
1ft ... 450'
CD
~ ~x , ,
<>.01 0., ...., 0. ~ ~
WEST EUGENE
2=' -: 0:
ST.
0013""'"
<X",""""
"'" 7
370 Q-
.
co
~
"!>
147 146 145
..
..
145
.., (j)
:>
~~ 133 134 '135
-.. Â"iJ.\O
st"v.; ~ 137
13"
w. FOSTER S'lREET
..
127 @
129 't ÂC1S
128 125
,126 123
130
"
\,.0'"
N""
(,0
LEGEND:
1 RHODY DRm! STORAGE
2 MeC1IOItIE'S CUPET
3 SHELL 011,
4 PRESTIGE PROPEIITIES INC.
'S SHOUI BVSINESS PARk
. IIAURY
7 MINI-STORAGE
8 HAJ)LOClI: PADLOCI[
9 TEUCAIILE
10 A" J KEATS
11 PAIl'DISE IImIRlORS
.VOL
24
r~G~
.,2210
"'., ... ,...
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-40
AugUsl28, 1998
LAI~U U;:)~ f\NU KUKAL
.
~'f'I\GGS
OR~ ?V- ~
710.
001213004
SW SW (W OF HWY)
SUBJ TO EASE
]6.16 0-
.
0128202
001282021
TAX 10
2.51 0-
001282003
¡"
i
..
!Í
0
<>/
of
vi
.
LEGEND;
1
2
3
STATE
ROUTE 19/20 INTERSECTION
GENERAL CROSSROAD
INTERIM. COMMERCIAL ZONE
:ç
of
vi
001213015
TAX 12
WITH &: SUBJ TO EASE
9.10 O.
I I
I 1
, ,
i : 001211003
GOV'T LOT
I , 4 (S21.16 A) 8l GOV'T LOT 5
I'" I
, ~ I (El/2 5W 79.37 0.)
>-
I r I
, ¡¡:¡
.1 ,
, ~ ,
'¡I
, i::: '
1'10 I
I ~
,!:> I
, ~ I
1 i I
'ii?'
I .. ,
I ~ I
'...
1<:> I
I i::: I
I ¡:;
I ~ '
¡;; I
, Q ,
I '" ,
,'.; I
I I
I I
I
,
I
I
I
,
~
f
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
1
I
I
I
I
001281001
(N1/2 NW E OF CUTOFF RD.)
39.28 o.
SCALE:
1ft = .00'
9"""
00128201'
SI: NW (N :;.AC) £.AS' '"' ""
MOo-
JULY U. 1998
CD
i:?
~
Q
i!
'"
,.. to
Uh
...
( 2>0-00
..........
I ~..
I
271>-00
@
001282007
N1/2 NW (BETWEEN
, CUT-OFF RD 8l OLYMPIC
HwY)
]8.10 o.
001282006
TAX 14
OLYIIPIC GREENBOUm; NURSBRY
COURTESY fORD - MITSUBISHI - SUZU (
AUTO RBPAIR / STORAGE VBSTED PROJECT
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-41
: VOL
24 rAG:
2 2t-1st 28,1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
CHIMACUM
NEIGHBORHOOD /VISITOR CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
.
...".....
~
..".
'"
~
801""""
"",..2010
...,-
"'è7)
JEFFERSON
~
SYSTEM
901113019
....-. -- g
¡¡
i
i
.~
901113024
-. .r--
\.o"i
...-
I
i
LEGEND:
CI!IIIΠPARK PEED .. SEED
DIESEL nŒL
CIllllACUIi CAn;
CJlDU.CUII POST orneE
PIllE nATION DIS'I1IICT '1
BDJ.'S GARAGE" TOWING
CIIIII&CUIi 'ARK-
Rl!GIStIIWJ BOIß7mIIS
'7 CJIIII.&CUII AUTO PÆ'I'S
8 ttIIPLETON'S CfttYIIIIIIl
fOOD MARl'
CAPI CLASSlCO .. ON COIlllON
GROUNDS EKPRESSO
I 0 1IILtO1I CIU!RK - ..
IIIILlIORI co.
U GREENfOOD ŒIŒI'ERY
Ie JIIII-CUJI IIINI sroJIAGE
13 NOImI\IESI' L\NDSCAPING
.......
...".."
..
...
:¡
1101"30'1
@
-...
2
:I
4
$
6
@
""'4007
........1
A
-
...,.....
......."
.
¡
i
00""""
5101141020
""".,001
¡
i
14
III
18
1'7
ICoNOIIY GAIIAGE
IVIIIIGIIEtN IIINI 8!'OIi.\GE
GLOÐYS'S GARDEN AIID RENTAL
DAIRY DIS'I1IIBUTION
f
SCALE:
.
~','OL
24 r~C~
2 '-'12 460'
¡o(..,
. ....y It,'"
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-42
August 28, 1998
LANU U:SJ::; ANU RURAL
.
DISCOVERY BAY
NEIGHBORHOOD /VISITOR CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
.
...
Ô'
v
902.2.31012.
TL TAX A
2.6.09 o.
,:.-:'
,,O
.........
.'11
.-~
902234001
OQN..ll0N LANO CLAIM. 40
L£SS TAX 26
(PTN)
66.99 o.
STAT£: Of"
W¡J.SHINt;TON
0.41 Q.
I
I
I
I
,
I
I T""
~ ~~
\ T""
OQ22"""," \"" ~
~,,3~~\:"'.. \
:,,:"..6 ~ ~i!§
.:l
1
. , .
LEGEND:
.
1
2
3
"
S
ø
7
ø
8
10
UIIIWICI! TllUCQNG &ND 1I1[CAYATIIIIG
PJSCO1/ERY BAY GIIOC1!RY
nø: BIIZZ llROS. GAU.DlY
AmlQUES AIfP CO¡.u:cr1llUS
FAT SJÐ1TY'S IlUllGEIIS " T,t-
YlDBO 101
YAU.eY YIP IIOTBI.
FllANtn; SURPWS
Jl.\.GIlUIl AIUI5
BUDS TIRES
!
t
SCALE:
1- " 4~0'
.........-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-43
24
rAr,~
2 21t4ust 28,1998
'VOL
....
A
¡;¡
iiI
0
::I
n
g
::I
~
n.
0
3
"0
ri
:r
g
'"
:0:-
A
...,
[
LEGEND:
¡-
~
0
C
en
I'T!
»
'Z
c::
FOUR CORNERS
NEIGHBORHOOD /VISITOR CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
f
DOl......
'AX 10(51/2) lESS R'"
...O.~
001 JJ2C1 7
TAX 9~
6.33 c.
DOI32'O"
tAX " (51/» "'.. '¡W
..., ~
~Ii
I
I
!
I~td
ä3~~
<i>
O29.J0
...""'"
"TO ~
...~ "'l'"
i..
n!
y
I.;J
I
~
~
...,..
@
..-...
'CJ
r
~
N
W ê
'" '"
""~...
~:~
",~..
~~g
"'O"'~
§~~i d
"'....,
N
~'
~-
8~i!~~
1-
i'ri
N
»tJ
~¡...;..
!ã.Þa
to.)
.1;0
..... .
~
OC
........,
...... - --.......
. ..... -. ........ ......
. - NIICIL .......
.....,,--
I ...... .........,...,.
:;:;::
-
~
,:::
»
[""
~
!t~.
U~
ol
CIi.
001332009
SI\' N'iI(LYlNG E. OF HW'I')
L£SS TAX 16. 4a <I: 94
I1.SD c.
-_71
@
'<t
00""'"
TAlC 11
F....N"'"
........
,....
...~
51'.12
~
,
d
II
2<0.00
0
OOt.>J.JDOJ , '"
"'/2 ." OW (N "II' W
'" ......, IDS SW
2.02.. Ii
ell
t
DOI33JOO<
"'/> NO Sto(E "'......,
H ZOO' ./EASE 10
Pilon "'"""
1880.
~
.n~
.n~
sCAiJl:
IØ " MlO'
.
.
!
DOl""""
TAX '-'0
W¡ÞS
"g.J 'bo1""""2
"/2 ",,'R (W '" H"".
(:) IDS ."CI')
2.12 ..
',.25..
...., II. '"'
ee.e
.
.
.
L..~J'IU U;'C I\NU KUJV'I.L..
GARDINER
NEIGHBORHOOD /VISITOR CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
kitty
.........
,... ..
1,72.. .
.......-
,... 23 '
(LS ,... ..¡
S". ".
D02;:14JOO1
NE SW(lESS TAX 21.J1
,;:16,42,66
30.27 Q.
707
MATS MATS
NEIGHBORHOOD /VISITOR CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
6 9
I,' 0..
-
"'I"
~".
~
t)
~
~
r--
~
G~(.(.¥-
.....""""
I.OT2
, .,to..
,,~~
Ç,. 'f;f:/i.
~
f""
.."
-..
..... t.. ...,
... ..
LEGEND:
~~~
--
. ..................
. v_,,-.
t
SCALE:
1- = 450'
LEGEND:
2
3
4
CIIIROPJütTIC CLIIfIC "
IlEALTli CUE C1IIUII ,
MATS MATS BAY ,
CDIEIIAL SToRE
VACAIIT
IW< YOUBJ. STUDIO
....' It. '"
Jeffen;on County Comprehensive Plan
3-45
, ','01-
2A 'H:
If r,. '"
- 2 21~28, 1998
LANU USJ:; ANU KUKAL
WAWA POINT
CONVENIENCE CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
~
ð 602242001
«;
!'i ..: GOV'T LOT 1 (5 1/2
Q.. .LESS PT TAX 1)
~ '2.2 G.
; OOCMTr
-
~'-
'""
0=4201>
TO> "
I." ..
--
t.l!~~ ~
-
NORD LAND ,.
CONVENIENCE CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
S'r"
"
;:;
m 8
Ii'
.. N
~
8111200201
au< .
(S 2?a" I£S$ E ,..'-
... YA. .. " OIl IIU< 0) §
=.. ¡:¡
==
......
.....
~~
~I
"7'"
~4t== »7.00 >27."
4 I
I '7&-
I .,/>("_)
'A...
II I 2
GOY'T S l'lOi
I
I m-
..,....,..,. I St...,
...... L£$S 111 ..
L£SS To>" I . "ZOO'
..,... I ,... G.
874'",,",,>
074L.12
T",,1;3'
r1".1""'.. ... 2
I
I
12&00
BEAVER VALLEY
CONVENIENCE CROSSROAD
INTERIM COMMERCIAL ZONE
GOV'T LOT 4 (w or CHIM
BEA'iER VALLEY RD LS
..
~~~ I
~~:;
I
----.!
821162D12
TAX 15 (REv) W/EASE
30.19 G-
BALANCE
Of 'SECTION
LEGEND;
.
LEGEND;
1 ' 1lÆL9ID:mJIIII
DAB08
BAY
,a7\l'
LEGEND;
.
NDIIIJUND GJ;;NEIW. STOllE
,., POBr oma
t
IŒA VtII V AlJEY 5TDtI£
SCALE:
." :: 450'
ì ;
3-46 'VOL
'2 A '.(:ç'
If r,,_-
621162004
NE NW
LESS R/W
""T-"-
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
221Jàgust28,1998
~
¡;¡
~.
:I
n
0
c
::I
-<
n
0
a
'0
it
n
::I
In
<'
n
."
g
w
~
-...J
<
=
.-
N
¡.þa
-"
l.r
c;-.
,n
N
>~J
~¡..;.
!!l-J
N
~oo
\0
\0
00
.
.
PORT LUDLOW
MASTER PLANNED RESORT (MPR)
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER
11
4.51 0,
..
LEGEND:
I PORT LUDLOW CAn:
2 PORT LUDLOW CHIROPRACTIC
BEALm CLTNIC .
LOOMIS PROPBRTIES
TH'E OLD MAIL BAG
ROBERT HUMBLE DENTISTRY
COLDWELL BANK I< REAL'IT
PORT LUDLOW PROPBRY
SALES AND REAL ESTATE
8 PORT LUDLOW PUCE, BI1J.
DESIGN I< CONSTRUCTION
9 CHEvRON GAS n...TlON '"
VTLLAGI! GROCI!RY STOD
10 SB1.FIIIST BANI!:
II COMMUNITY POST OFfICE
12 LUDLOW BAY coU1t'lTAIID
CloFE, BAKERY. DIU
IS mE BARBOR ART GALLI!RY
14 CASSf'S IWR PLACE
Iii PORT LUDLOW TRAvEL
18 tNTERIOR DESIGN CONSULTATION
17 JAMES BENDELL A1TORNEY
18 nmRSON TITLE CO, .
19 IlACIE.\RNSBBRRY, INC.
sURVRYORS
20 cmms WTU.\RII '" ASSOCIATES
3
4
Ii
6
7
SCALE:
1Ø = 400'
poRt
LLJD1ß'i
r-
:Þ
2
t:
c
rJ.
rr
:Þ
2
t:
~
c
Š
r-
IIILT ... .-
LAND USE AND RURAL
GLEN COVE INDUSTRIAL AREA
INTERIM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL I COMMERCIAL ZONE (L/C)
ELWOOO
.~
, . . . . .
. . . . I .
, . . .
,-
n .. .
, . . . I' .
.. n .. I . 7
...
I .:z
F
æ
::I;
.. .. . . . d
. . . . . .
:.-
n .. . .
. . . . . .
.. .. .. . . ,
001212008
Nl/2 NW NW LESS P1N
ZAMPERIN SHORT PLAT
LESS R/W
)7.31 o.
001212009
TAX 17
5.0 o.
tí5\ .
~....
@~
'~
'~
, .
2
001212013
TAX 19
5.12 o.
B
I!:
III ROAD
SETON
@
13@ ~
@
!4
001212001
S1/2 NW NW lESS TAX
17.18.19
LESS Rfw
5.19 o.
001212017
$WNW(N9.25AC) W or ST
HWY 20 SUBJ!EASE
9.40 o.
1<0:,
.........,
ç: TAX 25
~ ":'.:;
2'
!!t
Ii
.;;
I
~'
DD12120Z2'
TAX 26
3.52 o.
001212002 ,
SWNW(W Of ST HWY 20)LS
N 9-25.0.. LS S200' or vnoo'
15.57 o.
~~
LEGEND:
,1 CJ\!TS AVTD BOIlY A/fII TO1rING
FllANlrS AUTo BEP£IR
2 1I000llSPORT
3 PORT 'I'O1IN8EIID '1100 STOII&GE
4 IIINI STObGE
5 on'(! STREET STObGE
6 ' I"'Clnc OD. I'BOIlUm CO.
T NORTII1IEST ELECTRIC Al'I'UATUS INC.
B OLYMPIC STEEL CONST. S'm'BIIS
9 D., D INSUlATION
10 JII.\SU 1'O1IIR It TEU:l'HONE CO.
CORl'ORA'I'E orncœ
11 1rIGGtES "NIl GICCUS CLD'I1IJNe IlANUfACTI/JIEIIS
12 AUTO-BOAT STORAGE
13 PORTSIDE IWIMOCKs
14 TBERJIIONICS NOllTll1llST INC.
16 011- INC.
16 NOHtØ1IIST SCHOOL OF
'I001l9N BOAT BUDJ)lNe
17 HUSS' AUTO TIIua¡ CUNIC
18 I'ORT T01lllSEllJ) mERlllAIIWI
CWlIC
19 SUBUIIIIAJ I'RDI'ANE
20 PET1TT OD. CO.
21 fOUNTAIN PrrNBSs CINTBR
~ ~~~~::~UlUlJNG (4 omlb)
24 SATEIJS'E SHELTERS
I!!I D'S PlATING 4IIÐ IIIII'AL PlNlSlhlle
26 J:IIRIOI!IA'I '100l1li LTD.
2"1 O1.YMPIC STORAGE
28 SUNSBINJ! PROI'ANE
.
.. .. . . 7
. . . . .
.. .. . . ,
001164003
TAX 20
6,54 0,
, . . . . .
.. .. .. . . .
001164003
1AX 14
9.% o.
;td
!~
2
.,
b
.
001211002
NW Nt
.41.42,0.
~ C!
~'
6
1~
1 E.
001212007
TAX 2
10.08 o.
29 ERlCICSON'S CONTIIACTORS 'IAREHOUSE
30 AJl, BlUeST CLllANlIIG SERVICES
31 CABINET OOOB SHOP
32 BOAT 1IAREBOtlSE
a;, 'IUmIIE MARINE
so AllIOIW.TY PUlCINe
96 I.EE WORE IU!UIOIE
86 JaMBAU. 1IOODWOftKS
ð1 DALE'S 1lAX1-9TORAGE
+
SCALE:
I" = "riO'
.
a......
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3.48
rAG:
22:18
, August 28, 1998
: VOL
24
.
.
.
LANU U~J::, ANU KUKAL
JF»'FJtSON
~
SYSTEM
QUILCENE
liGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (U)
101.7"
....
7022>1.,0
"" ., IE .. (E5OO')
',GO G.
~ COUNTY
~
>"'=-
T)( 1 US. ./0
3.1. G.
COUNTY
f
>;-G.
a:¡!
§;:¡"'
ti~~:
R/:!Ì:
,..,
1/1
I:!
i
Ras VILLE ( CATED)
7022..002 ~
TAX"
n,.... ! t; ~
7022..001 I
CD ,"" 30
8", G.
~
~
¡¡š"
¡¡;:;!!.
dg~
3110'
702231..5
'AX "
2-00 0-
ß1.
.. =101. !;;
I'>< ,. §
;¡ 3.00 .. 702231023
-.
II! ...... "tOlE p-
.-eo ..
>01.80'
,eo'
>O2UI"'"
,.. 23
U1 ..
""'031'"
1'><"
5.7. o.
J
JO22>1010 ~
T.. . ..... ,.. '.
.... 0-
~ ....310>0
.. TAX 34
1.00 ..
~
...'
:>82231-
,~~:" 34~
'.10G. .
~
...'
...,.
......'
LEGEND:
PEIIDSOII IIIJ>USTIIW. ".we
3-49
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
- '.'01-
....
,...3101.
:':.: ~\=
COUNTY
.
i
ì
~
'- our
702231"'"
T" ~.
8-10 ..
if ~
g š
~i.
~8:
t
SCALE:
I" = 450'
lILY'" I.
24
' & r r
r ...,::
2"-'-19
"'--"'August 28,1998
L~I"'U U¡:,r., ~l"'U "UIV\L
CENTER
RESOURCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL ZONE (RBIZ)
.
4 ,3
9 .
001'-
TAX .
.... ..
'."'02<11.
TA>< '.
1.71 ..
60110200II
TAX 11
BOl 1O200~
NW NW LESS TAX 2 It.
PlN 10 It. SE OF QUIL-
tEN. RIJ LESS R OF W
2~.18 ..
801102009
TAX 3
801102009
TAX I;
801102009
TAX 7
801102009
801102018
TAX 8
36.62 o.
801102012
TAX 15
(LESS TAX 22)
SUBJ/EASE
2.75 o.
.
801102006
TAX 21
6.93 o.
801102014
TAX 17
(ENLGO SY TAX 20)
SUBJ/EASE
:;.1:; o.
801102013
TAX 16
(LESS TAX 20)
WIlt. SUBJ/EASE
5018 o.
601101001
SE NW
40.90 o.
B01102016
TAX 19
8.36 o.
601102015'
TAX 16
SUBJ!EASE
5.67 o.
LEGEND:
1 GERARD' WEST WMBER. INC.
t
JEfFERSON
~
SYS'IBM
SCALE:
'1" :: 450'
roLY 22. 1998
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan,
3-50
, VOL
24
fX~
2,...,()0
""'-~
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
",....>U.l ....,,"" i""~1J ""U~L.
JEPFERSON
~
GARDINER
RESOURCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL ZONE (RBIZ)
002332023
TAX 58
1.23 Q.
+
SCA.J.E:
I" = .50'
JULY 22, 109B
--
--
tî' --
\61 ----
- - a¡¡'-'
-- ",1- ~
-------- .
-----
002332006
TAX 3 LESS CO RO R/W
TAX RR1 (lfSS TAX 58)
H-.32 Q.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_.00
;;
¡;
002332001
NE NE NW (E 600') ~
lfSS R/W LESS N Of" §
RO
7.29 Q.
002332007.
T"X 17 LESS R!W
WlH &: SUBJECT TO
EASEIoIENT
6.60 Q.
~
g
002332005 .
TAX 2 (LESS TAX 56 REI(lSED)
¡O.IIB Q.
002332009
TAX IV WllH EASE
5.63 Q.
~ ß
:J~
8~
002332002
SE NE NW (E 600')
'Mlli EASEMENTS
9.17 Q,
002332022
TAX 56 (REI/ISED)
5.39 o.
002332008
TAX 18
WIlli &: SUB.£CT TO
EASEMENT
5.63 o.
:¡¡
~
002331012
TAX 4 &: 9
14.63 o.
(1AX 4)
¡,¡
..
'"
~
IfWY
LEGEND:
1 LEVINE SAWMIlL
3-51
24: r~CJ:
2 ..-,t:>1-
Þ,(Ugust 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
'JOL
1.1"1.1'11.1 U':'.c "'1'11.1 J\.UJV'\1..
712334000
GOV'T LOT 6
GOV'T LOT 7
GOV'T LOT 8(LESS TAX 2)
NE SE (LESS DNR RD)
SE SE (N'L Y OF DNR RD)
SE NE
(LESS R/W)
50.98 O.
w
(/)
(/)
(/)
W
5....J
0 '<t .
""""""",0
1'").....
I"') OJ
N3;1l)
¡:::'zci
-.....
1320.80
712332001
GOV'T LOT 2 (\
32.10 c,. v
.,"\
O~
(j
, WEST END
RESOURCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL ZONE (RBIZ)
.
"
"!
~
712331001
GOV'T LOT 1 (LESS TAX 1)
NW 1/4 (LESS SE NW)
40.98 c.
712331004
(GOV'T LOT 8
LESS TAX 2)
10.47 c.
"\
712334000
(SE NE)
7.36 c.
o~
'V
CD
712334000
(GOV'T LOT 7)
41.41 c.
712334000
(SE NE)
33.46 c.
.
i'i5
oj
'"
'"
712334000
(NE SE LESS TAX 3)
37.03 Q,
GO'\}' \
LO\
6
'"
10
<Ô
!:J
HOH MAINLINE'
,
712333002
712JJ200.}
t
LBGI!ND:
1 AUÆN I.OGG1NO COMPANY .
.
SC4æ
1. =-'
.-.. .-
2'4 r~[,~
2"22
..<;.. August 28, 199.8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3.52 ~ VOL
8
8
8:
'-""""'" U~¡;, '""".., n.U"-l'U,.
PORT TOWNSEND PAPER MILt
INTERIM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE (HI)
PORT/ TOWNSEND
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
. ,.
CITY LiMITS
ASTYI
.."I1DO>
,AI< .. ~ ,AI< -,
1= ,.. 00)
...,1.
PLAT
;;¡
'(
d
....,.,...
[~. .t.~"'~ om. .... 'I)
"-", .
IAO.
!i.'!'"
~
<:(
-I
i
I
.
.
h
.....,..,
"'" ..
"11 .
......-
~
~
c:::,
""s.-
"'Q~"""'"
".. .
~.
CD
y,
~
~
~
,t--f.
~
LEGEND:
~
1
Port Townsend Paper Mill
SCALE:
I" = 700'
JULY 22, 1l1li8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
VOL
24
2?23
AuguSt 28, 1998
r~r;~
3-53
LAND USE AND RURAL
. VOL
24 r~E:
2224
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-54
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
UNGEœW
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 0' E
z
;:;
.
~ .,..,..
".", .' ..'
~
z
..
¡¡¡
i'
.
i
I
,I
,::J
~
z
g
!J
i
^
:>:
t
g¡
0.
'"
~
~
z
~
~
;;
~
.
~.....
z
.,
(..-)
"'
~
..
~
n>;;"
"":'\':::'
,"::.':,';'
:i',>
z
11
¡>,
¡¡¡
~
g
~~:;,,;':[~;;.~UÞI~n~r A~orma\
#2A - SR 20 Corridor/ Glen Cove
#6 - Soulh Chiro"cwn/ Inl"nd VnJLey./ Center
#6B - Thorndyke
(1)8 COMPRBHBNSIVB PLAN
PLANNING ARBAS
'= JEFFERSON COUNTY
=-==-==:-=::::ø_-
=-===- -----.-.
"",-~
.... """'or'- ......" "or. ON .
_hi.."". " tho C","'t, "or",", "-
""""'.... ... th. """""onUy ....h1h.
.... bo""".....
'uLy 211, ....
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 01 E
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-55
, VOL
24
r~f,~
.25
~Ugust 28,1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
)lANGE ()2 W
RANGE Ol E
'"
RANGE 01 "
.
0
1
¡:,;:¡ 2
.....:¡
<c: 3
u 4
UJ
5
6
I ,. Miles
.
PEOPLE PER ACRE (AVERAGE)
IZTIill LESS TI<AN 1 PER !" ACRES
- ! PER 10 ACRI;S
- ! PI;R 5 ACRES
- 1 PER 1 ACRE
- ! PER 1/4 ACRE
- GREATER THAN 1 PER 1/4 ACRE
I""o.""tlO""L P_OS"' ,"-Y
PO PULA nON DENSITY
NO .-..or, 10 M"'" '" TO ,,~
FROM 1990 CENSUS INFORMATION
""^",'""" '" "".".'"" 'NO -..
.
"""""' La.M.'.
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
""... ",'"'" OJ. ....
RANGE 02 Vi
RANCE 01 E
RAIlGE 01 W
JeffersonCo~nty Comprehensive Plan
'.'01-
24
, ~r ~
r -",:
3-57
oJ
~
'"
,.
0
,..
z
g
~
rg
..
¡,:.:
'"
g¡
¡>,
'"
!!1
g
z
æ
~
rg
'"
g
:>:
8i
<><
;;¡
rg
'"
ß
'"
oj
¡>,
~
¡,:.:
2~:26 .'"
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
.
0
1
r:r:\ 2
....:J
< 3
u 4
CI:I
5
6
Miles
.
----'-.-¡¡;;"."..----..-..
.
AANGE OZ W
RANCE OL E
z
¡OJ
~
Z
..
~
z
:;¡
~
!!'1
~
z
g¡
"-
!iô
~
'"
g
z
g¡
~
~
¡,;.
~
z
¡;¡
0,
!:2
~
1>
....
z
IiJ
"
¡¡¡
¡::
~
RANGE 01 W
- Po"",l, willi r"'¡don~oJ boildin" & cobi""
œ pl.'tod oo"""on or.. " .,...nbc]to
- Roso""¡,,,," """"."¡Ori.o', cO",þgrollO&
- ..,.0<1. willi Dumnl =",m...olol ""
g ..roo, willi ,u"onl Indu,"'o' ""
- Voconl (ox",pl olJ>."",. lðonlll1e<J)
0 CommcreL.1 <wl0"1"'" (ROW 64,34 ."""od)
rn Pn""to limborL..nd. (RCI'f "<"'" ....."d " C,5. [br,)
- SCale Umberlonda (M,n.. Unlvo",lly)
- Fedcrtll llmoorJ.ndc
- Publi, porI" & ""mpgroundo
- CIvic, Cbur,""" O.mctori." Gov.1"nmcnt
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
""ORM"'ONA" PURPOSES ONLY
"' """T< IS "DE" " ""
"",""" OF coe",""S 'N' ,",",
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
""",,'" '.D,M.<.
",,"'. "'CO", ", ""
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
RANCE 01 E
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-59
VOL
24
rM,~
2<)97
¡("".Â'"Úgust 28, 1998
......
(þ
~
....
'"
0
::I
n
0
¡::
::I
~
n
0
3
"0
....
(þ
::>"
(þ
::s
'"
:;;:.
<>
"'0
§
u.J
I
0'1
.......
<
=
,-
N
~
:;::
':~
,.,
N
~)
iN
P'
N
.00
.....
'"
'"
00
.
RANGE l4 W
...
0
1 ~
:~2 t.""
~ 3
0 4
UJ '.
5
6
1üles
4
- Parcels 1'fith residential buildings &. cabins
D:r¡?A~ PiottO<!. cornman ore. &. græn..lls
_Resorts/golf Œmrses/privale campgrounds
- Par,,".. with current oammercial us;,
K::(i;V:..:.,': Porcols wllh ~urr~nl industrW lU\e
l1li VM,anl (eKcept olherwise identlfied)
C]COnJIne"ciol a~noull=. (RCIf 84.34 "",....d)
I'Lt'{:: PrIvate tím..rlonds (RC1i' B4.33 ......""erl
- Std;e 1ìrnberlonds (DNR, School Tk.)
_OlymPiC 1I"\íoD~1 ~oresl
- Oiympic lIotion.1 Park
eOth.B' GDv..."m",,1 & Tribal land,
RA)I(õE 14 W
.
RANGE J:J 'if
RANGE 12 If
RANGE 1l '1/
P.ANOE 10 W
RAJlGE 00 '1/
R'ùW~ 13 '1/
R.h'G~ '2 'f
RAJlCH 11 If
RAJlGI; 10 W
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
FOR 1"FO""AT10N"- PURPOSES O)U
NO ",FA_' IS w.DE ;S TO THE
EX,or",,» '" """"""IE' AND "£AS.
JEFFERS"" 10><5
Jue< 14. 19'"
.
"
¡;;
?i
~
...
'"
'"
'"
('¡
or
~
g
'"
i'J
ÕI
a
~
'S.
;&
z
¡¡;
12
I
t"""
~
I;j
c:::
CIJ
tr1
?
Z'
I;j
~
e
~
t"""
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
RANGE a:¡ w
RANGE oe W
RANGE DL W
~ ~",
JEFFERSON COUNTY ¡:¿;v-- . '"
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN"" :.
LAND USE MAP
ADol'TBD, AII(;UAT '", ,...
-"_n____-
""""-"-,......,......_,,",,,,,"
-"'""'_"'-.-I,,_,~-_~)
""-_/'-""""',"--I--""~"'"
-....._ow-_,,¡
""...",-"-~""""",~,",..._,_....,,,,
--'-'--""
",........."",........
""--,"",-"~."",,",~,,,,,._,
:::===:-_...::..::...............,.-~
-"""=-------
- =::- - ..:;; ~ ~ -=-=-~~~l"",/m
I .. "';"'~"'i
RANGE" \f
RANGE ()j ..
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-63
VOi-
RANGE 01 E
'"
ó1
!ìJ
~
ß
""
\ ¡¡
~
-~ ¡::
g
t "
g¡
!',
!
'"
g¡
~
¡::
8
""'.,,..
........_-,.,-,--",\..._,..~I
""""'--,",-""""""". -"'-"'"
D""'-".,",~,.......,."'-~_ffi"",
"
:;;
~
g
""---.._""'
""".""'" ",.......... []].....,,--.............
",..", --...-..
D."", ..-' -- . .... ... -~ "... ..,,-" .- -~
""..- ~~~'"" - -- ......., ~. - ~... -.. ~-_.....
[! ] i::~!"'!!':..~;:,,'=*"~"~1..-
""",,;::;¡:;:,=--;::..~
",.... -- ...... .....~ --
""----"""--""""
... ,,- .... - .." '- ........ """ "'"' ".." ...,
"",,~ .... -- .... '01" - --,/--- - .- -'"
:~.;.~....-
"""-"""""""""""
"'" ,-" ,... -'" ,-,," ,..,.. ,-"
..............".....
'"
¡(!
""~"""""""'-"'-"O)
"" ""'"~ ,.,........ ....." ......
-.."".-""...,
-,-.......-,O"-u)
'" .,."" ...... ""
[]I]...........,
~
¡::
g
,...."..~.....
D ""' ,---' ...
".,""-"",-.
"., "m - """',., n..1 ...... ....'" .... ..",
',",M ."'-~ - - "_... ~O
"""."'-;"M___."'-
I!1!Im',..,--.'-
... '" "'"' ---..
.....~"....._,-
--.--,.-.""""",
¡;;S-"-
1II'fiIIIIII¡,P~.._m"~.-
--....
~3~:-¡,~=-:...
~--,-- '"
- "
-==* I
__M_~'-
--_._,~_..~--~--
;:-:;:.--==::;:;;.:;¡¡,~=~
J<l<NGE 01 E
24
- ~ ~~28, 1998
rA[;~
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
GOALS AND POLICIES
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals
state the general growth management intentions of the County while the policies are the specific
guidelines. Strategies address implementation of goals and policies through specific projects and
programs.
The Land Use element is combined with the Rural element of this Comprehensive Plan. The element
includes an inventory and designation of land uses in rural areas that will aid in defining future
development, and goals for the preservation of rural character that outline the general definition of the
"rural environment" of those areas,
The goals and policies of the Land Use and Rural element provides direction for both the development
and preservation of Jefferson County's rural areas~ They outline specific criteria for the development of
rural Jefferson County, incorporating issues and opportunities identified by County residents in the
public planning process.
Land Use and Rural policies will provide the basis for revising the development standards contained in
the Zoning Code, land use and environmental protection ordinances such as the Critical Areas
Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, and other development regulations.
GENERAL LAND USE
GOAL:
LNG 1.0
Comply with the Growth Management Act, the County-wide Planning Policy, this
Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Use Map in all adopted land use, environmental
and development regulations, and subsequent land nse decisions and approvals.
POLICIES:
LNP 1.1
Incorporate opportunities for continuous and ongoing public participation into both the
comprehensive planning process and the implementation ofthe resulting Comprehensive
Plan.
LNP 1.2
Acknowledge and protect the rights of private property owners in preparing land use,
development, and environmental regulations, prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory
actions, and preserve reasonable uses for regulated properties.
LNP 1.3
Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan on a minimum schedule of once every five
(5) years, and preferably on an annual basis, consistent with the requirements of the
Growth Management Act. Revisions to the Land Use Map may be considered on an
annual basis, and shall be in strict compliance with the Comprehensive Plan criteria.
LNP 1.4
Commercial land use designations countywide and the Glen Cove and Port Townsend
Paper Mill industrial designations shall be interim designations that shall be revisited
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-65
2 4: rA()~
22~9st28, 1998
VOL
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 1.5
LNP 1.6
LNP 1.7
LNP 1.8
LNP 1.9
through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan upon completion of the Tri-
Area/Glen Cove Study.
LNP 1.4.1
LNP 1.4.2
.
The Tri-Area/Glen Cove Study Area is defined by the boundary shown
on the Land Use Map.
Modification of designations and boundaries may include the
designation of Urban Growth Areas and/or full implementation ofthe
criteria provided in 1997 amendments to the GMA under ESB 6094.
Establish a process by which the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map may be
amended in accordance with 36.70A and other applicable regulations:
LNP 1.5.1
LNP 1.5.2
LNP 1.5.3
Designate five categories of Comprehensive Plan amendments as
outlined in Chapter 2 of this Plan:
1.
2.
3~
4,
5.
Policy amendments
Map amendments
General amendment
Site specific amendment
Emergency Amendments
Allow for the submission of petitions to the County for map
amendments related to:
.
1, Errors in mapping, The fee may be waived only for those petitions
determined to be an error -in mapping.
2. An error in interpretation of the criteria for land use designation.
Mapping errors that are clearly erroneous based on inaccurate
information or technical error on the part of the County may be
corrected at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Map
corrections of this nature shall not require a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Establish development regulations which provide clear guidance on County land use
permitting processes and standards, and implement the land use goals and policies of this
plan.
Encourage the use of innovative site planning and design techniques, including lot
consolidation opportunities, as a means of preserving rural character, open lands, and
protecting the natural environment through development regulations.
If the County chooses to adopt an impact fee ordinance, determine through a public
process how to apportion the fair share of funding for required public facilities, services,
and amenities,
Ensure appropriate services are provided as needed and that the duplication of services is
avoided by promoting the coordination of local governmental programs and planning.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-66
: VOL
24 rAL~
2í)'-'1
. """'-~ugust 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 1.10
LNP 1.11
Ensure that land use permitting processes are both predictable and timely.
The annexation of unincorporated teITitory in Jefferson County shall be in strict
accordance with the provisions contained in RCW 35.13. Et seq.
RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
GOAL:
LNG 2.0
POLICY:
LNP 2.1
GOAL:
LNG 3.0
POLICIES:
LNP 3.1
LNP 3.2
LNP 3.3
Establish land use goals and policies in the Land Use Element of this plan that are
internally consistent with and reflective of the goals and policies of all other
elements of the plan.
Include provisions for implementation of goals and policies of all elements and chapters
of the Plan in the overall land use strategy.
Ensure that rural residential development preserves rural character, protects rural
community identity, is compatible with surrounding land uses, and minimizes
infrastructure needs.
Identify and encourage diverse rural land uses and densities which preserve rural
character and rural community identity.
Establish rural residential land use densities for all lands located outside of designated
Urban Growth Areas. Proposed rural residential densities shall allow for an adequate
supply of appropriately zoned land based upon the County's rural population projections
while maintaining rural character and rural community identity, preserving rural
resource-based uses, and avoiding sprawl.
Rural residential densities shown on the Land Use Map shall be designated by three (3)
residential land use densities: one dwelling unit per five (5) acres, one dwelling unit per
ten (10) acres, and one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres in size and subject to the
following criteria:
LNP 3.3.1
A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR
I :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5
acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record;
b~ parcels of similar size (i,e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels
along the coastal areas;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-67 - VOL
2 4: rAG~
2 2~ust28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 3.4
LNP 3.5
LNP 3.6
LNP 3.3.2
LNP 3.3.3
c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village
Centers; and
d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed "suburban" platted
subdivisions.
.
A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres
(RR 1: 10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a, an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 10
acres);
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a "transition" adjacent to Urban Growth Areas; and,
d, critical area land parcels.
A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acres
(RR 1 :20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 20
acres) or larger;
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a "transition" to Urban Growth Areas or the Master
Planned Resort;
d. critical land area parcels;
e. agriculture resource designated parcels;
f. publicly owned forest lands; and
g. lands adjacent to forest resource land.
.
Review areas of more intensive residential development and consider measures to allow
infill development at comparable densities. Measures shall be considered to limit and
contain these areas once identified and designated. Designation shall be through an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Allow minimum lot sizes within the designated boundaries of Rural Village Centers
which are flexible and determined by such considerations as: septic or sewer
availability, potable water availability, zoning and building regulations such as setbacks
and parking requirements, fire prevention measures, and community character.
Facilitate the multiple use function of Rural Village Centers (RVC) by establishing
siting and design criteria to provide buffering and mitigation between potentially
incompatible uses.
RURAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE
GOAL:
LNG 4.0
Establish and maintain the size and configuration of the County's Rural Village
Centers and provide for the development of appropriately scaled commercial uses.
.
. VOL
24 rAL~
2233
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-68
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
POLICIES:
LNP 4.1
LNP 4.2
LNP 4.3
The land use designation of interim Rural Village Center shall be zoned Rural Village
Center (RVC). This zoning designation shall accommodate both commercial and
residential land uses.
Encourage a variety of commercial, retail, professional, tourist-related, community
service, cottage industry, and residential uses, including duplexes, triplexes and assisted
living facilities, within the designated boundaries of Rural Village Centers (RVC) at a
scale appropriate to protect the rural character of the natural neighborhood.
Establish logical outer boundaries on an interim basis. Interim boundaries are based
upon all of the following criteria:
LNP 4.3.1
Consistency with the rural provisions and planning goals of the Growth
Management Act.
LNP 4.3.2
Contained and concentrated commercial and residential areas and uses
defined and delineated predominately by the pre-July 1990 built
environment.
LNP 4.3.3
Rural Village Centers are defined as established, historically settled
geographical areas serving the immediate community and the traveling
public. The three existing settlements that have been designated Rural
Village Centers are:
.
Port Hadlock
Quilcene
Brinnon
.
.
LNP 4.3.4
Avoid low-density sprawl by establishing and maintaining logical outer
boundaries, based on the criteria in RCW 36,70A070(5)(c) and (d) and
the following local considerations pursuant to RCW 36.70A070(5)(a):
a. Regional transportation concerns, including traffic volumes, access,
and safety.
b. Proximity to incompatible uses.
c. A large parcel that is partially developed for existing uses may not
be designated in its entirety, if such a designation would promote
sprawl.
d. Home businesses/cottage industries should not be used to detennine
boundaries.
e. Provide employment opportunities for local residents, in particular
in areas of insufficient economic growth or economic decline.
f. Support the community vision and rural community cohesion.
g. Need for multi-family and special needs housing opportunities,
h. Avoid creating new nonconfonning uses.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-69
. VOI-
24 rAr,~
-2 34
2 August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 4.4
LNP 4.5
LNP 4.6
LNP 4.7
LNP 4.8
LNP 4.9
GOAL:
LNG 5.0
POLICIES:
LNP 5.1
Concentrate and contain the existing built environment through development regulations
allowing for infill development within Rural Village Center boundaries,
.
Ensure the provision of a variety of goods and day-to-day services and a limited range of
professional, public, and social services through new infill development and existing
development which addresses most of the essential needs of the rural population and the
commuting/traveling public, such as: community clubs, realty offices, churches,
specialty shops (sporting goods, yarn, flowers, hobby, furniture, frame shop),
laundromats, supennarkets, beauty parlors, antique dealers, banks, coffee shops,
medical clinics, taverns, restaurants, liquor stores, video stores, building supply, gas
stations, auto repair, bakeries, professional offices, ministorage, art galleries, post
offices, and motelslhotels, as well as multi-family housing opportunities such as
emergency housing, transitional housing, assisted living, group homes,
duplexes/triplexes, and senior housing.
Ensure visual compatibility of Rural Village Center commercial infill development with
the suITounding rural area, through the creation and implementation of community based
"rural character" design and development standards. Uses within Rural Village Centers
shall be scaled and sized to preserve the natural character of the neighborhood.
Revisit interim Rural area boundaries following completion of the Glen Cove/Tri-Area
Special Study and establish final boundaries through an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, consistent with LNP 104.
Assist the community of Brinnon, within the limits of available resources, in a public
process to 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.
.
Evaluate the need for revised development regulations in Quilcene following a
community Local Utility District election regarding a public water system, in order to
address issues related to the adequacy of commercial fire flow.
Establish and maintain the location and size of the County's Rural Crossroads to
provide access to a limited range of non-residential uses.
All rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the following minimum criteria:
a, The commercial area existed as a built environment on July 1, 1990;
b. The existing zoning is commercial; and
c. The existing uses provide basic necessities and/or multiple commercial goods and
services.
.
. VOL
24 r~(~
2235
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-70
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 5.2
LNP 5.3
LNP 5.4
Establish logical outer boundaries on an interim basis. Interim boundaries shall be based
upon all of the following criteria:
LNP 5.2.1
LNP 5.2.2
LNP 5.2.3
Consistency with the rural provisions and planning goals of the Growth
Management Act.
Crossroad intersection of major and/or local roadways where a
predominately pre-July 1990 contained and concentrated commercial
area or use is serving the local rural population and/or the
commuting/traveling public,
Avoid low density sprawl by establishing and maintaining logical outer
boundaries based on the criteria in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c) and (d) and
the following local considerations pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a):
a. Regional transportation concerns, including volumes, access, and
safety.
b. Proximity to incompatible uses.
c. A large parcel that is partially developed for existing uses may not
be designated in its entirety, if such a designation would promote
sprawl.
d. Home businesses/cottage industries should not be used to detennine
boundaries.
e. Provide employment opportunities for local residents, in particular
in areas of insufficient economic growth or economic decline.
f. Support the community vision and rural community cohesion.
g. Avoid creating new nonconfonning uses.
Concentrate and contain the existing area of predominantly .pre-July 1990 built
environment through development regulations for infill development within the
boundary .
Designate the following historic crossroads as interim Convenience Crossroads (CC) as
shown on the Land Use Map: Nordland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point.
LNP 5.4.1
LNP 5.4.2
LNP 5.4.3
Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a.Consists of a single commercial property; and
b. Provides local rural population and commuting/traveling public with
basic consumer goods and services.
Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary of each of the
Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic consumer goods and
services, including: convenience grocery/general store, gas/oil, espresso,
video, café/deli,
The Nordland Convenience Crossroads designation and boundary may
be modified through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-71
VOL
24 rAC:
2236
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 5.5
a study developed under the Shoreline Management Master Program
revision, consistent with LNP 14.7.
.
Designate the following historic crossroads as interim NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads
(NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay, Four Comers,
Gardiner, and Mats Mats.
LNP 5.5.1
LNP 5.5.2
LNP 5.6
Designation is based on the criteria of LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a. Multiple commercial properties; and
b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services; and
c. Serves the local rural population and the commuting/traveling
public.
Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of each of
the designated NeighborhoodlVisitor Crossroads to those involving
basic consumer staples with a limited range of goods and services and/or
serving the commuting/traveling public such as: convenience groceryl
general store, gas service stationlw garage, espresso, farm and garden
supply, video rental, restaurant, tavern, bar, antiques and collectibles,
café, and limited specialty goods and professional services.
Designate the following crossroads as interim General Commercial Crossroads (GC) as
shown on the Land Use Map: Ness' Comer, Irondale Comer, and SR 19/20 Intersection.
.
LNP 5.6.1
LNP 5.6.2
LNP 5.7
Designation is based on the criteria in LNP 5.1 and the following
additional criteria:
a,
Location at a major highway intersection near high density
population in the Tri-Area; and
Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and multiple
community levels of service.
b.
Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the designated
General Commercial crossroads to those involving an expanded range of
commercial goods and services such as: ministorage, hardware,
groceries, bakery, antiques, tavern/bar, restaurant, RV repair and sales,
building supply, fann and garden supply, motel, auto and vehicle repair
with subordinate auto retail, appliance sales and repair, clothing and
accessories, an expanded range of specialty goods and professional
services, and limited public and social services.
Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads
commercial infill development with the surrounding rural area through the creation and
implementation of community based design and development standards. Uses within
Rural Crossroads shall be scaled and sized to protect the rural character of the natural
neighborhood.
.
:VOL
24 rAC,:
2237
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
3-72 d
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 5.8
Revisit interim Rural area boundaries following the completion of the Glen Cove/Tri~
Area Special Study and establish final boundaries through an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, consistent with LNP 1.4.
HOME-BASED BUSINESSES AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES
GOAL:
LNG 6.0
POLICIES:
LNP 6.1
Foster low impact home-based businesses or cottage industries in order to provide
economic and employment opportunities outside of Rural Village Centers.
Permit home-based businesses which are wholly accessory and secondary to the
residential use of the property throughout the unincorporated portions of the County,
subject to permit review procedures and the following criteria:
LNP 6.1.1
LNP 6.1.2
LNP 6.1.3
LNP 6.1.4
LNP 6.1.5
LNP 6.1.6
LNP 6.1.7
Home-based businesses shall be located entirely within the residential
structure or entirely within a permitted accessory outbuilding and shall
remain clearly incidental and secondary to the primary use of the
premises as a residence.
Home-based businesses are permitted in order to provide opportunities
to supplement a family income, start up a business, or establish a work
place at home, A home occupation or home-based business shall not
grow beyond the scale permitted for such activities unless it is moved to
a location designated for commercial or industrial uses.
Home-based businesses should be considered independent of, and
unconnected to, the rights that run with the property.
Home-based businesses are not considered to be legal existing non-
conforming uses as described under LNG 8.0.
Home-based business activity shall consist of a limited-scale service or
fabrication, and be conducted indoors, except that activities related to
growing and storing plants may be conducted outdoors.
Home-based businesses shall involve the owner or lessee of the property
who shall reside within the dwelling unit, and shall employ on the
premises no more than two (2) person(s) not residing within the
dwelling unit.
More than one home-based business may be allowed, in or on the same
premises provided that:
a. all of the criteria under LNP 6.1 are met;
", VOL
24 r~~~
2238
3-73
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 6.1.8
LNP 6.1.9
LNP 6.1.10
LNP 6.1.11
LNP 6.1.12
LNP 6.1.13
b. no more than two (2) non-resident employee(s) shall be allowed to
work on-site, regardless of the number of home-based businesses;
and
c. each home-based business shall be owned and operated by a
penn anent resident.
.
There shall be no change to the outside appearance of the building or
premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of a home-based
business other than one sign designed and erected in confonnance with
Jefferson County's Sign Regulations.
There shall be no on-site retail sales in connection with home-based
businesses except items incidental to the activity taking place (e.g. hair
care products can be sold in conjunction with a hair dresser). Sales are
limited to mail order and phone sales with off-site delivery.
Home-based businesses shall not be disruptive to the use of adjacent
properties. No equipment or process shall be used in a home-based
business which creates excessive noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or
electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the property.
The home-based businesses shall not create excessive traffic to the local
road network, nor require parking facilities above and beyond that
already contained on the site,
.
Home-based businesses shall be limited in their hours of operation. No
home business, except for Bed and Breakfast operations, shall be
conducted before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
before 9 a.rn, or after 6 p.m., Saturday and Sundays.
Home-based businesses in Western Jefferson County shall be regulated
according to the following provisions in order to provide employment
opportunities in a unique area that is isolated and distant from
commercial and urban growth areas. This region is characterized by
high unemployment, a distressed economy, low residential densities, and
a total projected 20-year population growth of 43 persons.
LNP 6.1.13(a)
Home-based businesses in the West End shall be exempt
from restrictions on the number of non-resident
employees in LNP 6.1.6 and 6J.7(b), and to the
provisionsofLNP 6.1.9 and 6.1.12~
LNP 6.1.13(b)
Home-based businesses in the West End shall be exempt
from requirements in LNP 6.1.2 to move to a location
designated for commercial or industrial uses, Instead
they may be permitted conditionally at a non-residential
location under provisions ofRCW 36,70AO70(S)(d)iii.
.
.VOL
24 rAG~
2239
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
3-74
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 6.1.13(c)
Exemptions allowed under this section shall be
regulated subject to LNP 6,1.10. Any hearings
associated with regulation under LNP 6.1.10 or
conditional pennitting under LNP 6.1.13(b) shall be
held in Western Jefferson County close to the residents
who may be affected.
Pennit cottage industries conducted as an accessory use within a single family dwelling
or building accessory to a dwelling and which are wholly incidental and subordinate to
the residential use of the property throughout the unincorporated portions of the County,
subject to conditional use pennit review procedures and the following criteria:
LNP 6.2
LNP 6.2.1
LNP 6.2.2
LNP 6.2.3
LNP 6.2.4
LNP 6.2.5
LNP 6.2.6
LNP 6.2.7
Cottage industry shall be defined as limited small-scale commercial or
industrial activities including fabrication or production of goods, if the
approval authority finds that such activities can be conducted without
substantial adverse impact on the residential environment in the vicinity.
The scale of the proposals to be considered through this mechanism is
typically greater than could be accommodated through a home
occupation pennit, but shall be considerably less than would require an
outright rezone to industrial or commercial districts. A cottage industry
may include occupations such as dressmaking, upholstering, weaving,
baking, ceramic-making, painting, sculpting, the repair of personal
items, computer software development, carpentry, metal working, and
blacksmithing.
The following occupations are prohibited as cottage industries: auto,
truck, or heavy equipment repair shop, auto body work or paint shop and
large-scale furniture stripping,
Cottage industries are pennitted in order to provide opportunities to
supplement a family income, start up a business, or establish a work
place at home. A cottage industry shall not grow beyond the scale
pennitted for such activities unless it is moved to a location designated
for commercial or industrial uses.
Cottage industries should be considered independent of, and
unconnected to, the rights that run with the property.
Cottage industries are not considered to be legal existing non-
confonning uses as described under LNG 8.0.
Cottage industry activities shall consist of a limited-scale service or
fabrication, and be conducted indoors, except that activities related to
growing and storing plants may be conducted outdoors. Sales shall be
limited to mail order and phone sales with off-site delivery.
VOL
24 r~r;c
2240
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-75
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 6.2.8
LNP 6.2.9
LNP 6.2.10
LNP 6.2.11
LNP 6.2.12
LNP 6.2.13
LNP 6.2.14
LNP 6.2.15
LNP 6.2.16
A cottage industry use shall involve the owner or lessee of the property
who shall reside within the dwelling unit, and shall not employ on the
premises more than four (4) non-residents.
.
Not more than one cottage industry shall be allowed, in or on the same
premises. A minimum parcel size of one acre is required for cottage
industry.
There shall be no change to the outside appearance of the buildings or
premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such cottage
industry other than one sign designed and erected in conformance with
Jefferson County's Sign Regulations.
A cottage industry sales shall be limited to items produced on-site but
not items collected, traded and sold, such as coins, stamps and antiques.
A cottage industry shall not be disruptive to the use of adjacent
properties. No equipment or process shall be used in such home
occupations which creates excessive noise, vibration, glare, fumes,
odors, or electrical interference detectable to the nonnal senses off the
property,
The cottage industry shall not create excessive traffic to the local road
network, nor require parking facilities above and beyond that already
contained on the site.
.
Cottage industries shall be limited in their hours of operation. No
business shall be conducted before 8 a.m. or after 8 p,m. Monday
through Friday and before 9 a.m. or after 6 p,m. Saturday and Sundays.
The following activities shall be limited in rural residential zones and
shall be incidental to the primary nature of the cottage industry:
parking/storage of heavy equipment; storage of materials for use on
other properties. .
Cottage industries in Western Jefferson County shall be regulated
according to the following provisions in order to provide employment
opportunities in a unique area that is isolated and distant from
commercial and urban growth areas. This region is characterized by
high unemployment, a distressed economy, low residential densities, and
a total projected 20-year population growth of 43 persons.
LNP 6.2.16(a)
Cottage industries in the West End shall be exempt from
restrictions on the number of non-resident employees in
LNP 6.2.8, and to the provisions of LNP 6.2.3, LNP
6.2.7, LNP 6.2.14, and LNP 6.2~15.
LNP 6.2.16(b) Cottage industries in the West End shall be exempt from
requirements in LNP 6.2.4 to move to a location
.
. VOL
2 4 r~C~
2241
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
3-76
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
designated for commercial or industrial uses. Instead
they may be pennitted conditionally at a non-residential
location under provisions ofRCW 36.70A.O70(5)(d)iii.
LNP 6.2.16(c)
Exemptions allowed under this section shall be
regulated subject to LNP 6.2.12. Any hearings
associated with regulation under LNP 6.2.12 or
conditional pennit review procedures shall be held in
Western Jefferson County close to the residents who
may be affected.
SMALL-SCALE RECREATIONAL AND TOURIST RELATED USES
GOAL:
LNG 7.0
POLICIES:
LNP 7.1
Foster economic development in rural areas which is small-scale recreational or
tourist-related and that relies on a rural location and setting.
Small-scale recreational or tourist uses that do not include new residential development
shall be provided for by the conditional use pennitting process, subject to all of the
following criteria:
LNP 7.1.1
Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall demonstrate under the
permit review process that the proposed wholly new location or use or
expansion of existing location or use is reliant upon a particular rural
location and setting.
LNP 7.1.2
Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall be defined as those uses
reliant upon the rural setting, incorporating the scenic and natural
features of the land. These uses may include uses similar to
campgrounds, U-fish ponds, hot springs, trails, boat launches and docks,
outdoor/recreational equipment rental, private parks, recreational,
cultural or religious retreats (non-residential), mini-golf, historic sites,
gardens open to the public, animal viewing farms or wild game fanTIs,
horse arenas and stables, shooting ranges, music festivals/festival sites,
and marinas. Under no circumstances should this policy be interpreted to
permit new residential development or a Master Planned Resort pursuant
to RCW 36.70A.360,
LNP 7.1.3
The primary use of the site shall be for the small-scale recreational or
tourist use, Commercial facilities, as provided for within an approved
conditional use permit for small-scale recreational or tourist uses, shall
serve only those recreational and tourist uses and shall be clearly
accessory to and dependent upon the primary recreational or tourist uses.
LNP 7.1.4
Small-scale recreational or tourist uses shall not include new residential
development, except that necessary for on-site management.
. VOI- 2 4: rAr,~ 2 ~~>12
3-77
August 28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 7.1.5
LNP 7.1.6
LNP 7.1.7
Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to
serve the recreational or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner
that does not permit low-density sprawl.
.
The following measure to minimize and contain the site shall be
incorporated into the site plan of the wholly new or expanding
recreational or tourist use:
7.1.6(a)
A single site plan shall designate the location of all uses,
and shall be processed as a conditional use permit.
7.1.6(b)
The location of small-scale recreational or tourist uses
shall be based upon the scenic and/or natural features of
the land that support the need for a rural location and
setting.
7.1.6(c)
Standards shall include compatibility of the small-scale
recreational or tourist uses with the rural character of
adjacent lands including forestry, agriculture and rural
residential uses. The rural character of the area shall be
protected by landscape buffers and physical setbacks
away from major transportation corridors, and otherwise
ensuring visual compatibility with the surrounding rural
area.
.
7.1.6(d)
Conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
commercial development in the rural area shall be
prohibited.
7.1.6(e)
Site design for small-scale recreational or tourist uses
shall ensure the protection of critical areas, as provided
in RCW 36.70A060, and surface water and ground
water resources.
7.1.6(f)
Site design for small-scale recreational or tourist uses
shall ensure protection from conflicts with the use of
agriculture, forest, and mineral resource lands of long-
term commercial significance designated under RCW
36.70AI70.
Upon application for intensification/expansion of existing small-scale
recreational or tourist areas and uses, the ultimate size and configuration
of the site should be established and maintained by logical outer
boundaries. Existing areas and uses are those that are clearly identifiable
and contained, and where there is a logical boundary delineated
predominately by the built environment as of July 1990, but may also
include undeveloped lands if the overall goals of the Rural : Element are
maintained, by:
.
VOI-
24 rAG:
2243
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-78
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
a. preserving the character of the existing natural neighborhood;
b. physical boundaries such as bodies of water, roadways, and land
fonDS and contours are used to assist in delineation of the site;
c. abnonnally irregular site boundaries are prevented;
d. public facilities and services are provided in a manner that does not
penn it low-density sprawl; and
e. protecting critical areas and surface and groundwater resources.
LNP 7.1.8
Within Jefferson County's isolated West End, allow small-scale
recreation and tourist uses to provide basic goods and services to meet
the needs of a local population living at a distance from commercial
areas. This limited expansion of uses is also intended to allow for the
creation of local jobs in an area of high unemployment and distressed
economic conditions.
LEGAL EXISTING USES
GOAL:
LNG 8.0
POLICIES:
LNP 8.1
LNP 8.2
LNP 8.3
LNP 8.4
LNP 8.5
Support the continued existence and economic viability of legally established land
uses which become nonconforming as a result of Comprehensive Plan adoption.
Existing commercial and industrial uses that become nonconfonning will be allowed to
continue and to expand within limits as defined in LNP 8.5. Legal existing uses may be
sold without jeopardizing the continuation of the use or activity.
Existing commercial and industrial uses in areas designated as Rural Residential will
have the right to continue and not be subject to nuisance claims if operating in
compliance with all County regulations.
Existing commercial and industrial uses should be allowed to expand or be replaced in
Rural Residential areas provided that:
a. they do not require additional urban levels of government service;
b. they do not impose uncompensated additional costs to the taxpayers of Jefferson
County for the provision of infrastructure, its replacement or improvement;
c. they do not conflict with natural resource-based uses;
d. they are compatible with surrounding rural uses, and
e. the expansion results in no further adverse environmental or neighborhood impacts,
unless mitigated.
Businesses that do not meet the above criteria shall not be expanded or rebuilt if
destroyed.
Expansion of structures housing legal existing uses or replacement of structures
occupied by legal existing nonconfonning uses shall be subject to the following criteria:
, VOI- 24 r~r,: 22/14
3-79
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 8.5.1
Where a legal existing nonconforming use of a structure exists, that
structure can be replaced provided the original footprint is not relocated
or altered except as provided for below.
8.5.1(a)
8.5.1(b)
8.5.1(c)
8.5.1(d)
LNP 8.5.2
The original footprint does not meet current regulations
regarding building setbacks and buffers.
Moving the building footprint positions the new
building in a more appropriate location on the site to
facilitate pedestrian and vehicular movement and safety.
The movement of the building footprint on the site is
necessary to ensure protection of environmentally
sensitive areas located on or near the site.
The original building is being rebuilt or enlarged under
the provision ofLNP 8.5.2.
A structure housing a legal existing nonconforming use may be enlarged
and/or expanded if it meets all applicable bulk, dimensional and lot
coverage requirements for the zoning district in which the use is located.
8.5.2(a)
8.5.2(b)
Expansion of structures housing legal existing
nonconforming uses up to 10% of the existing building
size or 200 square feet, whichever is greater, shall be
subject to an administrative approval process. More
substantial expansions, up to a building cap of 3,999
square feet, shall be subject to a public hearing process
to ensure notification of adjacent property owners.
The following policies apply to uses within the Glen
Cove Interim LlC Zone and the Glen Cove Potential
Final Urban Growth Area:
.
Within the Glen Cove Interim LlC Zone a building
size cap of 20,000 square feet shall be implemented
in development regulations.
Outside of the Glen Cove Interim LlC Zone, but
within the Glen Cove Potential Final Urban Growth
Area a structure housing an existing business shall
be allowed to expand up to a building cap of 20,000
square feet (subject to meeting the bulk and
dimensional requirement of 45% maximum lot
coverage).
Any proposed expansion outside of the Glen Cove
Interim LlC Zone, but within the Glen Cove
Potential Final Urban Growth Area shall only be
approved if the expansion is to accommodate the
.
.
~. VOI-
24 rAG~ _.22,15
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
3-80
.
.
.
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 8.6
LNP 8.7
LNP 8.8
LNP 8.9
LNP 8.10
structure housing the existing business on site.
Expansion in this area for speculative purposes or to
accommodate a new business shall be prohibited.
8.5.2(c)
Structures housing legal existing nonconforming uses
shall only be expanded and/or enlarged once, regardless
of whether or not the expansion and/or enlargement was
expanded and/or enlarged to reach the building çap size
identified for the particular zoning district.
A legal existing nonconforming use may change to a conforming use allowed within the
zone classification in which the use is located.
A legal existing nonconforming use may change to a different non-conforming use of
equal or lesser intensity.
All proposals to change the use of a legal existing nonconfomling use to a different non-
conforming use shall be processed in accordance with a public hearing process to ensure
notification of adjacent property owners.
A legal existing nonconforming structure damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake,
explosion, wind, flood, or other calamity may be completely restored or reconstructed if
all the following criteria are met:
LNP 8.9.1
The restoration and reconstruction shall not serve to extend or increase
the nonconformance of the original structure or use with existing
regulations.
LNP 8.9.2
The reconstruction or restoration shall, to the extent reasonably possible,
retain the same general architectural style as the original destroyed
structure, or an architectural style that more closely reflects the character
of the surrounding rural neighborhood.
LNP 8.9.3
Permits shall be applied for within one (I) year of damage. Restoration
or reconstruction must be substantially completed within two (2) years
of permit issuance,
LNP 8.9.4
Any modifications shall comply with all current regulations and codes
(other than use restrictions) including, but not limited to lot coverage,
yard, height, open space, density provisions, or parking requirements
unless waived by the appropriate County official through the granting of
a variance. .
Should a legal existing nonconforming use of a property or structure be discontinued for
more than two (2) years, the use of the property and structure shall be deemed
abandoned and shall conform to a use permitted in the zone classification in which it is
located, unless the property owner demonstrates through property maintenance a bona
fide intention to sell or lease the property, If the property is adequately maintained the
VOi-
24 rAC'
22/16
3-81
August 28,1998
Jeffen¡on County Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 8.11
property shall not be deemed abandoned and be allowed to remain vacant for up to three
(3) years.
.
Legal existing use nonconforming status only applies to businesses which were
established prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan as legal commercial
establishments. This section does not apply to Home Businesses and Cottage Industries.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS
GOAL:
LNG 9.0
POLICIES:
LNP 9.1
LNP 9.2
LNP 9.3
Encourage a balance of commercial and industrial uses for urban-scale and
regional-scale economic activities within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs).
Encourage and facilitate regional-scale economic activities in UGAs which provide
employment opportunities within the County.
Encourage urban-scale and regional-scale commercial land uses in UGAs to provide
goods and services that exceed the standards for rural commercial levels of service
established by this plan.
Depending on the results of the Glen CovelTri-Area Special Study, consider designating
new Urban Growth Areas if feasible.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
GOAL:
LNG 10.0
POLICIES:
LNP 10.1
LNP 10.2
LNP 10.3
Limit the establishment or expansion of urban-style development and
infrastructure to Urban Growth Areas and Master Planned Resorts.
Ensure that expansion of urban-style infrastructure occurs only in coordination with
designated land uses based on projected growth estimates and will be concurrent with
amendments to the comprehensive plan.
Periodically review and update the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) to ensure
consistency with the joint population projection and all land use designations.
Ensure that any impact fees adopted by the County require that a "fair share" of
development costs are borne by the developer. Land use decisions should consider cost
efficiency regarding publicly-funded infrastructure,
.
VOI-
2 4 r,~C:
22,17
3~82
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 10.4
LNP 10.5
LNP 10.6
LNP 10.7
Ensure that where the County assumes maintenance responsibilities for infrastructure,
the infrastructure is adequately designed to meet the area growth projections and to
fulfill the functions the infrastructure is intended to perfonn.
Require the provision prior to or concurrent with development of an appropriate level of
. facilities and services. These services shall include, but are not limited to, potable water
supply, commercial fire flow, adequate sewage disposal, and roads, including sidewalks
and pathways if safety is an issue.
Ensure that rural areas are served by a rural level of public services sufficient to meet the
health and safety needs of community residents. Avoid installation of public
infrastructure with reserve capacity in excess of that needed to maintain the identified
level of public services for projected growth, in order to discourage additional,
unanticipated growth,
Allow community water facilities and community sewage facilities in rural commercial
zones in order to support projected growth, or where necessary to protect public health
and safety.
INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
GOAL:
LNG 11.0
POLICIES:
LNP 11.1
LNP 11.2
LNP 11.3
Coordinate efforts with the City of Port Townsend to establish a process for
authorizing the siting of major industrial developments outside designated Urban
Growth Areas that is consistent with RCW 36.70A.365.
Major industrial development shall be located within Urban Growth Areas and may be
provided for by the conditional use pennitting process and allowed in rural areas
consistent with all the criteria in RCW 36.70A.365.
Any proposed major industrial development located outside of a designated UGA and
which shall meet all the criteria set forth in RCW 36.70A.365 cannot be developed as a
commercial shopping development or as multi-tenant office parks.
Recognize and contain the following pre-July, 1990 areas and uses of more intense
industrial development within boundaries that may allow for limited areas of infill
development:
LNP 11.3.1
Designate the Port Townsend Paper Mill property as an interim Heavy
Industrial Zone as shown on the Land Use Map, consistent with LNP
1.4.
LNP 11.3.2
Designate the Glen Cove area as Light Industrial/Commercial as shown
on the Land Use Map, as an interim designation and boundary that shall
-- .
\'01-
2 4: rAC~
2218
3-83
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE AND RURAL
GOAL:
LNG 12.0
POLICIES:
LNP 12.1
LNP 12.2
LNP 12.3
LNP 12.4
be revisited upon completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Study through
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with LNP 1.4.
.
LNP 11.3.3
Designate the Quilcene industrial area as Light Industrial as shown on
the Land Use Map.
Locate new natural resource-based industries in rural lands and near the resource
upon which they are dependent, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.365.
Encourage the establishment of sustainable natural resource-based industrial uses in
rural areas to provide employment opportunities.
Natural resource-based industries shall be located near the agricultural, forest, mineral,
or aquaculture resource lands upon which they are dependent,
Recognize and designate existing pre-1990 forest resource-based industrial uses and
activities at Center, Gardiner, and the West-End as Resource-Based Industrial Zones
(RBIZ).
Existing forest resource based industrial uses and activities shall be recognized as areas
of more intensive rural development under RCW 36.70AO70(5)(d)(i). These Resource-
Based Industrial Zones should be allowed to accommodate conversions and/or an
intensification of these uses and activities under regulations to be developed in a public
process under the provisions contained in RCW 36.70AO70(5)(d)(iii),
.
LNP 12.4.1
While not all-inclusive, the following criteria shall be used when
considering approval of criteria for a proposed change of use of
activities at these sites. These criteria are:
.
the proposed new use or activity will adapt or utilize the existing
facility and/or equipment;
the proposed new use or activity will utilize some form or the
original natural resource as a input of production; and,
the proposed new use or activity will add value to the original
resource-based product or by-product.
.
.
LNP 12.4.2
New uses or activities proposed for existing RBIZs shall be limited in
size and scale and shall not require the extension of urban services
and/or infrastructure.
.
. VOL
2.4 r~G~
22119
3-84
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
LNG 13.0
POLICIES:
LNP 13.1
LNP 13.2
LNP 13.3
LNP 13.4
Conserve and manage the forest, agriculture, aquaculture, and mineral resources of
Jefferson County for sustainable natural resource-based economic activities that
are compatible with surrounding land uses.
Conserve natural resource lands through land use designations and encourage resource-
based industries that provide rural employment opportunities.
Support cooperative resource and habitat management processes between stakeholders
and local, state, federal and tribal governments by integrating cooperative agreements
and plans into land use ordinances and regulations.
Work with resource-based industries to achieve compliance with all applicable
regulations to protect environmental values and to protect surrounding land uses.
Ensure that land use activities adjacent to resource lands are sited and designed to
minimize conflicts with resource management activities.
ENVIRONMENT
GOAL:
LNG 14.0
POLICIES:
LNP 14.1
LNP 14.2
LNP 14.3
LNP 14.4
Preserve the functions and values of critical environmental areas and protect
development from the risks of environmental hazards.
Ensure that land use decisions are based on land use ordinances which are in compliance
with the Critical Areas Ordinance and all applicable state and federal environmental
laws.
Locate and design residential, commercial, and industrial development to minimize risk
from flooding, earth movement, shoreline erosion, and other natural hazards.
Support cooperative ecosystem and habitat management processes between stakeholders
and local, state, federal and tribal governments by incorporating cooperative agreements
into land use ordinances and regulations.
Ensure that land use decisions along Jefferson County shorelines protect the shoreline
environment, facilitate public access, recognize the needs of water-oriented activities
and cooperate with regional plans for protection and management of shorelines. In areas
of the County under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58
. .. .
24 rAC' 2250
VOL
3-85
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 14.5
LNP 14.6
LNP 14.7
HOUSING
GOAL:
LNG 15.0
POLICIES:
LNP 15.1
LNP 15.2
RCW), activities which are water-oriented will be preferred over those activities which
are not, all other factors being equal, consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and
the land use designations, goals, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan.
.
Investigate through a public process, within the limits of available resources, the
feasibility of limited water-oriented economic activities, including small-scale marine
trades activities, in Port Hadlock and Quilcene, through a comprehensive study to
examine factors including but not limited to environmental issues, economic viability,
and infrastructure needs, consistent with GMA and Shoreline Management Act
requirements.
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, and to restore and protect fish habitat,
Investigate through a public process, within the limits of available resources, the
feasibility of additional commercial and water-oriented economic activities at Nordland,
through a comprehensive study to examine factors including but not limited to
environmental issues, economic viability, and infrastructure needs, consistent with GMA
and Shoreline Management Act requirements.
.
Support opportunities to provide a variety of affordable housing types for County
residents.
Encourage duplexes, triplexes and assisted living facilities limited in size and scale to be
pennitted in Rural Village Centers within the capacity of local infrastructure and site
constraints.
Allow special needs and assisted living housing to be permitted conditionally in rural
residential areas.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
GOAL:
LNG 16.0
POLICIES:
LNP 16.1
Identify and designate lands for both public purposes and essential public facilities.
Assess for designation public purpose lands, such as publicly owned vacant land, utility
corridors, antenna sites, transportation corridors, sewage treatment facilities, stonn water
.
VOL
2 4: rAG~
.r-,
/"r'þ~1
\ ...' t<.,,'.J
3-86
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 16.2
LNP 16.3
LNP 16.4
LNP 16.5
management facilities, recreation facilities, and schools, to provide a range of services to
the public and serve as sites for some public facilities.
Site essential public facilities, such as airports, large-scale transportation facilities, state
educational facilities, correctional facilities, solid waste treatment facilities, substance
abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group homes, so as to avoid potential
adverse impacts to surrounding land uses and critical areas.
Ensure that designated public purpose lands are appropriate to the level of service
standards for the designated land use density.
Provide for broad-based participation by agencies, citizens and other interested parties in
the process for designating land to be used for essential public facilities.
Develop standards that require public facilities to be sited in a manner unobtrusive to the
immediate environment, These standards should address buffers, screening, lighting,
noise, drainage, traffic impact and lot coverage.
TRANSPORTATION
GOAL:
LNG 17.0
POLICIES:
LNP 17.1
LNP 17.2
LNP 17.3
LNP 17.4
LNP 17.5
Ensure that transportation is safe, efficient, multi-modal, and based on levels of
service that correspond to the land use densities in the Comprehensive Plan.
Encourage development and land use proposals that utilize existing transportation
systems and provide non-motorized transportation opportunities.
Coordinate with state and federal transportation agencies to ensure that their plans meet
the land use expectations ofthe County's Comprehensive Plan.
Include provisions to reduce access from main arterials,
Site transportation facilities in locations which minimize the disruption of natural
habitat, floodplains, wetlands, geologically sensitive areas, resource lands, and other
priority systems.
Establish criteria to identify roadways and areas with significant rural quality and
character, and protect these areas from incompatible road construction and traffic
impacts.
VOL
2 4: r~C~
2252
3-87
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE AND RURAL
RURAL CHARACTER
GOAL:
LNP 18.0
POLICIES:
LNP 18.1
LNP 18.2
LNP 18.3
LNP 18.4
LNP 18.5
GOAL:
LNG 19.0
POLICIES:
LNP 19.1
LNP 19.2
LNP 19.3
LNP 19.4
.
Protect and foster the County's rural character. Rural character is defined by local
rural lifestyle, local rural visual landscapes, resource productivity, environmental
quality, and significant areas of open space.
Identify and implement rural land uses, densities, and environmental standards which
preserve and protect rural character.
The maintenance of environmental quality is critical to the preservation of rural
character. Develop and strictly enforce environmental regulations which protect the
value and functions of the environment.
Rural character is supported by a hierarchical road network. Develop rural county roads
to rural level of service standards at a smaller scale than the major intermodal road
network.
The preservation of high-value open space is directly linked to the maintenance of
Jefferson County's rural character. Protect open space consistent with the goals and
policies of the Open Space Element of this plan.
.
Locate designated open space areas so as to provide connections with adjoining open
space areas, offer visual relief for both on and off-site residents, enhance habitat values,
and where appropriate allow for recreational opportunities.
Endorse the extension of the forest corridor concept from Port Townsend's City
limits south along SR 20 to the southerly extent of the Glen Coveffri-Area Study
area to preserve and protect the forest corridor, and to provide a visual buffer
between the roadway and new commercial and manufacturing development.
Limit access through the forest corridor buffer to platted street rights-of-way.
Ensure that utilities to serve new development along the forest corridor are placed
underground.
Preserve existing trees and vegetation along the forest corridor to the maximum extent
possible.
Require the planting of native and non-native species when necessary to enhance the
buffer, and the replanting of native and non-native species to replace trees and vegetation
removed during development.
.
~ VOL
2 A 'Ir-
If r .-\u~
-- 2 253
3-88
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
GOAL:
LNG 20.0
POLICIES:
LNP 20.1
LNP 20.2
GOAL:
LNG 21.0
POLICIES:
LNP 21.1
LNP 21.2
LNP 21.3
LNP 21.4
GOAL:
LNP 22.0
POLICIES:
LNP 22.1
Support and maintain the cultural and social cohesiveness of existing rural
communities through rural land uses.
Encourage community cultural, economic, and social activities in the Rural Centers.
Support the cohesiveness of existing rural communities through land use decisions
regarding transportation, utilities, and public facilities which apply standards for rural
levels of service,
Ensure that development is accomplished in a manner which protects the long-term
habitability, historically significant areas, and natural beauty of Jefferson County.
Encourage the preservation and conservation of Jefferson County's unique history,
scenic resources, and rural community identities, support the contributions that each
community has made to the fabric of the County's rural and cultural character, and
encourage the preservation of community cohesiveness through designated land uses in
this Plan.
Encourage project proponents to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the public health,
safety, and welfare as a result of a proposed project, action, or use concurrent with
project development.
Preserve, protect, and enhance cultural amenities throughout the rural landscape,
Limit access to arterial roads, Accommodate access to residential and commercial
development by access roads and common-use driveways.
Preserve and protect the rural character of the land and the identities of existing
rural communities through rural land uses and densities.
Residential uses in the unincorporated portions of the County shall be characterized by a
variety of rural residential parcel sizes and densities.
22.1.1 Preserve rural character near and adjacent to existing Rural Village Centers by
maintaining residential densities ofRR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20,
VOL
94 '~r,
r...., r ,.",-
2254
3-89
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 22.2
LNP 22.3
LNP 22.4
LNP 22.5
GOAL:
LNG 23.0
POLICIES:
LNP 23.1
LNP 23.2
Rural commercial uses other than small-scale recreational or tourist uses, home
occupations, or cottage industries, shall only be established within the commercial zone
boundaries of designated Rural Village Centers or Rural Crossroads or otherwise
pennitted through the conditional use process.
.
22.2.1 Allow land uses of higher density within Rural Village Centers, with lot sizes
appropriate for commercial and residential development.
Develop streamlined procedures and other incentives for aggregating and replatting of
lots so as to meet the following design objectives:
a. flexibility in site design in the placement of structures, circulation systems, and
utilities;
b. diversity of lot sizes without exceeding the underlying density requirement;
c. preservation and/or enhancement of open space and significant site features; and
d. provision of on-site vegetative landscape areas or topographic buffers.
Encourage innovative, low impact rural residential planning by developing regulations
which incorporate the following criteria:
a. retention of high-value open space area;
b. proximity to public transit and pedestrian pathways;
c. maintenance of topographical features, and buffer setbacks;
d. consideration of cumulative impacts associated with adjacent development; and
e. demonstration of innovative design technique advantages compared to a conven-
tional subdivision approach.
.
Prohibit outside of Urban Growth Areas new rural commercial development that is
incompatible with rural character or inconsistent with rural commercial level of service
standards.
Encourage residential land use and development intensities through techniques
such as clustered housing that protect the character of rural areas, avoid
interference with resource land uses, and minimize impacts upon environmentally
sensitive areas.
Rural residential cluster subdivisions shall be encouraged, consistent with development
regulations, throughout the rural areas. The open space tracts in these subdivision shall
be pennanently preserved.
Support creative residential design and maintenance techniques including:
a. common ownership and shared maintenance responsibilities of open space by
residential property owners.
.
VOL
24 rAC~
2 r) 55
", ,....,
3-90
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
LNP 23.3
LNP 23.4
LNP 23.5
LNP 23.6
LNP23.7
GOAL:
LNG 24.0
POLICIES:
LNP 24.1
LNP 24.2
b. dedication of open space tracts or easement to public entities or non-profit
associations.
Consider residential density bonuses and transfer of development rights in rural areas
where such techniques can be demonstrated to sustain public goals such as the provision
of wildlife corridors and public open spaces, the preservation of rural character, the
enhancement and protection of water supplies, and the protection of designated resource
lands.
Consider integrating open space planning with innovative programs such as the purchase
or transfer of development rights, cluster development, open space tax assessment, and
acquisition of easements.
Develop guidelines to identify appropriate locations for clustering such as shorelines,
scenic resources, agricultural lands.
Development regulations for residential clusters shall include:
.
An upper limit to regulate the total number of residential dwelling units to be
permitted in a single cluster development.
A minimum and maximum land size available to accommodate a cluster housing
development.
A limit on the number of separate clusters located in close proximity to one another.
.
.
Consider limiting the number of separate cluster housing projects in any particular
geographic area of the County to preserve the rural character of the landscape.
Foster sustainable natural resource-based industry in rural areas through the
conservation of forest lands, agricultural lands, mineral lands, and aquacultnre
lands in order to provide economic and employment opportunities that are
consistent with rural character.
The County has identified resource lands as an integral part of rural character.
Resource-based uses that are compatible with the conservation and sustainable use ofthe
County's resources shall be permitted.
Natural resourceMbased industry shall not interfere with the designated uses of
surrounding lands.
VOL
2 4: r~L'
2256
3-91
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE AND RURAL
MASTER PLANNED RESORT
.
GOAL:
LNG 25.0
POLICIES:
LNP 25.1
LNP 25.2
LNP 25.3
LNP 25.4
LNP 25.5
LNP 25.6
LNP 25.7
LNP 25.8
Maintain the viability of Port Ludlow as Jefferson County's only Master Planned
Resort (MPR).
Ensure that development in Port Ludlow complies with County development regulations
established for critical areas and that on-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully
considered and mitigated.
The provision of urban-style services to support the anticipated growth and development
at Port Ludlow shall occur only within the designated MPR boundary.
No new urban or suburban land uses will be established in the vicinity of the Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort. .
The total number of residential lots allowable within the MPR boundary shall not exceed
the 1993 Port Ludlow FEIS total of2,250 residential dwelling units,
Port Ludlow shall accommodate a variety of housing types, including affordable
housing, single family and multi-family housing and assisted living care facilities.
.
Support efforts to preserve and protect Port Ludlow's greenbelts, open spaces and
wildlife corridors.
LNP 25.6.1
Support the establishment of a Ludlow Creek Nature Preserve.
No preliminary plats will be processed by Jefferson County for the 200-acre area south
of the Port Ludlow Golf Course within the MPR boundary (as depicted on the official
Jefferson County Land Use Map) until such time as a conceptual site plan has been
approved by the County.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort commercial area shall be designated as the Port
Ludlow Village Commercial Center.
.
VOi-
2 4 í.AG~
22.57
3-92
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
LAND USE AND RURAL
STRATEGIES
A.
LAND USE AND REGULATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for land use regulation will be implemented through amendment of the
Zoning Code, development regulations, and pennitting ordinances and procedures in public processes to
achieve compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Action Items
1.
Land use and development regulations which implement land use goals and policies of this plan.
shall be prepared, reviewed by the community, and implemented. Existing development
regulations shall be reviewed for applicability and revised where appropriate.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0,2.0,8.0,9.0, 10.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0, 15.0, 17.0,21.0,20.0,23.0)
2.
A set of zoning designations which provides a range of rural development densities, and
identifies allowed uses for each zone shall be established to reflect the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,9.0, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0,23.0)
3.
In order to insure consistency with the identified rural commercial level of service, a use table
which specifies pennitted and conditional commercial uses for Rural Village Centers and Rural
Crossroads designations shall be developed and included in the Zoning Code.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0,2.0,4,0,5.0, 18,0)
4.
Work with Joint Growth Management Steering Committee to amend and update the Countywide
Planning Policies to incorporate amendments to the Growth Management Act, including RCW
36.70A.365, enacted in 1995 as ESB 5019 and 1997 amendments under ESB 6094.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 11.0)
5.
Review and revise (as necessary) existing regulations for home based businesses and cottage
industries. The revised regulations shall provide guidance on the type, intensity, size, and
location of these uses. Specific focus shall be given to identifying criteria which ensures that a
proposed home-based use is subordinate to the primary residential use. Consider requiring home
occupationslbusinesses and cottage industries to renew applicable penn its annually.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 6.0)
6.
Incorporate standards in land use regulations to provide guidance to new or expanding small-
scale recreational and tourist related uses. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 7,0)
B.
RURAL CHARACTER PRESERVATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for rural lands is to develop ordinances that include provisions to protect
rural character and community identity through design guidelines that will complement land use
regulations preventing low-density sprawl.
VOL
24 rAU-
2258
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-93
August 28, 1998
LAND USE AND RURAL
Action Items
.
1.
Coordinate the development of design guidelines for Rural Village Centers and Rural Crossroads
through a process involving the Community Planning Groups. These guidelines shall provide
guidance on preferred design features to be incorporated into commercial development or
redevelopment in the unincorporated portions of the County to preserve community character
and cohesiveness. The guidelines and a process for implementing them shall, upon adoption, be
incorporated into the Zoning Code. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 5.0, 9.0, 19.0)
2.
In order to preserve rural character, rural commercial development bulk and dimensional
guidelines shall be developed for Rural Crossroads and the Rural Village Center designations.
These guidelines shall include, but not be limited to, the following parameters: building bulk
requirements (sales floor area and total leasable area), shape or configuration, setbacks, lot
coverage, building design and building materials, road frontage, distance from public roads,
landscaping standards, buffering, parking requirements, signage and lighting standards.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 5.0, 17.0, 18.0)
4.
Initiate a study of innovative site planning techniques which preserve rural character, open space,
and provide for a full range of rural residential opportunities. These techniques may include, but
should not be limited to residential clustering process, An upper cap on building size should also
be defined for each zoning district in the County. After evaluation, ordinance amendments shall
be prepared to incorporate techniques into appropriate sections of the Zoning and Subdivision
Codes. Consider impact fees for development costs.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0,2.0,3.0, 14.0, 15.0, 18.0,21.0,22.0,23.0)
.
c.
MASTER PLANNED RESORT
Jefferson County's strategy is to coordinate efforts with Port Ludlow to support its development as a
Master Planned Resort while containing "urban" type development within the boundaries of the Resort.
Action Items
1.
Establish procedures for monitoring growth to ensure that Port Ludlow does not exceed its
targeted population and housing projections. (Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
2.
Encourage the MPR to provide a mixture of affordable housing types including single-family,
multi-family, and assisted care living facilities. (Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
3.
Allow for the adoption of a Development Agreement between the Jefferson County and Olympic
Resource Management pursuant to RCW 36.708.170. (Corresponding Goal: 25.0)
.
VOi-
24 rM;~ - 2259
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-94
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Natural Resource Conservation Element is to identify specific
criteria, uses and development regulations to classify and protect Jefferson County's natural resource
lands, that are consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act.
RELATIONSIllP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
Because ofthe complexity ofthe issues associated with natural resource lands, several other elements of
the Comprehensive Plan analyze specific aspects of these issues and propose methods to address them.
The following table summarizes the natural resource lands issues identified and addressed in other
elements of the Plan:
Element Discussion
1. Land UselRural Natural resource lands and industries are important components of the
county's rural character and economy. The abundance of natural
resources provides a strong sense of place and supports the diverse
mixture of livelihoods and lifestyles that make Jefferson County
unique. A significant percentage of the land in Jefferson County is in
natural resource production. In order to conserve these lands for
productive use by natural resource based industries, it is essential to
maintain large contiguous parcels and ensure the compatibility of
suITounding land uses.
3. Environment Natural resource lands provide important environmental functions,
including surface water protection, habitat enhancement, and ground
water recharge~ Significant environmental features on natural resource
lands are preserved through the use of best management practices.
4. Open Space, Parks and Forest and agricultural lands provide one aspect of Jefferson County's
Recreation open space network that provides important visual and ecological
benefits. Natural resource lands are preserved as essential components
of the quiltwork of open space in Jefferson County.
5. Economic Development Natural resource industries are historically important sectors of the
County's economy. Despite significant structural changes in these
industries in recent decades, they remain essential to a diversified local
economy. New policies to support and enhance these industries are
proposed within the Plan.
VOL
2 4 r~LÇ
2260
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-1
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS STRATEGY
.
Introduction
While a Natural Resource Lands Element is not mandatory under the provisions of the Growth
Management Act, the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development recommends that
stro~g consideration be given to its inclusion.
Jefferson County is fortunate to have a variety of land rich in natural resources, including forests;
farmland; fisheries and shellfish beds; and deposits of sand, gravel, and minerals. Natural resource
industries have played, and will continue to play, a central role in the culture, history, and economy of
Jefferson County, These lands also provide aesthetic, recreational, and environmental benefits to the
public while contributing to the diverse character ofthe County.
In order to conserve these resource lands and ensure the continued commercial viability of these
industries, four resource land designations have been developed. These designations address the specific
needs of each resource industry and meet the guidelines provided by State law. The four resource lands
designations in Jefferson County are as follows:
.
Forest Lands;
Mineral Lands;
Agricultural Lands; and,
Aquaculture Lands,
.
.
.
The forums for the ongoing development for the Jefferson County Natural Resource Lands Strategy
have been provided by the Community Plans, public participation in drafting the interim resource lands
regulations, and the negotiations to bring the Forest Lands Ordinance into compliance to address
concerns of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
.
Building upon these foundations, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan implements a strategy that is
responsive to its citizens' priorities and achieves full compliance with the Growth Management Act
planning goals for the conservation of natural resource lands, The components of the strategy create an
objective and logical sequence of detennining:
1. The appropriate criteria and methodology for designation of natural resource lands in Jefferson
County; and,
2. How growth should be guided by regulations to conserve Natural Resource Lands and enhance and
maintain natural resource industries.
Forest Lands
Classification and Designation of Forest Lands
Jefferson County's Forest Lands Designation and Conservation strategy was developed based on an
analysis of local conditions and the following guidelines provided by the Washington Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development:
.
','O!-
2 4 r~C~ ~ 2261
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-2
August28,1998
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-1
Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource Lands in Jefferson County
Indicator Comments
1. Availability of public services and Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are intended
facilities conducive to the to be served by public facilities and services within a twenty-
conversion of forest lands. year period, forest lands of long-tern commercial significance
should be located outside ofUGA boundaries.
2. Proximity of forest land to urban To protect forest lands of long-tern commercial significance
and suburban areas and rural from encroachment by incompatible uses, they should be
settlements. located outside the urban and suburban areas and rural
settlements.
3. Size ofthe parcels. Forest lands of long-tern commercial significance should
consist of predominantly large parcels.
4. Compatibility and intensity of Forest lands of long-tern commercial significance should be
neighboring land uses and adjacent to large parcels to allow for adequate buffering and
settlement patterns with forest setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settlement
lands of long-tern significance. patterns.
5. Property tax classification. Forest lands of long-tern commercial significance should be
eligible for assessment as open space or forest land pursuant to
RCW 8433 or 8434,
6. History of land development Forest lands of long-tern commercial significance should not
penn its issued nearby. be designated in areas under development pressure that are
likely to convert to higher intensity land uses.
In order to conserve the forest resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry industry
while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, it was detennined that Forest Lands would consist
ofthree classes:
.
Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80);
Rural Forest Lands (RF-40); and,
Inholding Forest Lands (IF) for parcels entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural Forest Lands
unless the parcel is less than twenty (20) acres in size or if the a development application for the
parcel is vested. The landowner must submit a written request to have the parcel removed from
Forest Resource Inholding designation.
.
.
Any parcel that meets the following criteria will be classified as Forest Land and designated as Forest
Land of Long-Tenn Commercial Significance:
.
The land should consist primarily afForest Land Grades one (1) through four (4) as mapped by the
Department of Natural Resources.
Minimum parcel size should be a minimum of nominally eighty (80) acres for Commercial Forest
Lands forty (40) acres for Rural Forest Land, with parcels smaller than the minimum included when
the acres of at least the minimum size are contiguously owned and the land is in a deferred forest or
exempt tax status.
The parcel should be part of a Forest Land Block at least three hundred twenty (320) acres in size
that meets the designation criteria, The Forest Land Blocks will continue to exist even though
individual parcels may be removed in the future because they no longer meet the established
. designation criteria. The Forest Land Block shall apply ~f the ~~unt ,of ~eSignat~ !orest Land in
'-, ~O'- c:4 dk 2~o2
.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-3
August 28, 1998
NATIJRAL RESOURCES
.
the block falls below three hundred twenty (320) acres, but not if the acreage of the block falls to
zero (0).
No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Urban Growth Area or within one half (1/2)
mile of the three designated Rural Village Centers or within approximately one half (1/2) mile of the
urbanized boundary of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
The parcel is currently in a deferred forest tax status pursuant to RCW 84.33 or RCW 84.34 or
classified or designated Timber Tax land, or State or Federal land outside the National Forest Service
boundary; and
A majority of the parcel should be located outside any community water system service area.
.
.
The Regulatory Framework for Forest Lands
Jefferson County is currently regulating forest lands under the 1997 Interim Forest Lands Ordinance,
#01-0121-97, The interim ordinance was developed through a mediation process between the County,
the Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Washington Environmental Council, and the
Olympic Environmental Council to resolve issues raised in litigation. The Memorandum of
Understanding of December, 1996 signed by the above parties included a provision requiring the County
to readopt the interim ordinance as part of the comprehensive Plan and the implementing development
regulations of the Comprehensive Plan. A discussion of the history of the Interim Forest Lands
Ordinance is located in Appendix E of Background Information.
In order to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the interim ordinance will be
reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, prior to adoption as a permanent Forest Lands
Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish criteria for the classification, designation,
conservation, and regulation of Forest Lands, The ordinance also includes permitted and conditional
uses in designated Forest Lands,
Final development regulations will be adopted based on the Interim Forest Land Ordinance that
recognize the diversity of forest land uses and allows compatible, non-forestry uses while protecting
forest lands from conflicting uses. Criteria will be developed to assess the compatibility of non-forest
uses on Forest Lands, which should include, but not be limited to:
.
Creation of fire or safety hazards on adjacent Forest Lands;
Removal of a significant portion of a parcel from productive forest use;
Imposition of significant financial hardships to adjacent forest landowners; and,
Potential for land use conflicts with adjacent forest landowners.
.
.
.
In order to protect the property rights of forest landowners and maintain the forestry industry, a Right to
Practice Forestry provision in the interim ordinance will be adopted in the final ordinance. These
protections apply to all designated forest land that complies with best forestry management practices as
described in the ordinance~
The best opportunity to manage forest land uses occurs at the state and local permitting stages.
Landowners must apply for a Forest Practices Permit when conducting forest practices that have the
potential for adverse impacts on public resources as described in WAC 222-16-050. Landowners
choosing to maintain their land in forestry uses must state their intent to do so on the Forest Practice
Application.
~ VOL
24 r~r/ ~ 2263
Jeffenron County Comprehensive Plan
4-4
August 28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Since the adoption of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance in January, 1997, the County has heard from
both timber owners and adjacent landowners regarding conflicts over forest lands activities adjacent to
residential lots that were previously platted in sizes too small to provide an adequate buffer from effects
of activities such as noise and the spraying of herbicides. These issues regarding limited and distinct
areas raised in the public planning process will be addressed by reconvening the parties that negotiated
the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance, including timber owners, environmental groups, landowners, and
other interested parties to discuss measures to mitigate these effects, This public process is intended to
result in recommendations that may include mitigative measures the timber owners can implement, as
well as site-specific solutions. Any change in the Forest Lands Ordinance or Forest Lands designations
would require full public review and should be based on agreement of the parties involved. Policy NRP
4.8 provides for convening the group of parties to initiate discussions.
All forest practices in Jefferson County must comply with the Washington State Forest Practices Act
(RCW 76.09), administered by the Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, forest practices in
designated Shoreline Environments must comply with the requirements of Jefferson County's Shoreline
Management Master Program. These laws are designed to protect water quality, shorelines, fish and
wildlife habitat and the public's opportunity to enjoy these resources. Regulations will also be developed
and applied to incorporate the recommendations of agreed-upon watershed and salmon recovery plans
related. to land and resource management, which is further discussed in the Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. -
Landowners choosing to convert their land to non-forest uses also must state their intent on the Forest
Practices Application. As provided in the Forest Practices Act, these landowners must conduct their
forest practices in accordance with applicable local government regulations, which may include, but are
not limited to, the Critical Areas Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act.
Forest lands .being converted to non-forest uses should be managed to guide the manner and extent of
alteration and to minimize adverse environmental impacts. The 1997 State Legislature enacted
Substitute Senate Bill 5714, requiring local governments to issue forest practice permits for harvest sites
which will be converted to non-forestry purposes (Class IV - General). The bill also mandates that local
governments develop a public process for lifting the six-year moratorium on conversion required when
the landowner does not state an intent to convert or when a harvest project occurs without obtaining the
appropriate Forest Practice application. This law expands the County's regulatory role in forest
practices, and will require closer coordination with the State Department of Natural Resources. The
County will revise the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance to address these new requirements and, where
necessary, will establish standards which meet or exceed current Forest Practice requirements based on
the goals and policies of this plan.
In addition, a County clearing and grading ordinance with more comprehensive standards than those that
apply under the Forest Practices Act will be developed to protect surface and ground water quality and
quantity, control storm water runoff, and minimize damage to fish and wildlife habitat. More
information on the clearing and grading ordinance is provided in the Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
VOL
24 rM,'
2264
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-5
August28,1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mineral Lands
Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands
.
Based upon the criteria provided by the Department of Natural Resources, there are three key issues that
need to be addressed in the designation and conservation of mineral resource lands:
1. Classifying the types of mineral resources that are potentially significant in Jefferson County;
2. Defining the amount and long-term significance of aggregate that is needed to meet the demand of
Jefferson County's projected population; and,
3. Determining how to balance a variety of land uses within mineral resource areas.
Future mineral resource lands consist of areas identified with the potential for the existence of mineral
resources, These areas:
.
appear to contain the resource, based upon the information supplied by Department of Natural
Resources;
are not primarily within critical areas, for example, the 100-year flood plain or high quality wetland
areas; and,
are at least 80 acres in size, of which one forty (40) acre parcel or two twenty (20) acre parcels are
currently vacant.
.
.
The criteria used to classify mineral resource lands in Jefferson County were based on the guidelines
provided by the state and an analysis of local conditions. Limited geological information is available to
accurately identify, evaluate, and designate mineral resources of long-term commercial significance.
u.s. Geological Survey Maps and Department of Natural Resources surface mining data were reviewed
by the Mineral Lands Work Group for the County to determine current and potential mineral resource
lands of long-term commercial significance~
.
Based upon this evaluation, and in conjunction with the analysis and assessment of forest resource lands,
a high degree of overlap between lands devoted to growing timber and land potentially containing
commercial mineral deposits was identified. Because of the amount of forest cover and geology of
Jefferson County, most mineral resources are located in forest resource lands.
Therefore, the inclusion of mineral extraction and primary processing as a permitted use on designated
forest land will protect mineral resource lands from the encroachment of incompatible development,
conserve the mineral resource land base of Jefferson County, and allow for its future utilization by the
mining industry. In addition, the County has included in this strategy an action item to perform an
analysis to determine the 50-year construction aggregate supply, so as to ensure that the lands to be
protected will meet the 50-year projected demand within an economically feasible distance to the market
area or areas within County jurisdiction. This satisfies the GMA requirements to not knowingly preclude
opportunities for future mining and, as the lands are identified, to inform nearby property owners of the
potential for future mining use of these areas in order to prevent or minimize potential conflicts.
The Natural Resource Lands Element and the Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance (#09-0525-95) identify
the extraction of sand, gravel, rock, and minerals as a permitted use, However, a conditional use permit
through the public hearing process will be required for related activities such as rock crushing, asphalt
mixing and concrete batching. Uses legally established prior to ordinance adoption (i.e., May 25, 1995)
are "grandfathered" with the right to continue as existing uses,
.
VOI_-
2 A ,-'~;~: --- t"1. 265
---If r~,,_. r
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-6
August 28,1998
, '
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
In order to conserve the mineral resource land base that is currently being operated by the mining
industry, any parcel that meets both of the following criteria has been designated as Commercial Mineral
Land ofLong-Teml Significance in the Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance:
.
Is currently operating under a surface mining pemlit issued by the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources; and,
No part ofthe parcel lies within one half(I/2) mile of an Interim Urban Growth Area.
.
In this Plan, Jefferson County has designated these mineral lands as an overlay to the underlying land use
designation. An overlay is used because mining operations are eventually depleted and sites are
converted to other uses, and thus the Mineral Lands designation is not permanent. Upon completion of
mining operations and following the reclamation of the site, it will be removed from the Mineral Land
designation and will be subject to the underlying laD:d use designation depicted on the Land Use map.
The Land Use map ofthis Plan depicts the location of existing mining operations which currently operate
under a Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Reclamation Pemlit, and provides an
underlying land use designation. The Mineral Lands map accompanying this element shows the parcels
regulated under DNR pemlits, although it should be noted that the mining operations for a number of the
sites do not occupy the entire parcel.
The Regulatory Frameworkfor Mineral Lands
The Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance, adopted on May 25, 1995, is the current regulatory ordinance for
Mineral Lands. Following Comprehensive Plan adoption, the interim ordinance will be reviewed and
revised as necessary for consistency with this Plan, A final Mineral Lands Ordinance will be adopted
that includes the criteria for the designation of Mineral Lands as Long-Term Commercially Significant
and the process for landowners to opt-in to the designation that are contained in the interim ordinance.
Once identified, lands under consideration for commercial mineral extraction must also be evaluated to
assess land use compatibility, economic issues, and environmental impacts. A matrix (Table 4-3)
accompanying NRP 6.2 is provided as a reference point for both the County and applicant to assess the
feasibility of designating and protecting the mineral resource and should be linked to future land use
decisions. Specific areas of review will include, at a minimum, the following: compatibility with
neighboring land uses; noise; traffic; visual impacts; water resources, including surface water, ground
water, and wetlands; soil, including erosion, slopes, flooding, and contamination; and fish and wildlife
habitat.
Eventually, as the mineral resource is depleted, mining sites are abandoned, or the operations
discontinued for long periods of time. Reclamation of abandoned, depleted, or discontinued mines
creates opportunities for new uses compatible with adjacent land uses. Reclamation reduces the dangers
associated with some types of abandoned mines, improves the aesthetics of the site, and can create
environmental amenities, such as lakes, ponds, wetlands, and forests.
Reclamation plans are required by the Department of Natural Resources and will be considered by
Jefferson County during environmental assessment of proposed mining operations. Policies in this Plan
encouraging reclamation plans will be addressed through SEP A review of mining operations regulated
by the Department of Natural Resources. The State Department of Natural Resources regulates mining
sites of three (3) acres in size or larger. Jefferson County will establish a minimum size threshold for
VúL
24: rM:'
2 2cÖ6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-7
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
regulation of mineral extraction sites less than three (3) acres in size, and will consider regulations for
protection of the environment from activities at these small sites.
.
Agricultural Lands
Classification and Designation of Agricultural Land
Designations for agricultural lands are based on prime agricultural soils identified in the Natural
Resources Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington. The following
additional guidelines have been provided by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development:
1. The availability of public facilities;
2. Tax status;
3. The availability of public services;
4. Relationship or proximity to Urban Growth Areas;
5. Predominant parcel size;
6. Land use settlement patterns and their compatibility with agricultural practices;
7. Intensity of nearby land uses and their compatibility with agricultural practices;
8. History of land development permits issued nearby;
9. Land values under alternative uses; and,
10. Proximity to markets.
Several of the above indicators were analyzed to assess the long-term commercial viability of lands
currently in agricultural use.
Table 4-2
Guidelines for Classification of Agricultural Resource Lands in Jefferson County
.
Indicator Comments
1. Availability of Public Facilities and Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are intended
Services and Proximity to Urban to be served by public facilities and services within a twenty
Growth Areas year period, agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance should be located outside of the UGA boundaries,
2. Tax Status Agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance
should be eligible for enrollment in the Open Space
Agricultural Tax Program,
3. Parcel Size Agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance
should be composed of large parcels.
4. Land Use Settlement Patterns and To provide sufficient buffering and setbacks, agricultural lands
Their Compatibility with of long-term commercial significance should be adjacent to
Agricultural Practices large parcels~
5. Proximity of Markets Agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance
should have access to transportation networks for access to
local and regional markets. Factors involved include the type
of crop and intensity of agricultural uses.
In order to conserve the agricultural resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the farming
industry while recognizing the diversity of agricultural land owners, Agricultural Lands of Long-Term
Commercial Significance consist of two classes: -
24 rM,~~ - 2267
.
. "01-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
.
Lands lying within the designated "Agricultural Production Districts" and,
Agricultural Lands of Local Significance which are designated by the County through the voluntary
action of the owner who successfully petitions to "opt-in" to the designation and receive its
associated protections and benefits.
.
Agricultural Production Districts
Agricultural Production Districts should predominantly consist of those lands with the following
characteristics:
.
More than fifty per cent (50%) of the parcel consists of Prime Fannland, as designated by the Soil
Conservation Service ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture;
the parcel is nominally twenty (20) acres or greater in size;
the parcel is adjacent to parcels of at least 3 acres in size on 75% or more of its perimeter;
the land is currently being used for commercial agricultural purposes; and,
is participating in the Open Space Agricultural Tax Program.
.
.
.
.
Agricultural Production Districts are areas where fanning is the principal and preferred activity. To
accomplish this, the primary zoning in the Agricultural Production Districts will be Commercial
Agricultural Lands (AG-20). Some land is included in the Agricultural Production Districts that is not
currently in agricultural production and is currently devoted either to open land, forestry or low density
residential uses. This land is included for the following reasons:
.
To prevent the "checkerboarding" that characterized the Interim Agricultural Ordinance;
To minimize the potential for viable agricultural activities to be compromised by the development of
incompatible adjacent land uses; and,
To allow for potential expansion of agricultural uses.
.
.
The Agricultural Production Districts include nearly all the currently fanned land in Eastern Jefferson
County. These districts have been established in the following areas:
.
Beaver Valley Agricultural District;
Chimacum-Center Valley Agricultural District;
Discovery Bay Delta/Snow Creek Agricultural District;
Quilcene River Delta Agricultural District; and,
Tarboo Creek Valley Agricultural District.
.
.
.
.
These designated Agricultural Production Districts are represented on the Agricultural Lands of Long-
Tenn Significance Map included in this chapter.
Agricultural Land of Local Significance
In order to stimulate agricultural diversity and to maintain a stable land base for future agricultural
growth, the owner of a parcel may petition the County for designation as Agricultural Land of Local
Significance. This designation should offer all the protection and benefits of lands designated as an
Agricultural Production District, provided the parcel meets all of the following criteria:
VOL
24 rM,'
22-68
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-9
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
.
No part of the parcel lies within the boundaries of an Urban Growth Area Boundary;
The parcel is a minimum of five (5) acres;
The subject property is surrounded by parcels no smaller than three (3) acres in size on 100% of its
perimeter;
The parcel meets the definition of agricultural land provided by the Agricultural Land Ordinance; and,
The parcel is currently used or managed for commercial agriculture purposes.
.
.
.
.
The Regulatory Frameworkfor Agriculture
The current Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance (Ordinance 08-0525-95), was adopted in 1995. A
. permanent Agricultural Lands Ordinance will be adopted based on a review of the interim ordinance for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The interim ordinance establishes criteria for the designation,
conservation, and regulation of Agricultural Production Districts and Agricultural Lands of Long-Term
Commercial Significance, The ordinance also creates an opt-in process for the designation of
Agricultural Lands of Local Significance that will be adopted in the final ordinance.
Development regulations will recognize the diversity of agricultural land uses and practices and will
allow compatible, non-farming uses while protecting agricultural lands from conflicting uses. Criteria
should be developed to assess the compatibility of non-agriculture uses with Agricultural Lands.
Residential densities will not exceed one (I) dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres. Clustering techniques
will be considered in agricultural areas subject to specific criteria to ensure that the development is
compatible with farming use.
In order to protect the property rights of agriculture landowners and maintain the agriculture industry, a
Right to Practice Agriculture provision of the interim ordinance will be adopted as part of the final
ordinance. Protections containted in this ordinance should apply to all designated agricultural land that
complies with best agriculture management practices as described in the ordinance.
Many individual farms are in rural areas where low density land uses present fewer conflicts with
agriculture. Continued farming on such parcels will be encouraged through residential zoning that
maintains large lots and low densities, and treats farming as Ii permitted use. For further discussion of
these issues, please refer to the Land Use and Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Aq uaculture Resources
Classification and Designation of Aquaculture Resources
The Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development does not issue guidelines for the
classification of aquaculture resource lands. Although the Growth Management Act does not specifically
include aquaculture lands as natural resource lands requiring protection and conservation, Jefferson
County has elected to do so in recognition of the importance of commercial aquaculture to the local and
regional economy. The statutory basis for designation of aquaculture land as Agricultural Lands of
Long-Term Commercial Significance is RCW 36.70A030(2), the definition of agricultural land as:
".. . land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy,
apiary, vegetable, or animal products or berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not subject
to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, finfish in upland hatcheries, or
livestock, and that has long-term commercial significance for agricultural production." Shellfish are
included under animal products, while finfish in upland hatcheries were amended to the definition under
ESSB 6228 in 1994,
~VOL
24 r~[,~\ ~. 2269
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-10
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
The following aquaculture resources are designated as Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance in accordance with the classification and designation of Agricultural Land as discussed
above:
.
Upland finfish hatcheries; and,
Commercial shellfish beds and their upland facilities.
.
The owners of shellfish beds that are not designated as Long-Term Commercially Significant may
petition the County for classification as Agricultural Land of Local Significance in order to gain the
protections and benefits provided by the designation~
The Regulatory Framework/or Aquaculture Lands
Aquaculture Resources will be included in the final Agricultural Lands Ordinance. The Interim
Agricultural Lands Ordinance will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan prior to
adoption as a final ordinance in order to establish criteria and processes for the designation of upland
finfish hatcheries and commercial shellfish beds as Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance. The interim ordinance includes an opt-in process for owners of shellfish beds to petition to
be designated as Agricultural Lands of Local Significance.
The regulations for aquaculture lands as designated in the final Agricultural Lands Ordinance must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master
Program (SMMP). The Shoreline Management Master Program will be revised following adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Plan. Aquaculture
development, including but not limited to the construction of structures or bulkheads, dredging, filling,
driving piles, or any project that interferes with the normal public use of surface waters overlying
tidelands, is currently regulated under the Shoreline Management Master Program within shoreline areas.
Shoreline jurisdiction generally extends from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to approximately
200 feet landward and from the OHWM seaward to the offshore County line. During the revision of the
SMMP, conflicts between inconsistent provisions of the Agricultural Lands Ordinance and the SMMP
will be resolved by relying on the more restrictive provision,
Development regulations will be adopted that recognize the diversity of aquaculture practices and uses of
aquaculture resources. These regulations should consider allowing compatible, non-aquaculture uses
while protecting aquaculture resources from conflicting uses. Criteria should be developed to assess the
compatibility of non-aquaculture uses on Aquaculture Lands.
Land-based fish rearing and marine-based shellfish facilities require high quality water to operate. As
described in the Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County should identify
potential gaps in existing environmental protections and develop comprehensive regulations to further
enhance and protect water quality, based on a watershed management approach. A comprehensive land
clearing and grading ordinance will be developed to protect surface and ground water quality and
quantity, control storm water runoff, and minimize potential damage to fish and wildlife habitat, For
more information on a clearing and grading ordinance, please refer to the Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
VOI-
2A 'Ir-
Lf r",,'
2 2'70
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-11
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
, VOL
24 f'A(;~ =.22\71
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-12
August 28,1998
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
RANGE 01 E
"
RANGE az w
RANcE 01 W
..~,.
~ . ' "..
"",..".,.
^
.
~
t
I
I
.._.._.._.~"'--.._.._.- I -
r---
I
I
~---
(
I
I
1--
I
I
I
- Oom.......,1 Poo"" "",0=
_lIllroIFO"""".""",,,
~""'oldl". "",..L R",,",=
[ZSZJ """,1 eml....
FOREST RESOURCE LANDS
BASTBRN JRFFBRSON COUNTY, WA8H(NGTON
",...", .,""""
'............_,.,.,"""'--
'-'~""""""","_'R'~'-
.--.... ..........,._...~m..
"'»"k 1.1, .,,""
'l!)
""""""""""""'--"'"'-
~. 10 "";"
--_w_-.-,.------
------.---,--...-.
k_~_"_--~------
-".-- ---,--.--
RANGE 02 W
, RANGE 01 W
RANCE c\ m
¡;j
"'
53
~
ß
z
~
"'
IiJ
!@
ß
z
æ
1'0
'"
~
z
g¡
~
00
:z
'"
ß
z
OJ
"'
¡¡¡
~
'"
0
,...
'"
g¡
1'0
i:J
~
Ii'
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-13
. VOL
24
;- ~ r;
2 27ggust28, 1998
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
N '" dll"'II!I.O~
~/¡ ..
N WI dl1l'>lI!I.ðJ
2<)73
..
:;:
~
~
'"
~
g
) ih!I
U IU-
. till
Jl I Ii::
~ g II/I
!h ! I W!
dU i ~ mt
~if' ä I hI:
~ ul ~ ~ Hili
'"
z
0
I-<
t:J
Z
it
UI
-<
~
;~~
"
.I.
N .. d)HON..O.
N O. d)B5N"O~
¡¡
'"'
~
m )<'
Q I-<
z~
-< 0
...¡u
¡¡;¡z
Uo
'" Þ:: UI
~ :J =
~ ~ E
~e!.
~z
m=
¡¡;¡ ;Q
Þ::t
O ;Q
¡¡,~
~
..
¡¡
I ~
I ¡;¡
..
~
¡;
~
..
"
, '"'
I ~
I '"
,.
-,
~
..
~
~
OJ
'"
o!:
'"
~
.,."
.",,"
~
j ~
. ~ ~
â ~ ?iÎ
i 1 ~
i .. .5
ð ~ !
I I mitt;
:..,:."
";,;
\t
J
--+--
.VOL
24 UC~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-15
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
AANGE Q2 W
RANGE Gl E
'"
RANGE Gl W
.
~
t
0
1
~
.....:J
2
3
4
5
6
Miles
-<r:
0
UJ
.
:sTATE G.o.1<- fGIU:ST I,AND O!1ADES
D I (nDD' in "..,to"n '0!1. C,.)
Œ2J . IIrl'¡'," "",dUDllv'" in ,,"""" "',. co.)
- .
rn .
- 5
_.
- 7 v-
_. In"" ¡¡; na 00"""",101 ""0)
D . 1M ¡.no,," ""d - w" ,""","ta",o)
D IQ (w"""."", on..1
,,~
~ "-
:ãt'
I~
d
] ~
NOTE:
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REV¡S1ON.
INFORM'TION'L PURPOSe. ONeY
FOREST LAND GRADES
NO """TV 15 ",OE " TO '"
morN"5 OF ","O'RI" 'ND "'".
.
""',,'" "°.'.,.
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
DO"" "',,'" ". ""
RANGE D2 W
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 0] E
~4
rAC:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-17
_VOL
oj
~
'"
,.
¡::
'"
g
~
~
'"
æ
0.
¡jj
~
z
!\¡
~
~
¡::
'"
¡;¡
"'
'"
i¡,1
~
1'<
'"
'"
"
Iò
ii
~
1'<
2~'(4
August 28, 1998
'-<
('0
~
ëi!
0
::0
n
0
c:
:%
n
0
a
'0
...,
('0
:r
g
'"
~.
('0
"tf
§
.þ.
1
......
'-0
---
=
.-
N
~
-"
Þ-
~
"1
N
1'J
v
~
(JQ
c:
~
N
.00
....
'J:>
'J:>
00
.
IWIGE I. W
""
0
1 ,
:~2 t..,
~ 3
0 4
UJ '~
5
6
Miles
¡j
STATE D.O,R. FOREST LAND GRADES
D 1 ...n. in ",oot..,. 'off. CG.)
D 1 lunEm",..teno .ff. Co.>
- 3 (hi¡¡luot pro411.,tivity m w..tun Jeff. Co.1
t'~~ii1 .
_5
.'
~~ 7
- I (IiUl.. to 11.0 ""mmudal nlao)
D ' (noloo,.,.....d -w....f..u..ti.n)
D u (w.-......oJy>
^
~ -
~ ~
.!f ,~
,o .
, 'I!
~ ~
~ l
;!-
E.m;æ 14 1f
ro~ 'Nln~"ul0""L ro&ro'" ONU
NO WH"N~' ,& ..~O. U T<> TOO
D.J."""O" Oi IOONDU¡IUNO uu,.
¡,...moON ID...
.
RANGE 13 11
RANGE ¡)¡ 11
&l.NG~ jj "
RANG~ 10 '!f
IWlCE DO '!f
IWIG~ ill '!f
RANG~ IZ 'f
IWIGR J1 If
lUNG< 1011
FOREST LAND GRADES
SUBJECT TO REVISION
MA Y 5, 1995
WEST JEFFERSON COUNTY
.
z
¡;;
~
~
z
æ
e,
OJ
~
g
"
~
e,
~
g
-s.
~
~
!ij
:g
~
I
~
[/)
0
~
n
tr1
[/)
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
RANGE œ w
RANGE 01 E
RANGE 01 W
:
~,.,...
...,..",.,.
ORT Ti!"""'NO
':"
'. Æf
" ..:;(
---4 '.
Ó'
.
~.
.
"
II~:',
-
0 . ¡;¡
Rf~
L::
f-
-
0: :nIIIJ
-¡;J;~ V. ,
IB
/=J=
::Jõ !J -I.-
þ,
.~..
{'jJ bþ(J¡ ~
~ L
~ ace ..
,~~~~~~~~ ~.
.~ JC, nIl ~~. .
----' hJf.I.t JI r~~!~,
~~~~ ~
f rrl-r f- l:: r .. It
I-rr- -r- F= P \'Ii I ti " ,. r ..
I r T-l= '\ 0 h ~ f-"'-
r1 + U . r-" I-He "
~ ~ : ~ R Þ- " ~~., ~~~
-I-J-: ~~: ~~
,~ ~ .' ¡ f¡p j . ~, ¡
. . ~
l' fI1ìi ] EIr DNR ..""Ll, Ponnli Hold..
" ~ ~hB ifT B~~~ ',oolr...".. 10..."...,
~ ~T' / ¡ ~j¡1J~ r'.i1~"l~0W?'-'
~ . "'..",'" ..
" '. 1"\] '- ~ ~~œ . .
nil \ tI .. "'-;9)"'" Co.
~ -¡:: 11: ","óI~I'" ,..,..... N. - ,~'Y.
~". ~ I~ =~,
,. ¡~5g¡ ¡iI'.:.::~~r:'
", ",...""", J~oo ~'~" .
, '". 70-°""" Po,", " "', ."""",.¡
". 70-°""'" ""00 "'""~"'oo
L Wool.", ..u."". """"þ" ¡." .""" '" "",,)
., + ~ -m ¡;8¡~m:'m'1i'g':'
. D¡¡n,;;¡~'!Iln,:¡;1)'.i:,~\="'"
. ~-
""" -"'m
_Il"...__" "-",.........
J. "JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ""-
.J ::JII !lAP..m m'lJB1 '". ,""
-r - IE..I'" Ordinance #09-0525-95 gHec~iv~ June 6, 1996
a~
..
¡
---'J
'---
.
rI
"" ""'...,""" """"'" ONLY -
\-...<~:r"""1'
---.-.w_,w-
:? '?:=¿ S -=:¡::..:.==::
RANGE 02 W
RANG~ 01 W
RAN'GE Ql E
z
S
~
..
~
z
~
~
¡g
~
z
g¡
"-
ffi
~
z
~
~
¡g
~
z
"-
'"
!!,
:0
~
'"
ß
z
¡e
r:,
¡j
¡;
g
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
. VOL
24
¡-~r,~
2276
August 28, 1998
4-21
NATURAL RESOURCES
.
0
1
~ 2
.-:i
~ 3
\..) 4
(I)
5
6
Miles
.
-------1""',",,---------
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
RANGE 02 W
RM,GE OJ W
!U\NGE Ol E
\
.
GEOLOGlC ICE"
~ iii =:.:~...."
61-
H.-
H. - """"~""""""
Eg - ß- ......... """
V"'-
Vro-
;;¡~
Vat-
I'!lC:=J
Vaoc:::::::J
PI, r::::::J
Pp I'"",,,"" I ..........~
~w - "..,--
~d - ...."'"-
Py - ""-,...,,,........_m
Og - _._._""m",
Cs - ..,.."...._........~".
gg t"-,,, :::~::::;:_u
Ci - .."..~,-_.......~
Tg~......-
T, - ".......~_.~
Tc_...,_u
Tb__,
Ti-
,~,-~.._..."u........"",,".
""",-""""'.",,","",""'-
...........,"'---
..~.. ..............
"'"""""""'"
,"'......_"~
...,'" ",""'"""..
INFORMATIONAe oU..OSES ONey
GEOLOGY MAP
"' "ARANn 15 ",°' AS TO ,",
EM"N'" " ",""AlES ;NO ^"".
""oc,o,'-',",',
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
"""" """"'" ", ,,"
RANGE 02 W
¡<,\NGE 01 E
RANGE 01 W
z
¡;J
~
z
'"
ß
z
g
""
Ii1
I§
...
¡<
z
g¡
~
Z
g
:z
~
~
00
:z
'"
~
"
¡;;
"'
;;¡
~
'"
ß
z
I!J
¡>,
I
4-23
VOL
24
r~f,~
'2 2~77 .
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
.
~
t
0
1.
¡::¿¡ 2
~
<r:: 3
0 4
U)
5
6
Miles
.
----'-'~"'""'-;"..-"._..-..
.
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 'II
RANOE Ot E
PRIM!) FARMLAND SOIL CODES
m L' ŒB, KAJI, qT
- 2 AGR. Nil NO. SI¡ SR SM. SO, TH
EZJ 3~ HF. aa
- 5 Be. 8G. 'fI, ", BIé LIT. '/fA
Wool.rn Je".r.~n County ohly
SUBJECT to 'he following !;rnil.lions;
cODE
L(MI1'ATION
1 All nro.. .'" prlro. '""",lood.
2 Only d",inod ..."", "'" prim. ",'mJond.
" Only"""" protoc\.d Irom Clooding or no' 'ro~uonlly
ßood,d durlng tho growing <e=n .... p<I.... r.,.",lo.nd.
5 Ohly <\roJn.d """" p",!"".d 'C""' ßoodLng or no, r"",u.n"y
noDd"" durin, tho ,ro""'. "..on ON pr'm. Ou-mlabd.
"'FOR""oN'L PUPPO,"' 0"L1
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS
NO "'R'"H '" "'" " m ,,'
"""'" " 'O""""" '"' "'".
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
""'cooe ',0.'.'.
REV,,"" '"",." .', ,,"
RANGE 02 VI
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 01 E
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-25
. VOI-
24
rAr;::
z
¡;J
~
~
'"
..
z
¡¡:
~
~
~
z
g¡
"-
Iii
¡g
'"
~
z
g¡
~
¡g
'"
¡:
z
¡;¡
"-
æ
z
Š
""
~
Iò
¡;j
~
p..
227ttist28,1998
.
.
.
"--'-1a:'.~_.._.._..
NATURAL RESOURCES
-1
RANGE œ w
\
\
RANG" 01 E
2:
¡;;
5J
~
E-<
-
2:
¡;:
~
~
g
-
2:
g¡
'"
'"
¡q
g
-
2:
[!j
~
~
~
-
'"
1:;
0..
51
[2
..
0
E-<
-
'"
~
e,
i)j
¡¡;
~
~ I'J ~ ;¡2
- ~¡ ~ ~ ~ I
~ 11"*"'1 .gri=it",. Produo".' ""tn.,.
" -- ~ _..'",."..." """," 0' L_3I,o'O.",oo -
-w ~
.~ ~AG"CULTURAL LAND' OF LONG TERM =~=----_.
~ \ COMMERCIAL SIGNIfiCANCE .--"...
I!A!lTI!KN IIFFBR!lON COUNTY, WASHINGTON ..."n, ,......""..1007
~
-..r.r"'-- ....
I
RANGE OJ W
:.
~.."..
..,.,. .' ,."
-=-
DIrt row,"'"""
::r=iY
" :
~.
/"
1Iì".
",
'"
",
~
0 III
"ij~.
J I--- ~
'L q¡j¡i
iF
....
Ei;J'"
~-
R=
~ ~
t
~~
18 ~~
1m- f':J Pá!U¡
W 4-- ~'
-.;w.'
-
;"',b
Jl
.~ R= "'-
~j-
~I
;¡;: If'l'
~T I
I~r
~ ¡=r
f2 I
~
f.T'
I
N. ~(L øw
IH"J-:I-~
I, T~ ~
" '1;J.~" h"ì'd f-
~-lli. ~A"
; -q::E ~'-:--
d
-
)
~
~~ --; "
f-\-
-Œ~
f: = ~~ìm" ,,"> ~"
Ÿ, f- f- I- \ Ll ] 3 f
r::~ ~ .. r" ~ "
:;\ ~ ,~ ~ =1. r:;, ti? ,0
::f I f-fÇ~;";¡¡ .~ ~ V
- 'II; . f'!- iJ ! it; r
r "ì¡;¡
~
~
"
¡..
i
~ \w
f"
W
..
..
..
f-1
""_,_",FU"""",,m.y-
RAN'GE 02 W
[!)
I
___M'__.-_O_------
~;.:5:;:: ~ ,"£,!~.;$.z.:
--
I
RANGE at E
RANG~ 01 W
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-27
. VOI-
24 foAL;:
~79 .
2,..., August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
'"",
,,"-, "'" ,
:";:,:,:,',:'~,';,',<,,,~.~,~,
,',,' ,",'
.
-,
).
,]
'-,
"\
"
"
,;-
'---;~,
f
i
i
,
/
./
-,-
"""
""
i
i
¡'
'-
'","
- ""'--""-"--"-' ,"-
/,..-----......" ,: !
../"'-"'/
-,"
"¡
(
"
""""',' ,....,,---..-,-.,--...J
--'---"-"--'
.
,
",j
0
2 i
MiI~s
4
,.-"'"
( -"'",.." --_./ """"'"
'\"'-"-"'--"'."'),
ì
-',
I
~
\- ,;
Qu;/œl1~.,
Qa.y._....
,..-...""'"
)/' ",,)',1"'"
! '\
-"""----""""",_,,~,',)
)'
"----.."......-,,,-..-.....-.
,--..,/ _m_"""",
,_/ -
Recreational Shellfish Classifications
* Open
@ Closed
... Conditionally Open
. Unclassified
. Sewer Outfalls
,ii
i '
,;..
.' I
;:1,;",/
~Y'~\~\\i '\ "
'-,' ,)';~~;~S~~~
.-~\.'\X\\\' I
\~)(
l.(cl n'.vi>.
, -,'
\
,..-"..""-..-,..-...-"..-"",,,"
-"'-""\"
""J"""---"""-"'--""""--"""l
'.,
Commercial Shellfish Classi Ications
APPROVED -
PROHIBITED -
CONDITIONALLY -
APPROVED
RESTRICTED [:::J
UNCLASSIFIED 1~'-'f'\"1
""'-, "",
-"-" "',\,.._,.,..
,
ì
,
\
<-:~ )
, ~')~
\g~~
,(
~' H~ãrth
"""",..._"""""/"""'-,,
/ \.
\,
""'25
"
""""",
.
12/97
Jefferson County CompreheDsive Plan
4-29
, YOI-
24
f-M;~
2nsn
¡4;... Kugust 28, 1998
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals outlined below provide a general direction for both the consetVation of Jefferson County's
natural resource lands and the enhancement of resource based industries. These goals are based on the
requirements of the Growth Management Act, which outlines specific criteria for the consetVation of
natural resource lands element, and on the issues and opportunities identified by County residents.
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals state
the general growth management intentions of the County while the policies are the guidelines for
implementation. Strategies and action items identify the specific projects or programs that will be used to
implement the policies.
The Natural Resource Lands policies will provide the basis for a review of the development standards
contained in the Jefferson County Forest, Mineral, and Agricultural Lands Interim Ordinances and other
regulations prior to adoption as final ordinances.
NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 1.0
Encourage the conservation of resource lands and the long-term sustainable use of
natural resource-based economic activities throughout Jefferson County.
POLICIES:
NRP 1.1
Designate lands where the preferred and principal land uses are resource-based economic
activities as Natural Resource lands.
NRP 1.2
Require land use activities adjacent to resource lands to be sited and designed so as to
minimize conflicts with resource based economic activities.
NRPl.3
Provide up-to-date and accurate infonnation to the public concerning the location of resource
lands and the nature of land uses and activities to be expected within such areas.
NRP 1.4
Protect resource industry activities that are perfonned in accordance with applicable
regulations fTom being subject to legal action as public nuisances.
NRP 1.5
Support resource-based economic activities that comply with applicable federal, state, and
local regulations.
NRP 1.6
Support cooperative resource management among natural resource landowners,
enviromnental groups, state, federal and tribal governments,
NRP 1.7
Consider incentive programs to support resource-based economic activities in rural areas.
NRP 1.8
Locate natural resource-based economic activities throughout rural areas in close proximity to
designated agricultural, forest or mineral resource lands upon which they are dependent.
2 4 rAr;~
2 '?81
August 28,1998
YO 1-
Jefferson County Comprehensíve Plan
4-31
NA rURAL RESOURCES
GOAL:
NRG 2.0
POLICIES:
NRP 2.1
NRP 2.2
NRP 2.3
NRP 2.4
.
Encourage resource-based economic activities which are compatible with
environmental quality.
Regulate resource-based economic activities so as to mitigate adverse impacts to the
environment and adjacent properties.
Regulate resource management and harvest practices in a manner consistent with local, state,
and federal regulations for the protection of environmental quality and critical areas. Work
with stakeholders in cooperative processes to protect the long-term viability of resource lands
consistent with watershed management and fisheries recovery plans developed in response to
proposed listings of fish species under the Endangered Species Act. '
Protect the environment from cumulative adverse impacts resulting from resource
management practices.
Provide incentives to encourage compliance with "best management practices" by resource-
based economic activities.
FOREST LANDS
.
GOAL:
NRG 3.0
POLICIES:
NRP 3.1
NRP 3.2
NRP 3.3
NRP 3.4
Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria trom the Growth Management Act
and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Forest Lands for long-
tenD commercial significance based on the quality of the forest environment, the size of the
parcel, the tax status, current use, and distance from populated areas,
Encourage the continued diversity of forestry by designating classes of long-term
commercially significant forest land that allow the continued existence of a range of
approaches to forest management.
Parcels designated as Forest Land in common ownership separated by a public right-of-way
shall be considered as a single parcel.
Allow commercial forest management and harvest, mineral extraction, sand and gravel
operations and those land uses which maintain, enhance, or have no impact on the long term
management of designated commercial forest lands,
.
VOL
24 . rAL~
.2282
4-32
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
NRP 3.5
GOAL:
NRG 4.0
POLICIES:
NRP 4.1
NRP 4.2
NRP 4.3
NRP 4.4
NRP 4.5
NRP 4.6
NRP 4.7
NRP 4.8
GOAL:
NRG 5.0
POLICIES:
NRP 5.1
Support and facilitate the improvement of state and local environmental regulations affecting
the forest products industry in order to improve operational predictability, minimize
regulatory costs to forest land owners, and encourage protection of the forest environment and
surrounding watersheds.
Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land use
activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands.
Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes. Allow one
dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law.
Adopt a [mal Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria fTom the Growth Management Act
and the interim ordinance for conditional uses in Forest Lands.
Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing site and design requirements for
land use activities adjacent to designated forest land.
Minimize dangers from natural disasters such as fire, through siting and design criteria for
structures on designated Forest Lands.
Minimize conflict between primary and secondary forest production facilities and related
developments and forest management activities through siting and design requirements.
Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or
sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Forest Lands.
Address community concerns and land use conflicts which may arise as a result of forest
practices in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, forest
landowners, and the general public.
Facilitate a cooperative process bringing together timber company representatives,
environmental groups, landowners, and other interested parties to address concerns related to
incompatible land uses between parcels existing adjacent to forest lands at the time of
adoption of Ordinance #01-0121-97, the interim Forest Lands Ordinance.
Encourage the continuation of forestry on lands which are not designated as
commercial forest resource lands.
Evaluate proposals for conversion of forest land through a public process to assess the long-
term economic impact of decreasing the amount of land available for sustainable forest
production and harvest.
.VOL
24- 'H~
~ r.1\J:
2283
4-33
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
NATURAL RESOURCES
NRP 5.2
NRP 5.3
NRP 5.4
NRP 5.5
Review forest land conversion applications based on an assessment of the cumulative impact
on the environment.
.
Regulate the development of forest lands which are converted to other uses in compliance
with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the County-wide Planning Policy, the
Growth Management Act, and the State Forest Practices Rules.
Establish standards for conversions and Conversion Option Harvest Plans which cany out the
provisions of the Washington State Forest Practices Act and the State Environmental Policy
Act and are in compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Management
Master Program, the Stonn Water Management Ordinance, and other County land use and
development standards.
Establish minimum standards in Conversion Option Harvest Plans which provide for
reforestation and consider the health and long-tenn viability of the stand for tree retention.
MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 6.0
POLICIES:
NRP 6.1
NRP 6.2
NRP 6.3
NRP 6.4
Conserve and protect Mineral Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
Adopt a fmal Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Interim Mineral Lands
Ordinance for classifying and designating Mineral Resource Lands of commercial
significance based on physical and topographic characteristics, distance from populated areas,
and the quality of the resource.
.
Adopt a fmal Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes a process for reviewing mineral lands
designation petitions which assesses the feasibility of designating mineral resource lands
according to Table 4.3, and considers compatibility with adjacent land uses, economic issues
and environmental impacts.
Adopt a fmal Forest Lands Ordinane that includes criteria from the interim ordinance
allowing mineral extraction and the primary processing of materials on designated Forest
Lands, provided that the extraction is conducted under a Washington State Department of
Natural Resources Surface Mining Pennit andlor other applicable pennit and is perfonned in
accordance with the guidelines for best management practices established by Jefferson
County.
Mitigate conflicts with adjacent land uses by zoning and regulations including operation,
siting, buffering and design requirements which minimize conflicts between mineral
extraction/primary processing activities and land use activities located adjacent to desigriated
mineral lands.
.'tOl
24 r~c'~
2284
.
4-34
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
NATURAL RESOURCES
. Table 4-3
Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands
NOT SUITABLE CONSIDER FOR DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
FOR DESIGNATION DESIRABLE IDGHL Y CRITICAL
DESIGNATION DESIRABLE
QUALITY OF Low grade deposit. Variable but located Deposit made Grade meets the Concrete quality.
DEPOSIT near use area or economical to mine requirements for
processing plant by upgrading road construction or
material. can be upgraded.
SIZE OF Small deposit. Small deposit (less Medium-size Large deposit (7.5 Very large deposit
DEPOSIT than 2,000 tons). deposit. million tons). (10 million tons).
ACCESS More than 20 miles Distance from use Less than 10 miles Large deposit Within 5 miles of
DISTANCE from use area. area is minimized of the use area; presently beyond uses area. Adjacent
FROM MARKET due to access to alternative access economical hauling to highway with
interstate. route available. distance to present access for trucks.
use areas. Near
highways: access
can be provided.
COMP A TmLE Adjacent land use Scattered Adjacent land Inuninent No incompatible
WITH NEARBY presently development within suitable for incompatible land uses existing
AREAS incompatible with outer range of development and development on or likely in the
mining (appreciable impacts of mining; within conunuting adjacent lands. foreseeable future
residential owners may not distance of use area. (adjacent land in
development within object to mining. national forest,
range of excessive operator's
noise, dust, blasting, ownership,
. vibrations, etc.). agricultural land
use.)
IMPACT OF Noise level in Noise level in Noise at adjacent
NOISE adjacent presently adjacent residential areas less
developed areas undeveloped areas than 50 dB(A) due
would clearly would exceed to distance or
exceed standards if standards for likely topographical
mining occurred. use, but use of these barrier, benn can be
areas can be easily constructed easily. .
delayed or
economical
mitigation can be
provided by
barriers.
IMPACT OF Too close to Blasting not
BLASTING existing required; permanent
subdivision. open space between
quarry and other
uses; topographical
barrier between
quarry and other
land uses; only
occasional light
blasting; blasting
compatible with
adjacent uses.
.
.VOL 24 rAe' 2285
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 4-35 August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
NOT SUITABLE CONSIDER FOR DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
FOR DESIGNATION DESIRABLE HIGHLY CRITICAL
DESIGNATION DESIRABLE
IMPACT OF Only access is local Slightly longer Alternative truck Adjacent to freeway
TRUCK road through alternative route route can be built at with access to site.
TRAFF1C residential area. exists. reasonable expense;
alternative
transportation
(conveyor, etc., can
be used past
residential streets).
VISUAL Mining would Mining activity Some activity Mining activity can Activity screened
IMPACT destroy or create. cannot be screened visible ftom be easily screened by topography or
and would residential areas, by berms and/or vegetation, or
pennanently alter but no permanent vegetation. appreciably reduced
landscape. deterioration of by distance.
landscape.
SURFACE & Potential adverse Water resources on Limited water . No water resources
GROUND impacts to water site and can be resoun:es on site on site.
WATER resources on site avoided. and can be
IMPACTS mitigated.
WETLANDS High quality High quality Lower quality Wetlands can be No or minimal
IMPACT wetlands wetlands only on a wetlands on site and avoided on site. wetlands on site and
throughout the site portion of site and can be mitigated. oflow quality.
can be avoided.
SLOPES Site located in Potential or Unstable slopes on Minimal slopes Level grade mining
active unstable historical unstable site can be avoided. throughout the site. site with minimal
slope area. slopes. slopes.
BIOLOGICAL Rare and Site includes Species of Special Minor or temponuy No significant
IMPACf threatened! priority wildlife Concern habitat loss offish and biological
endangered plants habitat that would located on site. wildlife habitat. resources;
or animals on site. be permanently rehabilitation of site
removed by mining, would replace or
create habitat.
IMPACT OF Mining would Mining would Mining would
FLOODING cause erosion of create erosion create flood control
adjacent property; hazard for roads, channel and would
could be prevented bridges, and utility not damage
only at great lines; however, adjacent land.
expense. these structures
could be
strengthened at
reasonable costs.
GOAL:
NRG 7.0
Provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mining extraction
and processing operations.
POLICIES:
NRP7.1
Reqúire enviroiunental review on all mineral lands designation requests and/or conditional
use penn its.
,VOL
24 r~¡,: ,- 2Z86
JeffCl1iOn County Comprehensive Plan
4-36
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
NRP 7.2
NRP 7.3
NRP 7.4
GOAL:
NRG 8.0
POLICIES:
NRP 8.1
NRP 8.2
NRP 8.3
NRP 8.4
NRP 8.5
NRP 8.6
GOAL:
NRG 9.0
Provide for the following factors in mineml resource land use decisions:
a. The range of environmental impacts, including short-term and long-term effects arising
over the lifetime of the proposal;
b. The ability of the site to confine or mitigate all opemtional impacts;
c. The compatibility of operations with adjacent land uses when mitigating measures are
applied;
d. The capacity of transportation facilities to handle safely the transport of products from the
sne;and, .
e. The adequacy of plans for reclamation of the site for appropriate future use.
Develop standards and guidelines to identify and address the impact of mining
operations on adjoining properties. Such conditioning should not have the intent of
rendering mining operations economically unfeasible.
Evaluate small mining operations to determine when the cumulative impact of small
opemtions becomes a significant adverse impact upon the land or upon adjacent lands.
Ensure that County mineral resource lands are restored to safe and useful condition
with enhancement and mitigation of damage to the function and aesthetics of the
environment and subsequent land uses.
Develop requirements for reclamation plans for mineral extraction activities. These
requirements may exceed minimum State requirements.
Ensure that reclamation plans preserve the safety, function and value of adjacent lands
including aesthetic and environmental and water reSource values,
Encourage reclamation plans which provide enhanced public value such as parks, play-
grounds, open space, trails, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat,
Encourage reclamation that occurs on an ongoing basis as mineral deposits are depleted.
Avoid the potential for aquifer contamination in importing material used for reclamation
backfill or storage and in approving subsequent land use activities on reclaimed mining lands.
Establish standards for performance bonds unless otherwise required for reclamation
activities to be provided prior to the initiation of mineral resource extraction land use
activities.
Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral extraction
activities.
VOL
2 A '~r,
'i r.",-
2?87
4-37
August 28,1998
Jeffemm County Comprehensive Plan
NATIJRAL RESOURCES
POLICIES:
NRP 9.1
NRP 9.2
Regulate mining operations to prevent adverse impacts to ground or surface water quality,
.
Establish a preference for the protection of aquifers and recharge zones from the effects of
surface mining in the event that adverse impacts cannot be avoided through best management
practices.
AGRICULTURE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 10.0
POLICIES:
NRP 10.1
NRP 10.2
NRP 10.3
NRP 10.4
NRP 10.5
NRP 10.6
NRP 10.7
NRP 10.8
NRP 10.9
Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and its associated lifestyle.
Adopt a final Agricultural Lands Ordinance that includes the criteria from the Interim
Agricultural Lands Ordinance for classifYing and designating Agricultural Lands for long-
term commercial significance based on the class of agricultural land, the size of the parcel, the
tax status, current use, and distance from populated areas.
Minimize conflicts with agricultural activities by developing site and design requirements for
land use activities adjacent to designated agricultural land.
Support the conservation of agricultural land through tax incentive programs, the purchase or
transfer of development rights, and other methods developed in cooperation with agricultural
landowners and managers.
.
Coordinate with state and federal agencies to encourage conservation of productive
agricultural land through best management practices, including soil and water conservation,
drainage, and livestock waste management programs.
Support the continuation of fanning as the primary use of Agricultural Lands by allowing a
maximum base density of one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres.
Encourage clustering based upon the characteristics of various types of agricultural areas and
practices in the County, while preserving an overall base density on Agricultural Lands that
does not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres.
Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire districts, or
sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Agricultural Lands.
Support agricultural activities such as farmers' markets and roadside stands by permitting
these uses outright in rural and agricultural areas.
Encourage the preservation of family owned farms by discouraging the conversion of these
lands to other uses,
.
. VOL
- oRB
24 r~[,~ 2 ~L
4-38
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
NRP 10.10
Support the work of Washington State University Cooperative Extension for technical and
marketing assistance for small-scale commercial fanners.
AQUACULTURE RESOURCES
GOAL:
NRG 11.0
POLICIES:
NRP 11.1
NRP 11.2
NRP 11.3
NRP 11.4
NRP 11.5
NRP 11.6
Conserve and protect aquaculture lands and associated facilities in order to ensure a
long-term commercial and recreational resource base.
Establish criteria for designating commercial shellfish beds of long-tenn commercial
significance.
Encourage the conservation of aquaculture lands through the designation of long tenn
commercially significant lands, tax incentive programs and the regulation of adjacent land
uses.
Minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses to protect continued productive aquaculture
activities in marine waters associated with fish hatcheries and shellfish habitat.
Address the cumulative impacts of land use activities on or adjacent to shellfish habitat
through the Shoreline Management Master Program, Comprehensive Plan amendments, and
County land use ordinances.
Minimize adverse impacts on the quantity and quality of water resources by encouraging land
based and marine aquaculture operations to utilize best management practices.
Net pens, which are not designated resource lands, shall be regulated under the Shoreline
Management Master Program under regulations for aquaculture activities. Such regulations
will be updated during the SMMP revision for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan will then be amended to incorporate the SMMP as an element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Until the revised SMMP is adopted, where a regulatory provision is inconsistent with
other County ordinances, the more restrictive provision shall apply.
_VOL
24 rAŒ
2 ;::89
4-39
Jefferson County Cqmp¡-ehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
STRATEGIES
.
A.
DESIGNATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for designation and conservation of natural resource lands includes imple-
mentation of ordinances which designate and provide incentives for the conservation of lands for
resource-based activities,
Action Items
1.
Expedite permit review and exemptions to encourage compliance with Best Management
Practices (BMPs). (Corresponding Goals: 2.0; 9.0)
2.
Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that implements the Forest Land Designation and
Conservation Strategy and includes criteria established in the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
3,
Support cooperative resource management by integrating cooperative agreements and plans into
ordinances and regulations. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 9.0)
4.
Continue to implement open space tax incentives for resource industries in rural areas.
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
.
5.
Adopt a clearing and grading ordinance to improve the process of managing Forest Land conversions.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 9.0)
6.
Adopt a fmal a Mineral Land Ordinance that is in compliance with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act and includes criteria established in the Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 6.0, 8,0)
7.
Develop thresholds in the final Mineral Land Ordinance for the regulation of mineral extraction sites
not regulated by the Deparbnent of Natural Resources. (Corresponding Goals: 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0)
8.
Perform an analysis to determine the 50-Year Construction Aggregate Supply in order to detennine if
there is a need for future mineral land designations. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
9,
Adopt a fmal Agricultural Land Ordinance that is in compliance with ~e requirements of the Growth
Management Act and includes criteria established in the Interim Agricultural Ordinance..
(Corresponding Goal: 10.0)
10.
Designation criteria should consider parcel size, distance from an Urban Growth Area, the class of
farmland as designated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the USDA, tax
classification, current use and surrounding land uses. (Corresponding Goal: 10.0)
.
VOL
24 r~L~~ ~2 290
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-40
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
11.
Develop a partnership with the Jefferson Land Trust and other organizations to encourage the
preservation of family owned farms by discouraging the conversion of these lands to other uses.
(Corresponding Goal: 10.0)
12.
Achieve agricultural conservation through measures such as:
. Encouraging agricultural landowners to participate in the Agricultural Lands of Local Signifi-
cance Program;
. Work with stakeholders in watershed and salmon recovery planning processes to resolve drainage,
irrigation, and flooding issues so as to promote consistency with such processes while preserving
designated agricultural lands;
. Consider measures for the purchase of development rights;
. Developing a system for transferring development rights within the County, including designating
receiving zones for agricultural development rights by local agreement;
. . Retain right-to-practice farming provisions in the final ordinance to protect agricultural activities
from being deEmed as a public nuisance;
. Making preferential tax programs available;
. Requiring the retention of land in resource production when a subdivision of property is proposed;
and,
. Other innovative techniques developed in association with agricultural landowners and managers,
(Corresponding Goal: 10.0)
13.
Include a designation and conservation process for Aquaculture Resources of Long- Tenn Commercial
Significance in the fmal Agricultural Lands Ordinance which recognizes state-approved commercial
shellfish beds. (Corresponding Goal: 11.0)
14.
Minimize conflicts with land uses adjacent to natural resource lands through protection of water
quality, stonn water management and habitat mitigation and/or restoration.
(Corresponding Goals: 9.0, 11.0).
B.
LAND USE COMP ATmILITY. STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for maintaining compatibility between activities on natural resource lands
and adjacent land uses includes adopting final ordinances which continue to protect nearby land uses
from adverse impacts and protect resource-based economic activities from actions to limit those
activities.
Action Items
1.
Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that recognize the diversity of forest landowners and forest land
uses and includes development standards from the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance protecting forest
lands from conflicting uses. The regulations shall include buffering, setbacks, and other methods to
prevent the encroachment of incompatible uses on Forest Land, Other measures which may be
considered are:
.
Retaining right-to-practice forestry provisions to protect forestry activities from being defined as a
public nuisance;
Making preferential tax programs available;
Reviewing requirements for setbacks and buffers;
.
.
2~91
VOL
24 rAr;~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-41
August28,1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
. Encouraging the retention of land in resource production when a subdivision of property is
proposed; and,
. Other innovative techniques developed in partnership with landowners, forest managers, Native
American Tribes, the general public, and other affected agencies.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0)
.
2.
Adopt guidelines and standards for Forestry Best Management Practices. Require best management
practices that protect the environment from cumulative adverse impacts.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0)
3.
Support the Right-to-Practice provisions of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance as adopted in the [mal
ordinance through a process that includes notice to title for adjacent property owners. This process
should include:
. Review development regulations that establish large lot development densities and parcel sizes;
. Continue to require setbacks and buffer strips;
. Prohibit the establishment or expansion of local improvement districts, utility local improvement
districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into areas designated as Natural Resource
Lands;
. Provide cunent mapped infonnation to the public on the location of resource lands;
. Provide notification on all plats, short plats, binding site plans, development pennits, and building
pennits on or within 300 feet of designated resource lands per RCW 36.70.060 that the adjacent
land is in resource-based use and subject to a variety of activities that may not be compatible with
residential development; and, .
. Increase public education concerning resource activities.
(Conesponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 4.0)
.
4,
Adopt regulations setting minimum standards for Class IV -General forest practices pennits in
accordance with SSB 5714. (Conesponding Goal: 5.0)
5.
Adopt guidelines and standards for Mining Best Management Practices.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0. 2.0, 6.0, 7.0, 9.0)
6,
Support the Right-to-Practice provision of the Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance as adopted in the [mal
ordinance through a process that includes notice to title for adjacent property owners. This process
should include:
. Provide cunent mapped infonnation to the public on the location of resource lands;
. Provide notification on 'all plats, short plats, binding site plans, development penn its, and building
pennits on or within 300 feet of designated resource lands per RCW 36.70.060 that the adjacent
land is in resource-based use and subject to a variety of activities that may not be compatible with
residential development; and,
. Increase public education concerning resource activities,
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 6.0, 7.0)
7.
Condition mining operations to address: noise levels, light pollution, dust, visual screening,
transportation impacts, hours of operation, water quality, and reclamation activities so that the value of
adjoining property is not reduced.
.
VOL
24 rArJi' - 2292
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-42
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES
8.
9.
10.
Adopt a [mal Agricultural Lands Ordinance that recognizes the diversity of agricultural landowners
and fanning uses and includes development standards from the Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance
protecting agricultural lands from conflicting uses, The regulations shall include buffering, setbacks,
and other methods to prevent the encroachment of incompatible uses on Agricultural Land.
(CoITesponding Goal: 10.0)
Adopt guidelines and standards for Agricultural Best Management Practices,
(Corresponding Goal: 10.0)
Support the Right-to-Fann provision of the Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance as adopted in the
fmal ordinance through a process that includes notice to title for adjacent property owners. This
process should include measures such as:
. Provide CUITent mapped infonnation to the public on the location of resource lands;
. Provide notification on all plats, short plats, binding site plans, development pennits, and building
penn its on or within 300 feet of designated resource lands per RCW 36.70.060 that the adjacent
land is in resource-based use and subject to a variety of activities that may not be compatible with
residential development; and,
. Increase public education concerning resource activities.
(Corresponding Goal: 10.0)
11.
Adopt guidelines and standards for Aquaculture Best Management Practices.
(Corresponding Goal: 11.0)
12.
Support the Right-to-Practice Aquaculture provision of the Interim Agricultural Lands Ordinance as
adopted in the final ordinance through a process that includes notice to title for adjacent property
owners. Other measures may include:
. Encouraging owners of shellfish beds not designated as long-tenn commercially significant to
participate in the Agricultural Lands of Local Significance Program;
. Designating new upland fmfish hatcheries as Agricultural Lands of Long- Tenn Commercial
Significance;
. ClassifYing drainage basins of aquaculture lands where the landowners undertake conservation
measures as providing a public benefit in the Open Space Tax program; and,
. Protecting fish and shellfish habitat areas from incompatible adjacent uses.
(Corresponding Goal: 11.0)
13.
Establish a cooperative process, as resources become available, among timber company
representatives, landowners, environmental groups, and other interested parties to address concerns
related to incompatible land uses between existing small parcels and adjacent forest lands.
(Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
VOI-
2 4 rA~~
2293
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-43
August 28, 1998
NATURAL RESOURCES
. VOL
24 rgi ~. 2294
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
4-44
August28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
HOUSING
HOUSING ELEMENT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Housing Element is to assess future needs for housing in Jefferson
County by examining existing residential patterns, demographic trends and projected population growth.
Based upon these identified needs, policies are recommended to encourage safe, affordable and decent
housing options for all County residents, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management
Act.
RELA TI 0 NSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
Because of the complexity of housing issues, several other elements of the Plan analyze specific aspects
of these issues and propose methods to address them. However, this Element addresses the full range of
housing challenges and opportunities that will confront Jefferson County over the 20-year planning
period, while integrating the specific perspectives and methods from other elements that address housing.
These other elements are referenced where appropriate throughout the goals, policies and strategy
sections to support and enhance the techniques that have been developed in other elements~
The following table. summarizes the housing issues identified and addressed in other elements of the Plan:
Element
1. Land U se/Rural
Discussion
Jefferson County's rural lands are characterized by a low density mixture of
traditional uses that include residential, resource production, and open
space. In order to preserve this rural character, it is essential to keep
residential densities low. However, this large parcel strategy can reduce
some affordable housing opportunities. Therefore, affordable housing in
the rural areas of the County might be provided in higher densities within
the three Rural Village Centers or Port Ludlow, but only if there are
adequate level of service standards in place for community water systems,
community sewage treatment, adequate roadways and transit.
Low density residential and cluster development are an important part of
the open space pattern that provides visual relief and ecological function,
Siting criteria for higher density housing should include proximity to parks
and recreation facilities. Preservation of housing stock and adaptive reuse
of historic structures enhance affordable housing opportunities and preserve
neighborhood character.
Through the use of innovative development techniques it is possible to
locate seemingly opposing land uses adjacent to designated resource lands
without creating unmanageable conflicts. By requiring stringent buffering
and set-back criteria between land uses, a balance between resource and
residential uses can be created.
A significant threat to environmental quality in the rural areas of Jefferson
County is sprawling residential development. Low density residential uses
preserve ecological functions and water resources, Innovative development
techniques minimize adverse impacts to the environment by preserving
natural features, utilizing community facilities, and maintaining open space,
2. Open Space, Parks,
Recreation and
Historic Preservation
3. Natural Resource
Lands
4. Environment
VOI-
24 rAG:
2295
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-1
August28,1998
HOUSING
5. Economic
Development
Housing affordability is affected by two interdependent factors: housing
cost and household income. Housing costs have continued to inflate
steadily over the past twenty-five years, while real household income has
declined. The result has been a nationwide housing affordability crisis.
While the Housing Element focuses on housing cost issues, the Economic
Development Element addresses household income. In order to correct the
wage-housing mismatch and enhance affordability, it is necessary to work
incrementally on both factors.
Infrastructure is one of the most significant costs in housing development.
Higher density housing is more affordable because it spreads the cost of
infrastructure across a greater number of units, reducing each unit's share.
However, higher density uses require higher levels of services, Therefore,
capital facilities improvements and extensions are an essential method of
encouraging affordable housing, particularly within the three Rural Village
Centers and Port Ludlow.
The physical proximity of jobs, services and housing is an important
component in housing affordability. A mixture of uses in one location
reduces transportation costs, which increases disposable income.
Additionally, higher density land uses are essential to cost effective public
transit systems.
6. Capital Facilities
7. Transportation
HOUSING BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Introduction
The first step in assessing the present and future housing requirements of Jefferson County is to analyze
the characteristics of its existing and projected population, including age, household size, income,
location and special needs. These characteristics provide an indication of the nature of the demand for
housing over the 20-year planning period.
The overall demand for housing is projected to increase significantly over the next twenty years,
Jefferson County, including the City of PortYownsend, is expected to add approximately 13,600 people,
or 6,800 households), over the 20-year planning period. Approximately forty percent (40%) of these
households are anticipated to locate within the city limits of Port Townsend,
The second step in assessing the housing requirements of County residents is to analyze the
characteristics of the existing and expected housing supply, including location, size, cost, and condition,
By comparing the needs of the population to the resources of the housing stock, the gaps in the housing
market can be identified. This comparison of demand and supply allows Jefferson County to develop
housing policies for lands under its jurisdiction and to prioritize implementation strategies, The issues
facing the County are:
1. Where to direct population growth given environmental constraints, the cost of providing public
services, and the requirements of the Growth Management Act;
2. How to ensure that a range of housing types and prices are available; and,
3, How to maintain and enhance the vitality and character of established rural residential neighborhoods.
) Assuming two persons per household
24 'Ir.'.
r ..<,., "
~ 2 296
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-2
August28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
HOUSING
It is important to note that under GMA, the role of Jefferson County is as a regional policy maker and
rural service provider. In the context of assessing the housing needs of County residents, this necessitates
analyzing the regional housing market. Because of household mobility, housing markets are not limited
to jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, all the data analyzed in the Housing Element is for Jefferson
County, including the City of Port Townsend.
Demographics
Past and present trends in demographics are the starting point for considering housing demand issues.
These characteristics detennine housing amounts, types, age, distribution, and price needed to shelter the
Jefferson County population.
Population and Household Growth
Jefferson County is one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Washington, While population
growth is the most important indicator of increased demand for the majority of goods and services,
demand in housing markets is driven by the number and types of households that are competing for the
available housing stock. Growth in population and households are related, but not identical.
The number and types of households in a community are important indicators of the scale and nature of
the housing needs of the community. A household includes all people living in one housing unit, whether
or not they are related, A single person renting an apartment is a household, as is a family living in a
detached house.
Therefore, an assessment of the present and future demand for housing in Jefferson County should be
based upon household growth, not population growth, Consistent with a significant nation-wide trend,
household size in Jefferson County has been decreasing steadily for the last two decades. Table 5-1
provides a summary of the projected household growth in Jefferson County,
VOL
2 4 rAC~
2297
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-3
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
Household Perceutage
Location 1996 2006 2016 Increase Increase
1996-2016 1996-2016
Incorporated Areas:
Port Townsend 3,560 4,717 6,250 2,690 75.56%
Unincorporated Areas:
Quimper Peninsula (including Glen 1,361 1,670 1,950 589 43.28
Cove)
Marrowstone Island 381 436 474 93 24.41
Tri-Area (Kala Point, Irondale, Port 1,730 1,981 2,250 520 30.06
Hadlock, and Chimacum Crossroads)
Discovery Bay (including Gardiner) 425 504 590 165 38.82
S. Chimacum !Inland Valleys/Center 563 671 752 189 33,57
Port Ludlow Planned Community 631 1,189 1,936 1,305 206.81
North Port Ludlow 287 346 424 137 47.74
Paradise Bay / Shine / Thorndyke 374 489 629 255 68.18
Toandos Peninsula (including Coyle) 179 219 266 87 48.60
Quilcene (including Lake Leland) 569 676 802 233 40.95
Brinnon 565 707 867 302 53.45
West End 334 346 356 22 6.59
Unincorporated County Totals 7,399 9,234 11,296 3,897 52.66%
Jefferson County Total 10,959 13,951 17,546 6,587 60.11 %
Table 5-1
Projected Jefferson County Households, 1996-2016
.
Household Size and Type
.
The weighted average household size in Jefferson County in 1996 is 2.34 persons per household, and
recent studies indicate that Port Ludlow's average household size is 1.83 persons per household. Both of
these figures are significantly smaller than the national or Washington State averages. The average
household size is projected to decrease to 2.27 persons per household by 2016.
Table 5-2, illustrates that the majority of households are two persons or less based upon the 1990 Census
data. Nearly seventy percent (69.5%) of Jefferson County households were comprised of one or two
persons, Less than seven percent (6.5%) of households were larger than four persons.
Persons per Percent of Households Percent of Percent of
Household Family Households Non-Family Households
I 26.8% N/A* 84.3%
2 42.7 56.6% 12.8
3 13.3 18.7 1.9
4 10.7 15.3 0.9
5 4.3 6.2 0.1
6 1.3 1.9 0,0
7+ 0,9 1.3 0.0
Total 100.0% 100,0% 100.0%
Table 5-2
Household Type and Size
* One person households are automatically considered non-family.
.
VOL
24 rAG: - 2298
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-4
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
HOUSING
This small household size has important implications for both housing demand and the supply of housing
that is necessary to shelter the Jefferson County population efficiently. Smaller households mean greater
competition for housing resources. However, these households require smaller housing units to meet
their needs, which presents opportunities for alternative affordable development techniques and housing
types.
The decrease in household size is due in large part to demographic trends within the population of
Jefferson County. An aging population, combined with in-migration of retired persons, has resulted in
significant changes to the types of households in the housing market. Over forty nine percent (49.1%) of
Jefferson County householders are over the age of fifty-five. This helps to explain why the majority of
households are comprised of one or two persons, because this is about the time when the children leave
home. The community of Port Ludlow accommodates a significant number of seniors who in-migrate
from other counties and, in some cases, from other states.
As further discussed in the Special Needs Housing section below, this growing number of senior
households will have significant effects on future housing needs in Jefferson County.
Household Income
The relationship between household income and housing cost is the main factor affecting the ability of
Jefferson County residents to afford adequate housing. As discussed in the Economic Development
Element, real wages have been steadily declining over the last twenty-five years. Over this period, real
wages, adjusted for inflation, have decreased twenty-eight percent (28%).
Housing costs have increased significantly over this same period. Therefore, the decline in real wages has
had serious implications for the affordability of housing in Jefferson County. Because housing costs have
been inflating at a faster rate than wages, households must spend larger percentages of their income on
shelter. The resulting "wage-housing mismatch" is most difficult for low and moderate income
households.
Not surprisingly, in a housing market, income detennines the type and size of housing that a household
can obtain. When household income increases, housing consumption increases, Generally, upper income
households spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on housing costs, although the amount they spend
on housing costs may be greater. Conversely, the lowest income households are most likely to be paying
the most for shelter relative to their incomes. In other words, a household earning $5,000 monthly that
pays $1,000 for its housing is significantly less burdened than a household earning $1,000 monthly that
pays $500 for its monthly housing costs.
Despite inherent shortcomings in collecting income data, this infonnation is important because it can be
used to calculate median household income. Median income is defined as the mid-point of all of the
reported incomes. That is, if the reported incomes were sorted by amount, half the number of households
had higher incomes and half had lower incomes than the median. Median household income is used
because the median is less susceptible to being influenced by a small number of very high or very low
incomes than average income.
In 1997, Jefferson County's median income was estimated to be $30,987. The relatively high median
income for a rural county such as Jefferson County reflects the influx of a large number of financially
secure retirees,
VOL
? A 'U:
......If r".u-
2299
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-5
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
The definitions of very low, low, and moderate income households are established by the U.s.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HOD). These income levels are based on fixed
percentages of the area's median income for a hou~ehold of four. These categories are used to evaluate
and prioritize the relative housing needs of income groups that may require housing assistance. For
example, the 1994 Washington State Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy specifies that the
State will give priority assistance to households earning fifty percent (50%) of the median income or less.
In 1990, 22% of Jefferson County households earned 50% or of the median income or less. However,
during the same period, over 60% of the households' income in Jefferson County exceeded the median
income.
Housing Stock
Past and present trends in the housing stock are the starting point for considering housing supply issues.
The housing stock in Jefferson County is the total of all occupied and vacant habitable housing units.
Inventory and Type
Table 5-3 illustrates the number and type of housing units in unincorporated Jefferson County based upon
the 1990 Census data.
Table 5-3
Housing Units by Type
Type of Housing Number of Units Percent of Total Units
Single Family
Detached 7,391 67.1 %
Attached 176 ' 1.6%
Total Single Family 7,567 68.7%
Multi-Family
2 to 4 Units 297 2.7%
5 to 9 Units 204 1.9%
10 or More Units 333 3.0%
Total Multi-Family 834 7.6%
Mobile, Manufactured, and Other
2,613 23.7%
Total for Rural County 11,014 100.0%
This inventory indicates that the majority of housing units in unincorporated Jefferson County are single
family structures, which corresponds to the County's rural nature. Single family structures are
traditionally the least affordable housing type, As a result of the relatively small percentage of multi-
family units, mobile and manufactured homes are a major source of affordable housing in the County.
Most mobile and manufactured homes are sited on small parcels, which further reduces the cost of this
housing type. In 1993, over thirty seven percent (37.3%) of building pennit activity in Jefferson County
was for mobile and manufactured homes.
It should be noted that the Census infonnation does not differentiate between mobile homes and
manufactured homes. Manufactured housing units are distinguished from mobile homes because they are
more durable and less mobile in nature, Once manufactured housing units are sited, they are rarely
moved. Additionally, manufactured housing meets HUD standards, which makes it possible to get a loan
to purchase a manufactured home and the land on which it is sited.
VOL
24: rAC,~
2300
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
HOUSING
Housing Tenure
Perhaps the most striking feature of the occupancy information is the amount of seasonal housing units.
By Census definition, seasonal units are not available for long-term rental or owner occupancy. That is,
they are not considered available in the housing market. Therefore, if these units are removed from the
category of vacant units, the vacancy rate in Jefferson County is six percent (6%). A five percent (5%)
vacancy rate is considered a healthy factor that allows the normal and efficient functioning of the housing
market.
However, this vacancy rate is predicated on the assumption that "other" vacant units are available for
long-term rental or owner occupancy in the housing market. This may not be a valid assumption due to
the lack of specificity in the Census definition ofthis term. Ifthe "other" vacant units are not included in
the available market supply of housing units, the vacancy rate decreases to two percent (2.0%). A
vacancy rate at this level would result in significant inflation in housing costs until the market responded
by producing additional supply.
Of the 2,348 rental units in the County,just over four percent (4.1 %) were vacant and on the market at the
time of the Census. This vacancy rate indicates a shortage of rental units in the housing market and
inflation in rental costs.
Of the 6,496 owner-occupied units in the County, less than one-half of one percent (0.2%) were vacant
and on the market at the time of the Census. This vacancy rate indicates a severe shortage of units for
purchase in the housing market and dramatic inflation in housing prices.
Housing Costs
As noted above in the Household Income section, there are two components to housing affordability:
household income and housing cost. While household incomes have been steadily declining over the past
twenty-five years as measured in terms of real wages, housing costs have been increasing significantly,
This is true for nearly every region ofthe country, and Jefferson County is no exception.
There has been a steady increase in the price of used single family homes and a steady series of
fluctuations in the price of new single family homes. New home prices are driven by a number of factors
for which used home prices are not affected. This includes, but is not limited to, labor and materials
costs, permitting costs, land costs and costs of meeting regulatory requirements, One of the most
significant factors in increased costs of new housing construction is rising land development costs. This
is particularly true in a region that is as physically and topographically constrained as the Olympic
Peninsula~ Many areas of Jefferson County are not suitable for development because of environmentally
sensitive areas such as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, and poor soils for structures and
drainage. Because of the rural nature of the County, infrastructure is minimal, and land development
costs must include roads, drainfields, utility extensions, and other off-site improvements. These costs are
passed on to the consumer, resulting in increased housing costs.
As a result of increased housing development costs, affordable housing is generally associated with an
adequate supply of older housing. If the supply is sufficient, this pool of less expensive housing can exert
downward pressure on housing costs and provide a variety of affordable housing options.
VOL
') 4 ., ~ [. ["
L r" ,-
2301
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-7
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
In Jefferson County, slightly greater than fifteen percent (15.4%) of housing units were constructed prior
to 1939. While this would seem to indicate an adequate supply, it is important to note that because ofthe
historic character of Port Townsend, many of these older houses have been extensively renovated and
updated. These renovations significantly increase the cost of these housing units relative to routine
housing maintenance.
.
Affordability
Housing affordability is based upon two components, housing cost and household income. In order to
develop policies and implementation strategies that address both components of affordability, Jefferson
County should create functional linkages between housing and economic development strategies. These
linkages can take two fonDs:
.
The wagelhousing balance is the relationship between the income earned by people and the price of
housing. Ideally, there are a sufficient number of housing units affordable to all levels of wage
eamers,
.
The jobslhousing balance is the relationship between the location of jobs and the location of housing.
Ideally, residences are developed in locations that are convenient to their jobs,
This Housing Strategy calls for compact rural development within Port Hadlock, Quilcene and Brinnon
providing there is adequate infrastructure to accommodate the additional population, Port Ludlow,
because of its infrastructure can support higher densities. These locations can be successful for affordable
housing developments because they have a traditional pattern of mixed, urban type land uses.
However, increasing development in established communities also is likely to result in loss of existing
low-cost housing, either through demolition or through upgrades of buildings and neighborhoods, This
existing low-cost housing often serves the lowest income people, so it is a community resource that
should be preserved for affordable shelter.
.
Cost Burden
Based upon the definition recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Jefferson County defines cost burden as the extent to which gross housing costs, including utilities,
exceed thirty percent (30%) of gross household income. This is the threshold at which the cost of shelter
typically becomes a financial hardship, reducing the amount of income available for other necessary
expenses such as food, medical care, and clothing,
Based upon the infonnation from the 1990 Census, over twelve percent (12.5%) of owner-occupied
housing units in Jefferson County spent in excess of 30% on their monthly housing costs in 1989. For
renter-occupied housing units, this figure was over thirty seven percent (37.4%).
If a significant number of households spend more than thirty percent of their incomes on housing, it can
have negative effects on other sectors of the economy. That is, if limited resources are over-allocated to
housing, it comes at the expense of other economic sectors and a diversified economy. This relationship
between affordable housing and a healthy economy is fundamental to the quality of life in Jefferson
County .
.
:. YOL
2,11 far: 2302
If. r ",,- -
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
HOUSING
Current Levels of Affordability
Table 5~4 shows the ranges of housing affordability for six income groups based upon the Washington
State Office of Financial Management estimate ofthe 1996 median income in Jefferson County.
Table 5-4
Housing Affordability Levels by Income Group
Income Group Definition Annual Affordable Affordable Affordable
Household Monthly Monthly Rent Purchase Price
Income Housing Cost
Extremely Low Less than 30% $0-9,341 $0-234 $0-176 $0-18,891
Income of Median
Very Low 31% to 50% of $9,342-15,568 $235-389 $182-301 $19,761-32,686
Income Median
Low Income 51% to 80% of $15,569-24,909 $390-623 $312-498 $33,929-54,187
Median
Moderate 81% to 95% of $24,910-29,579 $624- 739 $515-610 $56,175-66,615
Income Median
Middle Income 96% to 120% $29,560-37,363 $740-934 $629- 794 $68,976-86,977
of Median
Upper Income Greater than Greater than Greater than Greater than Greater than
121% of $37,364 $935 $818 $90,097
Median
In order to determine levels of affordability, the following conservative assumptions were made regarding
housing cost structure:
.
As discussed in the Cost Burden section above, affordable monthly housing cost is equal to thirty
percent (30%) of monthly household income.
Utilities, insurance, and associated costs range from 12.5 to 25 percent of monthly housing costs for
renter-occupied housing, declining by 2.5 percent per income group, This reduces the amount
available for rent accordingly.
Property taxes, utilíties, insurance and associated costs range from 22.5 to 35 percent of monthly
housing costs for owner-occupied housing, declining by 2.5 percent per income group. This reduces
the amount available for principal and interest payments accordingly.
Affordable purchase price is based upon a fully amortizing 30-year mortgage at 9 percent interest
with no down payment.
.
.
.
When these affordability ranges are compared to the distribution of housing costs for owner and renter
occupied housing as described in the Housing Cost section above, it identifies the availability of
affordable housing for each income group, as is shown in Table 5-5~ Affordable housing units include
both renter and owner occupied housing.
VOi-
24 r~r,:
2303
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-9
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
Income Group Definition Percentage of Percentage of
Households Affordable Housing
Units
Extremely Low Income 30% or less of Median 10.4% 5.3%
Very Low Income 31% to 50% of Median 11.7% 5.3%
Low Income 51% to 80% of Median 9.2% 12.9%
Moderate Income 81% to 95% of Median 5.0% 11. 7%
Middle Income 96% to 120% of Median 15.0% 11.4%
Table 5-5
Affordable Housing Availability by Income Group
.
Low income households comprise over thirty one percent (31.3%) of the County's population. However,
less than twenty four percent (23.5%) of the County's housing units are affordable to low income
households. These figures indicate that Jefferson County will need to develop strategies that encourage
the private sector to construct adequate affordable housing. However, the ability to accommodate higher-
density housing is constrained by the County's limited resources. Multi-unit housing is limited to only
those few areas that have the infrastructure to support it, namely the City of Port Townsend and Port
Ludlow. Limited multi-family duplexes and triplexes may be allowed in Port Hadlock, Quilcene and
Brinnon, but these options could be constrained by infrastructure requirements. Jefferson County will
pursue all viable options to address its affordable housing needs, including revising portions of its
development code and working with federal and state agencies to obtain funding or participate in housing
assistance programs.
HOUSING RESOURCES
Assisted Housing
.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 Rental Certificate program, a
publicly funded housing support program, is administered locally by the Housing Authority of Jefferson
County. The program has four objectives:
1. To provide improved living conditions for very low-income families (50 percent of area median
income) while maintaining their rent payments at an affordable level;
2. To promote freedom in housing choice and spatial deconcentration of lower income and minority
families;
3. To provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for eligible participants; and,
4. To provide an incentive for private property owners to rent to lower income families by offering
timely assistance payments and protection against unpaid rent, damages and vacancy loss,
The Section 8 program issues Rental Certificates to income eligible households. In order to insure
accommodations to households of different sizes, Section 8 Certificates are issued based upon the number
of bedrooms required to house a family without overcrowding. Once a Certificate is issued, the
household is required to find a rental unit on the open market. The unit is then evaluated by the Housing
Authority based upon the following criteria:
.
The landlord mUst be wì1ling to participate in and abide by the rules of the Section 8 program,
The rent, minus a utility allowance, must be within the Fair Market Rent guidelines for the bedroom
size of the Certificate issued to the household. Fair Market Rents are determined by HUD for the area
based upon annual surveys.
The rental unit must pass HUD's Housing Quality Standards to ensure safe and decent shelter.
.. 'VOI- 24 r~;;' - 2304
.
.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-10
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
HOUSING
Once these criteria are satisfied, the household pays thirty percent of their adjusted income for rent, minus
a utility allowance. The balance of the rent is paid by the Section 8 program. As an oversimplified
example, if a household has an adjusted monthly income of $500, they will pay $150 toward the rent. If
the rent is $250, the Section 8 program pays the remaining $100.
The average rental subsidy, including utility allowances, for Jefferson County amounts to $414 per
month. The average household contribution is $56. As determined by zip code, Port Townsend accounts
for over sixty percent (64.5%) of Section 8 households. In 1996, there were 357 households waiting for
Section 8 housing assistance and 11 households waiting for T.B.R.A2 (Tenant Based Rental Assistance)
help.
In 1994, contrary to increasing housing costs, HOD reduced the Fair Market Rent for a two bedroom unit
in Jefferson County from $555 to $464 per month, a decrease of almost twenty percent (19.6%). After
deducting the utility allowance of $85, this leaves an allowable contract rent of $379. Two bedroom units
in Jefferson County were renting for $475 to $600 during this period. Therefore, the search for rental
units that comply with the Fair Market Rent criteria is often extremely difficult.
The need for Section 8 rental assistance greatly exceeds the available resources. In 1996, There was a
waiting list of 161 households for Section 8 Certificates. The average wait for certification is two years.
Special Needs Housing
,.
Some residents of Jefferson County require modified housing units or special services in order to live
independently. Others require group home or institutional care. While some of these individuals have the
resources and abilities to take care of their housing needs, many do not. In order to serve these special
housing needs, an assessment of existing programs was conducted to analyze the scale of need, determine
available resources, and identify potential gaps in the delivery system.
The study of special needs housing in Jefferson County included the mentally ill, the developmentally
disabled, people living with HIV/AIDS, and the homeless, Subsequently, the Housing Authority of
Jefferson County has instituted a system by which "preference" may be granted to terminally ill persons
who apply for Section 8 assistance. To date one mY/AIDS individual has been assisted.
Mentally III
With respect to special housing needs, the main program is operated by the Jefferson Community
Counseling Center, and is confined to two groups. These groups are: (1) the chronically mentally ill, and
(2) mentally and emotionally disturbed.
The chronically mentally ill program covers 95 individuals whose condition may preclude their ability to
maintain gainful employment. Public assistance (social security insurance) provides a standard of living
equal to twenty seven percent (27%) of median income. However, if provided with sufficient residential
support, this group can live independently. These individuals are cared for by nurses and case managers
who also work closely with landlords to assure an amicable client-landlord relationship.
2 The T.B.R.A. Program is administered through the State of Washington and funded through the federal HOME
program, The major difference between this program and BUD's Section 8 is that the tenant may pay more than 30
percent of their monthly income towards rent. Another difference is the T .B.R.A. program is a transitional housing
program providing up to 2 years of rental subsidies. ~or homeless and chronicf1ll~ m~n~l ill hpys.,;hð~
VOL ell r~r,~ GoJ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-11
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
The mentally and emotionally disturbed program covers 256 individuals. This includes emotionally
disturbed children who may even be the principal clients. Seniors total 65 with a client turn-over of about
2 per month. There is no waiting list for this program, About 83 percent of clients are on some form of
public assistance. These clients account for ten Section 8 rentals. While this group reports some earned
income, it represents only thirty nine percent (39%) of the County's median income. The program is
estimated to cover seventy percent (70%) of the eligible population. The balance largely represents those
who refuse to seek help whether in fear or because of suspicion.
Developmentally Disabled
In 1994, Jefferson County had an estimated need to serve 234 people with developmental disabilities.
However, only thirty five (35%) percent are currently being served.
Establishments that provide services to the County are the Helena Home, which serves 10 people, and
Maria Home, which serves 12 people. Both of these facilities are located in Port Townsend. However,
because of the scale of the housing needs of this population, these establishments do not serve the entire
County. Housing is not available for the developmentally disabled in the unincorporated portion of
Jefferson County.
A combination of one bedroom housing units with supportive residential services and adult group homes
has been suggested to serve this growing population.
Persons Living with HIVIAIDS
In 1996, there were two persons living with illY/AIDS who were in need of affordable housing in
Jefferson County, such as single adult units and Assisted Residential Units. Currently, there is not a
program to provide housing and services for this groUp.3
H omelessness
In 1995, the Clallam-Jefferson County Community Action Council (C-JCAC) served 93 persons in 51
households in Jefferson County through the Jefferson County Emergency Shelter Program. Sixty-six
households were turned away during that time, including 36 which had children. Many of these families
were denied shelter because the four travel trailers available to C-JCAC were full and alternative housing
could not be obtained. At this time 8 cottages are being renovated of which 6 will be used for emergency
shelter.
Land Resources for Projected Future Housing Needs
As discussed above in the Population and Household Growth section, Jefferson County will continue to
grow over the 20-year planning period. Table 3-1 in the Land Use/Rural Element indicates the projected
rate and location of population growth in Jefferson County over the next twenty years.
The amount of land necessary to accommodate these new households by the year 2016 depends upon
many factors, including whether the County wants to encourage single-family residences on existing
small, moderate or large size lots, or accommodate more households in multi-family residences at higher
densities. Higher density residential would require sufficient infrastructure such as community water,
community sewer, location near commercial services, adequate roadways and location near public transit
3 Personal Interview, Gordon Maul from the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services.
. . '1'OL 24 f~~~l ~ 2306
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-12
August28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
HOUSING
Port Townsend and Port Ludlow are presently the only two communities that have level of service
standards that would accommodate the above criteria for locating multi-family residential. Port Hadlock
has the potential to accommodate additional multi-family residential provided that a community sewer
system is developed.
Land Requirements for Multi-Family Housing
Clearly, the City of Port Townsend has an abundance of undeveloped land suitable for residential uses.
This residential land surplus presents the City with an opportunity to provide a range of dwelling unit
densities to accommodate the projected population and housing unit growth.
The community of Port Ludlow also has a variety of residential types and densities. Gross density of
single-family detached units does not exceed four dwelling units per acre. Single-family attached,
townhouses, multi-family and continuing care projects do not exceed 10 units per gross acre. Proximity
to community support services and infrastructure is an important element of individual projects in the
upper range of allowed densities.
Land Requirements for Single-Family Housing
The minimum lot size needed to accommodate residential housing varies throughout Jefferson County,
The determining factors include the availability of public water and soil type for accommodating septic
systems. Other factors may include critical areas, adjacent resource lands, and location in shoreline areas.
The minimum lot size for unincorporated areas of the County served by public water is 12,500 square
feet.
HOUSING STRATEGY
Housing cost is influenced by a wide variety of market and institutional forces. Some of these can be
affected by local government, but most others are the result of larger socio-economic issues that are
beyond the reach of regional policy. One major contributor to the cost of housing is the price of land. In
an attempt to reduce land costs associated with the construction of affordable and special needs housing,
the County will analyze the inventory of publicly owned lands to determine if any of these lands are
suitable for the accommodation of low income and special needs housing.
This is not to say that local government cannot make important contributions to encouraging affordable
housing within its jurisdiction, Jefferson County is committed to realizing the vision of the community to
shelter its residents in safe, decent, and affordable housing. But it is important to recognize that there are
limits to the housing issues that can be addressed within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan.
. The following components are the primary influences on housing affordability:
1, Land use controls which limit the areas where housing may be built and the density of development,
which may increase the cost and availability of land;
2. Building code requirements which may increase construction costs;
3. Site development requirements, including infrastructure, environmental mitigation, and other on- and
off-site improvements;
4. The asking price of raw land or platted lots.
5, Finance costs, including interest rates and fees;
6. Materials and construction costs, including labor; and,
7. Population changes, including demographic shifts and in-migration, which may result in mismatches
between housing supply and demand.
1,'01-
24 rAC::
2 ;}O7
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-13
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
While Jefferson County can influence the first three components through its policies and regulations, the
latter four are, for the most part, independent of local government. In order to provide the housing needed
by the residents of Jefferson County, it will be necessary to develop new relationships with the City of
Port Townsend, Washington State, and the private sector.
.
Regionalism and Fair Share
Based upon the population projections in the mutually adopted Watterson West Report, the City of Port
Townsend has developed housing policies for the Urban Growth Area under City jurisdiction in its
Comprehensive Plan. These policies provide for the accommodation of the City's Fair share of household
growth over the 20-year planning period.
Under GMA, as the County's only designated Urban Growth Area, the City of Port Townsend must bear
responsibility for locating higher density and multi-family residential areas. This type of housing can be
developed much more affordably than single family housing that occurs in the rural areas. However, the
County is severely constrained to accommodate this type of housing because of infrastructure
requirements. High density and multi-family housing requires a full range of urban services, including
public water, sewer, transportation, and complementary and supportive land uses for employment and
retail needs.
Port Ludlow is the only unincorporated community in Jefferson County which also has a full range of
urban services including public water and sewer. Some of its undeveloped lands are currently designated
for future higher density, multi-family residential. Port Ludlow is responsible for its share in developing
affordable higher density and multi-family housing both for purchase and for rent.
.
This presents the opportunity for regional cooperation and coordination. In regional housing markets,
housing issues cut across all jurisdictions and communities. The actions of each jurisdiction affect the
other. No jurisdiction or community is independent of another regarding the difficulty of encouraging
affordable housing to a growing population. Although each jurisdiction is taking steps to provide housing
for future household growth, regional coordination is needed.
A monitoring system should be implemented to determine the success of efforts to encourage housing for
low and moderate income households. Since both the City and the County will need to develop this
process, it is important to take a coordinated regional approach using consistent surveys, modeling,
assumptions, and techniques. Because of its role in the regional housing market, the Housing Authority
of Jefferson County may be the best organization to lead this process.
This process should provide low and moderate income targets for the jurisdictions that are achievable in a
progressive manner over the 20-year planning period, That is, short term and long term affordable
housing needs should be addressed. The process should identify programs and finance mechanisms that
will result in meaningful progress toward the targets.
If the monitoring system identifies shortfalls in accommodating the Fair share housing targets, a
cooperative process to determine appropriate inter-jurisdictional and inter-community solutions should be
developed, Potential strategies include regional funding for low and moderate income housing, density
transfers, and resource donations.
",:",
,'" -, "
.
: VOL
24 fX;:
~ 2 308
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-14
August28,1998
.
.
.
HOUSING
Regulatory Framework
The rising costs of development ~~ land, residential construction, financing, permit processing, roads and
utilities -- have contributed to increased rents and house prices at all price levels. Some of these cost
increases are outside the control of local governments, while others are directly affected by public policy
decisions. When public policies are developed, it is important to evaluate the cost implications for
housing development and look for cost-saving approaches.
Existing housing units will provide some of the affordable housing needed for household growth in the
future, But a trickle~down approach is not sufficient to meet all the housing needs. With the short supply
of lower-cost housing available today and the projected growth of households, it is essential that new
construction also provide affordable housing, especially for low and moderate~income households.
Efforts to encourage sufficient infrastructure and reduced development costs will help make new
affordable housing achievable. Zoning, regulatory and infrastructure strategies that cut development costs
can help restrain rising housing costs and increase the amount of new, moderately priced housing.
Variety and Housing Alternatives
In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that preserves and enhances the character of
Jefferson County's communities while maintaining their identity and livability, the features that make an
attractive residential development should be identified, Future development should include these features
while allowing for a greater variety in housing types. This flexibility must be accompanied by consistency
and predictability in the regulatory process.
As we enter a new century, the characteristics of people seeking housing continue to change. There are
many more single adults living alone or in shared housing than ever before, more families with a single
parent or two parents working full~time, and more seniors than ever before.
Applying traditional housing development techniques in this context can result in over-housing some
segments of the population, while other segments are under-served. From a regional perspective, this is
not an efficient use of limited housing development resources. One of the most important roles that local
government can play in encouraging affordable housing is to make information on housing demand
available to the public. This information allows for a more efficient response by housing developers and
providers within the market.
Special Needs Housing
One of the fastest growing age groups in the County over the next twenty years is expected to be the
elderly. Many seniors live on a fixed income that limits their ability to afford market rate rental housing.
Elderly homeowners often cannot afford increasing property tax, insurance premiums, or maintenance
costs.
The elderly are considered a special needs population because of the high coITelation between age and
disability, Many elderly households are likely to require special supportive residential services as well as
affordable housing.
The scale and nature of the projected elderly housing needs should be thoroughly assessed by Jefferson
County and the City of Port Townsend. This study could be performed by a joint citizen advisory
VOL
24 r~r)~
2309
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-15
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
committee with staff support. The study should make recommendations to both jurisdictions regarding
regional elderly housing policies.
An important component of addressing low-income housing needs is the goal of successfully integrating
housing for low-income people and people with special needs into the larger community. Assisted
housing developments are typically small projects, either new construction or acquisition and
rehabilitation of existing housing, that fit into the surrounding neighborhood. For special needs groups in
particular, public policies favor community-based, independent living in small residences, often in single-
family houses or apartments.
; VOL
24 r~~r _2 3:10
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-16
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
HOUSING
.
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals outlined below provide a general direction for housing policy in Jefferson County, These goals
are based on the requirements of the Growth Management Act, which outlines specific criteria for the
provision of housing affordable to all segments of the population.
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals
state the general growth management intentions of the County while the policies are the processes for
implementation. Strategies identify the specific projects or programs that will be used to implement the
policies.
HOUSING
GOAL:
HSG 1.0
POLICIES:
HSP 1.1
. HSP 1.2
HSP 1.3
HSP 1.4
GOAL:
HSG 2.0
POLICIES:
HSP 2.1
.
Encourage and support efforts to provide an adequate supply of housing for County
residents of all income groups.
Promote the provision of an adequate supply of housing through inter jurisdictional and
public-private cooperative efforts.
Encourage a regional fair share housing allocation process that establishes affordable and
special needs housing targets for the urban area of Port Townsend, Rural Village Centers
and the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
Promote regionally coordinated low income housing in coordination with the Jefferson
County Housing Authority, non-profit housing providers, and other public and private
housing interests.
Support the Jefferson County Housing Authority and the Community Action Council, in
their efforts to develop a home repair program, funded through State administered block
grant funds, or the State Housing Assistance Program.
Promote a variety of affordable housing choices throughout the County through the
use of innovative land use practices, development standards, design techniques, and
building permit requirements.
Establish consistent development regulations and procedures which promote
environmental quality, public health, and safety standards while minimizing the
economic impact on the development of housing,
VOI-
24 rM;~
2 3:11
5-17
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
HSP 2.2
HSP 2.3
HSP 2.4
HSP 2.5
HSP 2.6
HSP 2.7
HSP 2.8
GOAL:
HSG 3.0
POLICIES:
HSP 3.1
HSP 3.2
HSP 3.3
Provide the most current available information on environmentally sensitive areas and
natural resource lands, including maps, to identify potential land development
constraints.
.
Identify and address potential mitigation for Critical Area impacts as early in the
permitting process as possible.
Explore a variety of methods to minimize delays in the land development process.
Allow an accessory dwelling unit in conjunction with a single-family residence
throughout the County.
Ensure that the County's impact fee program is based on a fair assessment of the true cost
of new public facilities needed to accommodate each housing unit or subdivision.
Encourage and support greater opportunity for the development of innovative housing
types, such as residential units in mixed-use development and single family attached
housing, duplexes and triplexes which are limited in scale, multi-care facilities and
development patterns such as clustering, in Rural Village Centers provided adequate
infrastructure and services are in place,
Encourage innovative technology such as compo sting toilets and gray water systems.
Cooperate with the appropriate agencies to create programs aimed at conserving
and improving the County's existing housing.
.
Support the expansion of existing weatherization and energy conservation activities and
programs.
Support efforts of the Jefferson County Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity and the
Community Action Council to obtain Housing Preservation Grant Program funding for
the repair and rehabilitation of dwellings for low income renters and owners.
Cooperate with the Jefferson County Housing Authority and other agencies to identify
areas most in need of rehabilitation assistance and infrastructure improvements. To the
extent possible, coordinate public investments in capital infrastructure with rehabilitation
efforts.
.
, VOL
2A "nr-23~tZ,
Lf: r",,_, -
5-18
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
HOUSING
GOAL:
HSG 4.0
POLICIES:
HSP 4.1
HSP 4.2
HSP 4.3
HSP 4.4
HSP 4.5
HSP 4.6
HSP 4.7
Encourage the development of housing for people with special needs.
Allow for a continuum of care for special needs populations in Rural Village Centers,
including emergency housing, transitional housing, assisted living, group homes, senior
housing and low income housing.
Encourage the development, rehabilitation, and adaptation of housing that is responsive
to the physical needs of special needs populations, such as building and site plan
requirements that address accessibility.
Coordinate the development of special needs housing through social service providers
and the public agencies that provide services and funding.
Coordinate with Community Action Council, the Jefferson County Housing Authority,
nonprofit housing providers, and other public and private housing interests to ensure that
low income and special needs housing is sited in locations that are adequately served by
necessary support facilities and which have the necessary infrastructure.
Where feasible, enter into agreements, provide services, and generally support the
Jefferson County Housing Authority through actions authorized in the Housing
Cooperation Law (RCW 35.83).
Jefferson County shall continue to recognize and support the provisions of the Federal
Fair Housing Act. Jefferson County shall continue to encourage and support the
development of housing to accommodate disabled persons in accordance with the Fair
Housing Act.
Vacant public lands will be considered to accommodate low income housing
opportunities throughout Jefferson County. This study will be overseen by the Joint
County-City Housing Advisory Committee.
VOL
24 rM,~
2 313
5-19
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
HOUSING
STRATEGIES
.
A.
HOUSING SUPPLY STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for providing an adequate housing supply for County residents focuses on
regulatory and cooperative activities to ensure the availability of sufficient land, to provide a variety of
housing types, and to promote affordable options for housing.
Action Items
1. Conduct Community Housing Analyses and County-wide housing needs assessment for each of the
Rural Village Centers. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
2. Cooperate with public, private and non-profit agencies to undertake an assessment of housing
demands and monitor the achievement of the housing policies and housing targets not less than once
every three (3) years. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) .
3. Adopt a formal memorandum of understanding to encourage and support the efforts of the Jefferson
County Housing Authority, (Corresponding Goals: 1.0,3.0)
4. Conduct a joint County-City study to assess the adequacy of the supply of developable residential
land currently served by required urban or rural utilities and roads to accommodate existing
affordable housing shortfalls, (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
5, Develop a process to distribute information on County policies and regulations and changes in the
housing market to housing developers and providers. (Corresponding Goal: 2.0)
.
6. Consider owner builder amendment to Building Code to allow owner occupancy prior to the final
inspection and completion of the dwelling unit. (Corresponding Goal: 2.0)
7. In cooperation with the City of Port Townsend, Clallam County, Clallam-Jefferson County Action
Council, the Jefferson County Housing Authority, Olympic Area Agency on Aging, Habitat for
Humanity and the State of Washington's Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED),
identify funding sources such as "Planning-Only" grant funds to pursue a County-wide study of
housing conditions as a basis to develop a regional subsidized housing repair program.
(Corresponding Goal: 3.0)
.
I VOL
24 rM;~ ~. 23:14
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-20
August 28,1998
.
.
.
HOUSING
B.
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for special needs housing combines cooperative efforts with human services
agencies and land use regulatory changes which together will facilitate the development of special needs
housing to serve County residents.
Action Items
1.
Appoint a joint County-City Housing Advisory Committee to develop a fair share housing
monitoring program and Elderly Housing Needs Advisory Committee to assess the special
housing needs of the senior population. The scale and nature of the projected elderly housing
needs should be thoroughly assessed by Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. A joint
citizen advisory committee with staff support could perfonn this study. The study should make
recommendations to both jurisdictions regarding regional elderly housing policies.
(Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
A.
The Joint County-City Housing Advisory Committee will analyze the location, size, and
availability of publicly owned lands to assess their possible utility for accommodating low
income housing opportunities throughout Jefferson County.
2.
In cooperation with other jurisdictions in the region, the County shall support application for
special needs housing funds. (Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
3.
Develop siting criteria for special needs group housing that address issues of neighborhood
compatibility and meet fair housing requirements. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 4.0)
VOL
2 4 r~L'
2 :j15
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-21
August 28, 1998
HOUSING
VOL
24 r~r;¡:~ =2 3~t6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
5-22
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
OPEN SPACE
8
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION, AND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Open Space, Parks and Recreation component of this element is to
classify, protect, and enhance open space lands and parks and to link them into a County-wide network.
Because open space is essential to the rural character of Jefferson County, the element proposes
strategies and regulations to achieve a balance between open space preservation and land development
and use activities, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Recognizing the
significance of parks and recreation to the quality of life in Jefferson County, the element develops
strategies to meet the demand for these facilities and services, consistent with capital planning goals and
policies.
The purpose of the Historic Preservation component of this element is to encourage the preservation of
historic and prehistoric sites, structures and artifacts through designation criteria and review processes,
WASHINGTON STATE OPEN SPACE ACT
The Washington State Open Space Act (RCW 84.34.020) defines open space as any land area, the
preservation of which, in its present use, would:
8 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Conserve or enhance natural, cultural or scenic resources;
Protect streams, stream corridors, wetlands, natural shorelines and aquifers;
Protect soil resources and unique or critical wildlife and native plant habitat;
Promote conservation principles by example or by offering educational opportunities;
Enhance the value of parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations and other open spaces;
Enhance recreational opportunities; or
Preserve historic and/or archaeological sites.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
Because of the complexity of open space, parks, recreational and historic preservation issues, several
other elements of the Plan analyze specific aspects of these issues and propose methods to address them,
In order to avoid redundancy, these other elements are referenced where appropriate throughout the goals
and policies and strategies sections. This supports and enhances the techniques that have been developed
in other elements to create a comprehensive strategy.
The following table summarizes the open space, parks, recreational and historic preservation issues
identified and addressed in other elements of the Plan:
-8
VOL
24 rM;~
2~3:l 7
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-1
August 28, 1998
OPEN SPACE
Element Discussion
1. Land U se/Rural The majority of land in Jefferson County is open space. Open space
can be a primary land use, in such cases as parks and natural resource
lands. It can also be complementary to other land uses, as in the case
of large-lot residential districts and master planned resorts. Open space
is an important component of the County's rural character. Jefferson
County is made unique by its quiltwork of open space land uses,
including large-lot residential districts, forestry, agriculture, and park
land, Historic sites and structures are also integral components of rural
character of the County and provide a link to the past development of
the region.
2, Environment Open space is fundamental for environmental protection and
enhancement, New policies are developed for the preservation of the
County's significant environmental features through the use of open
space: critical areas, aquifer recharge areas, flood plains, and wildlife
corridors and habitat.
3. Natural Resource Lands Forest and agricultural lands are traditional open space land uses that
provide important visual and ecological benefits. New policies are
proposed to maintain and enhance these uses throughout the County.
4. Economic Development Tourism and recreation are important and growing sectors of the
County's economy. Jefferson County's open space and recreational
opportunities draw thousands of visitors annually and contribute
significantly to the County's economy.
6. Capital Facilities Parks are public facilities. An appropriate level of service for parks
and recreation must be determined. Based upon the projected
population growth for the County, a plan must be developed to
maintain or achieve this level of service.
7, Transportation Non-motorized transportation makes use of parks and trail systems as
an alternative to traditional automotive travel and public transit.
OPEN SPACE STRATEGY
Open spaces help conserve natural resources; protect environmentally sensitive areas; provide aesthetic,
scenic and recreational benefits; and preserve cultural and historic resources. Therefore, the preservation
of open space is important for the County's residents and visitors.
The proposed strategy includes the following steps:
1. Open Space Definition and Identification
2. Proposing planning goals and policies designed to:
. Protect and preserve the natural environment including air, water, soil, vegetation and wildlife
habitat, as well as other significant ecosystem elements;
. Integrate adequate open space into rural development projects in order to provide amenities and
help foster community identity;
. Protect and manage natural resources for long-term productive use, including buffering natural
resource lands from adjacent non-resource related land uses; and
"
?A ',[ð .. 23:18
....!f t", :_" --.....
..VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
OPEN SPACE
.
Create a County-wide system of interconnected open spaces, including forests, fannland, parks,
trails, waterways, meadows and tree stands, critical areas, and natural resource lands both in
public and private ownership.
In order to promote consistency and provide certainty in the application of the planning goals and
policies, the first step in this strategy is to define open space as it pertains to Jefferson County.
Open space is a broad tenn used to describe different types of lands that have important values and
provide benefits to the public. Generally, open space lands include natural and environmentally critical
areas such as wetlands; aquifer recharge areas; lakes and streams; designated parks and trails; and natural
resource lands, such as agricultural and forest lands. Based upon the characteristics of the land and its
uses, a variety of open space lands are recognized in Jefferson County:
Open Space Lands Description
L Pristine Open Space This category consists of undisturbed open space, with no active land
use or development. These areas may contain significant
environmentally sensitive areas or wildlife habitat, Examples include
old-growth forest or tidal marshes.
2. Resource Open Space These are open lands that are actively used for natural resource
production, including lands designated as being of long-tenn
commercial significance. Examples include fanus, forests, and
shellfish beds.
3. Low Density Rural Residential densities throughout the County (i.e" large lot residential
Residential Open Space zoning) promote a pattern of open space because the lot coverage and
resulting visual impact is minimal in relation to the size of the parceL
4, Public and Preserved Open These areas consist of National, State, and County Parks and linkages,
Space such as greenbelts and conservation easements. This is a multiple use
category of open space, including both active and passive uses.
5. Active Open Space This is open space designed for higher intensity or active recreational
uses, These lands consist of a wide variety of public and private spaces,
such as trails, marinas, golf courses, playfields, and campgrounds.
Many of these lands are connected within ecological systems that have unique functions and attributes.
Taken together, these areas fonn the distinctive mosaic of open space found in the County. This "quilt-
work" of open space is integral to the rural character of Jefferson County.
As a result of population growth and associated development in the County, significant areas of open
space have been converted to residential uses. This change in the rural landscape has resulted in the
fragmentation of open space areas and wildlife corridors, and the depletion of important resource lands,
including fanns and forests, Conflicts often have been created between residents and resource industries
as residential development has encroached upon previously undeveloped lands. If developed areas
continue to expand in the existing pattern, additional open spaces and natural areas will be converted to
other uses.
VOL
24 rM,C
2~:l9
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-3
August 28, 1998
OPEN SPACE
To plan adequately for the provision of open space, priority areas need to be identified. The majority of
land that should receive priority attention in tenus of open space designation within Jefferson County
includes most environmentally sensitive areas including stream and drainage corridors. Other areas that
should receive priority attention consist of those currently facing development pressure (i.e., actual
building activity or land division).
.
The map on Page 6-11 illustrates some priority areas for open space designation as detenuined by the
Jefferson Land Trust (identified in light blue). The primary areas consist of: the North Quimper
Peninsula Corridor area connecting the Cape George area to Fort Worden; an open space area extending
from Tibbals Lake south through the valley adjacent to Jacob Miller Road; the Chimacum Creek
watershed; and the headwaters of Discovery, Quilcene and Tarboo Bays.
PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County contains many park and recreational assets (see map on page 6-13). Approximately
three-fourths ofthe 1,808 square miles ofland area in the County is in public ownership. The two largest
publicly owned areas are the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest.
Of the one hundred and seventeen (117) recreational areas found in the County, thirty four (34) are
locally managed: twenty (20) by Jefferson County, seven (7) by the City of Port Townsend, and seven
(7) by the Port of Port Townsend. The Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department conducts
organized recreational activities and instruction that include baseball, basketball, soccer, volleyball,
hiking, swimming, exercise, bicycling, and sailing~
The demand for County park and recreational facilities comes predominantly from the following groups:
.
.
Jefferson County residents;
Tourists en route to other recreational areas, including the Olympic National Park and National
Forest, Clallam County recreational facilities, Vancouver Island and other scenic areas in Canada;
and
Recreational enthusiasts including hikers, bicyclists, campers, and beachcombers who visit the many
State parks, such as Fort Worden and Fort Flagler, as well as the many County parks.
.
.
The 1995 Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan estimated the need and demand for parks and
recreation areas and facilities in the County. This element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
provides need and location criteria as well as proposes means for eliminating existing deficiencies in the
County's system of parks and recreation areas. However, because the Growth Management Act defines
recreation facilities as a component of necessary public facilities, the Capital Facilities Element will
reflect the established demand and proposed planning policies in respect to parks and recreation.
The Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan
The purpose of the 1995 Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan was to identify how park,
recreation and open space needs should be addressed and implemented, for the benefit of both County
residents and visitors alike. In order to achieve this, the Parks Comprehensive Plan defined a set of
policies and proposals adopted by the various local jurisdictions in the County. The goals of the
planning process were as follows:,;
.
: VOI-
24 r~:/ ~ 2 320
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-4
August 28, 1998
OPEN SPACE
. .
.
.
.
.
To reflect the desires and needs of Jefferson Cqunty citizens as expressed through community
involvement by survey and public meetings and workshops;
To define specific projects and project goals;
To coordinate County programs and services through cooperation with Federal, State, and local
agencies;
To aid in developing, correlating, and coordinating official regulations and guidelines; and
To obtain funding for parks and recreational needs and projects.
The Plan addresses the location and available services of all existing park and recreation facilities, the
results of the public survey and public meetings, and specific capital improvement projects. The Plan
also makes recommendations on implementing identified park and recreation goals.
Because the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan is the adopted parks and recreation policy
document for Jefferson County, its conclusions and recommendations were used as a starting point and
prioritization for the goals and policies of this Element, Future revisions of the Jefferson County Parks
Comprehensive Plan will ensure its compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, including the
goals, policies, and strategies of both this element and the Capital Facilities Element.
Two projects responding to the high level of community interest in additional park and recreational
opportunities in Jefferson County are the H.J. Carroll Park and the Larry Scott Memorial Park Trail.
.
The H.J. Carroll Park is being constructed in Chimacum on a 40-acre parcel that was the fonner site of
the Anderson Gravel Pit. The purpose of the park is to provide a regional multi-purpose recreational
facility. Due to its scope, this will be a phased project. The first phase is slated to provide a sports field
for football, baseball and soccer. Trails, restrooms and picnic facilities will also be constructed.
Later phases envision the development of a picnic shelter, aquatic center, playground, environmental
learning center, and facilities for multi-purpose recreational activities including volleyball courts,
basketball courts and a skateboard area.
This ambitious County Park project constitutes one of the largest County Park projects undertaken to
date and is made possible through a partnership of public and private interests. The completion of this
facility will take a number of years, but the end result will provide great benefit to the residents of
Jefferson County for many years to come.
The vision for the Larry Scott Memorial Trail is to provide future generations with a safe, non-motorized
recreation and transportation corridor connecting Port Townsend with rural Jefferson County. As
proposed, the route extends approximately seven miles from the Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven to
Four Comers, Road. The long-tenn vision is to extend the trail to Discovery Bay and eventually to points
further west.
.
The first phase of this project involves the construction of a two mile segment extending from the Port of
Port Townsend to Mill Road, This initial phase inclu,des the gravel surfacing of the pedestrian trail,
installing regulatory and interpretive signage, fencing, and the construction of a trail tenninus area with
seating, an infonnation kiosk, landscaping, and an infonnal stairway to the beach. Later phases will
extend the trail system to Four Comers.
1,'01-
?4 "r'
-- (" ,-
2 -ro 2'
~), 1
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-5
August 28, 1998
OPEN SPACE
This community-based trail project is made possible through the assistance of grants from the
Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation and the federally funded Internodal
Surface Transportation Enhancement Act. When completed, the Lany Scott Memorial Trail will provide
the citizens of the County with a safe and viable alternative to motorized transit.
Jefferson County, in cooperation with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, will evaluate and
attempt to secure sites for motorized off road vehicles that perhaps have been displaced by the
development of the Lany Scott Memorial Trail.
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan makes use of the quantitative data developed
in the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan to assess the current level of parks and recreation
services in the County. The existing level of service (LOS) is then compared to the average level of
parks and recreation services for other Washington local government jurisdictions. The existing level of
service is also compared to the results of the 1991 Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC)
survey on parks and recreation services in Washington counties with populations of 18,000 to 70,000.
This level of service analysis is perfonned for regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks,
trails, and open space assets in Jefferson County,
.
Regional Parks: Regional parks range in size from 1 to 350 acres and provide diversified active and
passive uses. The 1996 LOS for regional parks in Jefferson County is 18 acres per 1,000 population.
The LOS recommended in the Capital Facilities Element for regional parks is 11.5 acres per 1,000
population. Although this is a reduction of thirty six percent (36%) from the 1996 LOS, it greatly
exceeds comparable averages. This reduction reflects a Department of Public Works proposed
policy that supports significant. development of, and improvement to, currently County-owned
regional park acreage in lieu of acquisition of additional regional park acreage during the next twenty
years. This will allow construction of the sports fields and recreation facilities that were identified as
priorities by the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan.
.
Community Parks: Community parks range in size from less than I acre to just over 13 acres and
generally serve two or more neighborhoods. The 1996 LOS for community parks in Jefferson
County was 1.30 acres per 1,000 population. The LOS recommended in the Capital Facilities
Element for community parks is 0.51 acres per 1,000 population. This is a reduction of sixty one
percent (61%) from the 1996 LOS. This reduction reflects a Department of Public Works proposed
policy that supports significant development of, and improvement to, currently County-owned
community park acreage in lieu of acquisition of additional community park acreage during the next
twenty years. This will allow construction of the sports fields and recreation facilities that were
identified as priorities by the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan.
.
Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks range in size from 0.26 acres to 1.9 acres and typically
serve only one neighborhood. The 1996 LOS for neighborhood parks in Jefferson County was 0.24
acres per 1,000 population. The LOS recommended in the Capital Facilities Element for
neighborhood parks is 0.14 acres per 1,000 population, This LOS, although decreased, will allow for
acquisition of additional neighborhood park acreage in response to population growth. As
recommended by the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan, the locations of new
neighborhood parks will correspond with and reflect the patterns of population growth in the County.
, VOL
24 . ¡r,,'[ --2 322
r..1k -
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
OPEN SPACE
.
Trails: Trails provide a system of separated cross-country linkages that connect major environmental
assets, park and recreation facilities, community centers, and historical features. The 1996 LOS for
trails in Jefferson County was 038 miles per 1,000 population. The LOS recommended in the
Capital Facilities Element for trails is 0.52 miles per 1,000 population. This is a significant increase
from the 1996 LOS. The County's commitment to an expanded trail system reflects the
recommendations of the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan.
.
Open Space: The open space category of parks includes areas that are considered to be passive open
space or environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, steep slopes, and wildlife habitat areas.
The 1996 LOS for open space in Jefferson County was 1.9 acres per 1,000 population. The LOS
recommended in the Capital Facilities Element for open space is 1.5 acres per 1,000 population, This
small decrease will continue to allow the County to respond to the need for additional open space.
These recommended levels of setVice will allow the County to develop appropriate financing plans for
park and recreation facility acquisition and development over the twenty-year comprehensive planning
period.
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
Wildlife corridors provide a safe habitat for animal and plant life to exist and flourish. Wildlife corridors
maintain or reestablish links between important wildlife habitat areas that may be interrupted due to
development activities. As Jefferson County continues to experience growth and development, important
wildlife areas are being "cut off' from the system of wildlife habitats making it more difficult for
wildlife to pursue naturallifecycle patterns.
In a very simple sense, wildlife corridors provide a protected pathway along which native wildlife
species can move in relative security between the high quality habitats of the area. In many instances it
is best to coordinate the location of these corridors with existing natural drainage corridors which have
naturally setVed in this capacity, The important functions provided by wildlife corridors include:
providing safe passage for native wildlife; helping to maintain a natural flood water control system;
protecting existing habitat and water quality; enhancing property values; and ensuring that future
generations realize the benefits derived from maintaining a balanced natural system.
Clearly, multiple goals may be accomplished by well planned and located wildlife corridors. Retaining
and protecting drainage corridors along with their associated buffers will become increasingly important
as development progresses (i.e., as impenneable surfaces continue to increase), and the functions of these
areas for water retention, water quality enhancement and aquifer recharge will be diminished without
adequate protection. These areas, in addition to setVing important functions to wildlife, are the first and
best element in stonn water handling and treatment. Overbuilding near floodplains or reducing the size
of our drainage corridors will result in the need for expensive infrastructure to treat stonn water runoff
and to prevent flooding and associated damage. Recent winter stonns and subsequent snow melt and
runoff provide dramatic testimony to the need to keep drainage corridors and floodplains open and free
of inappropriate development and densities.
The Jefferson Land Trust, a non-profit organization providing options for landowners wishing to
presetVe certain values of their property, is pursuing a system of open spaces, greenbelts and wildlife
corridors throughout the County, Landowners work with the Land Trust when they wish to pennanently
protect the ecological, agricultural, scenic, historic or recreational qualities of their land. The most
VOL
24 r~L~
2:i23
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-7
August 28,1998
OPEN SPACE
common way for a landowner to protect lands for these purposes is through the granting of a perpetual
conservation easement or outright donation of land to the Land Trust.
.
By establishing a cooperative relationship with the Land Trust, Jefferson County will be able to develop
a comprehensive open space program that will help ensure the natural functions of the environment are
protected while affording wildlife abundant natural areas and protecting the public health, safety and
welfare of the County's residents. It is now widely recognized that development can be compatible with
wildlife when we plan for it.
mSTORIC AND PREIDSTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION STRATEGY
Introd uction
Prior to the arrival of European settlers and explorers, the area that is now Jefferson County was
inhabited by several Native American groups, including the Chemakum, Hoh, Klallam, Makah, Quileute,
Quinault, and Twana tribes, Penn anent village sites and activity areas were concentrated near ocean and
riparian resources for food access and mobility. These groups were hunters and gatherers, using canoes
to fish, hunt whales and seals, and collect shellfish. They also hunted land mammals and birds, collected
food and medicinal plants, and extensively used forest resources, creating most of their material culture
from wood, other botanical material, and bone.
Evidence of prehistoric occupation and activities can be found in much of Jefferson County, especially in
archaeological sites along the coasts and rivers. Specialized activity sites, such as work camps and cedar
cutting areas can be found inland. Sites of religious importance are known through oral traditions and
early documents. The primacy of these First People is preserved in place names throughout the County.
The Hoh and Quinault still occupy tribal reservation land in the west end of Jefferson County.
.
,
The Olympic Peninsula coastline was first explored in 1592 by the Greek Apostolos Valerianos, who was
sailing for Spain under the name Juan de Fuca. However, two centuries passed before Europeans
returned in earnest. Spain's Manuel Quimper arrived in 1790, and was followed in 1792 by England's
George Vancouver. The first settlement was established at Port Townsend in 1851, and Jefferson County
boundaries were established in 1852.
Port Townsend became the county seat and customs port for Washington Territory, Vast timber tracts
and other natural resources rapidly attracted more settlers. Port Discovery Bay was the site of a large
sawmill, as were the communities of Port Ludlow and Port Hadlock. Shipping, shipbuilding, canneries,
mining, and fanning communities developed. The communities of Irondale, Quilcene, Brinnon, and
Nordland were established by the 1880s.
Our communities have evolved or declined in response to a century of economic changes and resource
consumption. The tangible evidence of this history still is all around us, in sites both above and below
the ground. However, increasing development pressures threaten to erase many sites. Systematic
surveys of these cultural resources are almost nonexistent and documentation is very incomplete.
The preservation of Jefferson County's prehistoric and historic cultural resources is important for many
reasons, These resources help us retain community values; provide for continuity over time; and
contribute to a sense of place. In order to protect our cultural resources for future generations, it is
important now to set goals and policies designed to identify, designate, preserve, and adaptively reuse
irreplaceable remnants of our past,
.
'. VOL
24 r~r,~. ~- 2 :324
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
. .
.
.
OPEN SPACE
Process for the Development of the Historic and Prehistoric Preservation Strategy
The first phase of the Jefferson County Historic and Prehistoric Preservation Strategy is the identification
and evaluation of historical resources. This four step process involves the following elements:
1. Conduct a systematic survey and establish an inventory of existing cultural resources;
2. Using existing criteria, evaluate the cultural resources to detennine the significance of the resource
and thereby determine its designation;
3. Nominate sites, structures, and artifacts of cultural significance to appropriate national, state, and
local registers; and,
4. Establish and maintain a system for periodic assessment and reevaluation of designated cultural
resources to detennine current status and to identify changing preservation requirements and
potential impacts.
The second phase of the Jefferson County Historic and Prehistoric Preservation Strategy is the
development and implementation of a preservation program. There are multiple approaches to this
process, including, but not limited to, the following:
Develop standards for the design of projects with potential impacts to designated cultural resources
to ensure that new development is compatible;
Encourage appropriate, adaptive reuse of selected cultural resources, with a variety of financial
incentives, including below market rate loans for rehabilitation and tax incentives for restoration,
rehabilitation, and preservation;
Establish a method of resolving conflicts that may arise between preservation requirements and
development activities; and,
Coordinate cooperative efforts of national, state, and local organizations and individuals interested in
promoting cultural resource preservation, heritage tourism, and in developing associated economic
opportunities.
The efficient and effective accomplishment of this strategy requires the regular attention of personnel
and access to resources not currently available to Jefferson County, Currently, there is little coordination
or cooperation among the various entities concerned with historic preservation in the County, and limited
resources are consumed by overlapping efforts. The County should .combine efforts with the City of Port
Townsend, Jefferson County Historical Society and other interested groups to meet local historic
preservation goals.
The City of Port Townsend has a Historic Preservation Committee in place. However, the function of
the Committee has been limited to design review for modification of structures in the Historic Districts.
A Comprehensive Preservation Plan has not been developed.
One approach is to take part in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program offered by the
Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. With considerable technical
assistance from the State, a CLG develops and manages its local preservation program and handles many
of its own historic preservation issues, including direct nomination of cultural resources to national and
state registers. In addition, CLG status would qualify the County for historic preservation grants to assist
with the maintenance of the County preservation program.
VOL
24 urt
2;-';25
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-9
August 28, 1998
OPEN SPACE
The City of Port Townsend currently is applying for CLG status. In collaboration with the City and with
the assistance of the Jefferson County Historical Society, the County's participation in this state program
would provide for technical assistance and for state historic preservation grants, Additional funding
sources for programs delineated by a Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan would be available
through grant applications by the Jefferson County Historical Society, a non-profit, charitable
organization.
'VOL
24 ur;~i. 2 ~26
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-10
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
I
J).ANG~ 02 W
RANGE at E
OPEN SPACE
.
I RANGE 01 W I
~"""","'~~Iì&-
. ..,' .~7'l:çp- .
. ""--; ;; u, ~ \
0 - ~~\ . r---.~~' -" ~
"' 1 r f. .n:.~ ~
~ 2 t:-.". ì.! jl, ~ --:- """6 D"
<G 3 .~ ---~ ' ""',~
u 4 ~T Iv ~ .. ,,;; ~'ff ,~i'J, ," ~~ ~
UJ 5 j~ ~ ~.. Á . ~~. , " ,fl.-
i 6 "--~".. ~"-Ì\; 'V)~I~ ..J\,)
Miles ~L ,~' ~ "",L~1 kf~ '~r/ \-x' \, <I<"!~ t
" "', ~ ~, '1(" ~ r". ,~, 'I'
I , fPifØ.J . , , ~ J .. ';' ì" ~;
1-1 I \o..!
~.~.j¡' ,)" 'Î\'\~-~" 'II.
~ 1 i':r, ¿;I U " ,,~~,~ ,'~ nw>
.._U_"._.~ ""._u_u_-- ih,i ... [~þf" h ':.J ~ ',~ ,,~-1, Jiúiff¥[
. I (! ' " ~, j;-~ J I, ~. , "'~
I' . ~". ~lJI!f.", ,,;;~
l ¡' ,: '~.~ - ' . ;',...'--'"
r;!~r :~r~~~; 'J~~~.' ~
J/~w h) ,l ¡ 1rJ / ~ !rY-, ..
. . ~ lil... ) - \ ~ ."".,...&11 Anaa
" . \- '- ,r~ '. I~ . S~1'Iub
\. U . .¡ 'V ' j . Coallt, PIu:b
~ ~ J~,,'.'Y IIIII==-
- . ~"'\ -"I t~~
~" ,~~ ,,~¿;.
, ~~ ]~~ ~
_J~' b LANDS IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL JJlFO'.""OO"""""""" om
. j . L OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS =::::::""~
~ EASTERN }EFFERSON COUNTY 1'1'-"""" ""=
u-m"~ I I I
RANGE OZ W RANGE 01 W RANGE 01 E
.
~
~
",~"
.
I
z
'"
0.
OJ
r,@
'"
g
-
z
g
~
~
-
'"
RJ
0.
æ
!
-
'"
æ
~
'"
~
-
z
1;;
0.
;;
!2
ß
-
'"
~
Iò;
iJJ
¡¡;
¡o
-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
, '..'"":'
6-11
'~~ '"c;
2327
August 28, 1998
OPEN SPACE
RANGE OZ W
RANGE 01 W
z
--
."'...,"",.
"Õ':;"':"J,
â'_"
...,<""",,
. U,d~l-
, -I_"""""-~",ß
8-""'"-
, - n.rt ,._", 'A_.O"" ""'-10
, - ......., '"""
. - "'~I, "~""R """0
~ : ::.-::: ,';j' _I -- ""'1'1
"-"'rn_""'.
)-&1.""""-
¡-"""""""H
: : :':;' :':" ,...... ""'..
~::::..,;:",3,~~,,_.
, - ~...... "". ",. """'."< ...0. .-..0
~-,."""_.
. - ",,~"" '........., ,-.. I ædo ..... .
.~ """""".
. -""'.'"~" .....'"
T-_"""'"
" -"""~"~~-O
, - "'N" .,.... ""'0
N 1:::1.=' .-...~ """
.,.........
"'iJ!!I-U~Á"" liJ
... ""'."",' ,..>oJ, ¡>,
m ~'1I,'W.m"1t","":.'::\ "" ",..l. ¡¡
-:i::"..:::,I:~~ ¡;
."". ,~ "'"~ ,,-",U.. "--."". ~
N ~'r',:::¡'~$',ir.:..""'h:::~....~ """"
[ID""" <>--h
rn¡¡¡'::' "ë,:::",'{T~ .""~-
tla"""""""1 -"'~ ,.~
IV ,,"ouIl~ I'rod..,~ !>1M"
",,"",""_"~I""_""'d,
li",-
... "'.... 1W<n~ ..", D~".I."
Á__~""""""
.
~.~ +t""
. ~..
.
.....
.
--"-'--'~..'-"-"-"
I
.
Pa~k8, Rt'crt'ation Art'a8, Con8e~vation
Euement8, and. Areas for Future
Cooperative Preservation Efíortl;\
EA8TERN JEFPERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
(I)
,I"
.,
1......... "i"1"",;"
.--m"
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 01 E
¡;¡
~
..
~
\
"
z
:iJ
IL
Ii3
g¿
g
"
RJ
0.
ffi
~
~t
z
g¡
~
~
....
.f
"
z
&:¡
0.
E2
f2
g
z
==- ..~----~--
-- "..... ~'" ""',"'.. ""'" '. ...
,.."" ,.,,-
~~~=":'.,.:;:~~~~,
¡s:..-:.-:::;:=='~~=:::"~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-13
, '0'
; ,"-
,'- "::.0..
RANGE 01 E
'¡"'I:"~
. 1(:"
1",,-
2 ~~¿8
August 28, 1998
'-<
0
~
....
'"
0
::s
n
0
¡::
::s
~
n
0
a
"0
....
0
::s-
o
::s
'"
<='
0
"'C
§
0\
1
......
VI
<-
=
,-
N
rþ.
-r
D-
c:>
"1
N
:)
~
to
!/Q
<::
~
tV
yOO
......
\D
\D
00
.
RANGE 14 if
...
\
~
àj
t
.
<
,
~
¡j
,'"
c:..m.-.Iol r.... - r....a.
W@. ~:::t~~ c..-.
. lib.1o_Arou
@W. '1'1:""'] Uondo
RANGE 14 "
YAP DATE; rebruary 17, 1998 &010; 1" = 5000'
p..umE J3"
""".",.."¡..,;~",,,
~,
'f"""'~~r,,';r.
~
.
rl
I
RAIIGE la if
,
;~.~"
-:;j
.
RANGE 12 W
......~
1
""""""'",""
','""
".,
P...NGE" 'If
"\.¡
LJ
iJ.
it
~
~
;œJj'"
.i;,",""'"
¡?'
"'"',,,'
~
f"rt:
-
""
",'
~
...,;,
,,"',.
""
"'",
I
:,;""
c,
'l"
",,:~,.,
",',
-
.
~
~
1
RA..NG~ 'ö T
,'"
,'i:
RANGR 11 If
Parks and Recreation Areas
;~~:;~~~~~:~~~...?~.:..=- ~-
-""_.~-~---"'"'_.,-,-" ..
~......._~~_.._~-~~-- -
=-"'--~~----"v~.:::;::;:"", --
WEST JEFFERSON COUNTY
P.""~CS 10 if
R.umr 00 'W
"",
.y.
.
~
:;tt "
~
.r-
.
,£1
Di
I
.
UI ~/ I
~" , ,
. .
.
.
,
~
-
.
~
-"""'~
10 J/Z W
RANG!; 10 W
.
z
õ:;
0.
5!
~
"
'"
~
e,
"'
~
g
'"
~
1'>
S
0
..
~
~
z
""
'"
~
~
0
"ti
t:r:1
Z
en
"ti
>-
n
t:r:1
.
.
.
OPEN SPACE
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals outlined below provide a general direction for the maintenance and enhancement of Jefferson
County's open space lands, parks and recreation facilities, and historic resources. These goals are based
on the requirements of the Growth Management Act, which outlines specific criteria for open space
lands, parks and recreation facilities, and historic resources, and on the issues and opportunities
identified by County residents.
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals
state the general growth management intentions of the County while the policies are the guidelines for
implementation. Strategies identify the specific projects or programs that will be used to implement the
policies.
The Open Space; Parks and Recreation; and Historic Preservation policies will provide the basis for
revising the development standards contained in the Jefferson County Interim Zoning Ordinance and
other regulations.
OPEN SPACE
GOAL:
OSG 1.0
Preserve and enhance the existing open space lands.
POLICIES:
OSP 1.1
Develop and promote a comprehensive strategy of development regulations, incentives,
public/private partnerships, land acquisition programs, and an identification process for
specific open spaces to be preserved or enhanced.
OSP 1.2
Evaluate proposed development projects to preserve and protect the following open
space areas:
a. Corridors linking habitat, wetland and riparian zones;
b. Habitat areas for species of concern;
c. Shoreline areas;
d. Areas containing significant trees;
e. Pastures and fannlands;
f. Forested ridges and hilltops (if they can be viewed from public areas and public
roads off-site);
g. Naturally occurring meadows and open areas;
h. Existing trails and trail systems open to the public; and,
1. Constructed open areas, and other altered natural areas (examples include: clear-cut
timber areas, cleared fields, land fonnerly used for resource extraction, and
recreational areas).
2~3e
August 28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-17
VOI-
2 4 r~r,~
OPEN SPACE
OSP 1.3
OSP 1.4
OSP 1.5
OSP 1.6
GOAL:
OSG 2.0
POLICIES:
OSP 2.1
OSP 2.2
OSP 2.3
OSP 2.4
OSP 2.5
OSP 2.6
OSP 2.7
OSP 2.8
OSP 2.9
Investigate and consider a variety of techniques to preserve and protect open space
including public acquisition and clustered development.
.
Encourage public enrollment in the current-use or preferential tax assessment (RCW
84.34) for open space lands.
Pursue public acquisition of potential parks, critical wildlife areas, and other open space
lands by utilizing a variety of funding mechanisms.
Support efforts by the Jefferson Land Trust and other organizations to secure property
for open space, wildlife habitat corridors and a County-wide trail system.
Identify and develop an interconnected County-wide network of naturally
occurring and planned open spaces.
Design and site open space areas to aid in the establishment of a County-wide system of
open spaces connected by wildlife habitat corridors and trails.
Establish open space network linkages throughout the County which connect UGAs and
Rural Centers, schools and park or recreation sites.
.
Locate parks or open space so as to provide for a variety of outdoor activities or to take
advantage of natural processes (i.e., wetlands and tidal actions), unique landscape
features (Le., cliffs and bluffs), or outstanding natural amenities.
Promote the inclusion of open space in development proposals and develop criteria for
identifying types (and intensity) of open space in development proposals.
Ensure that the development of new parks adequately addresses the open space
objectives of both the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County
Parks Comprehensive Plan.
Incorporate the active and proposed trail systems identified in the Jefferson County
Parks Comprehensive Plan as well as those identified in community plans, into the open
space network.
Identify and improve existing and proposed recreation and scenic bicycle, equestrian,
and walking routes.
Consider acquisition of out.of-use railroad rights.of-way to preserve these resources as
future transportation corridors such as bikeways, pedestrian or equestrian trials, and
roadways.
Pursue and encourage public involvement in open space planning through a variety of
methods including advisory boards, worksho~s, amkuivs, r~\easeSC) f"") 31
VOI- Cll r~\)- - ~oJ
.
6-18
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
OPEN SPACE
OSP 2.10
GOAL:
OSG 3.0
POLICIES:
OSP 3.1
OSP 3.2
OSP 3.3
Coordinate efforts with the City of Port Townsend and the Jefferson Land Trust to
designate open space and trail connections through the unincorporated portion of the
potential FUGA (i.e" consistent with Chapter 36.70A.160 RCW).
Encourage the multiple use of open spaces and wildlife corridors
Protect environmentally critical open spaces, such as drainage corridors or floodplains,
by associating them with appropriate recreational uses.
Review development proposals to evaluate opportunities for multiple use of proposed
open space. The open space should be of a quality, quantity, and configuration which
ensures that a suitable portion of the site is designated for conservation, passive
recreation, and, where appropriate, active recreation. "Open space" refers to either the
fonnal designation of areas as "open space" or the retention of areas within lots or
parcels that will be managed under private ownership as "open" or undeveloped uses.
Jefferson County, based on infonnation developed and provided by organizations
involved in the preservation of natural wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors, has
identified areas throughout the County which will be prioritized as areas targeted to be
preserved and maintained as wildlife habitats and corridors, These areas are identified
and illustrated on the Open Space and recreation map contained in this Plan.
PARKS AND RECREATION
GOAL:
OSG 4.0
POLICIES:
OSP 4.1
OSP 4.2
OSP 4.3
Develop and maintain park and recreational facilities that are responsive to the
needs and interests of Jefferson County residents and visitors.
Ensure that the natural features of proposed parks and recreation areas are utilized.
Develop recreational opportunities such that:
a. Existing recreational areas and facilities are not overburdened;
b. Recreational facilities are planned to support areas designated for future residential
development; and
c, Adequate infrastructure is available.
Ensure that the location, type and amount of park and recreation facilities are consistent
with the needs and desires of citizens in the area, and that they accommodate a diversity
of age, interest and ability groups.
VOL
24 r~r,~
2 ~32
6-19
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
OPEN SPACE
OSP 4.4
OSP 4.5
OSP 4.6
OSP 4.7
OSP 4.8
OSP 4.9
OSP 4.10
GOAL:
OSG 5.0
POLICIES:
OSP 5.1
OSP 5.2
OSP 5.3
OSP 5.4
Pursue and encourage public involvement in parks and recreation planning through
advisory boards, workshops, and news releases.
.
Establish guidelines to anticipate future demand in the acquisition and development of
parks, recreational land and facilities.
Ensure that parks and recreation facilities along marine shores, lakes and streams are
compatible with the goals, policies, and performance standards of the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program.
Require developers of new residential subdivisions to provide land, facilities, or in-lieu-
of payments for neighborhood parks and recreation, when appropriate.
Encourage the provision of public parks and private parks concurrent with development.
Promote cooperative efforts, joint project development, and long range planning with
other public agencies and the private sector to create and'maintain open space, parks and
recreational areas.
Ensure that the Park and Recreation Plan recommends feasible funding levels for
acquisition, maintenance and operations within an equitable framework of taxation, and
reflects prudent fiscal management.
.
Establish and maintain a public County-wide trail system that meets the population
needs and open space objectives of Jefferson County.
Coordinate the county trails system with other existing or planned public and/or private
trail systems, and vehicular and pedestrian systems.
Establish trails based upon a variety of criteria, including relation to population centers
and proximity to demand, and ensure that they represent local interests in terms of
location and trail uses.
Establish trails based upon location of recreational resources and, where possible,
connect parks, playgrounds, open space, schools, areas of natural, cultural and/or
historical interest and Rural Centers.
Develop a budget for a comprehensive trails system which recommends feasible funding
levels for acquisition, maintenance and operations within an equitable framework of
taxation, and which reflects prudent fiscal management.
.
VOL
2.4 '.Ir,. '--2333
'-f r "'c,-, -
6-20
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
OPEN SPACE
mSTORIC PRESERVATION
GOAL:
OSG 6.0
POLICIES:
OSP 6.1
OSP 6.2
Identify and preserve historic and prehistoric sites, structures, and artifacts that
have value as significant cultural resources.
Support the efforts of the Jefferson County Historical Society and other interested
groups, to:
a. Identify, evaluate and designate historic and prehistoric sites, structures, and artifacts
of cultural significance for inclusion on appropriate national, state, and/or local
registers;
b. Develop and implement a preservation program for the on-going protection and
preservation of designated cultural resources;
c. Develop and implement an education program to increase awareness, appreciation,
and voluntary preservation of cultural resources; and
d. Develop methods to link cultural resource preservation with tourism and local
economic development strategies.
Ensure that new development located adjacent to structures and sites of archeological
and/or historical significance is compatible with the character of the site.
VOL
2 A 'Irc
If (",,-
2~34
6-21
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
OPEN SPACE
STRATEGIES
.
A. OPEN SPACE STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for the management of open spaces focuses on identifying, preserving,
acquiring and linking open spaces in order to provide a wide variety of multiple-use opportunities to both
residents and visitors.
Action Items
1.
Develop streamlined procedures for replatting and reviewing plats and short plats where the lots
in the original plat are aggregated and replatted in order to achieve better design and meet the
goals of this plan. Consider vacating unimproved plats created prior to 1937 and requirìng they
be replatted to meet current allowed densities. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
2.
A partnership with the Jefferson Land Trust should be developed for the preservation of open
space through fee-simple purchase and conservation easements, (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
3.
As a means of preserving open space, the County shall develop a Flexible Lot Design
Subdivision process which would penn it cluster development, and provide specific open space
guidelines and standards. The Flexible Lot Design Subdivision shall consider and include as
appropriate:
.
. Consideration for dedication of open space for public use;
. Protection of critical areas;
. Preservation of significant trees;
. Creative site design including placement of structures, circulation systems, and utilities that
minimize land alteration (i.e., a variety of lot sizes, building types, scale and design to reduce
the bulk of structures);
. Pedestrian orientation, including trails and walking paths;
. Adequate provision of public facilities and amenities;
. Preservation of natural features;
. Preservation or creation of fannland;
. Limited impervious surface/area of site disturbance;
. Public waterfront access and/or view;
. Establishment of perimeter buffers: from building site to building site, and from the
proposed project to adjacent land uses or roadways;
. Use of the most suitable soils for individual, on-site septic systems;
. Preservation of scenic views;
. Interconnection, where possible, with open space areas located on adjacent properties; and,
. Sharing of a single community well or water system (if feasible).
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
.
VOi-
24 r~[: " 2335
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-22
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
OPEN SPACE
4.
Criteria for the designation of open space areas in developments should consider providing
connections with adjoining open space areas, offering visual relief for on and off-site, enhancing
habitat values, and, where appropriate, allowing for recreational opportunities.
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
5.
Implementing ordinances (Critical Areas, Subdivision, Parks & Recreation) should promote
multiple use of open space and wildlife corridors. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0)
6.
Include provisions for a variety of innovative techniques to preserve open space and protect
environmentally critical areas and water resources. These techniques shall include, but not be
limited to:
. Open space tax incentives;
. Cluster development
. Transfer and purchase of development rights;
. Limiting the amount of lot coverage;
. Conservation easements;
. Landowner compacts;
. Trail systems, and
. Streamlining the application process for current use assessment
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
7.
Promote and encourage the preservation of undeveloped open space through the acquisition of
property by local agencies or land trusts, trades with private or governmental landowners, and
incentives for developers. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0)
8.
Develop a strategy utilizing a number of funding mechanisms to acquire open space lands,
including, but not limited to:
. Property tax levies;
. General obligation bonds and limited general obligation bonds;
. Intergovernmental funds (i.e., state grants);
. Foundation moneys;
. A 1/4 percent tax for capital facilities (RCW 82.46.010);
. Second 1/4 percent tax for capital facilities (RCW 82.46.035);
. "Tree tax" of up to one percent for acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas (RCW
82.46.070);
. Creation of Parks and Recreation Districts (RCW 36.69);
. Conservation futures funding (RCW 84.34)
. Fee-simple purchase;
. Less than fee-simple purchase (i.e., purchase of development rights and conservation
easements);
. Voluntary donations with tax incentives;
. Land transfers or exchanges; and
. Real estate excise tax.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0)
'/01..
24 ;H~
. r~."
2~36
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-23
August 28, 1998
OPEN SPACE
9.
Continue to implement the Open Space Tax Program and associated Public Benefit Rating
System and consider establishing a Land Acquisition Rating System for open space. A special
program for the acquisition and development of marine waterfront properties (boat launch
facilities and waterfront trail and interpretive systems should be included.
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
.
B.
PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County remains committed to providing quality recreational facilities and opportunities to both
residents and'visitors through the identification, provision and upkeep of recreational facilities and trail
systems.
Action Items
1.
Develop a budget for park and recreation facilities which recommends feasible funding levels for
acquisition, maintenance and operations within an equitable framework of taxation, and which
reflects prudent fiscal management. (Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
2.
Develop a Jefferson County Comprehensive Trails Plan with standards for design, construction
and maintenance of the County's trail system. (Corresponding Goal: 5.0)
c.
mSTORIC PRESERVATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for historic preservation is to support and promote its rich history and culture
by developing a historic preservation plan and working to receive Certified Local Government (CLG)
status.
.
Action Items
1.
Develop a Jefferson County Comprehensive historic Preservation Plan in partnership with the
Jefferson County Historical Society. This plan is to include programs to inventory, evaluate,
preserve and protect the integrity of significant resources, to mitigate impacts and resolve
conflicts with incompatible development activities, and to promote the integration of these
resources into educational, tourism, and economic development strategies.
(Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
2.
Support a Historic Preservation Plan that recommends feasible funding levels for the necessary
programs within an equitable framework of taxation and which reflects prudent fiscal
management. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
3.
Obtain Certified Local Government (CLG) status through the Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
.
VOL
24 rAr,: -- 2 337
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
6-24
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PURPOSE: The Growth Management Act (GMA) supports economic development throughout the
state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. The goals and policies contained in this
chapter encourage sustainable economic development activities that complement the rural nature of
Jefferson County. The Economic Development Element promotes the development of new economic
opportunities for citizens of Jefferson County and encourages growth within the capacity of the County's
natural resources, and the public services and facilities to sustain it, This element summarizes economic
patterns and needs, and suggests methods to strengthen the economic base of the County in an effort to
provide family wage-paying employment opportunities.
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
The desired levels of job growth, commercial and industrial expansion, and supporting strategies are
integrated with the other elements ofthe Comprehensive Plan. Consistency between policies contained in
the Plan elements is essential to a successful economic development stmtegy,
Many issues addressed elsewhere in this Plan are important to Jefferson County's future economic
development efforts. For example, water supply and quality are important issues throughout Jefferson
County as a clean and adequate water supply is crucial to future land use decisions, especially those
related. to housing and commerciaVindustrial development~ In addition to water, issues surrounding
transportation, housing and capital facilities and infrastructure are important factors in Jefferson County's
economic development equation.
The following table summarizes the economic development issues identified and addressed in other
elements of the Plan:
Element Discussion
1. Land Use/Rural Jefferson County is a predominantly rural comity. While the rural area is
typified by low density rural residential land use, small "villages" and
crossroads continue to serve the convenience needs of the local
population. Rural Village Centers contain a variety of land uses
including: residential, retail, commercial, service and professional. These
areas have traditionally served the local population and traveling public.
The Plan anticipates these areas will continue to exist in much the same
form as they are found today. Limited infill development will be allowed
to occur in these defined areas, and uses will be allowed to change and
expand. Once established, the boundaries around these Rural Village
Centers will remain as defined in the plan.
2. Natural Resource The County's historic reliance on the natural resources inherent to the
Conservation region's economic base can be maintained by their careful stewardship
and by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs). Resource-based
industrial activities can be permitted outside ofUGAs if certain criteria
are met. By adhering to the criteria, the County should be able to maintain
and cultivate resource-based industrial activities over time.
VOL
24 rM'
2~38
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-1
August28,1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
3. Housing Housing affordability is influenced by the local economic climate. In areas
of economic growth, the private sector usually responds by building
housing, adding to the supply, and increasing the available housing stock,
which can drive housing costs downward. The available housing stock is
often an important consideration in detennining where a business chooses
to locate. The housing element in this plan includes goals and policies
which support diversifying the available housing stock to ensure that an
appropriate mix of housing is available to support the County's economic
objectives.
4, Open Space, Parks, Tourism and recreation-related activities provide substantial economic
Recreation,. and opportunities to County residents, The County's close proximity to the
Historic Preservation Olympic National Park, the newly designated National Marine Sanctuary,
the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the historic Victorian seaport of Port
Townsend make the County a desirable tourist destination.
5. Transportation While traditional modes of transportation are less importantto many
modem finns, the location of an area and its proximity to transportation
links, both local and regional, still play an important part in location
decisions. The condition of the transportation network is also an
important consideration as is the availability and efficiency of local public
transit.
6. Capital Facilities The provision of infrastructure is one of the most significant costs in
providing for economic land use activities. The location and nature of
infrastructure determines where and what type of economic activity
chooses to locate in the area, The GMA is clear in its requirement that
urban levels of development shall occur only within UGAs. Many
economic land use activities take on an urban nature in terms of scale and
required infrastructure and, therefore, are precluded from locating outside
ofUGAs unless the scale and/or nature ofthe industry requires a rural or
resource lands location.
7. Environment Economic prosperity can occur in hannony with the natural environment.
Protection of the natural environment has proven in many instances to be a
catalyst for economic growth. The growing "eco-tourism" industry
recognizes this fact and promotes the natural environment as a marketable
resource.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The economic base of Jefferson County is presently in a state of transition. Historically, Jefferson
County's economic base was closely tied to resource-based extractive activities such as fishing and
forestry. For a variety of reasons, Jefferson County's economic base faces a major restructuring and the
need for strategies to provide guidance cannot be overstated.
Jefferson County has always attracted people because of its natural environment, which greatly
contributes to its quality of life. The County's economic development strategy should help the County
move away from dependence on traditional resource-based economic activities and begin to seek
alternative economic opportunities for all of Jefferson County's residents. To do this, the County must
develop a balanced approach to create a climate for economic development that facilitates new business
start-ups, the recruitment of industry, retention and strengthening of existing businesses, and expansion of
growing businesses,
VOL
2.4 'H~
If f,\l;:
- 2 :::39
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic Development Organizations
There are a number of organizations involved in the maintenance and expansion of the Jefferson County
economy. Agencies operating within the County include:
.
Economic Development Council of Jefferson County
Port Townsend Main Street Project
Port of Port Townsend
Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce
Port Hadlock Chamber of Commerce
Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce
QuilcenefBrinnon Chamber of Commerce
WSU Cooperative Extension
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Additionally, there are economic development organizations that represent economic interests in multi-
county regions that include Jefferson County. Among those organizations are:
.
North Olympic Peninsula Visitors and Convention Bureau (Regional)
Peninsula Development Association (Jefferson and Clallam Counties)
.
A comprehensive economic development strategy for Jefferson County requires the cooperation of the
above organizations and a unified vision of Jefferson County's future economic landscape.
Economic Indicators and Trends
Employment
The Washington State Employment Security Department figures estimated County employment of 9,090
workers out of a total work force of 9,830 in October, 1996. This translates to an unemployment rate of
7.5 percent, well above the state rate of 5.4 percent and the national rate of 4.9 percent. Over the past two
decades there has been a dramatic shift in the County's employment base. In 1970, manufacturing jobs
comprised 35 percent of all jobs in the County. By 1990 this sector's share of total jobs fell to 13,9
percent. Concurrently, service and trade jobs have increased from 11.3 and 14.8 percent of the total,
respectively, to 18.8 and 25.2 percent of the total. In addition, a two-tier work force has emerged: one for
those who hold decent jobs, and the other for underemployed, poorly paid, often part-time workers, The
two-tier workforce is consistent with national trends.
Personal IncomeILevel of Poverty
Real wages in Jefferson County have been falling over the past two decades. Although nominal wages
have increased from $7,175 to $16,733 between 1969 and 1989,1 real wages have fallen from $24,933 to
$18,036 over that same time period -- more than a 27 percent decrease in real wages over the 20-year
period. This decline may reflect the relative increase in jobs in the retail and service sectors.
lV,S. Census.
VOI-
24 'He
r,."
2 c; 40
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-3
August 28, 1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Table 7-1
Comparison of Wages by Industry in 1995
.
Industry Average Wage Average Wage Number of
Jefferson County Washington State Workers
Farming, Forestry & Fishing $21,107 $14,530 140
Construction 21,245 29,564 356
Manufacturing 30,354 37,447 835
Wholesale Trade 17,700 33,125 1,672t
Retail Trade 11,864 15,546 --
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate* 16,948 32,141 211
Services 13,160 25,796 1,524
Government 24,342 30,844 1,751
Total/Avg. (all sectors) 19,034 27,446 6,779
* Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
t This figure represents the number of workers employed in both retail and wholesale trade
Unlike real wages, real per capita income has been increasing, albeit at a modest rate, Per capita income
includes wages, salaries, transfer payments, retirement income, farm income, self-employed income,
investment income and rents. The data show a consistent increase in real per capita income. This may be
due to the large number of in-migrating retirement-aged residents, and can have a negative effect on
housing affordability.
Statistics on Jefferson County residents living below the poverty line are mixed. The most recent
statistics indicate that Jefferson County exceeds the state average for both individuals and families living
below the poverty line..
.
Education and Job Skills
The educational statistics for Jefferson County appear to be fairly encouraging. The percentage of County
residents that had attained a minimum of a high school diploma or GED rose from 76.9 percent in 1980 to
82.7 percent in 1990. During this same period, the percentage of County residents with a bachelor's
degree or higher increased from 17.6 to 21.8 percent,
Commercial Activity
The Washington State Department of Revenue maintains a listing of over 2,300 businesses located in
Jefferson County and over 250 new firms have opened during the first five years of the 1990s. Jefferson
County's rural character, in conjunction with its urban amenities and the high quality of life afforded by
its proximity to both urban and natural areas, continues to attract a variety of professional and financial
services as well as manufacturing businesses.
.
VOL
24 rM/ ~ 2 :341
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-4
August28,1998
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Retail Sales
Retail sales figures suggest how well a local economy is doing in regard to capturing locally earned
disposable income. Retail sales in Jefferson County have grown over the past decade. And between 1989
to 1992, Jefferson County's retail sales increased from $99.6 million to $178.7 million, an increase of
nearly 80 percent. During the same period, per capita retail sales increased by over 44 percent, from
$5,504 to $7,941. Retail sales growth has been propelled by the growth in population and an expanding
tourism sector. While retail sales have increased locally, the level of expenditures is not at the expected
level. Recent studies indicate that a substantial amount retail revenue "leaks" from the local economy
into neighboring counties, suggesting a need to grow local businesses and attract new businesses to the
county that will capture some of the dollars currently leaving the county's economy.
Building Construction
The value of new construction is another indicator of the economic health of an area. The total dollar
value of new construction in Jefferson County increased from $15.2 million in 1988 to nearly $63.0
million in 1993, During this same period of time the City of Port Townsend also realized a significant
increase in new construction from $3,0 million to $11.6 million. A dramatic decline in commercial
building activity in 1991 and 1992 can be attributed, in part, to an enactment of a commercial and
industrial building moratorium in the fall of 1991, and passage of an emergency commercial and
industrial zoning ordinance in January, 1992.
Local Government Revenues
Financial resources of local governments also play an important role in local economic development
efforts, Public sector investment in infrastructure and public facilities greatly affects an area's quality of
life. Tax rates also affect economic development by influencing a business decision to locate in one area
versus another. Jefferson County's property tax rates2 have been at or below the State average for a
number of years.
Economic Base and Inventory of Major Employers
Jefferson County's economic base is showing signs of diversification. While there are more employment
opportunities today, many of these do not pay wages necessary to support a family, As the County's
economy continues to diversify, a better balance will be struck between job opportunities and wages. A
look at the list of primary employers in Jefferson County illustrates its broadening economic base. A
partial inventory of the primary employers in Jefferson County follows:
2 Economic Development C~uncil of Jefferson County; Jefferson County Assessors Office
VOL 24 r~U 2~,12
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-5
August 28, 1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Table 7-2
Major Employers in Jefferson County, 1996
.
Employer Approximate Number of Employees
Port Townsend Paper Corporation 420
Jefferson County 322
Jefferson General Hospital 294
Port Townsend School District #50 175
Chimacum School District #49 158
Quality Food Centers (2 stores) 140
City of Port Townsend 121
Safeway Stores, Inc. 107
Olympic Correction Center 100
Falcon Marine 90
Kalaloch Lodge 75
U.S. Navy 65
Allen Logging Company 65
Port Ludlow Resort & Conference Center 50
Quilcene School District 42
U.S. Post Office 39
The Inn at Ludlow Bay 35
Port Townsend/Jefferson County Leader 34
Enclume Design Products 32
Seton Construction 30
Thermionics Northwest 29
Puget Power 26
Coyote Found Candles 26
Coast Seafoods 22
Port of Port Tòwnsend 21
New Day Fisheries 20
.
SOUfCC: Relocation and Irrvestor 's Guide. Jefferson County Washington, Economic Development Council of Jefferson County, /996. Jefferson
Cormtv Profile, Washington Slate Employment Security. June /995.
The County's major economic sectors include:
.
Marine trades: The majority of marine trades are located on property in the City managed by the Port
of Port Townsend.
.
Manufacturing - The relatively low overhead costs and access to skilled and stable labor supports
many small custom software and fabrication firms serving a variety of industries from aerospace to
financial services.
.
Forest Products- The largest employer in Jefferson County, the Port Townsend Paper Corporation,
anchors the County's forest products industry, Allen Logging in western Jefferson County relies on
the Olympic Peninsula's vast timber stands to produce dimensional lumber, chips, and other products
for a world-wide market.
.
VûL
24 rn~ ~ 2~113
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
.
Fisheries and Aquaculture - Areas of commercial shellfish production include operations in Quilcene
Bay, Dabob Bay, Kilisut Harbor, and Squamish Harbor (see map in Natural Resources Element).
Sport fishing for salmon or steelhead represents a significant economic resource to the County, but
has declined recently along with commercial fisheries as a result of harvest restrictions to protect the
fish stocks.
.
Tourism - The natural beauty of Jefferson County and Victorian Port Townsend attracts numerous
tourists each year who contribute over $18 million to the local economy. Annual hotel and motel tax
receipts in Jefferson County and Port Townsend have risen from well under $100,000 in 1986 and
1987 to over $240,000 in 1996.4
.
Public Sector - Public sector employment has been a relatively low growth sector of the economy, but
still provides a large number and variety of employment opportunities. In Jefferson County over 25
percent of Jefferson County's employment is derived from the public sector, and government
employees are among the better-paid workers in the area.
.
Military - The military presence in Jefferson County is not as noticeable as in neighboring Island or
Kitsap Counties, however the u.S. Navy Small Ordnance Center on Indian Island provides some
spin-off employment opportunities for county residents.
.
Services - Between 1970 and 1980, service employment increased by more than 65 percent and is
currently expanding at a rate above 6 percent. Wholesale and retail trade accounts for approximately
25 percent of Jefferson County's employment. The County's only hospital, Jefferson General, is
located in Port Townsend and employs 240 people. The increase in the retirement population
suggests that there will be an increase in health care related facilities and employment in health care
in the future.
Industrial and Manufacturing Sites
Various public and privately held properties appropriate for economic development are identified below.
.
Port of Port Townsend Properties - The Port of Port Townsend manages three properties within
Jefferson County, only one of which is zoned for industrial activity. The Port Townsend Industrial
Park is located on Port Townsend Bay in the City of Port Townsend. Other Port property, including
the Jefferson County International Airport and the Quilcene Marina, is not zoned for industrial
development.
.
Port Townsend Business Park - The Port Townsend Business Park is a new, fully permitted, 34-acre
planned unit development located offSR 20 in the City of Port Townsend.
.
Glen Cove - Adjacent to the southern city limits of Port Townsend, the Glen Cove industrial area
consists of approximately 400 acres designated for light industrial uses. Because of the area's
proximity to the City of Port Townsend, Glen Cove is being considered for designation in the county
as an Urban Growth Area, To realize this goal, the City and the County are co-funding a study to
determine whether this area is suitable for UGA designation, If designation is recommended, the
County and City will jointly develop a common land use/zoning plan within the expanded
"community serving" UGA with the objective of supporting current commercial, industrial, and
manufacturing activities.
4 Local Tax Distributions, Washington State Department o/Revenue
VOL
2 4: r~r~
2 ,~('-4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-7
August 28, 1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Commercial Development Sites
.
While the City of Port Townsend is the most likely location for the major share of future commercial and
industrial development, opportunities for limited new commercial development have been included in the
County Comprehensive Plan through the designation of Rural Village Centers, provided adequate
infrastructure is available, and to a lesser degree, Rural Crossroads.
FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
While Jefferson County's future economic climate remains undefined, it is clear that it will no longer be
as reliant on natural resource-based activities. Jefferson County's abundant natural resources and
environment will play an increasingly important role in the emerging tourism and recreational sectors of
the economy, but economic activities reliant on resource extraction may not experience growth in times of
increasingly stringent environmental regulations.
Growth in setVice sector industries and retail and trade will continue along with national and regional
trends. Cottage industries and home-based businesses will expand as Jefferson County's population
continues to increase and diversify. Further growth and expansion in high technology industries depends
on the County's success in encouraging appropriate infrastructure (particularly in the Glen Cove
industrial park) and the availability of a well-trained work force. The area should continue to be
considered by businesses that are not reliant on traditional locational factors such as access to
transportation networks.
Population and Labor Force
.
Although the County's population is expected to continue to increase, future employment opportunities
will increase if current population trends continue to move toward a population base characterized by a
growing proportion of seniors and more people working for themselves. Population projections also
forecast a diminishing number of individuals between the ages of 15 and 44, which traditionally has
provided the largest number of entry-level workers and mid-management workers in the County's work
force.
If recent trends continue, Jefferson County can expect to see an economy dominated by small businesses.
The increasing diversity of Jefferson County's small business community may be one of the area's
primary strengths and an advantage for the local economy to promote in the future.
Future Trends by Sector
Marine Trades
The Port of Port Townsend is making some major investments to provide infrastructure to attract new
business. The addition of a new heavy haul-out facility capable of lifting boats up to 300 tons will greatly
impact the Port's ability to attract future economic activities, which in time should generate economic
spin-offs to existing businesses catering to marine related activities.
.
. VOi-
2 4 U[~' - 2 ::>~l5
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Manufacturing
Jefferson County, in cooperation with the City of Port Townsend, is moving forward on a special study to
identity and inventory the County's commercial and industrial land base to determine options for future
development in Glen Cove and the TriArea. In light of the current economic climate and the trends
affecting the various economic indicators discussed above, this strategy should focus on small
manufacturers and high technologies. In addition to developing and maintaining the necessary
infrastructure, a trained and skilled workforce is also essential to the growth of this sector. Education and
training opportunities should be given high priority in the local economic development strategy~
Fisheries and Aquaculture
Fisheries and aquaculture harvests are likely to remain an important part ofthe local economy as domestic
consumption of seafood continues to increase, Exporting seafood products will continue to provide the
impetus for much of the growth in this industry. Environmental issues related to clean water and salmon
habitat must be addressed to ensure the long-term survival of these industries,
Forest Products/Paper
Employment in the forest products industry has declined dramatically over the past 10-15 years. This
industry is dependent on a stable and predictable source of raw timber, which is not expected to increase
during the 20-year planning period. New harvesting techniques and forest management practices are
continuing to evolve. Manufacturing firms that specialize in value-added products such as Washington
Doors and Edensaw Woods will help to soften the blow felt throughout this industry.
Public Sector
Employment levels in the public sector are projected to decline modestly as Federal, State and Local
budget revenues continue to decline. But, because of the focus on basic services, this sector is expected
to remain important to the local economy and employment should stabilize.
Services
Throughout the nation, and in Jefferson County, the service sector continues to grow. This includes both
personal and business services with the former being especially high given the impact of tourism and
retirement. Although a growing service sector has an impact on the number of jobs, it has less of an
impact in terms of dollars since these jobs usually pay lower wages than other sectors of the economy.
Enhancement of telecommunications infrastructure throughout the County could promote the expansion
ofthe professional service sector, and could aid in attracting small corporate headquarters into the region.
Such improvements may include access to fiber-optic transmission facilities and communications
systems.
Tourism
While recent growth in tourism has been moderate, the future of this industry in Jefferson County is
bright in light of the high rate of regional growth. A large volume of data suggests leisure travel is
becoming big business. The North Olympic Peninsula should continue to be a widely known and desired
travel destination. New opportunities related to tourism should be considered. The growing interest in
"Eco-tourism" is one possible niche with great potential in Jefferson County.
. ",'
'fU,-
21 r ~,:,~
2 ü,:!6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-9
August 28, 1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
.
A stable and diverse economy supporting family-wage jobs is an important component of a high quality
of life for County residents. At the same time, economic prosperity must not come at the detriment of the
natural environment, which itself is an important asset to attract and retain businesses and skilled workers.
The balance between the environment and the economy increasingly is called "sustainable economic
development." .Basically, this means economic growth does not exceed the ability of the natural or built
environments (including infrastructure) to sustain the growth over the long term.
Any attempt at developing an economic development strategy for Jefferson County must consider not
only local trends, but national trends and influences. A viable economic development strategy must take
into consideration the changing landscape of corporate America and seriously consider how global and
national trends will impact the local economy., Some examples of the types of things that need to be
considered as Jefferson County moves towards building an economic development strategy that will take
the County into the 21st century include:
.
The fact that women-owned businesses are becoming a dominant force in the economy and this force
is no more evident than right here in Jefferson County;
Businesses that rely on high technology continue expanding and infrastructure necessary to operate
high tech equipment is of primary importance to firms specializing in providing access to the global
market;
Home-based businesses have moved beyond a fad and are starting to provide more and more people
with independence, flexibility and control of their own life, and, in many cases, a higher than
expected income;
Leisure' and recreation continue to provide a variety of economic activities and opportunities; and
The "green revolution" is starting to provide viable economic activities related to scientific research,
leisure, recreation and tourism.
.
.
.
.
.
Economic development strategies targeting the 21st century will largely be based on providing economic
development opportunities through the provision of appropriate infrastructure, incentives and programs.
Providing the local work force with opportunities and incentives to learn the necessary skills to compete
for family wage-paying jobs also constitutes an essential element of Jefferson County's economic
development strategy,
The purpose of the economic development goals and policies is to support Jefferson County's long-term
commitment to sustainable economic development which should benefit all County residents by:
.
retaining and creating family-wage jobs;
providing the foundation for an adequate and stable tax base for the efficient provision of high-quality
government services and facilities; and
ensuring that economic activities are conducted in a responsible manner sensitive to the environment
and civic concerns,
.
.
Economic growth with job creation, diversity, sustainability, and environmental protection constitute the
policy focus of the following goals and policies.
.
VOL
24 r~f:~
2""".-7
,.,,1..
,. .,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-10
August28,1998
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL:
EDG 1.0
POLICIES:
EDP 1.1
EDP 1.2
EDP 1.3
EDP 1.4
GOAL:
EDG 2.0
POLICIES:
EDP 2.1
EDP 2.2
EDP 2.3
EDP 2.4
Promote economic opportunity for all citizens of the County, especially for teens
and young adultsJ the unemployed, and for disadvantaged persons within the
capacities of the County's natural resources, public services and public facilities.
Support retention and expansion of existing local businesses, and recruitment of new
businesses that provide quality jobs, and preserve and enhance Jefferson County's quality
of life.
Encourage the recruitment of new businesses, including firms that provide long-term
employment and/or provide family-wage jobs.
Sustain the economic utilization of Jefferson County's natural resources while attracting
a more diversified base of non-resource industries that are consistent with local quality of
life and the community's environmental values.
Encourage a range of economic activities and businesses that serve both the needs of
local residents and visitors to Jefferson County.
Encourage programs aimed at providing education, job training and retraining, and
skills enhancement that are responsive to the changing needs of local businesses and
residents.
Support the expansion of adult education opportunities available to Jefferson County
residents who seek high school degrees, G.E.D., remedial education, vocational training
and retraining, skills or knowledge enhancement, professional certification, two-year
degrees, four-year degrees, and advanced degrees.
Create a consortium of adult education providers to coordinate class offerings, facilities,
and staff resources.
Promote the full use (after hours) of schools, community centers, and other public
facilities to expand adult education opportunities.
Support and recognize efforts of the Higher Education Assessment Committee and other
agencies to establish an institution of higher education.
VOL
24 'In-
r "."-
23/18
7-11
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EDP 2.5
EDP 2.6
GOAL:
EDG 3.0
POLICIES:
EDP 3.1
EDP 3.2
EDP 3.3
GOAL:
EDG 4.0
Utilize adult education providers, economic development agencies, and other Jefferson
County residents to promote learning and mentoring opportunities and provide programs
that are responsive to the changing needs of the workplace.
.
Encourage public and private agencies to expand existing programs and establish new
occupational programs that provide work-experience for high-school students.
Establish a Targeted Industry Program that promotes Jefferson County's strengths
and advantages in the following industries:
.
Natural resources;
Tourism;
Health care and retirement;
Marine trades;
Value-added wood products;
Aquaculture;
Telecommunications;
High-Technology; and
Arts (including fine arts and crafts)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Support efforts of economic development agencies to:
.
a. establish criteria for a targeted industry program;
b. utilize the established criteria to prioritize economic development efforts; and
c, seek funding for the targeted industrial program.
Encourage businesses that:
a. provide family wages;
b, are low impact;
c. are resource-based;
d. add value to natural resources;
e. are environmentally sound; and
f. enrich the County's cultural and health care resources.
Encourage the expansion of employment opportunities in the economic sectors identified
in the Targeted Industry Program,
Coordinate efforts with federal, state and local economic development groups to
promote a healthy and vibrant economic environment within Jefferson County.
VOL
2 4: r~U
.
2 ;::.49
7-12
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
.
POLICIES:
EDP 4.1
EDP 4.2
EDP 4.3
GOAL:
EDG 5.0
POLICIES:
EDP 5.1
EDP 5.2
.
EDP 5.3
GOAL:
EDG 6.0
POLICIES:
EDP 6.1
EDP 6.2
.
Encourage public-private cooperative partnerships to augment the County's economy,
provide increased employment opportunities to County residents, and that are supportive
of diverse business operations and investments throughout the County.
Coordinate efforts with applicable federal, state and local agencies to provide facilities,
attractions and support services for visitors,
Support efforts of the Economic Development Council, the Port of Port Townsend, the
chambers of commerce and other agencies to attract new businesses that are compatible
with Jefferson County's economic development strategy
Provide regulatory incentives to encourage and facilitate economic opportunities
within the County.
Continue to work with state, federal and local agencies to coordinate and streamline
environmental review procedures and processes.
Continue to work towards internal coordination and consistency in the application of
development regulations and standards,
Periodically review and update, if necessary, land-use and pennitting procedures to
assure that regulatory processes are understandable, predictable and timely.
Encourage and support appropriate rural economic development throughout
Jefferson County.
In conjunction with the City of Port Townsend, develop a process for authorizing the
siting of new major industrial developments outside of designated Urban Growth Areas
that is consistent with the provisions of RCW 36,70A.365 and pursuant to the County-
wide Planning Policy.
EDP 6.1.1 Any proposed major industrial development located outside of a
designated UGA and which meets all the criteria set forth in RCW 36.70A.365 cannot be
developed as a commercial shopping development or as multi-tenant office parks.
Encourage the establishment of new sustainable natural resource-based activities in rural
areas to increase employment opportunities.
EDP 6.2.1
Natural resource-based activities shall be located near the agriculture,
mineral, aquaculture or forest resource upon which they are dependent,
VOL 2 4 r~L~ 2~JO
,,'
7-13
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EDP 6.3
EDP 6.4
EDP 6.5
EDP 6.6
EDP 6.7
EDP 6.8
EDP 6.9
EDP 6.10
EDP 6.11
GOAL:
EDG 7.0
POLICIES:
EDP 7.1
EDP 7.2
Allow for low-impact home-based businesses and cottage industries, including bed and
breakfasts, in rural residential areas, subject to review procedures and permitting.
.
Encourage the provision of technology that fosters home-based businesses, (i.e.,
telecommuting, fiber optics, etc.).
Develop criteria for the variety and siting of home-based businesses with low impacts on
rural residential properties and amend the zoning code as necessary.
Encourage small businesses and cottage industries that manufacture value-added wood
products and products using regional agricultural commodities.
Encourage local recycling industries.
Encourage businesses which focus on environmental management, research and
restoration.
Conserve and enhance existing agriculture and encourage future innovative agriculture
ventures and technologies.
In conjunction with the City of Port Townsend, initiate a Glen CovelTri-Area Special
Study for the Glen Cove industrial/associated commercial area to determine, among other
things, where utilities and other services are needed to best serve the future development
of the area, how the delivery of services and utilities will be financed, the types of
economic activities best suited for locating in the area, and how the area shall be
managed in terms of land use decisions and service delivery.
.
Direct new industrial/associated commercial development in the Glen Cove area to areas
within the interim boundaries until the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study is completed
and final development regulations are implemented through an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Support the full range of human and social services necessary to encourage a strong
local economy.
Support development of social service facilities and programs that support employment
opportunities, meet community needs and help maintain Jefferson County's quality of
life.
Support the location, development and maintenance of special needs, social service
facilities within the boundaries of designated Rural Centers, including but not limited to
job retraining, health care, day care, elder care, education, transportation, nutrition
programs, and food banks.
VOI-
2 4 r~[;~
.
2351.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-14
August28,1998
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EDP 7.3
GOAL:
EDG 8.0
POLICIES:
EDP 8.1
EDP 8.2
EDP 8.3
EDP 8.4
EDP 8.5
EDP 8.6
EDP 8.7
GOAL:
EDG 9.0
POLICIES:
EDP 9.1
EDP 9.2
In cooperation with local jurisdictions and appropriate state and federal agencies,
encourage improved access to social services at locations proximate to populations being
served (i.e., the Rural Village Centers) and to adequate transportation services including
public transit.
Promote the development of tourist and tourist-related activities as a provider of
employment and business opportunities in Jefferson County.
Build on the County's comparative advantages and natural attractions for visitor services
by encouraging lodging, retail and transportation services to be located in those Rural
Centers that have the necessary infrastructure.
Encourage local efforts to improve and market visitor services. Promote the North
Olympic Peninsula Visitor and Convention Bureau in its efforts to market the region.
Encourage efforts to develop, refurbish and maintain scenic open space, cultural, historic
and heritage resources that are attractive to both local residents and visitors.
Encourage the development of small businesses, services, cultural attractions and special
events that capture and support tourism. Within Jefferson County's isolated West-End
allow for these small businesses to also furnish goods and services to the local
population.
Encourage public access to waterbodies and scenic drives through signage, maps, scenic
pull-offs, public infonnation programs and other means of identifying areas and features
of interest.
Develop, enhance and promote Jefferson County's visitor, cultural, historical,
entertainment, and recreational facilities and attractions to foster tourism.
Support Jefferson County as a visitor destination by preserving and enhancing the
County's unique qualities.
Encourage economic development that conserves natural resources and open spaces,
protects environmental quality and enhances Jefferson County's overall quality of
life.
Promote economic development that does not adversely impact the natural or built
environment.
Support and protect the economic value and long-tenD sustainability of Jefferson
County's environmental resources.
VOL
2 A 'ArC
Lf ("'Co
2 -ror-2
,;- ,:_)
7-15
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EDP 9.3
GOAL:
EDG 10.0
POLICIES:
EDP 10.1
EDP 10.2
,
EDP 10.3
EDP 10.4
Develop and update land use policies that conserve resource lands and provide
sustainable employment opportunities.
Provide, maintain and encourage phased infrastructure development that is
adequate to attract and accommodate desired economic growth in appropriate areas
of Jefferson County consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management
Act.
Support and coordinate efforts with the City of Port Townsend, infrastructure service
providers and/or other stakeholders to conduct special studies that identify and evaluate
infrastructure needs in areas targeted for future commercial and industrial development
Ensure that proposed infrastructure and levels of service are adequate to support current
and projected needs.
Investigate new and/or innovative infrastructure, such as wireless or fiber-optic
telecommunications technology, to link Jefferson County with other areas.
Support efforts to establish public transit service linking Jefferson County with feny
service at Kingston.
VOL
24: r~r;'
2~53
'-.)
7-16
August28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES
A.
ADEQUATE LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jefferson County's economic development strategy includes ensuring that land use and planning decisions
provide for an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land, appropriate public services and infrastructure,
and an efficient and timely permitting process to facilitate the development of future industrial,
commercial, and manufacturing activities.
Action Items
1.
When reviewing development applications for commercial and industrial projects, ensure that the
proposed project includes measures to minimize environmental impacts, harmonize and/or
complement the immediate natural and/or built environment, while not impacting in a significant
way the economic viability ofthe project. (Corresponding Goal: 5.0)
2.
Actively participate in recycling programs. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
3.
Require home-based businesses to renew all applicable permits every three (3) years.
(Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
4.
In cooperation with the City of Port Townsend, pursue a study of industrial and commercial lands
County-wide to determine whether there is an adequate land base to support future economic
development activities. Among other things, this study should identify suitable land in urban,
rural and resource settings. (Corresponding Goal: 6,0)
5.
In cooperation with the City of Port Townsend develop a process for authorizing the siting of
major industrial developments outside of established UGAs. The siting criteria developed
through this process shall be consistent with the County-wide Planning Policy (CWPP) and RCW
36.70A.365. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
6.
Based upon the results of the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Study, develop policies to address development
patterns, and infrastructure and service provisions in the study area as needed.
(Corresponding Goals: 6.0, 10.0).
7.
If merited, in conjunction with the Glen Cove/Tri-Area Study results and in cooperation with the
City of Port Townsend, develop a scope of work to support the development of a Master Plan for
the Glen Cove industrial/associated commercial area. The Master Plan shall specify the types of
uses targeted, overall building and site design, operations and management, and necessary
improvements including open space, water, sanitary sewer, storm water facilities, landscaping,
and traffic circulation and control. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
8.
Support farming as an essential part of local and regional economy and food and farm product
supply. (Corresponding Goals: 1,0, 6.0)
9.
Work with educational professionals and economic development authorities to obtain additional
funding to support existing educational programs such as those operated by the Jefferson
Educational Foundation. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2,0)
VOL
2 4 rMJ~
2~54
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-17
August 28, 1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
B.
10.
Aid local efforts, such as the Higher Education Needs Assessment Committee, to secure an
expanded Peninsula College Branch Campus. (CoITesponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0)
.
11.
Actively promote vocational training and educational opportunities that strengthen and increase
the skills available in the local workforce. (CoITesponding Goals: 1,0, 2.0)
12.
Encourage educational outreach programs (WSU, Peninsula College, Northwest School of
Wooden Boatbuilding, and private programs) designed to train people in recreational and tourist
related activities, small scale entrepreneurship, and marine trades.
(CoITesponding Goal: 2.0)
13.
Request quarterly visits to distressed areas by State Job Training Office employees to discuss job
opportunities and training programs with unemployed adults and teens,
(CoITesponding Goal: 2.0)
14.
Actively engage Community Trade and Economic Development's (CTED) Tourism Program in
promoting distressed areas of Jefferson County as tourist destinations.
(CoITesponding Goal: 8.0)
15.
In cooperation with pertinent State and Federal agencies, the County should work towards
developing a plan to ensure the delivery of appropriate services (i.e., education, transportation,
etc.) to the special needs populations. Sites for future facilities to serve the special needs
population should be concentrated in the City of Port Townsend and the Rural Centers to take
, advantage of existing services in these areas, (CoITesponding Goal: 4.0)
16.
.
When rewriting the land use codes, County staff will work towards:
.
Integrating and simplifying land use regulations;
Ensuring current procedures provide efficient and effective processing, monitoring and
decision making;
Developing multiple permitting process tracks to allow increased flexibility and rapid
processing of development applications that conform to a prescribed set of regulations.
(CoITesponding Goal: 5.0)
.
.
17.
Review the County's permit review process to ensure current procedures provide efficient, timely
and effective processing, monitoring and decision-making. (CoITesponding Goal: 5.0)
INITIATIVE TO ATTRACT NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jefferson County's strategy for economic development incorporates partnerships with agencies,
organizations, educational institutions, and local government to foster and attract new economic
development activities which are consistent with the County's resources, vision, and rural character.
Action Items
1.
Initiate a cooperative effort between the City, County, Port of Port Townsend, Economic
Development Council (EDe) and local Chambers of Commerce to develop a program to assist
existing businesses expansion and to encourage new businesses to consider locating in areas
which are appropriate to the County's resources and overall economic development vision.
(CoITesponding Goal: 4,0)
.
VOL
24 r~r,>
2355
.."
Jeffel'1ion County Comprehensive Plan
7-18
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2.
Encourage the development of incentives to encourage and maintain local recycling based
industries using stock-piled or regionally generated recycled materials.
(Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
3.
Investigate incentives, tax breaks, or direct subsidies to encourage the development of ecosystem
rehabilitation industries. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
4.
In cooperation with other economic development entities, develop a process to identify the
availability of financial assistance to support the production of value-added wood products and
provide incentives for small businesses and cottage industries. This process should also identify
the availability of incentives, tax breaks, or direct subsidies to encourage ecosystem rehabilitative
industries. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0)
5,
Maintain, enhance and conserve agricultural lands through the following means:
.
Continue to provide tax incentives (Open Space or Current Use assessments);
Continue to provide technical assistance, such as resource conservation plans prepared by the
Jefferson County Conservation District or Natural Resources Conservation Service and
programs developed by Washington State University Cooperative Extension;
Allow and encourage small-scale agricultural uses within both rural and urban areas; and
Discourage incompatible uses on adjacent lands, through increased setbacks, limits on utility
extensions in agricultural areas, right-to-practice agriculture ordinances, and notification to
residential landowners of potential incompatible uses. (Corresponding Goal: 9.0)
.
.
.
6,
Ensure the County's implementation regulations maintain access for the public to the County's
various waterbodies, both fresh and salt water, and encourage the creation of tourism related
facilities throughout the County including, but not limited to, convention facilities, bed and
breakfast facilities, public and private parks, campgrounds, recreational facilities, and other
facilities which will attract and cater to tourists. (Corresponding Goals: 5.0, 8.0)
7.
In cooperation with utility providers, develop a co-location utility siting agreement to encourage
co-use of utility corridors. (Corresponding Goal: 4~0)
8.
Work with the City of Port Townsend and telecommunications utility providers in an effort to
identify ways by which high capacity fiber optic cables and wireless technologies can be best
sited to serve the County. (Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
VOL
24 'Hc
r '".,;..
2r-or:'6
".) ,-þ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7-19
August28,1998
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
VOL
2A 'F~
'f (, "
?357
~...;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
7~20
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
EmnRONMENTELEMENT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Environment Element is to describe specific criteria and review
processes, and to identify regulations to achieve a balance between land development and use activities
and environmental protection, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act.
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
The complexity of the issues associated with environmental protection requires that several other
elements of the Comprehensive Plan address specific aspects of these issues and propose methods to
address them. However, the Environment Element integrates the specific perspectives and methods from
other elements that address environmental protection. Background infonnation on environmental
conditions and issues can be found in Appendix E of this Plan.
The following table summarizes the environmental protection issues identified and addressed in other
elements of the Plan:
Element Discussion
1. Land U se/Rural Environmental features are important components of the rural character
of Jefferson County. Shorelines, wildlife habitat, and water resources
contribute to a sense of place and enhance the quality of life through
natural ecological functions. Unmanaged, sprawling growth is the most
significant threat to environmental quality in Jefferson County. In
order to protect the public health and welfare, land use regulations are
developed that respect the rights of property owners and preserve
environmental functions.
2.~aturaIFlesources Natural resource lands provide important environmental functions,
Conservation including surface water protection, habitat enhancement, and ground
water recharge. Mineral lands can be reclaimed in a manner that
provides enhanced environmental functions, Significant environmental
features on natural resource lands should be preserved through the use
of best management practices (BMPs).
3. Open Space, Parks and Open space IS fundamental for environmental protection and
Recreation enhancement, ~ew policies are developed for the preservation of the
County's significant environmental features through the use of an
enhanced open space network,
4. Utilities Protection and management of water resources as a necessary public
supply is linked to water system policies. Protection of existing water
supplies and development of future supplies should be consistent with
the protection of water resources and related environmental resources,
Water resource protection also requires a stonn water management
plan that is integrated with a comprehensive watershed approach.
"'
24 rA(;~
2 :]58
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-1
August 28, 1998
ENVIRONMENT
5. Capital Facilities
Recent population growth has raised concerns regarding the ability of
surface and ground water sources to meet demand. The demands
include not only public supply, but also those for habitat, recreation,
and aesthetics.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES
Jefferson County believes that a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its citizens.
While protection of the environment is a primary goal of the GMA planning process, neither the text of
the Act nor the decisions of the Hearings Boards define specifically how this is to be accomplished.
Therefore, for the purposes of this plan, Jefferson County has adopted a working definition of
environmental protection which is based on the relationship between four essential components:
.
Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy;
Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review;
Critical Areas Protection Strategy; and,
Public Education and Involvement Strategy.
.
.
.
Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy
A Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy recognizes the interconnected nature of
environmental resources through the hydrologic cycle, and the necessity to develop comprehensive
watershed and fisheries recovery management plans as the framework for resource management. The
1998 proposed listings of salmon and bull trout species as "threatened" under the Endangered Species
Act, including the Hood Canal Summer Chum and the Puget Sound Chinook require that Jefferson
County develop land use regulations to protect habitat based on integrated watershed and salmon habitat
recovery plans. The County expects to work with local, tribal, state and federal agencies to develop land
use regulations based on these plans that protect the water resources of the County for use by future
residents and for the fish species that are threatened with extinction, as well as all other species.
.
Watershed management of hydrological resources addresses wetlands, shorelines, surface waters,
aquifer recharge, landslide hazards, flood hazards, and frequently flooded areas. It incorporates
management of in stream flow volumes and storm water quality and quantity. It has a direct impact on
and is integrally related to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
The 1997 state legislature enacted laws which establish the framework for watershed and f¡.sh habitat
recovery planning, Jefferson County, a member of the Jefferson County Water Resources Council, will
work with adjacent counties and other parties to develop watershed management plans on which land
use regulatory decisions will be based. The goals and policies of the Environment Element reflect the
County's commitment to resource management based on watershed and fish habitat recovery planning.
As watershed plans are translated into land use regulations, a number of programs may be affected.
Table 8-1 below provides an overview of the County regulatory issues for various water uses, and the
Comprehensive Plan elements in which some of these issues are addressed, The primary agencies and
laws with regulatory authority or involvement for the various water uses are listed in Table 8-2,
.
VOL
24: rM,;
~59
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-2
August 28,1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
Table 8-1
Water Resources: Uses, Regulatory Issues, and Comprehensive Plan Elements
~~r 1ft;~r~; ..
,»' . "'/\, , ,I,:";>,';!,
c ~: û,~~ it~g ~í~$~, ty ~ s~ ~~\~r,
'-"",;F-¡f' ,¡'i::;:,r"/V"rf'11
"",'("'-'<""-",',
"""",<,;/'
Potable Water Supply:
Domestic/Commercial
and Municipal
Aquifer recharge,
wellhead protection,
stonn water,
water quality,
water system planning,
individual wells
Ground Water &
Surface Water Uses
Industrial
aquifer recharge,
stonn water,
water system planning,
wellhead protection,
water quality
Agricultural
aquifer recharge,
stonn water,
water quality,
flooding,
wetlands,
fish/wildlife habitat,
aquifer protection
Instream Flows
Fish/Wildlife;
Recreation;
Hydropower
instteam flows,
stonn water,
water quality
fish/wildlife habitat,
flood management,
shorelines management,
wetlands
Marine
Fish/Wildlife;
Shellfish;
Recreation
fish/wildlife habitat,
shellfish protection areas,
wetlands,
shorelines management,
stonn water,
water quality
VOL
24 r~C~
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-3
,,+"/
Utilities - water systems,
individual wells, wellhead
protection, stonn water
Environment - aquifer recharge,
water quality
Utilities - water systems,
wellhead protection, stonn water
Environment - aquifer recharge,
water quality
Utilities - stonn water
Environment - aquifer recharge,
flooding, wetlands, habitat,
aquifer protection, water quality
Caoital Facilities ~ flood
management
Utilities - stonn water
Environment ~ instteam flows,
flooding, wetlands, habitat,
shorelines, water quality
Caoital Facilities - flood
management
Environment - habitat, shellfish,
wetlands, shorelines, water
quality .
Utilities - stonn water
2~30
ENVIRONMENT
Table 8-2
Water Resources: Responsible Agencies and Applicable Laws*
.
"<,, :::;;:::"';::'
7~;¡!¡"
"""c,,'C' , ,""""""",, ,
¡"i"),',i'"I:^~"~,t".'~,'~,;;a,:,,,,,.d"i,l,;"r, :t¡ 'i
",;;., ",
Ground
Water &
Surface
Water Uses
Instream
Flows
Marine
Potable SutJtJly:
Ground Water
Quality/Quantity
Management
Potable SutJTJly:
Drinking Water
Industrial
Agricultural
Fish/Wildlife
Recreation
Hydropower
Fish/Wildlife
Shellfish
Recreation
Agencies -Environmental
Protection Agency
Legal: Clean Water Act, Ground
water guidelines, Safe Drinking
Water Act
Agencies -_Environmental
Protection Agency
Legal- Safe Drinking Water Act
Agencies -_Environmental
Protection Agency
Legal- Clean Water Act
Agencies - Environmental
Protection Agency; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Natural
Resource Conservation Service
Legal- Clean Water Act
Agencies - Environmental
Protection Agency; U.S. Dept. of
the Interior; U.S. Dept. ofFish and
Wildlife; U.S. Forest Service;
Bureau of Indian Affairs; National
Park Service; Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Anny
Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
Reclamation
Legal- Clean Water Act;
Endangered Species Act; Indian
Treaty Rights
Agencies - Environmental
Protection Agency; U,S.
Department of the Interior; U,S,
Department ofFish and Wildlife;
Bureau of Indian Affairs; National
Marine Fisheries; Anny Corps of
Engineers
Legal- Clean Water Act;
Endangered Species Act
;"", """',,
"",, ..\'," ,:;, """'" ¡"!'
,Ja~e~uthor¡~,.~nd
':;:"i:,":~" ,;,',',"
Agencies - Depts of
Ecology and Health
Legal- Ground Water
Quality Standards,
Surface Water Quality
Standards, Water Code
Agencies - Department
of Health
Agencies - Department
of Ecology
Legal: NPDES
regulations, Water Code
Agencies - Department
of Ecology; Department
of Agriculture
Legal- Water Code,
Surface Water Quality
Standards
Agencies-Department
of Ecology; Department
of Natural Resources;
Department ofFish and
Wildlife
Legal - Water Code
Agencies-Department
of Ecology; Department
of Natural Resources;
Department ofFish and
Wildlife; Department of
Health
Legal - Shellfish
Certification, Surface
Water Quality
Standards
Agencies - Planning Department;
Public Works; County Health
Department
Legal- Critical Areas Ordinance;
Coordinated Water System Plan
Agencies - County Health
Department; Planning
Department
Legal- Critical Areas Ordinance;
Coordinated Water System Plan
Agencies - Planning Department
Agencies - Planning Department;
Public Works; Washington State
University Cooperative
Extension; Conservation District
Agencies - Planning Department;
Public Works
Legal- Critical Areas Ordinance;
Shoreline Master Program
Agencies - Planning Department;
Public Works; County Health
Department
Legal- Critical Areas Ordinance;
Shoreline Master Program
*This list oflaws and agencies is not all-inclusive, but lists those most frequently encountered on the local level.
~~ 'H~ ?~ô1
vni ._- ,.'.. r" "
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-4
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review
A Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review is an approach that combines various
state and local environmental protection programs within a single regulatory framework. By
encouraging inter-agency cooperation and integrating these programs into a unified implementation
strategy, the review process is simplified and made more efficient, thereby making environmental
protection more comprehensive, effective and predictable.
Environmental review concentrates on those land development and use activities that have the greatest
potential to have significant cumulative impact on the natural systems of the County. As a response to
the current deficiencies of the local regulatory framework in regard to environmental protection, the
County's regulatory strategy includes the adoption and implementation of the following:
1.
A Clearing and Grading Ordinance that provides criteria and defines a threshold to ensure
adequate protection of critical areas and associated buffers for all types of significant land uses
and land-disturbing activities.
An amended Stonn Water Ordinance that will adequately address the important issues of stonn
water management and conservation,
Special Environmental Overlay Districts created for areas of Jefferson County that are
characterized by unique environmental protection needs. For example, Marrowstone Island has
been designated a "Sole-Source Aquifer Area" by the Department of Ecology, and, as such,
requires specific policies addressing its unique features and concerns, such as salt water
intrusion.
2.
3.
The regulatory strategy for consolidated pennit review is presented in the Comprehensive Plan through
goals and policies that provide guidelines for types and thresholds of protection for each resource area,
The action items under the regulatory strategy address the ordinances that will need to be written,
revised, or amended, as well as the collection of scientific data on which to base pennit decisions.
Coordination with state and local agencies is included in order to streamline the multiple jurisdictional
levels of reyiew for many activities.
Critical Areas Protection Strategy
The Critical Areas Protection Strategy describes the regulations and methodologies used to protect the
critical environmental areas found throughout Jefferson County. Protection and enhancement of critical
areas were detennined by the state legislature to be essential to the maintenance of public health and
safety.
The designation of Critical Areas in Jefferson County was guided by GMA requirements, state
guidelines, and a extensive local review process (see Appendix E). In 1994, the Jefferson County
Interim Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted. The ordinance was amended on June 26, 1995 to add
provisions for the protection of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The ordinance incorporates by
reference the Jefferson County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance #1-89) for the regulation
of frequently flooded areas, with language added that identifies these critical areas according to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain designations, The Interim
Critical Areas Ordinance designates and regulates the following critical areas as required under RCW
36.70AO30(5):
VOL
2A 'H,
I.f: r ",,-
2 ;]62
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-5
August 28, 1998
ENVIRONMENT
.
.
Wetlands;
Aquifer recharge areas;
Frequently flooded areas;
Geologically hazardous areas; and,
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
.
.
.
.
Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and pursuant to the provisions of RCW
36.70AO60(3), the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance will be reviewed for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan prior to its adoption as a final ordinance. Provisions may be revised based on the
review, for example, of regulations protecting fish and wildlife habitat that may need to be revised in
light of the proposed listing of fish species under the Endangered Species Act.
The regulatory protection of critical areas will improve as the data base of infonnation is developed over
time. Action items under this strategy include continuing to inventory and map environmental
conditions, which will increase the efficiency and the level of protection over the 20-year period of this
plan. Critical Areas maps will be updated as new scientific infonnation becomes available.
Public Education and Involvement Strategy
A Public Education and Involvement Strategy has been included in the Environmental Element in
recognition of the importance of public awareness and involvement to the success of an environmental
protection program, Education regarding measures and regulations designed to protect property owners
from environmental hazards will improve compliance with these regulations. In addition, when property
owners of existing development are educated regarding natural processes and resource protection, they
are likely to better manage their property, to seek assistance early, and to avoid taking actions which may
cause problems on their own or nearby land,
.
A public involvement approach is also far more cost-efficient for both property owners and the County,
in that addressing problems in advance is generally less costly than being forced to address them after
they have become critical. Jefferson County's commitment to public education and involvement through
the action items of this strategy will result in more effective protection of resources, the protection of
life and property, and a population of residents who are more infonned about, supportive of, and
individually active in environmental protection.
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
In order to address the environment in a comprehensive manner, Jefferson County has developed
additional environmental goals and policies for protection of the following:
.
Shorelines
Air quality
Natural heritage vegetation and landfonns
View and noise conditions
.
.
.
The implementation ofthis Plan through a revision of County ordinances will be guided by the goals and
policies for these areas.
.
VOL
2 4 r~r!
? ';' 63
-.,J -)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
Shorelines
Jefferson County contains significant shoreline resources, with approximately 202 miles of saltwater
shoreline, 367 miles of streams, and 14 miles of lake shoreline. Over 80 percent of the shorelines in
Eastern Jefferson County are privately owned, while most of the shorelines in the West End along the
Pacific Ocean are managed by the National Park Service. In addition to providing fish, shellfish, and
wildlife habitat, the shorelines of Jefferson County have value for residential and economic uses.
Shorelines of the State are regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW).
Amendments to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program must be approved by the Department of
Ecology and must comply with the State law. Shoreline pennits issued by the County are reviewed by
the State for compliance with State law. The County's Shoreline Management Master Program will be
revised in the next several years to comply with the Growth Management Act, based on a review for
consistency with this Comprehensive Plan and on guidelines currently being developed by the State. The
revised Master Program will be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, During the interim
period prior to adoption of a revised Shoreline Management Master Program, where shoreline
regulations conflict with other ordinances, the more restrictive regulations shall apply.
The marine shorelines of Eastern Jefferson County have been developed at a rapid rate in some areas
over the past several decades. In some areas, adverse impacts to the environment have occurred in tenDS
of fish habitat damage, water quality degradation, altered patterns of sediment transport, and landslides
where drainage and construction measures have exacerbated the instability of bluffs. Because activities
in one area ofthe shoreline can have significant impacts in other shoreline areas, permit review processes
must recognize the interdependence of shoreline landfonn stability and habitat with shoreline transport
systems, drainage systems, and geologic conditions.
The goals, policies, and strategies for shorelines address the regulation of the shoreline for the protection
of environmental functions, and the coordination of pennitting decisions with state agencies responsible
for environmental protection. In addition, because of the potential property damage that can result for a
landowner and nearby properties if natural processes are ignored, the goals and policies of this plan
include protection of property from the individual or cumulative effects of shoreline development.
Public access and public education are also included as components that promote shoreline protection
and enjoyment.
Air Quality
Air quality throughout Jefferson County is generally good. The Olympic Air Pollution Control
Authority, with regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act, attributes air pollution on the Olympic
Peninsula to motor vehicles, outdoor burning, industrial emissions, and residential wood stoves, Air
quality in East Jefferson County is more of a concern than that of the West End, given the higher
concentrations of development and population.
Occasional burning bans which include the use of wood-burning stoves are declared when regional
weather conditions result in a decrease in regional air quality. Over the next 20 years the population
growth in East Jefferson County may contribute to a decrease in air quality, in particular along major
transportation routes, The Environment Element proposes policies and strategies to address the long-
tenD air quality of the County.
VOL
2 4: r~~~
2 ~6.4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-7
August 28, 1998
ENVIRONMENT
Natural Heritage Vegetation and Landforms
.
Jefferson County's natural environment includes native vegetation, ecosystems, and landforms which
have value to the community as the basis of its natural heritage. It is the intent of the County to protect
areas of native ecosystems and to promote the use of native vegetation. Natural landforms and geologic
outcrops with educational and scientific value, are included as having natural heritage value, and
protection of these areas is encouraged for the education and enjoyment of future residents.
View and Noise Conditions
The mountain, water, and vaHey views found in Jefferson County have significant value for County
residents and visitors. County residents depend on these scenic resources for enriching their quality of
life and maintaining economic vitality. Tourist activities and real estate property values reflect the high
value placed on this aesthetic amenity. There are currently no regulations for the protection of views
and viewsheds. A public discussion during the process of developing ordinances to implement the
Comprehensive Plan can be used to determine the extent to which citizens feel that view protection
should be regulated.
Given the rural nature of the County, there is very little light or glare "poHution" of concern to residents.
Protection of the rural character of the community includes protection from excessive light and glare that
may accompany development.
In rural Jefferson County the noise of a neighbor's chain saw is generaHy an accepted part of life, and
noise conditions have not generaHy been considered a problem, Resolving the impacts of growth in a
changing rural area may require a level of noise regulation that will be determined in public processes for
development of ordinances foHowing approval of the Comprehensive Plan.
.
CRITICAL AREAS MAPS
Maps are provided on the foHowing pages that depict the location of critical areas identified by Jefferson
County. Not aH critical areas have been mapped. Jefferson County will continue to improve the
information on which permit processing is based, in order to protect the public from inappropriate
development and to protect the functions and values of critical areas.
VOL
2 4 r~r;~
2~'65
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-8
August 28, 1998
RANG~ OZ W
RANGE m E
ENVIRONMENT
RANGE 01 w
.
t
0
1
~ 2
......:1
<>:: 3
u 4
UJ
5
6
Miles
.
._._._--...,.~.,~_.~_..-..
- WETLANOS
INFORMATIO"" ,"RPO'ES "'LV
CRITICAL AREAS" WETLANDS
"0 ""'"TV" ",,' " ro TII'
"","", OF '00"""" '" "",.
.
"",,""u.",',
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
"""'" ",'"'" '" ""
RANGE O" W
RANGE 01 ~ .
IWIGE 01 W
:z:
¿:;
~
~
:z:
í!
~
Ii¡
..
l'
"
æ
~
f;i!
~
¡::
"
¡¡¡
~
"
~
g
:z:
&i
"'
:;:
en
Z
i>'
g
'"
'"
"
Iò
ii
¡¡:
ß
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-9
24
r~(,~
2"""""'6
uD August 28, 1998
VOL
......
{"O
~
.,
'"
0
0
()
0
¡::
0
~
()
0
3
'0
.,
'"
::r-
'"
0
'"
:t
'"
'"tI
p;-
o
00
I
-
-
:>
¡::
(It:¡
¡::
'"
....
N
.00
.......
\0
\0
00
<-
=
¡
rv
t+a
-"
~~
-~
;".,
N
C;
C)
-J
.
t
.
.
RANGE 1. W
RANGE J:J 'If
RANG~ l2 'If
RAHG~ 11 if
RANG~ JO 11
RANGE D9 1!
..
. .
,
;<;
i
"
e,
III
~
"
"
ï
"
"'
"
. r,¡¡,...,
rà~w f¡;¡1a ¡""",,¡iå... I'eiImU Lood.<
sea Ie:
J>
S
g
.¡
~
-<
;a
0
z
3:
t:r:I
Z
.....¡
&AN<::!: 14 1!
RANGE 13 .,
RANGB 11 If
RANG~ 12 'f
1" = 5000'
JWI~E 10 W
~ - --- ~ ... ....-.. ~
~---- ..
--""'-"'-
-""""'-_.'~
T--""_'~-
-'-""""""'"
.. ...... -' ........ - '"'-
SUB1"" TO "EI'I""'" ...., - -
M
""- '~~'!: ]~ ....
CRITICAL AREAS - WETLANDS
FDR INFORMATIONAL PURPDSES ONLY --
,- - -- -" ~-*~- ~ - ~ -~J
-"'-"~-~- -_s.'-""""
~ --.. ~ ~,.- a= --~~--
-"~...._- a-~----~-""""
- "",,-1-
WEST JEFFERSON COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT
RANGE œ w
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 01 E
z
¡;J
.
~
P-.
~
~
fQ
'"
ß
.
\
"
z
~
~
~
¡:
z
l<J
0.
Eii
~
g
z
.,
..
~
f!1
~
.
---"-'-"""'~":'--'-"-"
.I
I'
z
¡;¡
0.
¡;;
~
..
ß
J'
I'
ETII2I ~"'o""'" ,""","~, "'""
l1li "...",¡ ""-"0. "',~ -",,", -"" ......
_Yo...... ....""". ...~,...... o,,_,""~""'K
- """'" ".."," """"",,, ^'M
/V ..... VIII... ........
'"
~
I
I
f'j
¡¡¡
~
ß
CRITICAL AREAS -AQUIFER RECHARGE
SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS
OW' bm ,,""'"
'-"-"""""'."""--'"
-----.---.--
~._..»-.--- ,"'"""-""'
:::- .=.. ":...~~': oZ.':::"'-
-"".....----.--,.....
..-_._---~
::: :;~
"'~""""",,""'B"'B""'LY-
----_.__..,---~--
~------- -~"~_.-.
-_._'._R_~__~_-
----------_.--
.I'
JI'
BAIN ,un""N CD'~'. w...mcmN
RANGE o~ 'If
RANGE 01 W
RANCE Ol E
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-13
VOL
24
r~r,~
2-~~8'
'L:O
August 28, ] 998
RANGE OZ W
RANGE OL E
ENVIRONMENT
R^NGE 01 W
.
t
0
1
~ 2
.-:¡
<e: 3
u 4
UJ
5
6
Miles
.
--'-'-'-""'~'-"-"
- FRoOUo"TLY ¡'LDODED 'Ro"
CB.ITICAL AREAS .. FREQUENTLY
FLOODED AREAS
'"FORM"'O"" PURPOSES ONCY
NO "","n " "-'DE ^' " THE
EX"""" D' 'D",D"IES 'ND "",.
.
"""'"00 LO.".'.
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
"""" """'" ". ""
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 E
RANGE 01 W
"
¡:;
~
~
..
~
'"
e:
i
..
~
'"
(i'¡
D..
51
~
g
'"
g¡
~
~
'"
¡:
"
¡:¡
D..
50
~
ß
'"
¡¡¡
¡>,
ß
~
g
24
r~f,:
2 ..3 39
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-15
VOL
ENV IRONMENT
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
RANGE m E
:z:
.
0
1
~ 2
~
< 3
u 4
UJ
5
6
Miles
.
--'-'--"""."..-.~_..-..
,"",AALHËD A"EA
RISK FAOTDAS
. c::::J 1 - LOW
¡æ:¡'.t!'1JI 2 - MEDIU"
-. - HIGH
1NFO",""'" PUAPOS" ONL'
CRITICAL AREAS - LANDSLIDE HAZARD
.0 "',^.!Y IS "" " " ,",
""'."""".0""".0""'.
.
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
J."""" <.0...'.
"'I"'.""""""'"
RANGE 02 W
RANGE D1 W
RANÇE 0\ E
¡;J
;
'"
ß
:z:
g
ia
¡g
~
....
:z:
iìJ
0.
s:
!
z
g¡
~
~
'"
¡::
z
""
'"
0.
s:
f2
g
"
¡:¡
¡>,
iJj
~
¡::
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-17
VOL
24
, ~ r ~
r "u-
2 ,-)70 .
August 28, 1998
ENVIRONMENT
.
.
.
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 w
RANGE at E
z
~
~
z
ß
"
g
0.
iii
~
~
z
g¡
0.
51
~
g
z
íi1
~
~
'"
~
z
¡:¡
0.
s:
~
o
ß
"
~
I'>
ii
~
g
1
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Miles
(.)
UJ
'_._._-~"~-¡"..~_.._,.
- eRosIoN HAlARD AReAS
INFORMAn"'C PURPOSES ONCY
CRITICAL AREAS .EROSION HAZARD
" """N" " "". " TO '"'
""'N"""'""""""""".
EASTERN JEffERSON COUNTY
""'co,"'.'.N.'.
""",. """" ". ""
RANGE OE W
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 01 E
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-19
VOL
24
'r~r,~
2371.
August 28, 1998
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
AANGE at E
ENVIRONMENT
.
t
0
1
~ 2
e.-:I
< 3
u 4
UJ
5
6
Miles
.
- "'S"'O '<,¡ARD A""AS
INFOR"ATIONAL PURPOSES oNe'
CRITICAL AREAS - SEISMIC HAZARD
NO "RR,"" ¡s ,," ^' TO T"
"'01"'" OF ""'O"," 'NO "'^"
.
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
"""'00 u."".
"""°. ","'" ". .""
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
RANGE 01 E
z
õ'J
~
r>¡
..
g
z
g
.~
'"
l'
"
~
eo
'"
¡g
..
l'
z
æ
~
¡g
..
"
....
"
"-
'"
'"
¡¡:
¡g
..
l'
z
g¡
¡>,
iJj
~
l'
24
r~L~
2~7Z
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-21
VOL
¡¡ANGE az w
RM'GE OL E
ENVIRONMENT
R~NGE 01 W
.
0
1
~
~
~
U
UJ
2
3
4
5
6
Miles
.
~ SLWHT LIMITATION
- ;i~g~r IO;~~;~:~~~:~: j~?~~R:i~p:~-15"
1<.i",.'::.1 SEV~RE LIMITA nON
SOIL LIMITATIONS POR SEPTIC SYSTEMS
INFO""AT,"NAL PURPOSES ONLY
NO ""","H IS ""' ^' TO THE
(FraIn S.C.S. soil desi&nations)
""",SS " ,,",,""'1Eo 'NO ,PO^"~
.
""'COO" "°,",,,
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
0",..' "","y". ""
RANGE 02 W
f'ilNGE 01 E
RANGE 01 W
VOL
24
, I r ~
r ,.,;'
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-23
z
öõ
~
r,:¡
'"
¡;:
z
g
~
rg
'"
1<
;z;
g>,
i!o
ffi
~
z
g¡
~
~
g
z
f:¡
"'
~
,.
ß
z
¡(¡
¡>,
iJj
¡:;
¡?.
2~)73
August 28, 1998
RANGE œ 'If
RANGE Ol E
ENVIRONMENT
RANGE 01 'I(
.
~
t
0
1
r>:1 2
.....:1
~ 3
u 4
tZ!
5
6
Miles
.
----'.-.-1"""-."..---..-..
- CISI" < ","DLIF< HAB"Ar A",^S
lIIiIiIiIoCK HoRD HABHAT A"'A
NDto: Bald Eagle and Grea, B1uo Horon Nest
LDca"'Dns and Habitat Rang.. aro NOT included.
INFORHAHONAL PURPOSt' ONe'
CRITICAL AREAS -
FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT
NO ",","" " "DE" " THE
""'HE" " ""'0'"'" 'NO 'RE",
.
"",,"'" '-0."-,.
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
'""eo' ,"'.", "'..,,
!lANGE 02 'If
RANOE 01 )
RANGE 01 'If
24
ur,~
~~:;74
August 28, 1998
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-25
'"
õõ
~
'"
ß
z
g
0.
ta
~
~
'"
g¡
"-
¡jj
'"
'"
~
'"
g¡
~
'"
..
13
z
¡:¡
èL
'"
~
P.-
"
Ii¡
¡>,
ø
~
g
......
CI>
~
....
'"
0
i:I
n
0
¡::
i:I
q
n
0
a
'0
....
0
::r
0
i:I
'"
:;;:
0
"'ò
§
00
I
N
-....)
..-....
=
,-
C)
~...J
~Vt
¡::
j!¡.
'"
po
-
'D
'D
00
.
.
I
l R~~ln I
""""-
~
I'
I
1
""'
.....:¡
<:t:
0
UJ
6
Miles
I
Jt,NG~ ;0 '/I
RANGE " 'II
RANGE 1!/ 1f
F,ANGE 11 W
.
.
+--
f9f
.
.
.
-
.. .
i- I . J . I .
+=:~,. ,.
0
1
_'C-=h< -1'1. In'D'...,. ,- -1:¡V~4.
' , -.' ,1?"1f' r+- ' ~!-1 :ar.:ili)1.'WI""'I'-. , ,a ,1, 1
\ Ill';~"'c~~, 'cc-" ,rJ1Ñ1 ,~ ,
'.n, 'v~ ..h -~"", "" ,~
u.JI [)." 1..cJ. , ~
' , , , , ,~ 'c , , , , , , " ~
I . ' IL.i '" i:Ifc-'~" , , :.111~, , , , , " " ~1 ,
' " ,c", f-"- , '4J-. iT ilWl ~"" , , ',. I
", c "'" , , .
\~ ~ ,B~ 1. , .I r: ,Ltit r¡¡ L I 'If' , . ,I/., /". ,I
"n~' I - - f, (L
~ "L, . . . . .
I ~~~. ~ 'ir "~~>" ~ . '~' : t11 'T)
. 'fJ <r. "h'" . ~., .-
'I~~, , QiåJ! "-c" :,/.,:;yyj
~H-'L'Ur~J~T" 'I ,1.1
II c¿p" ,~:c18HJ I ~U L -
' . ' . JtJr llJ m
~ . ..
. if-", . f-~ . 'J-¿' E.
Jh r , 1-'1"' ,..
.r f----r} I . I . I -
.
.
2
3
4
5
m
- FISH & HILDLIFE HA6ITAT AREAS
U..:<o:
No tee Be
Loc . lò Eag]e
atlons and HaOi~~~ ~~~~~s Blue Keran Nest '
are NOT'
1 Inc luded
BANGE 14 'Ii .
RJŒO~ 13 'II
.
w.,., .
RAN"" to 11
I---
.
. 'JoG:';
.
J
I
RANOR 11 If
:..1.
R!NG~ J~ V
CRITICAL AREAS - FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT
WESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
FOR INFŒ\."ATIO"AL PURPOSES DfLY
NO """..m [S >U>JJE 'S TO THE
",,"THESS Of' B<lLWIJHES ""0 ""AS.
JEfFEFI500 ,,>IS
'°1'1'_" 22. 1995
--
.
RAN"" D9 'If
-
z
¡;;¡
0-
S!
!:1
~
-
;z;
¡¡¡
e,
OJ
~
~
-
z
l\J
Eo
~
g
-s-
~
z
~
..
12
~
-
~
<
~
0
Z
~
~
...,
--
ENVIRONMENT
RANGE 02 W
RANGE O( E
'"
J¡ANGE 01 W
.
t
0
1
r:c:1 2
~
~ 3
u 4
ü.J
5
6
Miles
.
!"'M"A"O"AC PURPOSES ONLY
TOPOGRAPHY
" ""WTY 15 "'DE" TO THE
morNES5 OF OOUNO"'" 'NO "",.
.
EASTERN JEFFERSO N CO UNTY
""'me <.0.'.'.
"""'" """'" ". ""
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
RANGE O¡ E
'"
æ
¡¡¡
'"
¡:
z
g
¡¡¡
[@
~
z
æ
<1.
¡¡;
¡¡¡
~
z
~
~
fJ1
g
z
ß';
<1.
¡jj
z
,.,
ß
z
!(¡
g,
¡¡¡
~
ß
24
r~r,~
2:376
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-29
VOL
ENVIRONMENT
.
.
.
N IE dIHStUlOl
"/1 >2
~ v. do,¡9¡¡'¡¡Ol
~
i ~.,;
0 æ-
"' ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ 'J
¡¡, ~ ~
'" ¡¡> ~ ;;¡
'" ~ ~ §
~ ê i2 g ~
~ ~ >- ¡;, :;:
1; § Ii! !
~ g: '!! ~
: ;; ~ "-
Ii' .. ~ ~
'"
:;
g
'"
'"
"'
f¡1
¡;¡
,.
)04
~
Z
~
0
U
Z
0
tf)
Þ=:
~
>- ~
:= ~
þ.¡ ~
-< Z
=: ~
c.;I ~
0 ~
þ.¡ tf)
a ~
~ ::
I! ". dJl'JSILIIOL
11 "8 dIliSl'L\\Dl
~
'"
~
'"
..
~
'"
~
;0.
;!:
tJ
:¡
'"
..
g
~
"
g
15
'"
¡¡
¡"
'"
'"
r¡;
¡;¡
,.
~
i
,.
~
~
¡;¡
'"
;;:
~
I
~~
~
ò ,-j cv. Ç') 7 Lf) CD rn
I~
~1VJS ::a:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-31
. VOL
24 UC~
2n77
~u
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals outlined below provide direction for the protection of Jefferson County's environmental
features in a balanced relationship with other land uses. These goals are based on the requirements of the
Growth Management Act, which outlines specific criteria for environmental protection, and on the issues
and opportunities identified by County residents.
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals
state the general growth management intentions of the County while the policies' are the processes for
implementation. Strategies identify action items which consist of the specific projects or programs that
will be used to implement the policies.
The Environmental policies will provide the basis for review of the development standards contained in
the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance and other regulations.
WATER RESOURCES
GOAL:
ENG 1.0
Manage, protect, enhance, and conserve water resources through a comprehensive
watershed management program that is integrated with recovery plans for fish
species proposed for listing under the ESA.
POLICIES:
ENP 1.1
The County should take an active lead in developing watershed management plans which
incorporate the Dungeness-Quilcene plan and watershed plans for small, independent
marine drainages.
ENP 1.2
Participate in the Jefferson County Water Resources Council and other collaborative
watershed and salmon habitat conservation planning processes with state, federal and
tribal governments and local stakeholders, in order to integrate water resource
management with fish and wildlife habitat protection and restoration.
ENP 1.3
Manage water resources using the best available scientific information and participate in
collaborative processes to develop new information,
ENP 1.4
Encourage public education and information to foster citizen understanding and support
of water resource management and conservation plans.
GOAL:
ENG 2.0
Protect the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources, and
enhance and restore them where they have been damaged.
VO'-
2 4 r~r,:-
?,""'f'""8
.....'Ù ,j
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-33
August28,1998
ENVIRONMENT
POLICIES:
ENP 2.1
ENP 2.2
ENP 2.3
ENP 2.4
ENP 2.5
ENP 2.6
ENP 2.7
ENP 2.8
ENP 2.9
GOAL:
ENG 3.0
.
Preserve the environmental functions of surface and ground water resources whenever
feasible, and require mitigation measures for land use activities that may adversely
impact surface and ground water.
Manage surface water resources in accordance with a storm water management plan
developed within the framework of a comprehensive watershed management plan.
Protect surface water and its functions through mitigation measures developed in
. coordination with the Department of Ecology, the Department of Transportation, and
other local, state, federal, and tribal agencies.
Work with the Department of Ecology to restore and protect instream flow volumes, and
comply with the State's Surface Water Quality Standards and other programs affecting
surface water resources, consistent with a comprehensive watershed management
approach.
Provide buffers between land-disturbing activities and surface water resources to meet
the standards of the best available fisheries science for protecting water resources and
related habitat functions.
Promote best management practices to protect surface and ground water in land use
regulations related to septic systems, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and
other development,
.
Minimize the adverse impacts of land use activities on water resources where there is a
potential for hydraulic continuity between surface and ground waters.
Work with the Department of Ecology and other agencies to minimize salt water
intrusion, to evaluate ground water resources that have been damaged. either by salt
water intrusion or other contamination, and to identify technically and financially
feasible measures for remediation of adverse impacts.
Coordinate with the Department of Ecology in developing a reliable data base of ground
water monitoring data, in complying with State Ground Water Quality Standards, and in
promoting water rights management that is consistent with the protection of existing
water rights and with comprehensive watershed plans,
Ensure a sustainable and safe water supply as a critical necessity for residential,
economic, and environmental needs.
, VOl..
24 'Ir.:-
- r,.
n ........,..-19
>',-)1
; ,
.
8-34
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
POLICIES:
ENP 3.1
ENP 3.2
ENP 3.3
SHORELINES
GOAL:
ENG 4.0
POLICIES:
ENP 4.1
ENP 4.2
ENP 4.3
Work with the Water Utilities Coordinating Committee to revise the Coordinated Water
System Plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, in order to provide a safe and
adequate water supply for County residents and other uses in balance with the protection
of environmental functions of water resources.
Support the development and implementation of wellhead protection programs for all
public supply wells, and encourage the siting and construction of individual wells in a
manner which protects existing water users and the ground water supply.
Preserve and protect both existing and future water supplies, and encourage activities
which utilize alternative water sources that are compatible with environmental
protection, in accordance with state and federal laws regulating alternative water uses.
Preserve the long-term benefits of shoreline resources.
Shorelines shall be managed according to the following order of prefeITed uses as
established in the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020):
1. Recognize and protect state-wide over local interests;
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
3. Achieve long-tenn over short-tenn benefits;
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline;
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines; and,
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 and deemed appropriate
or necessary.
The County shall revise the Shoreline Management Master Program to establish and
implement policies and regulations for land use that are consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act, the Growth Management Act, the Critical Areas Ordinance, and the
Comprehensive Plan. The revised Shoreline Management Master Program shall be
incorporated as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Until the revised SMMP is
adopted, where a regulatory provision is inconsistent with other County ordinances, the
more restrictive provision shall apply.
Coordinate to incorporate local, state and federal laws into the recommendations of
cooperatively-developed, comprehensive watershed and habitat conservation plans in
shoreline planning processes.
VOL
24 r~F
2"""3"0
v '
8-35
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ENVIRONMENT
ENP 4.4
ENP 4.5
ENP 4.6
ENP 4.7
GOAL:
ENG 5.0
POLICIES:
ENP 5.1
ENP 5.2
ENP 5.3
ENP 5.4
ENP 5.5
ENP 5.6
ENP 5.7
ENP 5.8
Promote public access on shorelines in a manner that preserves or enhances the
characteristics of the shoreline.
.
Increase shoreline physical and visual public access in transportation planning,
especially in the development of viewpoints and trails.
Shoreline management decisions should preserve sites having historic, cultural,
scientific, and archaeological value as identified under the appropriate authorities
designated by state and federal law.
Encourage and participate in projects and programs that foster a greater understanding of
shoreline protection and hazards, maritime activities and history, and environmental
conservation.
Allow development along shorelines which is compatible with the protection of
natural processes, natural conditions, and natural functions of the shoreline
environment.
Regulate shoreline land use activities based on the best available scientific infonnation.
Protect nearby properties and the shoreline environment from the individual or
cumulative effects of development that may interfere with the functions of sediment
transport systems along the shoreline.
.
Establish a preference for the use of non-structural rather than structural solutions in
projects for shoreline stabilization, mitigation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
enhancement.
Coordinate with Department of Ecology water resources management and
comprehensive watershed plans in order to protect water resources along shorelines, and
to prevent, minimize, and mitigate salt water intrusion of coastal aquifers.
Coordinate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect and enhance fish and
wildlife habitat and other marine resources.
Manage shoreline hazard areas such as unstable bluffs and erosion and coastal flood
hazard areas to protect public safety and public and private property.
Manage storm water for proposed and existing development in a manner which prevents
erosion, land instability, and flooding.
Promote best management practices to protect shorelines in land use regulations related
to septic systems, forest practices. agricultural practices, industry. and other
development.
.
.. VOL
24 r~L'
2 :381
8-36
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
AIR QUALITY
GOAL:
ENG 6.0
POLICIES:
ENP 6.1
ENP 6.2
ENP 6.3
ENP 6.4
ENP 6.5
Protect air quality from the adverse impacts of laud use and development and
improve it where it is degraded.
As a member of the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, continue to obtain
technical infonnation on air quality as a basis for an air quality improvement program.
Land use activities that create or compound air quality problems should be avoided or
mitigated.
Coordinate the provision of public transportation to prevent congestion in areas of higher
land use densities and in shopping and recreation areas, and promote multi-modal
transportation for commuters to reduce pollution emissions from automobiles.
Promote public education programs that provide infonnation on air quality problems and
measures which individuals can take to improve air quality.
Promote best management practices to protect air quality in land use regulations related
to sewage treatment plants, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other
development.
NATURAL HERITAGE VEGETATION AND LANDFORMS
GOAL:
ENG 7.0
POLICIES:
ENP 7.1
ENP 7.2
ENP 7.3
ENP 7.4
Protect Jefferson County's natural heritage, including high quality native
vegetation and unique landforms.
Encourage collaboration with state programs such as the Washington Natural Heritage
Program and local conservation groups to identify and protect plants, plant communities,
habitats and landfonns which reflect the County's unique natural heritage,
Encourage the protection and acquisition of priority sites and habitats which protect
native ecosystems.
Provide infonnation as resources allow so that land use decisions recognize and reflect
protection of native ecosystems and rare landfonns.
Native vegetation should be used whenever possible in habitat restoration projects and
linking of open space areas.
. VOL 2 4 rAr,~ 2;:;82
8-37
August28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ENVIRONMENT
ENP 7.5
ENP 7.6
ENP 7.7
ENP 7.8
Encourage the utilization of native vegetation and drought-tolerant species to reduce
water consumption and landscape maintenance costs.
.
Encourage public education and information to foster citizen understanding of native
ecosystems and Jefferson County's unique natural heritage.
Encourage protection of unique geologic sites, conditions, and values, including
locations of unique scientific interest, such as fossil locations and special mineral and
rock locations.
Support efforts of the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board and other agencies
to eradicate invasive species of vegetation,
VIEW AND NOISE CONDITIONS
GOAL:
ENG 8.0
POLICIES:
ENP 8.1
ENP 8.2
ENP 8.3
Protect the habitability, environmental quality and natural beauty of Jefferson
County from the adverse impacts of development.
The public process for adopting County ordinances. should include a discussion of the
public interest with respect to protection of views and viewsheds.
.
Include in the public planning process a discussion regarding limiting noise pollution
impacts through ordinance provisions which may require appropriate mitigation such as
vegetative buffers, setbacks, acoustical walls, and teImination of activities.
Establish standards to limit the glare from outdoor lighting.
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATED UNDER THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
Geologic Hazard Areas
GOAL:
ENG 9.0
POLICIES:
ENP 9.1
Prevent adverse impacts to public health and safety, to public and private property,
and to the environment in landslide and erosion hazard areas.
Review standards to minimize adverse impacts to public health and safety and to public
and private property for areas where risk may occur from hazards such as landslides,
erosion, subsidence, and other impacts associated with geologic hazards.
.
VOL
2 4 t~r~ç
2~83
8-38
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
ENP 9.2
ENP 9.3
ENP 9.4
ENP 9.5
ENP 9.6
ENP 9.7
GOAL:
ENG 10.0
POLICIES:
ENP 10.1
ENP 10.2
ENP 10.3
ENP 10.4
ENP 10.5
Improve the scientific infonnation which serves as the basis of land use and planning,
such as the nature and distribution of geologic materials, processes, and conditions.
Land uses in geologic hazard areas should be allowed only when appropriate mitigation
is provided to protect public safety and the environment.
Establish a preference -for the use of landslide mitigation measures which are compatible
with natural conditions, including setbacks, appropriate siting, drainage control, buffers,
and bioengineering solutions.
The County may require geotechnical reports for areas of potential risk from geologic
conditions or processes when necessary, and may provide for qualified staff or peer
review of studies under a reasonable fee schedule.
Promote best management practices to minimize landslide risk in land use regulations
related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and
other development,
Promote public education programs that foster an understanding of landslide hazard
areas and encourage homeowners and communities to mitigate existing problems.
Minimize seismic risk to life and property on new and existing structures.
Continue to promote development which is designed to avoid and minimize seismic risk
in land use regulations, including best management practices related to septic systems,
drainage, industry, and other development.
Continue to improve the scientific infonnation for identifying areas of seismic risk from
impacts such as shaking, ground breaking, tsunami, and landsliding, to serve as the basis
of land use decisions and for recommending the retrofitting of existing development, as
appropriate.
Locate and construct transportation facilities, utilities, and essential public facilities to
minimize adverse impacts from seismic events,
Continue to coordinate with the State Department of Transportation to develop and
implement a schedule for seismic reinforcement of Jefferson County bridges.
Continue to promote public infonnation programs to educate the public regarding the
appropriate response to a seismic emergency in accordance with state, federal, and local
emergency plans.
'int
?"A 'He
....,'1: r",,"
2:=;84
8-39
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ENVIRONMENT
Flood Hazard Areas
GOAL:
ENG 11.0
POLICIES:
ENP 11.1
ENP 11.2
ENP 11.3
ENP 11.4
ENP.11.5
ENP11.6
ENP 11.7
ENP 11.8
ENP 11.9
.
Protect flood hazard areas from development and uses that compromise .the flow,
storage and buffering of flood waters, normal channel functions, and fish and
wildlife habitat and to minimize flood and river process risk to life and property.
Coordinate flood plain management with watershed and habitat plans developed in
multi-jurisdictional processes with community representation.
The County flood plain ordinance should address flood plain development standards and
best management practices with an emphasis on managing the land use rather than
managing the river.
Minimize flood damage by amending the flood ordinance to establish standards which
preclude incompatible uses, protect the floodplain from significant adverse impacts, and
promote non-structural solutions for flood plain management.
Promote public education and involvement regarding flood plain protection measures
and hazard response.
Minimize flood damage to development by limiting flood plains to low intensity land
uses and by limiting land uses in floodways to repairs of existing structures, temporary
uses which are removable in the event of a flood, and uses that have a low flood damage
potential, such as agriculture, stock grazing, parks, golf courses, horticulture, forestry, or
parking areas subject to applicable regulations,
.
Essential public facilities shall be allowed in the base flood plain only when no feasible
alternative is available.
Stonn water management plans should minimize adverse effects of floods on existing
and future development and pr-otect the natural conditions and functions of the flood
plain.
Encourage the designation and purchase of open space and riparian habitat in flood
hazard areas consistent with watershed and habitat conselVation plans and a flood
management plan,
Land use decisions should consider the future cumulative cost to the public of flood
plain development.
.
VOL
2A 'H::
I..f: r ,'\1"
?~85
.....
8-40
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
GOAL:
ENG 12.0
POLICIES:
ENP 12.1
ENP 12.2
ENP12.3
ENP 12.4
ENP 12.5
ENP 12.6
ENP 12.7
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat throughout Jefferson County.
Participate in multi-jurisdictional processes with community representation for
development of coordinated watershed and habitat conservation plans to serve as the
basis of land use decisions that may affect fish and wildlife habitat.
Land use decisions should recognize the priority of the protection and enhancement of
fish and wildlife habitat in accordance with proposed listings of threatened and
endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Buffers for fish and wildlife habitat areas should be consistent with the best available
science for habitat protection.
Promote the protection of wildlife habitat corridors that connect otherwise isolated
habitat areas.
Promote best management practices to protect fish and wildlife habitat in land use
regulations related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices,
industry, and other development.
Coordinate with appropriate agencies to avoid adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
habitat in the review and approval of development proposals.
Cooperate and coordinate in habitat restoration efforts with regional organizations such
as the Hood Canal Coordinating Council.
Aquifer Recharge Areas
GOAL:
ENG 13.0
POLICIES:
ENP 13.1
ENP 13.2
Protect aquifer recharge areas from depletion of aquifer quantity or degradation of
aquifer quality.
Aquifer recharge areas should be designated and managed based on the best available
science,
Until geohydrologic studies provide additional information regarding the full extent of
aquifer recharge areas, the County should protect aquifer recharge capability in all areas
of the County,
VOL
24 rM:~
2 :'86
." -
8-41
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ENVIRONMENT
ENP 13.3
ENP 13.4
ENP 13.5
Wetlands
GOAL:
ENG 14.0
POLICIES:
ENP 14.1
ENP 14.2
ENP 14.3
ENP 14.4
Storm water should be managed to enhance and protect aquifer recharge quality and rate
of infiltration based on a comprehensive watershed plan.
Promote best management practices to protect aquifer recharge areas in land use
regulations related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices,
industry, and other development.
Encourage the use of community water systems to serve new shoreline development.
Protect and enhance wetlands in all their functions.
Designate and manage wetlands based on the best available science.
Land use activities that may impact wetlands should be reviewed in the context of a
comprehensive watershed and habitat conservation plan.
Standards for wetland buffers should be consistent with the best available science as
recommended by wetland and habitat biologists.
Promote best management practices to protect wetlands in land use regulations related to
septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other
development.
VOL
2 4 rM,~
?:::;87
.....
8-42
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
STRATEGIES
A.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND HABITAT RECOVERY STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for management of environmental resources will be conducted in the context
of a collaborative watershed management approach to the intelTelated 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
L
Participate as a-member of the Water Resources Council for Water Resources Inventory Area 17
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. (ColTesponding Goals: 1.0,3.0)
2,
Participate in the update and implementation of the Dungeness-QuiIcene Management Plan and
watershed plans for independent drainage basins. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0)
3.
Work with the Department of Ecology to resolve applications for water rights in Jefferson
County based on scientific information developed through a watershed management plan.
(ColTesponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0, 3,0)
4.
Develop a surface water management plan based on a watershed approach to resource
management. (ColTesponding Goal: 2,0)
5.
Cooperate in a phased series of watershed studies to identify and characterize surface and ground
water resources and their interrelationships, in order to provide a scientific basis for water
resource management, and to identify alternative and future sources of supply sufficient to meet
projected population growth, (Corresponding Goals: 1.0,2,0,3,0)
6,
Work in regional watershed management units State, Federal, and Tribal agencies to develop fish
habitat recovery plans to determine land use activities that are allowed in the context of potential
legal challenges under the Endangered Species Act. (Corresponding Goal: 1,0)
7.
Work with the Water Utility Coordinating Committee to establish long-term public supply needs,
to identify and protect future water supplies, and to establish regional conservation programs and
funding mechanisms. (Corresponding Goals: 3.0, 4.0)
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.
VOL
24 r~[:é
2 ::88
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-43
August 28, 1998
ENVIRONMENT
Action Items
.
1.
2,
3.
4.
Develop a consolidated environmental review process that promotes efficient and timely permit
decisions and a more comprehensive environmental review. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) .
Evaluate and develop standards for development, where appropriate, which include incentives
for the protection of environmental resources, public access to shorelines, the creation of open
space, the conservation of water resources, and the protection of viewsheds.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0, 4.0,8.0)
Identify criteria and designate Special Environmental Overlay Districts for areas of Jefferson
County in which environmental protection needs are identified. (Corresponding Goals: 3.0, 4.0)
Develop and adopt a Clearing and Grading Ordinance that provides valid criteria and defines a
threshold for protection of critical areas and associated buffers.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 5.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0)
5.
Develop and implement standards for mitigation measures for land use activities that may
adversely impact environmental resources, (Corresponding Goals: 2.0,4.0, 5.0, 12.0, 14.0)
6,
Review standards for qualified experts and for technical studies used in permit review, including
procedures for peer review, to promote data and analyses that are consistent with the best
available science. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0, 9.0, 10.0, 14.0)
.
7.
Continue gathering data to identify aquifer recharge and storage areas and amend the Critical
Areas Ordinance to protect the quality and quantity of the ground water in those areas,
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 13~0)
8.
Review land use regulations to ensure that they protect aquifers and to minimize and mitigate
known areas of salt water intrusion, and participate in technical studies to identify additional
affected areas requiring regulation. Work with purveyors to promote the use of unaffected
upland water sources and other alternative supplies, where appropriate, to supply new and
existing development in affected areas. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0, 13.0)
9.
Work cooperatively with the Department of Ecology and watershed management units to address
County surface waters which have been listed as water quality impaired under the Clean Water
Act, Section 303(d), and to restore and protect instream flow volumes.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 12.0)
10,
Develop a surface water management plan to minimize peak flow levels and non-point source
pollution, and implement the plan through an amendment of the storm water ordinance.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0,9.0)
11.
Review County ordinances to incorporate best management practices based on the best available
science to protect surface and ground water quality in land use regulations related to septic
systems, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development,
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0,3.0, 13.0)
.
VOL
24 r~f:'
?~89
(-.;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-44
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
12.
13,
14.
15.
Amend County development standards as needed to promote water conservation measures by
allowing and, in some cases, requiring newly developed technology that meets standards for
health and safety, and by promoting appropriate landscape and drainage design.
(Corresponding Goals: 3.0, 7.0)
Amend ordinances to protect future and alternative water supplies that are identified in the
course of watershed studies. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0,3.0)
Work with the Water Utilities Coordinating Committee to revise and update the Coordinated
Water System Plan, and assist them in ensuring that water purveyors meet Department of Health
and Ecology regulations and guidelines. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0)
Assist the Water Utilities Coordinating Committee and cooperate with water purveyors in
developing wellhead protection programs, and implement land use regulations for protection of
public water supplies. (Corresponding Goals: 3.0, 13.0)
16.
Evaluate and implement, where appropriate, criteria and standards for clustering that promote the
protection of environmental resources, shoreline public access, and open space.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0)
17.
As funding becomes available, identify through revision of the shoreline plan the shoreline and
water areas with unique attributes for specific long-tenD uses such as fish and wildlife habitat,
water-oriented activities, stonn water management, recreational, and open space uses, and
designate these uses through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
(Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0)
18.
Continue to inventory shoreline landfonns, processes, and functions as funding becomes
available so as to increase the scientific infonnation on which to base pennitting decisions.
(Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0)
19.
Revise the Shoreline Management Master Program to be consistent with the Growth
Management Act, the Comprehensive Plan, the Critical Areas Ordinance, and the State Shoreline
Management Act, including standards to preserve and protect the quantity and quality of water
resources along shorelines through stonn water treatment, erosion and drainage control,
restoration of failing septic systems, and other appropriate measures.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0, 5,0)
20.
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)
21.
Revise the Shoreline Management Master Program to include standards for qualified experts,
technical studies, and peer review to promote decision-making based on the best available
scientific infonnation to prevent hazardous development activities,
(Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0, 9.0)
22.
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)
2':;:90
VOL
2A 'u-
L:f: r"u~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-45
August28,1998
ENVIRONMENT
23.
24,
25.
26,
Establish standards for site development permits which minimize airborne dust from
construction and land clearing activities. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
.
Evaluate and allow, in appropriate areas, on-site wood waste recycling facilities (i.e., wood
chipping) that reduce the need to bum debris. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
Evaluate, develop as appropriate, and implement standards to avoid and mitigate land uses that
create or compound air quality problems. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
Develop and implement standards to limit the glare from outdoor lighting.
(Corresponding Goal: 8.0)
C.
CRITICAL AREAS STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for protection and management of critical areas is based on improving the
scientific information on which decisions are based, and in reviewing the Interim Critical Areas
Ordinance to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and revising it as
needed prior to adoption as a final ordinance.
Action Items
1.
Continue to inventory and map landslide and 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 and property in those areas,
(Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0, 9,0)
3.
Review the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance and the Storm Water Ordinance to ensure that
drainage and design standards for storm water will maintain the County-wide National Flood
Insurance Program Community Rating System in order to develop new programs to mitigate
flood hazards and reduce insurance rates. (Corresponding Goal: 11.0)
4.
Review the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance to ensure that engineering, drainage and design
standards for storm water management in landslide and erosion hazard areas are based on the
best available science in the final ordinance, (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 5.0,9.0)
5,
Work with local agencies and citizens in existing Flood District Boards and establish new Flood
District Boards in flood hazard areas where they do not exist. (Corresponding Goal: 11.0)
6.
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)
.
VOL
24 ¡~~(,~
2~91.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-46
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENT
7.
8,
9,
Seek funding to inventory public and essential facilities which do not meet current seismic
construction standards, and prioritize facilities for seismic reinforcement.
(Corresponding Goal: 10.0)
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: 11.0, 12.0)
Review the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for consistency with flood management plan
based on a watershed approach, to preclude incompatible uses, to protect flood plain functions,
to promote non-structural solutions, to protect water quality and quantity, and to support habitat
recovery plans.
"Precluding incompatible uses and development does not mean a prohibition of all uses or
development. &1ther, 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 365-190-020 pursuant to RCW 36,70A050.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0,2.0, 11.0, 12,0)
10.
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 ofFish 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 ofless 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(5)( c )(ii) WAC) such
as the winter range of the Roosevelt elk herd; and
. Fish hatcheries.
(Corresponding Goals: 12.0, 14.0)
11.
Review the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance prior to adoption as a final ordinance to ensure that
buffers for fish and wildlife habitat areas are based on the best available science,
(Corresponding Goals: 12.0, 14,0)
VOL
2 4: r~r,~
2~.92
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan,
8-47
August 28, 1998
ENVIRONMENT
D.
12.
.
Revise Critical Areas maps to identify areas important for aquifer recharge capability as
information is developed through on-going study pending funding availability.
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 13.0) .
13.
Provide standards for development in a watershed-based storm water management plan to
protect the rate of infiltration of uncontaminated stonn water where the creation of impervious
surfaces or drainage measures may compromise aquifer recharge capability,
(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 13,0)
PUBLIC SAFETY, EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY
Jefferson County recognizes that strategies for environmental protection are closely related both to
public safety and the public enjoyment of resource values and functions, and that the County strategy
must include measures for public involvement and education.
Action Items
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, 13,0)
.
3.
Conduct public education programs which foster an understanding oflandslide 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 bum bans to be consistent with
local monitoring infomation. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
6.
Revise the sign code to reflect the design standards proposed by individual community plans, so
that outdoor advertising is in keeping with the character of the community.
(Corresponding Goal: 8.0)
7,
Develop and implement standards such as vegetative buffers, setbacks, and acoustical walls to
provide protection of nearby areas from excessive noise levels, (Corresponding Goal: 8.0)
8.
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 land
use activities. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 12.0)
.
..VOL
24 r~C~
2 :393
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
8-48
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
PURPOSE: This section contains guidelines and policies which outline a process and define a set of
criteria to be used to identify sites for development of facilities classified as essential public facilities, and
for establishing an appeal mechanism. The suggested process stresses avoiding duplication in approval
processes, considers the long-tenD as well as short-tenn costs of alternative siting criteria, provides for
effective public review of major facilities and emphasizes reasonable compatibility with neighboring
uses.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
Because of the provisions in GMA for siting essential public facilities, other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan analyze the potential impacts associated with the siting or expansion of essential
public facilities,
Element Discussion
1. Land U se/Rural Because of their potential size or nature, essential
public facilities (EPFs) can have a substantial
impact on land use and affect the overall rural
character of Jefferson County. Design
characteristics can be used to ensure that the EPF is
compatible with its surroundings.
2. Environment The potential size of some essential public facilities
may warrant significant environmental mitigation
to protect critical areas, aquifer recharge areas, or
other environmentally sensitive areas.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES - ISSUE BACKGROUND
Essential Public Facilities include those facilities considered difficult to site because of potential adverse
impacts related to size, bulk, hazardous characteristics, noise, or public health and safety. The CWPP
stipulates that the County and its UGAs must identify appropriate land for essential public facilities that
meets the needs of the community such as local waste handling and treatment facilities, landfills, drop-
box sites and sewage treatment facilities, airports, state educational facilities, essential state public
facilities, regional transportation and utility facilities, state and local correctional facilities, and in-patient
facilities (including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group homes). These facilities
are difficult to site, serve regional or state requirements, or are part of a County-wide service system.
The Revised Code of Washington (WAC) provides clarification as to what constitutes an essential public
facility:
"In the identification of essential public facilities, the broadest view should be taken of what constitutes
an essential public facility, involving the full range of services to the public provided by governmént,
funded substantially by government, contracted for by government, or provided by public entities subject
to public service obligations. "
VOL
24 r~f:'
2~94
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
9-1
August 28,1998
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Office of Financial Management (OFM) shall maintain a list of those essential state public facilities
that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. The Office of Financial Management may
at any time add facilities to the list.
In addition to the list maintained by OFM, Jefferson County may identify other additional public facilities
that are essential to providing services to residents and without which development cannot occur.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC PURPOSE LANDS
Confusion often arises as to the distinction between lands identified for public purposes and those
identified for essential public facilities. Essential public facilities can be thought of as a subset of public
purpose lands, The table below illustrates this distinction.
Table 9-1
Distinguishing Public Purpose Lands from Essential Public Facilities
Public Purpose Lands Essential Public Facilities
FOCUS: Lands needed to accommodate public FOCUS: Facilities needed to provide public
facilities. services and functions that are typically difficult to
Lands needed to provide the full range of services site.
to the public provided by government, substantially Those public facilities that are usually unwanted by
funded by government, contracted for by neighborhoods, have unusual site requirements, or
government, or provided by private entities to other features that complicate the siting process.
public service obligations.
Examples:
Examples: . Airports
. Utility Corridors . Large-scale Transportation Facilities
. Transportation Corridors . State Educational Facilities
. Sewage Treatment Facilities . Correctional Facilities
. Stonn water Management Facilities . Solid Waste Handling Facilities &
. Recreation Facilities Landfills
. Schools . Inpatient Facilities (Substance Abuse
. Other Public Uses Facilities, Mental Health Facilities &
Group Homes),
Many of the facilities identified in the table above as being "public facilities" located on public purpose
lands are dealt with in other sections of this plan, The facilities in the column on the right ofthe table are
typical essential public facilities and are addressed in this section.
GMA GOALS
By their very nature or size, some essential public facilities may be unpopular with local residents, who
may object to certain types of essential public facilities, such as correctional facilities or airports, locating
in close proximity to their homes. GMA addresses this "NIMBY" attitude and contains provisions to
ensure that jurisdictions avoid exclusionary zoning practices that prevent the siting of essential public
facilities. RCW 36,70A.200 states:
, VOI-
2 4 '~rr
-' (... '.
2~95
'-..Þ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
9-2
August 28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
"No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public
facilities. "
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY
Adopted CWPPs require the County and UGAs to develop a cooperative and structured process,
including public involvement at an early stage, to consider the siting of public facilities of a regional,
state-wide, or federal nature. Solid waste disposal, correctional, transportation, education, or human
service facilities, or any other locally unpopular land uses are examples of those facilities. Any new
facilities or major expansions of existing facilities must confonn to these locally defined siting procedures
described in the strategies section.
County-wide Planning Policy #4 outlines the County's approach to the siting of essential public facilities:
.
The County and incorporated UGAs will jointly develop specific siting criteria for siting
essential public facilities. The proposed criteria will be considered in the drafting of
comprehensive plan policy addressing this issue. Elements of siting criteria should include,
but not be limited to the following:
.
proximity to major transportation routes and essential infrastructure.
land use compatibility with surrounding area.
potential environmental impacts.
effects on resource and critical areas.
proximity to UGA,
public costs and benefits including operation and maintenance.
current capacity and location of equivalent facilities.
the existence, within the community, of reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Comprehensive plans and development regulations will not preclude the siting of essential
public facilities; however, standards may be generated to insure that reasonable compatibility
with other land uses can be achieved.
.
Essential public facilities sited outside of Urban Growth Areas should be self-supporting and
not require the extension, construction, or maintenance of urban services and facilities unless
no practicable alternative exists. Criteria will be established that address the provision of
services when siting an essential public facility. Essential public facilities shall not be located
in resource lands or critical areas if incompatible.
VOL
24: r~r,~
2 :=96
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
9-3
August 28,1998
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
, VOL
24 r~rr
? '" 97
1....1 IL}
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
9-4
.
.
.
.
.
.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL:
EPG 1.0
POLICIES:
EPP 1.1
EPP 1.2
EPP 1.3
EPP 1.4
EPP 1.5
The County, in cooperation with its UGAs, will utilize the following siting criteria as
the basis for siting new essential public facilities or for the expansion of existing
essential public facilities:
1. Proximity to major transportation routes and essential infrastructure;
2. Land use compatibility with surrounding areas;
3. Potential environmental impacts;
4. Effects on resource and critical areas;
5. Proximity to UGAs
6. Public costs and benefits including operation and maintenance;
7. Current capacity and location of equivalent facilities; and,
8. The existence, within the community, of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
activity.
9. Other criteria as determined relevant to the specific essential public facility
Establish an inter jurisdictional approach to siting essential public facilities.
Identify and designate essential public facilities of state-wide, county-wide and local
significance and incorporate into the County Comprehensive Plan and Map and the
County-wide Planning Policy.
Ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations do not preclude the
siting of essential public facilities.
Adopt development regulations that ensure that siting of essential public facilities is
consistent with the elements of the Comprehensive Plans of both the County and City of
Port Townsend, as well as, the siting criteria jointly established by the County and its
UGAs.
Adopt development regulations for essential public facilities in conjunction with the City
of Port Townsend, which consider the following factors:
A. Specific facility requirements including, but not limited to, acreage requirements,
transportation needs, availability of alternative sites, and infrastructure and services
required by the facility.
1. Minimum acreage
2. Accessibility
3. Transportation needs and services
4, Supporting public facility and public service needs and availability thereof
5. Health and safety
6. Site. design
7. Zoning ofthe site
VOL
24 r~P~
2 ;-;98
9-5
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
8. Availability of alternative sites
9. Community-wide distribution of facilities
10. Capacity and location of equivalent facilities
II. State and federal siting requirements
.
B. Impacts of the facility including, but not limited to, compatibility with adjacent land
uses, environmental impacts and transportation.
1. Land use compatibility
2. Existing land use and development in adjacent and surTOunding areas
3. Existing zoning of surrounding areas
4. Existing Comprehensive Plan designation for surrounding areas
5, Present and proposed population density of surrounding area
6. Environmental impacts and opportunities to mitigate environmental impacts
7. Effect on agricultural, forest or mineral lands, critical areas and historic,
archaeological, and cultural sites
8. Effect on areas outside of Jefferson County
9. Effect on the likelihood of associated development
10. Effect on public costs including operating and maintenance
11. Proximity to Urban Growth Areas
12. Proximity to major transportation routes and essential infrastructure
13. Current capacity and location of equivalent facilities
14. Public costs and benefits including operation and maintenance
15. The existence, within the community, of reasonable alternatives to proposed
activity
.
Co Impacts of the facility siting on Urban Growth Area designations and policies
including, but not limited to, proximity to existing UGAs, compatibility with existing
UGAs and their associated development and the urban characteristics of the proposed
facility.
1. Urban nature of facility
2, Existing urban growth near facility site
3, Compatibility or urban growth with the facility
4. Compatibility of facility siting with respect to Urban Growth Area boundaries
EPP 1.6
Adopt development regulations for essential public facilities which specify:
a. The time required for construction
b. Property acquisition
c. Control of on-site and off-site impacts during construction
d. Expediting and streamlining necessary government approvals and penn its if all other
elements of the County policies have been met.
e. The quasi-public or public nature of the facility, balancing the need for the facility
against the external impacts generated by its siting and the availability of alternative
sites with lesser impacts
EPP 1.7
Adopt development regulations for essential public facilities which include standards and
criteria related to:
.
. VOL
24 Hr,~
2~99
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
9-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
EPP 1.8
EPP 1.9
EPP 1.10
EPP 1.11
EPP 1.12
EPP 1.13
EPP 1.14
EDP 1.15
EDP 1.16
GOAL:
EPG 2.0
POLICIES:
EPP 2.1
a. Facility operations
b. Health and safety
c. Nuisance effects
d, Maintenance of standards congruent with applicable governmental
particularly as they may change and become more stringent over time.
regulations,
Ensure that new essential public facilities or the expansion of existing essential public
facilities sited outside of Urban Growth Areas are self supporting and do not require the
extension or construction of urban services and facilities unless no practicable alternative
exists.
Ensure that Jefferson County's policies and regulations on essential public facility siting
are coordinated with and advance other planning goals.
Ensure that where possible, essential public facility sites are used jointly for public
benefit.
Ensure that affected agencies and citizens, adjacent jurisdictions, and other interested
parties are given adequate notice and opportunity for meaningful participation in
decisions on siting essential public facilities.
Establish a review body with specified procedures established to hear appeals of site
selection for essential public facilities.
Combine public hearings for penn its required by federal and/or state law for essential
public facilities with any public hearing required by County development regulations
whenever feasible,
Any state essential public facility included on the list maintained by the Office of
Financial Management (OFM) and proposed for siting within Jefferson County shall be
subject to the same siting process as identified in both the County Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations. '.
Develop standards to allow reclamation of waste disposal sites to other land uses.
Consider investigating whether the County can be waste disposal self sufficient for the
next twenty (20) years.
Ensure the continued viability of the Jefferson County International Airport as a
transportation hub.
During the Port's preparation of a sub-area plan for the 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
confonnance with the airport's designation as an essential public facility.
"VOL
2 4: r H~
? .~;jO
"... ----J
9-7
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensiv~ Plan
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
EPP 2.2
GOAL:
EPG 3.0
POLICIES:
EPP 3.1
EPP 3.2
EPP 3.3
EPP 3.4
EPP 2.1.1
Aviation Support Facilities are those uses which directly support the
operation of the Jefferson County Airport:
.
EPP 2.1.2
Aviation Related Development are those uses which are reliant upon the
airport for their business:
Cooperate with the Port of Port Townsend to develop a sub-area plan to guide future
development at the Jefferson County International Airport. This sub-area plan may
evaluate non-aviation uses and activities that are compatible with 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
and 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 GMA;
c. Land use compatibility with surrounding area;
d. Potential environmental impacts;
e. Availability of alternative sites;
f. Public health and safety;
g. Sub-area plan amendment process for possible future acquisition of adjacent
properties
Ensure continuation ofthe airport as a safe and efficient essential public facility.
.
Develop an "Airport Overlay Zone" for Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA)
which: .
.
Discourages the siting of new, incompatible land uses adjacent to the airport;
Establishes a noise overlay zone;
Identifies and regulates land uses within a "runway protection zone;"
Identifies and regulates land uses within an "airport approach zone;" and,
Regulates obstacles in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 77 until
the "Airport Overlay Zone" is established for the JCIA.
.
.
.
.
Contingent upon the results of the "Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study," review and, if
necessary, amend the JCIA section of the Essential Public Facilities element.
The County, in cooperation with the Port of Port Townsend, will develop and adopt a
Noise Overlay Zone Ordinance.
Limit and regulate all uses within the Jefferson County International Airport Runway
Protection Zone, except for facilities and structures detennined necessary to ensure the
safe operation of aircraft.
.
.VOL
24
. r ';
(A,,-
21101
9-8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan .
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
EPP 3.5
EPP 3.6
EPP 3.7
EPP 3.8
EPP 3.9
EPP 3.10
Prohibit any new use which involves release of airborne substances, such as steam, dust,
and smoke which interfere with aircraft operations within the Airport Approach or
Runway Protection Zones.
Prohibit any new uses which emit light, direct or indirect (reflections), which may
interfere with a pilot's vision within the Airport Approach or Runway Protection Zones.
Facilities which emit electrical currents shall be installed in a manner that does not
interfere with communication systems or navigational equipment.
Prohibit any new uses that attract concentrations of birds or waterfowl (i.e., mixed solid
waste landfill disposal facilities, waste transfer facilities, feeding stations, and the growth
of certain vegetation) in the Airport Approach or Runway Protection Zones.
Encourage the Port of Port Townsend to continue its efforts to mitigate noise conflicts at
Jefferson County International Airport.
Encourage the commitment between Jefferson County and the Port of Port Townsend to
coordinate individual planning documents to preclude the occurrence of future noise
conflict areas. Coordinate with the Port of Port Townsend to explore options in flight
patterns to mitigate noise events, as long as options preserve safe aeronautical regulations
and procedures.
VOL
24: fAr,::
2tJ2
9-9
August 28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
STRATEGIES
.
A.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES STRATEGY
Jefferson County's process for siting Essential PubÙc Facilities consisting of the following components
and the criteria contained in EPG 1.0, shall be utilized to make siting decisions regarding Essential Public
Facilities.
Action Items
1.
The County's essential public facility site selection process shall consist of the following
elements
The County Commission shall:
. "Establish an Essential Public Facilities Advisory Committee (EPF AC)
. Define EPF AC responsibilities and operating framework
. Determine EPF AC composition
. Appoint EPF AC members
. Identify budget parameters
. Establish process time-line
. Negotiate and adopt agreement with agency or entity requiring siting
. Coordinate and support the EPFAC process
. Review EPF AC recommendations
. Submit recommendations to requesting agency/entity.
.
The requesting agency/entity should:
.
Negotiate and adopt an agreement with the County Commission
Solicit nominations for potential sites
Provide data support as appropriate and requested
Submit site nominations for analysis
Conduct initial SEP A review
Receive recommendations and begin follow-up process as appropriate
.
.
.
.
.
The EPFAC should:
.
Conduct organizational and educational meetings in a public format
Quantify facility needs
Identify siting issues
Analyze and rank sites
Conduct public information meetings
Prepare recommendations
Present recommendations to County Commission
Coordinate all matters relating to the siting of EPFs, including inter jurisdictional matters
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VOL
2 4: r~r,~
24:03
9-10
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
The EPF AC shall use the siting criteria contained in the CWPP and supplement these as deemed
necessary. The committee shall also be guided in its decision by asking the following questions
during each decision-making process.
.
Is the facility in the best interests ofthe citizens of Jefferson County?
In what regard is such a facility "essential" and is it truly public?
Which criteria should be applied to best locate such a facility?
.
.
All meetings of the EPF AC shall be advertised to ensure timely public notice and to provide
sufficient opportunity for all affected parties to comment on the proposed siting decision.
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
2.
Appeals to the decision(s) of the EPF AC shall be processed as a "Type C" decision, in
accordance with Jefferson County's "Procedural Refonn Ordinance." (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
3.
Adopt development regulations and establish a process to site essential public facilities on the list
maintained by the State Office of Financial Management. All requests by the State to site
essential public facilities of statewide significance shall be submitted with written findings offact
outlining the need for siting the facility in Jefferson County and an outline of the process used by
the State to make its site selection decision. The findings shall include, but not be limited to,
identifying all other jurisdictions considered for the facility and reasons for rejecting alternative
sites. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
4.
Advance planning goals regarding essential public facilities using the following strategies:
. Reduce sprawl development
. Promote economic development and employment opportunities
. Protect the environment
. Provide positive fiscal impact and on-going benefit to the host jurisdiction
. Serve population groups needing affordable housing
. Receive financial or other incentives from the State and/or local governments
. Support fair distribution of essential public facilities throughout the County
. Require State and Federal projects to be consistent with this policy.
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
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 ofthe Glen Coverrri-Area Study, the County may re-evaluate land use
designations within the "Airport Overlay Zone." (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0)
VOL
2 4 r~r,~
2 {~~O4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
9-11
August 28, 1998
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
'/0:-
2"A 'Ir~
-' LX r "
l)- ()~
./ y:" OJ
August28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
9-12
.
.
.
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY
Accessory Dwelling Unit: An additional dwelling unit either in or added to an existing single-family
detached dwelling, or in a separate accessory structure on the same lot as the main dwelling, for use as a
complete, independent living facility with provisions within the accessory dwelling unit for cooking,
eating, sanitation and sleeping. Such a dwelling shall be considered an accessory use to the main
dwelling and be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling,
Accessory Use: A use of land or building or a portion thereof that is demonstrably subordinate and
incidental to the primary use of the premises.
"Act": The Growth Management Act as enacted in chapter 17, Laws of 1990, 1st Ex. Sess, and chapter
32, Laws of 1991, 1st-Special Sess., State of Washington (see Growth Management Act).
Adequate Public Facilities: Facilities that have the capacity to serve development without decreasing
levels of service below locally established minimums. In Jefferson County, adequate public facilities are
synonymous with adopted levels of service,
Adjacent Property Owners: The owners of real property, as shown by the records of the County
Assessor, located within three hundred feet of any portion of the boundary of the property proposed for
division. If the owner of the real property which is proposed for division owns another parcel or parcels
of real property which lie adjacent to the real property proposed for division, adjacent property owners
shall mean owners of real property located within three hundred feet of any portion of the boundaries of
such adjacently located parcels of real property.
Adjacent: A lot or parcel of land that shares or touches all or part of a common lot line with another lot
or parcel of land. Parcels that are cater-comer to one another also are considered adjacent.
Adult Family Home: A home facility that provides care for between two to six senior citizens or
disabled persons who are unable to live independently.
Affordable Housing: Those housing units available for purchase or rent to individuals or families with
a gross income between the federally recognized poverty level and the median income for working
families in Jefferson County; and whose costs, including utilities, would not exceed 30% of gross
income. -
Agriculture: Improvements or activities associated with the growing, cultivation, and/or harvesting of
crops and livestock, including those activities necessary to prepare the agricultural commodity for
shipment.
Agricultural Land: Land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticulture,
floriculture, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed,
Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33,140, or livestock,
and that has long-tenn commercial significance or has local significance for agricultural production.
1,'01-
24 r~~~
2""'6
l_t::'v
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-1
August28,1998
GLOSSARY
Airport Approach Zone: An imaginary "zone" extending upward and outward from a runway's
centerline within which there may be additional height restrictions and/or limited land uses.
.
Annexation: The act of incorporating an area into the domain of a city.
Aquaculture: Improvements or activities associated with the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish,
or other aquatic plants or animals, including those activities necessary to prepare the aquacultural
commodity for shipment.
Aquifer: A saturated geologic formation that will yield a sufficient quantity of water to serve as a
private or public water supply.
Aquifer Recharge Areas: Areas where soils and geological materials penn it the infiltration of natural
or artificial sources of water in rates and quantities sufficient to recharge ground water reserves.
Arterial, Minor: A street with signals at important intersections, stop signs on the side streets and that
collects and distributes traffic to and from collector streets.
Arterial, Principal: A street with access control, channelized intersections, restricted parking, and that
collects and distributes traffic to and from minor arterials.
Assisted Housing: Owner-occupied or rental housing which is subject to restrictions on rents or sales
prices as a result of one or more project based government subsidies. Assisted housing does not include
holders of non-project based Section 8 Certificates.
.
Assisted Living Facility: Residences for the elderly that provide room, meals, personal care,
supervision of self-administered medication and other services such as recreational activities, financial
services and transportation,
Best Available Science: With regard to designating and protecting critical areas, best available science
refers to the utilization of the most current, widely-accepted scientific data, research, studies and/or
reports in making land use and policy decisions,
Best Management Practices (BMP): State-of-the-art technology as applied to a specific problem.
BMPs are often required as part of major land development projects. BMPs represent physical,
institutional, or strategic approaches to environmental problems, particularly with respect to nonpoint
source pollution control.
Block: A group of lots, tracts, parcels, or sites located within well-defined and fixed boundaries such as
roads.
Board: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, (BOCC).
Bond and Levying Financing: A method employed by local governments for generating revenue
through either the sale of municipal bonds, which require 60 percent voter approval, or by increasing
property tax, which requires a simple majority,
ButTers: An area, unit or strip of land designed so as to shield, separate or protect one type of land use
from another with which it is incompatible or to ,protect eòvironmental~ sensitive areas. Buffers
. VOL 2 4 r~L~ lLl07
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-2
August 28,1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
typically consist of open areas, landscaped areas, walls, fences, benDs or any combination thereof which
help to minimize conflicts from noise, light or other nuisances.
Building: Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.
Built Environment: A combination of buildings and related activities along with associated impervious
surfaces, infrastructure, parking and landscaping.
Capital Improvements: Projects to create, expand or modify a capital facility that have a minimum
cost of $15,000 and have a life expectancy of at least five years. Capital Improvements include facilities
such as utility systems, landfills, public buildings, streets, sidewalks, drainage and major equipment.
Capital Improvements Program (CIP): A plan for future capital expenditures which identifies each
capital project, its anticipated start and completion dates, and allocates existing funds and known revenue
sources over a six-year period.
Categorical Exemptions: Development actions, enumerated in WAC 197-11-800, which have been
legislatively detennined not to have significant adverse environmental impacts, and therefore do not
require environmental review or documentation for potential impacts under the State Environmental
Policy Act.
Certified Local Government (CLG): A program established by the National Historic Preservation Act
that provides technical and financial assistance to preserve historic buildings, sites, neighborhoods and
other places of local importance. A local government that participates in the program and becomes
certified is known as a "certified local government."
City: The incorporated City of Port Townsend, Washington.
Cluster Development: A development design technique that groups or "clusters" buildings in specific
areas on a site rather than spread evenly throughout the parcel as in a conventional lot-by-Iot
development. The remaining land is to remain undeveloped in perpetuity and used for recreation,
common open space, and/or preservation of environmentally critical areas.
Collector: A street that collects traffic from local streets and connects with minor or major arterials.
Commercial Use: An activity that provides merchandise or services for compensation to an owner,
leasee or licensee.
Community Plan: A document that has been prepared by a group of individuals, representing
individual communities, that outline the goals and visions set forth by community residents. Community
Plans provide guidance for the County-wide Comprehensive Plan.
Community Sites and Facilities: Sites and facilities provided as a community service including, but
not limited to, parks, open space, recreation facilities, water, and sanitary facilities.
Comprehensive Plan: A generalized coordinated policy statement of the government body of a city or
county that is adopted pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A
RCW). A document or series of documents prepared by a professional planning staff and planning
VOL
24: rM;"
2¡_~O8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-3
August 28, 1998
GLOSSARY
commission that sets forth guidelines and policies for the future development of a specific geographical
area (i.e., city or county),
.
Concurrency: The provision of capital improvements, infrastructure or facilities at the same time
(concurrent) with a development project so as to maximize efficiency and minimize costs.
Conditional Use: A use that, owing to some special characteristics attendant to its operation or
installation (e.g. potential danger, smoke or noise), is pennitted in a district, subject to approval and
special requirements, different from those usual requirements for the district in which the conditional use
may be located.
Condominium: A system of separate ownership of individual units, usually in a multiple tenant
building. A single parcel of property with all the unit owners having aright ¡ncommon to use the
common elements with separate ownership confined to the individual units.
Congregate Care: Care which caters to those who are unable to provide for themselves and which
provides services such as housekeeping, transportation or other support services.
Consistency: The requirement that subdivision regulations, zoning regulations and capital.improvement
programs be consistent with the comprehensive plan and each of its. elements, and. that individual land
use decisions also be consistent with the plan. The GMA requires that the plan be both internally
consistent and consistent with neighboring jurisdictions.
Contiguous Development: Development of areas next to, adjacent, abutting, or touching one another.
Parcels that are cater-comer to one another also are considered contiguous.
.
Conversion Option Harvest Plan (CORP): A voluntary plan developed by a landowner and approved
by the local government entity indicating the limits of harvest areas, road locations, and open space.
Cooperative Housing: A multiple unit residential building owned and jointly administered and
maintained by members of a cooperative generally residing tn the building.
Cottage Industries:
1, An accessory use within a single-family dwelling or building accessory to a dwelling and is wholly
incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the property,
2. Limited, small-scale commercial or industrial activity, including fabrication, and that can be
conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment in the vicinity. Some
examples include: dressmaking, baking, weaving, carpentry, cosmetic sales, and sculpting.
County: Jefferson County, Washington,
County-wide Planning Policy (CWWP): Written policy statements developed cooperatively between
the County and City of Port Townsend establishing a policy framework to guide development of the
Comprehensive Plan and ensure that it is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act
(Chapter 36.70.210 RCW) and with each other's Comprehensive Plans.
.
VOl.
2A " ()"O9
.~ '~Ú" - :: ~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
0-4
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
Critical Areas: Areas of substantial importance as unique and vital ecosystems and which are highly
susceptible to adverse impacts associated with development, Under GMA, every county or city must
classify, designate, regulate and protect critical areas which include:
.
Wetlands
Aquifer recharge areas
Fish and Wildlife habitat conservation areas
Frequently flooded areas
Geologic hazard areas
.
.
.
.
CWSP: The Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan.
Density: The number of households, persons or dwelling units per unit of land (usually expressed as
"per acre").
Density Transfer: The transfer of all or part of the pennitted density from one parcel to another.
Detached Single-Family House: A residential building on a single lot, designed for occupancy by only
one household and not attached to any other dwelling.
Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, or in use, or extension of
the use of the land for any purpose including, but not limited to, construction, reconstruction, conversion,
structural alteration, relocation, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving,. excavation, drilling
operations, or storage of equipment or vehicles.
Development Regulations: Any controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or
city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, official controls, planned unit development
ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances.
Development Standards: Minimum standards for new development required by local governments for
the provision of roadways, fire and building safety, utilities, stonn water, landscaping, and public access,
Domestic Water System: Any system providing an adequate supply of potable water pursuant to RCW
19.27.097 for the intended use of a development.
Downzoning: A change in the zoning classification of land from a more intensive land use classification
to one of less intensive development, such as a change from commercial to residential zoning.
Duplex: A single structure containing two dwelling units within one building located on a single lot,
which is used or intended to be used as the residence for two families.
Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms located in a residential building or residential portion of a building
that may be used as a residence with each having sleeping, cooking and sanitation facilities.
Easement: A grant by a property owner to a specific person, party, corporation or entity to use the
owner's property for a specified purpose.
Economic Development: Any development or activity which creates jobs and promotes economic
vitality. 2 A 2 l_~-.iO
VOL Lf: I'M;' 'L
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-S
August 28, 1998
GLOSSARY
Encroachment: Typically refers to the advance of land use(s) or activity upon adjacent and often
incompatible land uses or activity. As used with respect to floodplains, any artificial restriction, physical
object, or obstacles within a floodplain that hinders the passage of water or otherwise affects flood flows.
.
Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive Species: Those species of fish and wildlife listed as endangered,
threatened or sensitive by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Essential Public Facilities: Important and necessary facilities which provide essential services such as
airports, state educational and/or regional transportation facilities, state or local correctional facilities,
solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health
facilities and group homes, and which are typically difficult to site because of their potential adverse
effects related to size, hazardous characteristics, noise, or public health and safety.
Existing Area of More Intensive Development: As defined with regard to Engrossed Senate Bill 6094,
an area of more intensive development is one that is clearly identifiable and contained and where there is
a logical outer boundary delineated predominately by the built environment and that was in existence:
. On July I, 1990
. On the date the County adopted a resolution under RCW 36.70A.040(2); or
. On the date OFM certifies the County's population.
Fair Share Housing: The concept that seeks to equitably distribute affordable and special-needs
housing proportionately throughout appropriate areas of the County which can accommodate it.
.
Family: An individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage or a group of not more than
five (5) persons (excluding servants) living together as a single housekeeping unit and doing their
cooking on the premises as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house or rooming house or
hotel.
Family Wage Jobs: Jobs that pay a wage or salary which can support the typical needs of an average
family,
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas: Areas that are designated as critical areas due to the presence of
specified animal species.
Flood Fringe: That portion of the floodplain that lies between the floodway and the outer limits (i.e.,
boundary) of the tOO-year floodplain.
Floodplain: Synonymous with the 100-year floodplain, a floodplain is land that is susceptible to being
inundated by stream-derived waters with a I percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year.
Floodway: Those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a
water-course upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable
regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under nonnal conditions by
a change in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover conditions.
The floodway doesn't include lands that can be reasonably expected to be protected from flood waters by
.
VOL
'24 rÚ,~
') I' .11
'-' j:t:J-
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
flood control devices maintained by or maintained under licenses from the federal government, the State,
or political subdivisions ofthe State.
Forest Land: Land devoted primarily to the growing trees for long-term commercial timber production
on land that can be economically and practically managed for such production, including Christmas
trees, subject to the excise tax imposed under RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, for commercial
purposes, and that has long-term commercial significance.
Forest Practices: Any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land and relating to
growing, harvesting, or processing timber, including, but not limited to: road and trail construction;
harvesting; final and intermediate; pre-commercial thinning; reforestation; fertilization; prevention and
suppression of diseases and insects; salvage of trees; and brush control. Forest practices do not include
preparatory work, such as tree marking, surveying and road flagging, or removal or harvest of incidental
vegetation from forest lands such as berTÏes, ferns, greenery, mistletoe, herbs, mushrooms, and other
products which cannot normally be expected to result in damage to forest soils, timber or public
resources (see Chapter 222-16-010(21) WAC).
Forestry: The management, protection, production, cultivation and transporting of timber resources to
ensure the continuous production of wood and wood products.
Fully Contained Community: A fully contained community which supports a mix of uses that provide
jobs, housing and services to the residents of the community and pursuant to the criteria set forth in
RCW 36.70A.350.
Functional Plans: Planning documents which establish long-range goals and objectives to guide County
(or a city's) operations and capital development requests. These plans typically represent ideal goals for
specific County departments in providing services and facilities.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS): An advanced computerized information system, capable of
storing, organizing, analyzing and retrieving data and linking it to a map.
Geologically Hazardous Areas: Areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding,
earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial
development consistent with public health or safety concerns.
Grandfathering: A process which permits the continuance of a land use or activity which, at the time of
establishment, was a permitted, legally created use but may be an incompatible use upon the
reclassification of underlying land use or zoning. (see also Legal existing, non-conforming uses).
Ground Water: All water found beneath the ground surface, including slowly moving subsurface water
present in aquifers and recharge areas.
Growth Management: A method to control the amount, type and rate of growth and development and
channel it into designated areas in order to minimize adverse environmental and fiscal impacts and
maximize the health, safety, and welfare benefits to the residents of the community.
Growth Management Act (GMA): The Growth Management Act as enacted in chapter 17, Laws of
1990, 1st Ex. Sess, and chapter 32, Laws of 1991, 1st Special Sess., State of Washington (see Growth
Management Act).
24 fM,'
VOL
2 j~:12
Jeffemm County Comprehensive Plan
G-7
August 28, 1998
GLOSSARY
Hazardous Substances, or Dangerous Wastes: Substances that pose a present or potential hazard to
human health or environment when improperly used, stored, transported or disposed of. Hazardous
substances include those materials identified as hazardous waste in Title 40 CFR 261 or defined as
hazardous substances in Title 40 CFR 302, and Chapter 173-303 WAC.
.
Home Occupations: Home~based businesses that are secondary and incidental to the primary
residential use of the structure, provide supplemental income for a family, consist of limited-scale
service or fabrication, and are limited to mail order and phone sales with off-site delivery.
Household: A household ineludes all the persons who occupy a group of rooms or a single room which
constitutes a housing unit and can include one person, two or more families living together, or any other
group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements.
Impact Fee: A fee or exaction imposed on developers to pay for the costs to the community of
providing services to a new development. It is a means of providing funds for financing new
improvements without resorting to deficit financing. The Growth Management Act authorizes imposition
of impact fees on new development and sets the conditions under which they may be imposed.
Impervious Surface: A hard~surfaced area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil
mantle under natural conditions; a constructed hard surfaced area that causes water to run off the surface
in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior
to development. Impervious surfaces inelude, but are not limited to: roofs; walkways; patios; driveways;
parking lots or. storage areas; concrete or asphalt paving; gravel roads; packed earthen materials; and
oiled or macadam surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of storm water.
.
Incentive (Bonus) Zoning: The granting of additional development capacity or bonuses, via methods
such as smaller lot sizes, in exchange for the developer's provision of a public benefit or amenity, such
as open space or a public plaza.
IDelusionary Bousing: An affordable housing production strategy that seeks to provide a specified
number of affordable and/or low income units within new housing developments. Inelusionary housing
units are generally provided through density bonus incentives, requirements for cash contributions to a
pool or minimum percentages of affordable units, or combinations of req,uirements and incentives.
Industrial Use: Any activity involved in the production, processing, manufacturing, fabrication, or
assembling of goods and materials, including the storage of material used in the industrial process,
Warehousing and distribution centers are also considered industrial activities,
Infill Development: Development consisting of either (1) construction on one or more lots in an area
which is mostly developed, or (2) new construction between two existing structures.
Infrastructure: The basic facilities and services necessary to sustain commercial, residential or
industrial uses including public utilities such as water, sewer, roads, power or communications service.
Instream Flow: A base flow adopted into Washington State regulations used to condition water rights.
A water right for instream resources such as fish, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, navigation, stock
watering, and water quality with a priority date set when the in stream flow rule was adopted,
: 2 A , . C.~ - 2 4..t3
VOL Lf. (,,): -'
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
Intensity: The degree to which the land is used, or level of concentration or activity of land uses such
as, residential, commercial, industrial or recreational.
a. Less intensive use: Refers to a type of land use that is less concentrated, generally results in a
decreased impact or activity, utilizes fewer resources and/or services, or creates less of a demand as,
for example, the difference between commercial and residential land uses.
b. More intensive use: A type of use which generally creates a greater demand for services or resources,
generates increased activity and/or in greater concentrations, and has a greater impact upon the land
use or its environs.
Inter-Agency Committee (lAC): A committee created by the Washington State Legislature under
Chapter 43,99 RCW to assist in the preservation, conservation, and enhancement of the State's
recreational resources.
Inter-Jurisdictional: Relationships between governmental jurisdictions such as city, county, state,
tribal, federal government agencies, special purpose districts, water, fire and port districts.
Joint Planning Area: The portion of the unincorporated county which is the future growth and service
area of a city and for which planning will occur jointly between the county and that city,
Land Banks: Acquisition of land for the purpose of reserving it for specified future development types.
Land Trust: An organization created to acquire and manage land to sustain long-tenn affordability and
preserve the qualities of the land such as historical significance, environmental value, or agricultural
value. The land trust organization leases development rights to individual or non profit organizations
who agree to reasonable limitations on resale profits while maintaining basic owner equity and tenure
rights.
Land Use: A tenn used to indicate the utilization of any piece of land; The way in which land is being
used.
Legal Existing (Non-conforming) Uses: A lawful use of land that does not comply with the use
regulations for its zoning district but which complied with applicable regulations at the time the use was
established. (See also Grandfathering).
Level of Service (LOS): A qualitative measure of service levels or operating conditions used in
reference to transportation systems, public facilities or services. Typically, level of service means an
established minimum capacity of public facilities or services that must be provided, per unit of demand,
or other appropriate measure of need.
Local Improvement District (LID): A quasi-governmental organization fonned by landowners to
finance and construct a variety of physical infrastructure improvements beneficial to its members,
Procedures for establishing a LID in Washington are addressed in RCWs 35.43 through 35.56.
Location Factors: Features which affect where a particular type of commercial or industrial operation
will locate. Location factors include but are not limited to: Proximity to raw materials, supplies, and
services; proximity to markets or educational institutions; access to transportation facilities; labor market
factors (e.g" skill level, education, age distribution, etc,).
VOL
24: rM,é
2 ~~::14
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-9
August 28, 1998
GLOSSARY
Long-Term Commercial Significance: As used with respect to natural resource lands, it includes the
growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production,
with consideration of the land's proximity to population areas and the impact of this proximity on the
ability to practically and economically manage the land, and the possibility of more intense uses of the
land.
.
Lot: A fractional portion of land having fixed boundaries, and of sufficient area and dimension to meet
the requirements set forth in the Jefferson County Zoning Code.
Lot Consolidation: The process of "merging" or "consolidating" substandard lots under contiguous
ownership into one lot or parcel to create a lot or parcel which meets the current minimum lot size
requirements.
Low-Income: A household whose income does not exceed 80 per cent of the median income for the
area, as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Major Industrial Development: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365, a master-planned location for a specific
manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that should be located in an Urban Growth Area but
can be conditionally permitted outside the UGA boundary if it is shown that the activity:
a. requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an Urban Growth Area;
b. is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forest land, or mineral
resource land upon which it is dependent; or
.
c. the nature of the activity is incompatible with urban development due to its potential threat to the
public health, safety and welfare.
Furthermore, a major industrial development can not be for the purpose of commercial shopping
development or multi-tenant office parks.
Manufactured Housing: A manufactured structure or major portion of a building designed for long-
term residential use, which is transportable in one (1) or more sections and is designed for use with or
without a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities.
Master Planned Resort (Existing): A self-contained fully integrated planned unit development, in a
setting of significant natural amenities, with a primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of
short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor
recreational facilities and pursuant to the criteria set forth in RCW 36.70A.362.
Mineral Extraction: The removal of minerals including, but not limited to, sand, gravel, shale, rock,
coal, soil, peat or clay from an excavation in the earth.
Mineral Resources: Include gravel, sand, rock, other aggregates and valuable metallic substances.
Mineral Resource Lands: Lands primarily devoted to the extraction of minerals or that have known
mineral resources or the potential of long-term commercial significance for the extraction of minerals.
.
VOL
2 4 r.~C~
2 /~15
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-lO
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
Mining: The removal of naturally occurring rock, sand, gravel, and minerals from the earth.
Multi-Family Residential Development: Developments containing structures housing two or more
residential dwelling units.
Multi-modal: The integration or coordination of multiple types of transportation systems including, but
not limited to, non-motorized transportation, transit, automobile, rail, water or aviation.
Natural Resource-Based Industry: Those industries that are directly dependent upon natural resources
for manufacturing or processing and which typically locate near the natural resource upon which they are
dependent. Examples include, but are not limited to, sawmills or fish canneries.
Natural Resource Lands: Agricultural, forest, aquaculture, and mineral resource lands that have long-
term commercial significance.
Non-Conforming Use: See Grandfathering and/or Legal Existing Uses.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: A diffuse source of water pollution that freely flows across natural or man-
made surfaces from activities such as agriculture, urban run off, mining and silviculture.
Non-structural Solutions: Shoreline protection measures to prevent loss of upland property, usually
referring to the placement of beach material or vegetation management at the shore in order either to
replace eroded material, to feed a littoral current that would otherwise cause shoreline retreat, or to plant
vegetation to stabilize shore material.
Nuisance: Any use or activity that interferes with the use or enjoyment of property, endangers personal
health or safety, or is offensive to the senses.
OFM: Washington State Office of Financial Management.
On-site Retention: Permanent impounding of storm water, or a substantial portion of storm water, in
manmade or man-modified lakes and ponds. On-site retention is often required for developments.
Open Space Land: Land not occupied by buildings or other structures, and which is set aside to serve
as a buffer, provide recreational opportunities, protect environmentally sensitive areas, preserve wildlife
corridors, provide viewsheds or to serve as locations for future public facilities.
Overlay District: A specially designated zoning district containing additional standards and
requirements, which is applied on top of a basic zoning classification. Examples include Historic
Districts, Office/Clinic, Gateway Corridor, Design District, and Pedestrian overlays.
Park: Public land set aside for recreational, educational, aesthetic or cultural use.
Permeability: The rate at which water moves through undisturbed soil.
Planned Unit Development (PUD): A form of development usually characterized by a unified site
design for a number of housing units and compatible nonresidential uses, including provisions for the
clustering of buildings and promotion of common open space, and may include density increases and a
1/01-
24rM:
2 ¡ ~1- 6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-II
August 28, 1998
GLOSSARY
mix of buildings types and land uses. PUDs allow for the planning of a project and the calculation of
densities over the entire development, rather than on an individuallot-by-lot basis.
.
Planning Period: The 20-year period following the adoption of a comprehensive plan or such longer
period as may have been selected as the initial planning horizon by the planning jurisdiction.
Plat: A map of the design of a land subdivision.
Prime Agricultural Land: Soils with little or no limitations or hazards for crop production.
Principal Use: The main or primary purpose for which a building, other structure and/or lot is designed,
arranged, or intended, or for which it may be used, occupied or maintained.
Protective Easement: An easement for the purpose of precluding future or additional development of
the land. Protective easements are generally used to preserve tidelands, shorelines, marshes, streamways,
or other environmentally sensitive areas.
Public Benefit and Rating System: Open space applications are awarded points on the Public Benefit
Rating (PBR) Scale to the extent that they implement policies which prioritize types of open space.
Public Facilities: Any use of land, whether publicly or privately owned, for transportation, utilities, or
communications, or for the benefit of the general public, including streets, roads, highways, sidewalks,
storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, schools, libraries, fire and police
stations, municipal and county buildings, powerhouses and cemeteries (see 36.70A030 RCW).
.
Public Services: The full range of services traditionally provided by local government including fire
protection, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection, and other
governmental services.
RCW: Revised code of Washington.
Real Estate Excise Transfer Tax (REET): A tax levied on the sale of real property, The amount ofthe
tax is determined as a percentage of the sales price. The GMA authorized cities to impose a second 0.25
per cent REET tax to be used to fund capital projects.
Recreational Facilities: Facilities such as trails and pathways, parks, and campgrounds that provide
opportunities for leisure-type activities.
Regional Services: Goods, services and/or facilities that serve the population of a large geographic area.
Regional Transportation Plan: The transportation plan for the regionally designated transportation
system and which is produced by the Regional Transportation Planning Organization.
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO): A voluntary organization of local, multi-
county governments which coordinate inter-regional transportation needs pursuant to RCW 47.80.020.
Residential Use: Any land which provides for living space. Examples include single family dwellings,
multi-family dwellings, artist studio/dwelling, boarding house, caretaker's quarters, special residence,
floating homes, and mobile homes, ...
.
VOL
2 A 'ir-
Lf: r"\i~
,::, ~ 17
(,(4.:.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-12
August28,1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ): A Forest Resource-Based Industrial Zone designation that
recognizes existing, active sawmills and related activities.
Rezone: Changing the zoning designation to a different zoning classification,
Right-of-Way (ROW): A recorded right to use or travel over a specified property. The property can be
an area or strip of land, public or private. Most commonly, it refers to land on which a street, sidewalk,
or railroad is located. It can also be occupied by utilities, transmission lines, oil or gas pipelines,
drainageways or similar facilities although pathways for these features are more commonly referred to as
easements.
Runway Protection Zone: A trapezoidal area located adjacent to each end of a runway representing the
ground level at the innennost portion of the runway approach.
Rural Character: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A030 (14), rural character refers to the patterns of land use
and development established by a County in the rural element of its Comprehensive Plan:
a. In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment;
b. That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work
in rural areas;
c, That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
d. That are compatible with the use ofthe land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
e. That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development;
f. That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
g. That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface
water recharge and discharge areas.
Rural Crossroads: Those areas established by virtue of historic transportation patterns and
characterized by existing concentrations of small scale commercial uses fronting on, or in close
proximity to, major transportation routes and intersections. The interim boundaries of Rural Crossroads
are defined by the contained built environment that existed in 1990 or before. These site-specific areas
serve an identified existing need for the local community and cannot be expanded in size. The following
three types of Commercial Rural Crossroads exist in Jefferson County: NeighborhoodlVisitor
Crossroads, Convenience Crossroads, and General Crossroads:
Convenience Crossroads (CC): Those crossroads that provide a limited selection of basic retail
goods and services, and serve a lower intensity population base and the traveling public.
Convenience Crossroads are characterized by a single convenience/general store, There are three
(3) Convenience Crossroads in Jefferson County: Nordland, Beaver Valley and Wawa Point.
NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC): Those crossroads which provide multiple uses and
services serving both the local community and the traveling public. There are five (5)
NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads identified in Jefferson County: Mats Mats, Discovery Bay,
Four Comers, Chimacum and Gardiner.
VOI-
2 4 rM:~
2L~t8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-13
August28,1998
GLOSSARY
General Crossroads (GC): Similar to Neighborhood Crossroads, General Crossroads serve a
higher local population base and offer a wider variety of goods and services, There are three (3)
General Crossroads identified in Jefferson County: Ness' Comer, Irondale Comer and SR 19/20
Intersection.
.
Rural Development: Refers to development' outside the Urban Growth Area and outside agricultural,
forest, and mineral resource lands designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. Rural development does not
refer to agriculture or forestry activities that may be conducted in rural areas.
Rural Lands: Land which primarily contains a mix of low-density residential development, is not within
an Urban Growth Area and is not designated as natural resource land ,having long tenD commercial
significance for production of agricultural products or timber.
Rural Services: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.030 (16), rural services are those public services and facilities
historically and typically delivered at an intensity usually found in rural areas, and may include domestic
water systems, fire and police protection services, transportation and public transit services and other
public utilities associated with rural development and not nonnally associated with urban areas. Rural
services do not include stonn or sanitary sewers except as otherwise authorized by RCW 36.70A.IlO (4).
Rural Village Center(s): Small, unincorporated commercial and residential community centers that
provide a rural level of services and which serve as a focal point for the local population. The interim
boundaries of the Rural Village Centers are predominantly defined by ,the contained, built environment
as it existed in 1990 or before. These commercial districts allow modest in-fill development that
maintains the character of the immediate area, but cannot expand their designated boundaries. In
Jefferson County these centers include: Port Hadlock, Quilcene and Brinnon.
.
Salt Water Intrusion: The process of sea water being drawn into gróund water sources or aquifers.
Scenic Corridor: Strip of land along streams, rivers, cliffs, bays, shorelines, ridges or roadways that
provides scenic vistas, views or aesthetically-pleasing landscapes.
SEP A: See State Environmental Policy Act.
Service Area: A geographic area defined by a county or intergovernmental agreement in which a
defined set of public facilities provides service to development within the area. Its boundaries are
typically delineated according to the distance people are willing to travel for goods and services.
Shoreline Management Act: A law passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1971 and ratified by
the voters in 1972 (reference RCW 90.58), The Shoreline Management Act requires local governments
to establish a program, consistent with the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology, for the
administration and enforcement of the pennit system for shoreline management,
Shorelines: All the water areas of Jefferson County, including reservoirs and their associated wetlands,
together with lands underlying them, except:
a. Shorelines of state-wide significance;
b, Shorelines or segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic
feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and
\'O\~ 2 4 -i'Ú,~ ~ L~19
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-14
August 28,1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
c. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes.
Shorelines of State-wide Significance: A shoreline of the State with respect to Jefferson County and
the City of Port Townsend as identified as follows:
a. Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one
thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark, including associated wetlands;
b. Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the
ordinary high watermark and the line of extreme low tide, which are Hood Canal from Tala Point to
F oulweather Bluff south to the Mason-Jefferson County line, including associated wetlands;
c, Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the
Canadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide; and
d. Those natural rivers or segments thereof downstream from a point where the mean annual flow is
measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more. In Jefferson County these rivers are the
Clearwater, Hoh, and Quinault.
Significant Trees: Trees with significant aesthetic, cultural, environmental or historical importance
including, but not limited to, ridge-top trees, riparian buffers, and Port Townsend forest corridor trees.
Single Family Residence: A dwelling unit detached from any other dwelling unit and intended for
occupation by one immediate family.
Small-scale Recreational or Tourist-related Uses: - Those uses which are leisure or recreational in
nature and typically are reliant upon a rural setting. Examples include, but are not limited to, the
following: campgrounds, U-fish ponds, hot springs, trails, cultural or religious retreats, mini-golf, public
gardens, marinas and music festivals.
Special Needs Housing: Housing designed for persons who require supportive social services in order
to live independently or semi-independently. Special needs groups include, but are not limited to, the
homeless, elderly, persons with disabilities and persons with substance abuse
Spot Zoning: The process of signaling out a small parcel of land for a use classification that is different
and inconsistent with the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the
detriment of the rights of other property owners.
Sprawl: see Urban Sprawl.
Stakeholder: Any affected or interested person or party including, but not limited to, property owners,
tribes, government agencies, businesses or organizations.
State Environmental Policy Act, (SEPA): The State law passed in 1971 requiring state and local
agencies to consider environmental impacts in the decision-making process.
Storm Water: Water that is generated by rainfall and is often routed into drain systems in order to
prevent flooding. 2
VOL 24 rM,' /;.20
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
0-15
August 28,1998
GLOSSARY
Storm Water Detention: The process of collecting and holding back stOml water for a delayed release
to receiving waters.
.
Strip Development: Intensive development, typically commercial, and usually aITanged in a linear
pattern, located on both sides of an arterial.
Strip Zoning: A zone normally consisting of a ribbon of uses fronting both sides of an arterial roadway
and extending inward for half a block.
Structure. Detached: A structure, which has no common or party wall with another structure.
Subdivision: Any division of land regulated under the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance, No. 4-
0526-92, as amended, for the purpose of sale or lease.
Substandard Dwelling: A dwelling unit that does not meet the building code requirements through lack
of maintenance, age of unit, neglect, lack of (part or all) plumbing facilities, kitchen facilities, or
crowded conditions,
Substandard Lot: A lot or parcel that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of CUITent
development regulations.
Surface Water: That portion of water that appears on the land surface, such as oceans, lakes, rivers,
springs and wetlands.
.
Targeted Industry Program: A program that identifies and targets specific industries or business
activities that the County wishes to promote or encourage.
Time Share: A building used or intended for use as an occasional residential accommodation by one or
more persons who pennanently reside elsewhere and who typically share in operating expenditures such
as rent and upkeep.
Tourist-Related Industries: See Small-scale Recreational or Tourist-Related Uses.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs): A program in which the development rights are separated
from the land in an area in which a community wishes to limit development, and penn its them to be sold
for use in an area targeted for high-density development.
Transitional Housing: As defined by the Federal McKinney Act, transitional housing means a project
that:
a. Is designed to provide housing and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons, including
(but not limited to) de-institutionalized homeless individuals with mental disabilities other homeless
individuals with mental disabilities, and homeless families with children; and
b, Has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless individuals to independent living within 24
months, or within a longer period detennined by HUD as necessary to facilitate the transition.
VOL
24 'H~
-- r,.,,:
2¡~21.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-16
August 28,1998
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
Transit: A multiple-occupant vehicle operated on a for-hire, shared-ride basis, including bus, ferry, rail,
shuttle bus, or vanpool. Public transportation can include, but is not limited to: public bus, trolley, light
rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail transport, but not ferries or van pools.
Transportation Improvement Project (TIP): A jurisdiction's six-year road improvement program.
Trip: A one-direction movement, which begins at the origin and ends at the destination. For example, a
trip movement from a residence to a work place is a trip from home to work.
Trip Generation: The second step in forecasting the number of trips generated by the forecasted land
use, The number of trips made to and from each type of land use by day, Trip generation provides the
linkage between land use and travel. Trips generated at the home end are generally termed "production."
Trips generated by business are generally termed "attractions."
Upzoning: A change in the zoning classification of land to a classification allowing more intensive use
ofthe land, such as a change from single family to multi-family residential (see downzoning).
Urban Growth: Pursuant to RCW 36.70AO30 (15), urban growth is growth that makes intensive use of
land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to. be
incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or
fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth
typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land having
urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be
appropriate for urban growth.
Urban Growth Areas (UGA): Areas which counties designate, in consultation with cities, where urban
growth will be encouraged and supported with urban levels of services pursuant to the criteria set forth in
RCW 36, 70A 11 O. The Urban Growth Areas are to include areas and densities sufficient to permit the
urban growth that is projected to occur in the County for the succeeding 20-year period.
Urban Growth Boundaries: The line or boundary that delineates the limit between the Urban Growth
Areas and other areas such as rural and resource areas where urban growth is not allowed, as designated
by the County in consultation with its cities, under the requirements of the GMA.
Urban Services: Pursuant to RCW 36.70AO30 (19) urban services are those public services and public
facilities at an intensity historically and typically provided in cities, specifically including storm and
sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection
services, public transit services, street improvements such as sidewalks, curbs and gutters and other
public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with rural.
Urban Sprawl: Scattered, poorly planned urban development that occurs particularly in urban fringe
and rural areas and frequently invades land important for environmental and natural resource protection.
Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns (see also Sprawl):
a. Leap frog development: when new development is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing
vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development;
VOL
24 rW-
?'¡>2
,-"'-:10.:""
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-17
August28,1998
GLOSSARY
b. Strip development: when large amounts of commercial, retail, and often multi-family residential
development are located in a linear pattern along both sides of a major arterial and typically,
accessing directly onto the arterial; and
c. Large expanses of low-density, single-family dwelling development.
Use:
1. The purpose for which the building or structure or premises or part thereof is used, occupied or
intended to be used or designed to be used or occupied; or
2. An activity, occupation, business or operation carried on, or intended to be carried on, in a building
or on a tract of land; or
3. Any purpose for which a building or other structure or parcel of land may be designed, arranged,
intended, maintained or occupied, or
4. Any activity, occupation, business or operation carried out, or intended to be carried on, in a building
or other structure or on a parcel of land; or
5. Anything done or permitted by the owner or occupant of any land, building or structure, directly or
indirectly, or through any trustee, tenant, servant or agent for or with the knowledge or consent of
such owner or occupant, for the purpose of making use of said land, building or structure.
Vested(ing): The status of a project for which landowners are granted permission to proceed with
development after obtaining all necessary permits and meeting all criteria set forth by the appropriate
agencies. In Washington State, the time at which the project is vested is statutorily defined.- When a
complete building permit application for a structure to be used in a manner permitted under the land use
regulations in effect on the date of such application is submitted, the applicant will be entitled to improve
and use land under the ordinances of the County in effect on the date of the èomplete building
application.
A vested right to subdivide is established as of the date a "fully competed application for preliminary plat
approval has been submitted."
Village Commercial Center:
commercial area.
The zoning classification of Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort's
WAC: Washington Administrative Code.
Water-Dependent Use or Activity: A use or portion of a use which can not exist in any other location
and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations, Examples of water-
dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, barge
loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane facilities and sewer
outfalls.
Water-Enjoyment Use or Activity: A recreational use, activity or other use facilitating public access to
the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a generaÀ cþaracteristi'h°~ t~e use and
VOL ~Ll iX,' C'>,,:23
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-18
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
GLOSSARY
which, through the location, design and operation, assures the public's ability to enjoy the physic~l and
aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
Water-Oriented Use or Activity: Any combination of water-dependent or water-enjoyment uses or
activities.
Water-Related Use or Activity: A use or a portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a
waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because:
I. Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by
water or the need for large quantities of water or,
2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial activities and
the proximity of the use to its customers makes its service less expensive and/or more convenient.
A use or activity which must be located close to the land/water interface to support a water-dependent
use or activity either by its own operation or by the provision of the services it houses. Warehousing of
goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, hydroelectric generating plants, and log storage
are examples of water-related uses or activities.
Watershed: The geographic region within which water drains into a particular rivçr, stream, or body of
water. A watershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water into which the land drains.
Wetland: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under nonnal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created
from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales,
canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, fann ponds, and landscape amenities.
However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas
created to mitigate conversion of wetlands, ifpennitted by the County.
WSESD: Washington State Employment Security Division
Zoning: A measure enacted by general purpose unit of local government in which the community is
divided into districts or zones within which pennitted and special uses are established as are regulations
governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards. The Zoning Ordinance
consists of two parts, the text and the map.
VOL
2 4 r~r-~
2 f ~- 2 4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-19
August 28, 1998
GLOSSARY
','Oi-
24. 'H,Ç"
r",,"
2 ,~25
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
G-20
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
Matrix of Opportunity
The following table is provided as a summary guide for property owners or those considering purchasing property who may have questions about
development or expansion opportunities in Jefferson County. In many instances, the Jefferson County Penn it Center can provide more infonnation
and it is recommended that interested parties contact the Pennit Center or the Long Range Planning Department for more information.
Note:
All development projects are subject to all applicable development regulations, codes and Jefferson County ordinances, available at both Jefferson
County Permit Center and Long Range Planning Department.
::DEVELÔJlMENTAé'!'J\ïlTY,>: m ~"On
Home Occupations
Cottage Industries
Small-scale recreational or tourist uses
<-
=
,-
Major Industrial Development
N .
~ New Natural Resource-based Industry
....,-
't>-
.7'
',.., Legal existing uses (uses established legally
under prior zoning)
, ,f'J New Commercial Uses (other than Cottage
N Industries or Home Businesses)
rJ"'J . Expansion of Commercial Uses
Can be established anywhere except industrial
zones, based on specific criteria
Can be established anywhere except industrial
zones, based on specific criteria
Siting is dependent upon rural location and is not
required to be principally designed to serve
existing and projected rural population.
Siting procedure is subject to the provisions in
state law (RCW 36.70A.365).
Must be directly dependent upon natural resource
and locate near the mineral, agricultural or forest
resource upon which it is dependent
Ability for limited expansion; uses can be
replaced (with limitations) if destroyed
Type and scale limited to specific Commercial
Village Districts and subject to all applicable
ordinances, codes and regulations
1. In commercial zones: subject to criteria for
specific zone
2. Outside commercial Zones: Limited
expansion as legal existing use
See LNG 6.0, LNP 6.2 of the Compo Plan.
See LNG 7.0 and LNP 7.1 of the Compo Plan.
See LNG 11.0, LNP 11.1-11.2;
BOG 6.0 and BOP 6.1
See BOP 6.2
See LNG 8.0 and LNP 8.1-8.11 of the Compo
Plan.
See LNP 4.4,4.5,5.4.2,5.5.2 and 5.6.2, and the
land use table in the development regulations.
I. See applicable bulk and dimensional
standards of development regulations.
2. See Section 19 of development regulations.
M-l
~.
ci
1-
N
,..þ;.
....,.
:t-
~...,
"1
N
¡r:..
N
...J
;;J;1EVEL()~~;;4.CTMry:
Lots which were legally created, as established
through the lot certification process, and that
meet Health Department standards for septic and
water, setback requirements, critical areas
restrictions and other applicable regulations may
be developed even if the land use map indicates a
lower density.
Limited in size and bound by the restrictions
and requirements in the zoning code
Location and scale of multi-family and assisted
care living facilities dependent upon the ability of
infrastructure to support higher density housing.
Duplexes and some tri-plexes allowed in certain
areas
Subdivision is contingent upon density
designation (see land use map), ability to meet,
setbacks, Health Department standards for septic
and water, and all other applicable regulations,
requirements and ordinances. Clustering and lot
averaging are prohibited until the development of
final development regulations.
A method of platting developments usually
used for RV parks, mobile home parks, and
commerciaVindustrial parks.
Uses that are permitted in a zone but are subject
to mitigating conditions
See development regulations
See LNG 15.0 and LNP 15.1, and HSP 2.7 in the
Compo Plan; and the land use table in the
development regulations.
See Subdivision Ordínance and setback
requirements in the development regulations.
See Subdivision ordinance or contact Permit
Center staff for further information.
See âevelopment regulations.
. . . I
Accessory Dwelling Units
Multi-family housing! Assisted Care Living
Facilities
Subdivision process
Binding Site Plan
Conditional Uses
. . .
<
c:>
,--
N
~
-c
~
~
N
~
tv
fIJ
Critical Areas
....m... c.
""... ""'....... '.' .... .'. " '. .... ... '., --
.. ............. .... ..... .... '.
.... .... .. ... .................. .. .. ..... --
::::;:Q~;'?§~!!!'J~:~~~MÁ!.?'.._...".."./.\
Size, intensity and ability of some projects to
proceed may be influenced by infrastructure
requirements .
Regulated by all applicable critical area
ordinances.
Requirements dependent upon size, location and
type of use. Some areas may have limited
opportunities for development because of
inability to:
. meet adequate water supply (e.g. Quilcene)
. obtain adequate supply from water purveyors
(e.g. Chimacum, Four Corners),or
. lack sufficient land for drain fields or other
requirements.
Limited development opportunities; adjacent land
uses must provide adequate buffering and limit
encroachment into resource lands.
Current, proposed and/or future developments
may impact adjacent development.
Septic, Water and Fire Flow Constraints
Resource Lands
Adjacent land uses
Development Constraints
In addition to the development concerns
addressed above, some areas of the County may
have other area-specific constraints, such as
shoreline and flood areas.
Any project permit application is considered,
under the laws, ordinances, regulations,
standards, and fees in effect at the time that the
particular complete application is received. A
project is vested on the date the application is
completed. A vested permit can be denied or
expire.
Vesting
M-3
See applicable codes, ordinances and applicable
sections in the Comprehensive Plan. ...
See applicable Critical Areas Ordinances
See Permit Center and Health Department.
See applicable Resource Land Ordinances.
Contact Permit Center to determine potential
impacts of adjacent land uses, including vested
projects, resource lands, and/or other approved
projects.
Contact Permit Center staff for more information.
Contact Permit Center for more information.
.8
JEFFERSON COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
8
Adopted
August 28, 1998
VOL UME II
Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners
Glen Huntingford, Chair
Daniel Harpole
Richard Wojt
8
,,<\,
, UI~
?ð ~,~~
'-' -'- ,-'
2 "')9
( --'.:,.c.,
.
.
.
Table of Contents
VOLUME II
CHAPTER 10
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ...................................................................................................... 10-1
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ........................................................... 10-1
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT STRATEGY.................................................................................... 10-1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION.................................. ....................................... .~......... 10-2
Transportation Planning Advisory Board ........."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 1 0-2
Washington State Department of Transportation............................................................................... 10-3
Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization.............................................................. 10-3
City of Port Townsend """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"................................... 10-4
Port of Port Townsend........................................................................................................................ 10-4
Jefferson Transit............................ ..........,............. ......................... ..................... ..,.. ........ .............. .... 10-4
Community Planning Groups ............................................................................................................. 10-4
CONCURRENCY .,....................................,....,.....,......................................,..,......,...,....,.,.,..........,..,.,... 10-5
EXISTING CONDITIONS..... ......................... .................. ....................................... ................... .~......... 10-7
Motorized Transportation System - .Vehicular.................................................................................. 10-7
Roadway Functional Classification... ...... ........ ........ ...,.................,............. ......... ......... ..................... 10-8
Accident Data..... .....,......... .......................... ....... ............. ........ ................................ ......... ................ 10-17
Weathèr-Related Traffic Hazards ..................................................................................................... 10-19
Emergency Service Routes and Facilities ........................................................................................ 10-19
Public Transit................ ................ ............. ..................... ...................................... .....................""" 1 0-19
Air, Waterborne, & Freight Travel.................................................................................................. 10-21
NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.......................................................................... 10-24
Pedestrian Circulation and Bicycle and Equestrian Trails.............................................................. 10-24
EXISTING ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES ........................................................................................... 10-26
CRITERIA USED IN TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS.................................................................. 10-27
Level of Service Standards .....................,......................................................................................... 10-27
PROPOSED PLAN .................................... .............. .... ................................ ............. ..... ....................... 10-31
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 10-33
Capacity Analysis.. ........ ......... ............ ........ ............ ..,.......................... ,.................................. .......... 10-33
Non-Capacity Analysis....... ................... ..,... .................. ...~. ............................. ........ ................. .... .... 10-34
GOALS AND POLICIES ................................................................................................................... 10-35
S TRA TEG IE S ...... ... ......... ....... ...................... ........ ..... ...... ..... ........................... ....... ........... .... .....~ ....... 10-43
CHAPTER 11
UTILITIES ELEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 11-1
RELATIONSHIPS WITH ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .................................... 11-1
EXISTING FACILITIES .................. .....,..... ....................................... .......... ..... ....,........ ..........,.. ..... ...... 11-1
Electrical Utilities ............ ............ ..n.......... ......... ........ .......... .n..","""""" ........ ....,.. ....... ...n...." ........ 11-1
.0
24
2 .. ..-.0
-, L.:a:.tJ
. '.'01-
r ~r;:,
Telecommunications Systems ................,...................................,............................,........................... 11-3
Sanitary Sewer.. ....... ............................................ ............. ....................................... ..~.. ...................... 11-7
Solid Waste Management....... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" .......... ....,....., 11-8
Water...................,..,........."......,...,............,.....................,..,..,..,.,........,.......................................,...,11-10
SURFACE/STORM WATER UTILITIES """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 11-14
PROPOSED FACILITIES ..............................., .................................................................................... 11-23
Electricity ............................... ................................................... """"""""""""""""""""""""""" 11-23
Telephone... ..,... ........................ ............... """""""'" """""""',"'.,........... ................ ....................... 11-23
Sanitary Sewer... ....,.................... ,....................................... .............................. ....... ..... .................. 11-24
Solid Waste.............. ..~.................................................... """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 11-26
Water...............,........................................................... ....... """""'................, .... """""""""""""'" 11-28
Water: Assessment of Needed Capacity """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 11-29
GOALS AND POLICIES ................................................................................................................... 11-37
STRA TEG IE S ................................. .............................. ............. ............... ................................ .......... 11-43
CHAPTER 12
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT .................................................................................................. 12.1
RELATIONSIDPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN """""""""""""""""""",;""""""" 12-1
ADOPTING LEVELS OF SERVICE """""""""""'............,.,.,......,.,..,..""".....~.............".................... 12-2
METHOD FOR USING LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 12-3
ESTABLISHING THE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS ................................................ 12-5
POPULATION GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 12-7
SIX YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) COST PROJECTIONS: 19911-2003.....................12-8
SIX YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) FINANCING STRATEGY: 19911-2003.............. 12-8
LEVEL OF SERVICE IMPACTS ..,........,..........................................................................................., 12-11
CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN 19911-2003 """"'............................................................ 12-12
Animal Control Shelter......................................................... ...... ...... ,........,....... ......... ....... ..,.......... 12-15
Community Centers.........,.....,..".............................,...,.........,...............................,......................... 12-17
Corrections Inmate Facilities ................................................,........,............................................... 12-20
Sheriff Facilities........................ ,...,..,..............................,........................................... ..."............... 12-22
Justice Facilities.............,.....,............................................................................,.,.......................... 12-24
Government Administrative Offices ...... ............,...................,......,..,....................... ................,.".... 12-26
Maintenance Shop Facilities.................................................................,..,..,.... ,.... .......................... 12-29
Parks and Recreation.... ................,.,..,............. .............,..,...... ........................................................ 12-32
Solid Waste.............................., ,.......................................................... ..........,......................... ......, 12-40
Storm water/Flood Control F aciliti'es............,..................................................................,............. 12-42
Transportation..................,.....,.....,........................,..............................., ,....................................,.. 12-44
GOALS AND POLICIES ............... .... ............... ........ ................ ................ .... ........ ..."..."""'.....""."" 12-49
S TRA TEG IE S ................ ............. ........................ ....... ... ... ........... ....... ..."."'... ............................. ........ 12-55
VOL
24
2 ¡~31
r~(.~
.
.
.
.
.
.
LIST OF MAPS
VOLUME II
LOCATION OF CURRENT ELECTRICAL UTILITY FACILITIES ................,................................................ 11-16
LOCATION OF CURRENT CONVENTIONAL TELEPHONE FACILITIES ................................................... 11-17
LOCATION OF CURRENT CONVENTIONAL CELLULAR PHONE FACILITIES ....................................... 11-18
LOCA nON OF CURRENT CABLE TELEVISION FACILITIES ..................................................................... 11-19
LOCATION OF CURRENT SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES........................................................................ 11-20
LOCATION OF CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.................................................. 11-21
PROPOSED JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER SERVICE AREAS .................................................................... 11-22
VOL
(1'4
' rr
C ~ rk
2 ,. ')2
l JL <,j
VOLUME II
TABLE 10-1:
TABLE 10-2:
TABLE 10-3:
TABLE 10-4:
TABLE 10-5:
TABLE 10-6:
TABLE 10-7:
TABLE ll-IA:
TABLE II-IB:
TABLE 11-2:
TABLE 11-3:
TABLE 11-4:
TABLE 11-5:
TABLE 11-6:
TABLE 11-7:
TABLE 11-8:
TABLE 12-1:
TABLE 12-2:
TABLE 12-3:
TABLE 12-4:
TABLE 12-5-A:
TABLE 12-5-B:
LIST OF TABLES
.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS, JEFFERSON COUNTY"""............. 10-17
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
BY LOCATION ......................... ...................................... ..... ...... ....."""..."""""..... .... ..... 10-18
JEFFERSON TRANSIT ROUTES: RIDERSHIP - JANUARY 1998."".".".................. 10-20
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS - ROADWAYS ......................"".."".."............... 10-29
PENNISULA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
LOS SUMMARY ANALYSIS ................................................."............."."."."............... 10-30
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TRAFFIC
VOLUME FORECASTS, 2016...."....."......."..."...."....""........................................."."" 1 0-46
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT EXISTING &
FORECAST ADT LOS.".".....".",...,."............"."...,...."..,."...",..,.........................".,."... 10-53
CURRENT P.D.D. NO.1 SEPTIC SYSTEMS ...............""""...".......""".""".........""...." 11-8
FUTURE SEPTIC SYSTEMS ".."""...."....""".""."."..."................................",................ 11-8
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND WATER SUPPLY"..."""...""."............................."....." 11-13
.
JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER SYSTEMS OF INTEREST....."......................."..""". 11-14
2018 PROJECTED LOAD LEVEL ......""......."""......"""""",...."."................."....".."", 11-23
SOLID WASTE FORECAST AND RECYCLING LOS FOR JEFFERSON
COUNTY ........".."...."...."......"...."."...."..""..".....".""......................."......,.."",.".......... 11-27
JEFFERSON COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS """................""... 11-28
WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY ....."".."...""....",."...""..."......................"..."................ 11-32
JEFFERSON COUNTY LARGE WATER SYSTEMS GROUPED BY
PLANNING AREA ................................................................"".",....".................."..""", 11-33
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) UNIT MEASUREMENTS ..."".....".."".......................""... 12-3
POPULATION GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS""...."..""".........................."...".".."............ 12-7
COUNTY-OWNED/OPERATED PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPITAL COST
SUMMARY ."........................................................,.."."..."...""."................................".".. 12-8
REVENUE SUMMARY ..........."....................".",....,.,..,.""............................."".,...."."... 12-8
PRIMARY FINANCIAL STRATEGY, FUNDING THE UNFUNDED
BALANCE SUMMARY .........."....."..".....",.....".........."............"""""""""""""."'"""", 12-9
.
SECONDARY FINANCIAL STRATEGY, FUNDING THE UNFUNDED
BALANCE SUMMARY ............".........,............'........".""",.,.."......"."................."..".".12-10
VOL
2A 'Ar:,
Lf: (""""
2~33
ii
.
.
.
TABLE 12-6:
TABLE 12-7:
TABLE 12-8:
TABLE 12-9:
TABLE 12-AC-l:
TABLE 12-AC-2:
TABLE 12-CC-l:
TABLE 12-CC-2:
TABLE 12-CC-3:
TABLE 12-CC-5:
TABLE 12-CF-l:
TABLE 12-CF.2a:
TABLE 12-CF~2b:
TABLE 12-CF-3:
TABLE 12-CF-5:
TABLE 12.CJF-l:
TABLE 12-CJF-2:
TABLE 12-CJF.3:
TABLE 12-CJF-5:
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD: STATUS QUO.......................................... 12-11
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD: INCREASED """"""""""",,"""""""""" 12-11
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD: REDUCED.............~.................................. 12-11
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN OPERATING
COST IMPACTS ..........,........."..................,..........,............"""""""""""""""",,"""""'" 12-13
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, ANIMAL CONTROL """"",""""""""""""" 12-15
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL
PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS.........................................................."........... 12-16
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COMMUNITY CENTERS.................,.....~..... 12-17
COMMUNITY CENTERS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS
LOS CAPACITY ANAL YSIS ,.......................................................................................~. 12.18
COMMUNITY CENTERS, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN,
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 12-19
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE """""""""""""""""""""""""'" 12-19
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY CORRECTIONS
INMATE FACILITIES.........,.........................................,.,........................,..........,.......,.,..12-20
COUNTY CORRECTIONS INMATE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS....................,..............................., 12-21
COUNTY SHERIFF ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS """"""""""""""""" 12-22
COUNTY CORRECTIONS INMATE FACILITIES & SHERIFF
ADMINISTRA nON FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING
PLAN, SOURCES AND USE OF FUNDS """""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""" 12-23
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE........................................................ 12-23
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITIES """""""'" 12-24
COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL
PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS....................................................................... 12-25
COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING
PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS............................................,....................... 12-26
OPERA TING IMPACTS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE........................................................ 12-26
TABLE 12-CGAO-l: CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES................,.,...............................................,....................,.. 12-27
TABLE 12-CGAO-2: COUNTY GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOSW CAPACITY ANALYSIS............................... 12-27
TABLE 12-CGAO-3: COUNTY GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, CFP
PROÆCTS AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS """""""" 12-28
Hi
VOL
24 \%~ -, 2L~34
TABLE 12-MF-l:
TABLE 12-CGAO~5: OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE "...................,.............................. 12-28
.
TABLE 12-MF-2:
TABLE 12- MF-3:
TABLE 12-MF-5:
TABLE 12-11:
TABLE 12-PR-l:
TABLE 12-PR-2a:
TABLE 12-PR-2b:
TABLE 12-PR-2c:
TABLE 12-PR-2d:
TABLE 12-PR-2e:
TABLE 12-PR-2f:
TABLE 12-PR-3:
TABLE 12-PR-5:
TABLE 12-SW-3:
TABLE 12-SW-5:
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, COUNTY MAINTENANCE SHOP
FACILITIES ....,...............,..........,..............,.........".,.....................,........................".......... 12-29
COUNTY MAINTENANCE SHOP FACILITIES, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS..................................................... 12-30
COUNTY MAINTENANCE SHOP FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND
FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ..............,.........................."... 12-31
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................."................. 12-3 I
ACRES OF COUNTY OWNED PARK............................................................................ 12-32
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORY, PARKS AND RECREATION ........................12-32
PARKS AND RECREA TI ON: REG! ONAL PARKS, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...............",................ 12-33
PARKS AND RECREATION: COMMUNITY PARKS, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ....................................................... 12-34
PARKS AND RECREATION: NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, JEFFERSON
COUNTY, CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY................................,...................... 12-35
PARKS AND RECREATION: TRAILS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CAPITAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS.............................,....................... 12-36
.
PARKS AND RECREATION: OPEN SPACE, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY ANALYSIS.................................................... 12-37
PARKS AND RECREATION: CAMPGROUNDS, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS CAPACITY """"'...............................,..........................,..... 12-38
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING
PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS....................................................,................ 12-39
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE ....................,..........................".... 12-40
SOLID WASTE, CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES
AND USES OF FUNDS .......................................................................................,............ 12-41
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE ..................................................... 12-42
TABLE 12~SWM~3: STORM WATER/FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS
AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ................",................. 12-43
TABLE 12-TR-l:
TABLE 12-SWM~5: OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE .....................................................12-44
TABLE 12-TR-3:
TABLE 12-TR-5:
CURRENT FACILITEIS INVENTORY, ROADWAY FACILITIES.............................. 12-44
RURAL & DESIGNATED TOURIST ROAD FACILITIES, CFP PROJECTS
AND FINANCING PLAN, SOURCE AND USE OF FUNDS .................................."..... 12-46
.
OPERATING IMPACTS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE """""""""""""""""""""""""'" 12-47
iv
VOL
2 4: r~r;~
2~35
.
.
.
VOLUME II
FIGURE 10-1:
FIGURE 10-2:
FIGURE 10-3:
FIGURE 10-4:
FIGURE 10.5:
LIST OF FIGURES
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN,
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS............................................,..........................,......10-10
TRANSIT ROUTES ,..................................................................,.........................,....,....... 10-22
AIRPORTS AND PORTS .......................,......................................................................... 10-23
BICYCLE TRAILS....................................,....................................................................... 10-25
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, EXISTING VOLUMES
AND LOS ...............................................,......-,.....................................,....,...................... 10-57
VOL
')4 2--ry6
{.... r~[~ _LLU
v
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
-PURP9SE: The purpose of the Transportation Element is to provide a framework of goals, policies,
and strategies necessary to develop the transportation facilities that will serve Jefferson County in the
future. The element describes the service standards desired for the County's transportation system,
projects the impact that the land use pattern recommended in this comprehensive plan will have on the
transportation system, and identifies.the improvements necessary to meet future demand.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) provides for a systematic approach for estimating and planning for
future transportation needs based on an analysis of existing conditions and a projection of future
conditions. This Transportation Element meets the requirements of the GMA.
Relationship with Other Comprehensive Plan Elements
Land use and transportation are inextricably connected -- it is the use of the land that determines the
demand for travel to, from, and through various locations. The future land use identified in the
Comprehensive Plan is, in turn, shaped by the values and goals expressed in the other elements of the
Plan. The Plan addresses such issues as the protection and use of natural resources, the amount and type
of open space and recreational opportunities available in the County, the locations and types of housing
to be made available, the types and locations of various economic activities, and the funding priorities of
the County. This Transportation Element has been developed in accordance with the other
Comprehensive Plan elements, and has been integrated with the other elements to ensure consistency
throughout the Plan.
While the main focus of the goals and policies in the Transportation Element are transportation system-
related and addressed solely in this element, this element reflects the policy intent of the other elements
as well. Policies relating to design of pedestrian environments, recreation and pedestrian trails, support
for urban densities through appropriate transportation facility design, protection of the characteristics of
the rural environment, protection of sensitive areas, and encouraging conservation of energy are
reinforced in a transportation context. Goals and policies that relate more directly to these areas are
found in the following elements: Land Use, Rural, Housing, Economic Development, Natural Resources
Conservation Environment, and Capital Facilities.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for managing its transportation network is to encourage efficient multimodal
transportation through implementation of the policies of the transportation element which address: the
County!s highways andarterials;""public"~transportation needs and services; nonmotorized transportation
facilities; land development standards associated with the County's transportation network; state,
regional, and local intergovernmental coordination; promotion of transportation demand management
programs; protection of the environment and conservation of energy in transportation activities; and
development of a transportation improvement program that will identify and rank projects for funding,
VOL
24 r~[,'
2(.:: 37
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-1
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
.
INTRODUCTION
This Transportation Element describes all relevant modes of travel contained in the overall county
transportation system, including automobile, transit, freight, air, ferry, bicycle and pedestrian, The
Element presents travel forecasts~ level of service standards and analysis; and transportation goals and
policies developed by the Jefferson County Transportation Planning Advisory Board in conjunction with
the Planning Commission. Recommendations for transportation improvements are contained in the
Capital Facilities Element.
The Transportation Element was developed over a period of several years, during which time, five
Technical Memorandums were prepared and reviewed by the Transportation Planning Advisory Board,
Planning Commission, and coordinated with the goals, policies, and plans of other appropriate state,
regional, and local jurisdictions, These Technical Memorandums and discussion papers (listed below)
provide the background data and initial analysis that are the foundation for the Transportation Element as
it has evolved:
Technical Memorandumfl'itle
Date
I. Public Participation Program
2. Transportation Data Inventory
3, Goals and Policies
11/6/92 (final)
9/29/92 (initial draft; data updated in
subsequent versions)
6/23/93 (final, as accepted by Transportation
Planning Advisory Board)
1/8/93 (format revised since this report)
.
4. Outline and Format of the Transportation
Plan
5. Transportation Facility Adequacy: Existing
and Forecast
7/15/93 (updated in subsequent drafts)
Discussion Papers
Date
Transportation Mitigation and Policy Review
Transportation Alternatives Analysis
Transportation Concurrency: Requirements
and Potential Solutions
4/25/95
5/5195
5/1 0/95
All background data and reports relating to the development of the Transportation Element, including the
Technical Memorandums, are available in the County's Public Works Department.
Intergovernment~1 Coordination
The Growth Management Act requires that comprehensive plans, including the Transportation Element,
be prepared through a process which includes not only public participation but also intergovernmental
coordination. In the case of the development of the Jefferson County Transportation Element, this has
included coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), City of Port Townsend, Port of Port
Townsend, Jefferson Transit, and Community Planning Groups.
.
VOL
24 r~L;
2~38
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Planning Advisory Board
A Transportation Planning Advisory Board (TPAB) was formed at the onset of the development of the
Transportation ElemenL-Themake-up.ofthe IPAB included-six citizens..(two from each of the County
Commissioner's Districts) as appointed by the Board of County Commissioners; and five agency
representatives~ one each from Jefferson County Public Works, City of Port Townsend Planning,
Jefferson County Planning, Jefferson Transit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation.
The primary function of the TP AB was to assist in the development of the Element, review the technical
work that was prepared by staff, offer input commensurate with the members' knowledge of the
geographic area and local regulatory systems, and make recommendations to the Jefferson County
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The meetings of the Transportation
Planning Advisory Board were announced in the local newspaper and were open to the general public
and representatives of other agencies/jurisdictions which might have input or be impacted by the process
and/or decisions.
Washington State Department of Transportation
The development of the Transportation Element included coordination with Washington State
Department of Transportation through a dialogue of input and response regarding existing conditions,
forecasting methods and future recommendations. Copies of the technical memorandums and planning
reports which were prepared as part of the process were transmitted to WSDOT - Olympic Region
officials for their review and comment, The work included in the Transportation Element was
coordinated with the data and recommendations included in the State Highway System Plan Element of
the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan, As stated above, the TP AB membership included a
representative of WSDOT. One of the responsibilities of this representative was to provide input and
insight with regard to the planning efforts of the Department and how the two plans might be coordinated
on issues important to both agencies.
The County Transportation Element does not include specific recommendations for Washington State
FelT)' service needs or improvements.
Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization
The Jefferson County Transportation Element was developed in conjunction with the Peninsula Regional
Transportation-Planning Organization (PRTPO)which coordinates transportation planning activities of
the Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas. The PRTPO provides for cooperative decision making by the
agencies within the region in order to bring about a continuous and cooperative planning process.
Jefferson County has been a regular and active participant of the PRTPO and has developed a
Transportation Element that is well coordinated with the requirements, goals, and implementation of the
PRTPO.
The PRTPO membership consists of representatives from all four counties, cities, tribal nations, public
transportation providers, ports, National Park Service, major employers and private citizens on the
northern Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas. Jefferson County's representation in this regional organization
included staff members also responsible for the preparation of the Transportation Element. This dual
role by staff allowed for continuous coordination of work between the development of the County
Transportation Element and the Regional Plan. The analysis performed was similar, used much of the
same background data and was reviewed by staff for both regional and local impacts. The
. ".'
VOL
24 rAC: - 2~39
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-3
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
recommendations of both plans were reviewed for possible contradictions and coordinated to address the
needs of both organizations.
City of Port Townsend
. A representative of the . City of Port Townsend participated on the Transportation Planning Advisory
Board. Like the Washington State Department of Transportation representative, the City's designee was
responsible for providing input specific to the needs and overlapping issues with the City's planning
efforts. In addition, one of the citizen representatives on the TP AB also served on the City of Port
Townsend's Transportation Advisory Committee,
Port of Port Townsend
Information was obtained from the Port and reviewed with regard to the local airport and marine
facilities, The review of these documents included identification of future Port projects which might
impact the overall County transportation network and the impacts that County transportation decisions
might have on the Port's operations. Road improvement projects, specifically, will be coordinated with
the Port's future plans. The County Transportation Element does not include specific recommendations
for air and Port-related marine needs or improvements. That responsibility has been left to the Port of
Port Townsend.
Jefferson Transit
Jefferson Transit was represented on the Transportation Planning Advisory Board. Their representative
played a very active role in the review of the various segments of the Transportation Element. In
particular, the goals and policies regarding transit facilities, usage and level of service were developed
with the active participation of the Transit representative. This ensured that they would be consistent
with the Transit Agency's comprehensive plan and the objectives the Transit Agency was establishing
inside the Port Townsend city limits. The Jefferson Transit representative on the TPAB also served on
both the City's Advisory Committee and on the PRTPO's Technical Advisory Committee providing input
and an avenue of consistency between the three organizations.
Community Planning Groups
. The County's comprehensive planning efforts have included thefonnationof community planning
groups in various sections throughout the County, These groups have developed goals and policies, as
well as recommendations for what they wish to see in their own local communities. The goals and
policies of these groups have been reviewed as part of this countywide process. In addition, the
documents prepared as part of this effort, and reviewed by the Transportation Planning Advisory Board
have been distributed to the community planning groups for review and input. The documents have also
been discussed at public.meetings held in each of the communities.
Summary
The process initiated at the beginning of the preparation of the Transportation Element and utilized
throughout the development of the plan provided for continuous coordination between the overlapping
and concurrent planning efforts in the region. An additional system of checks and balances was provided
by virtue of the fact that many of the Transportation Planning Advisory Board members were involved in
one or more of the relate~ planning ,efforts. One of the goals of the process used to develop the
2 4: rA(;~ 2 ~iiO
.VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-4
August28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Element was to ensure its consistency with other related documents. This was
accomplished through the representatives on the advisory board, review of other agencies' plans,
distribution of this plan (and supporting technical work) to other agencies and planning groups, and
presentation offacts.and findings-.at community meetings and Planning Commission meetings~
"Implementation of the Transportation Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will require
a cooperative effort between the various jurisdictions mentioned in the preceding intergovernmental
section, as well as the private sector. '
Concurrency
Concurrency occurs when the transportation facilities or services needed to accommodate growth or
change are provided as the development occurs. A key to achieving concurrency .is analysis and proper
distribution of available funds. Transportation improvements that cannot be funded cannot be built and
mitigation measures or reassessment of the land use development are necessary in order to maintain the
established level of service.
The concurrency funding analysis is an essential part of the Transportation Element and provides
important infonnation in evaluating the Plan's transportation recommendations relative to the various
transportation and land use alternatives considered in the Plan's development. The concurrency funding
analysis of the Transportation Element is contained in the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Background
Providing public facilities concurrent with land development is one of the requirements of Washington's
Growth Management Act. The main intent of the transportation concurrency requirement is to provide
transportation facilities that can absorb the expected traffic increases resulting from land development.
Potential transportation improvements can range from physical improvements (e,g" the addition of travel
lanes or new traffic signals) to implementation of various travel demand management techniques (e.g.,
improved transit service or rideshare programs).
Issues
Jefferson County is in an unusual situation because all of the roadways included in the Transportation
Element's analysis requiring capacity improvements are state routes and are, therefore, outside of the
County's jurisdiction. At the same time, these state routes fonn the bulk of the County's arterial system
and are thus integral components of the transportation system within the County.
The development impact most ,commonly thought of when considering fonnation of a concurrency
program is a decline in the level of service. While Jefferson County does have needs associated with
transportation facility safety, road preservation, and maintenance, the County is currently focusing
primarily on resolving concurrency issues for the state routes within the County that are forecast to
exceed capacity in this plan, the Peninsula Regional Transportation Plan, and the Washington State
System Plan. To address these concurrency matters, Jefferson County has been an active and regular
participant in the development of the Peninsula Regional Transportation Plan and has met with the
Washington State Department of Transportation, These questions are, as yet, not fully resolved and the
County will continue discussions with the Washington State Department of Transportation.
2 4 rAC~ ~. 2 --~i:l1
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-5
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
Part of the capacity-related concurrency discussion has focused on equity and has identified two main
issues. The first issue concerns state routes and the regional traffic carried by those routes through local
jurisdictions, while.the second..concerns -the ,scale of ,that-responsibility. .Increases in regional traffic
flow, appropriately, cannot be assigned to local development. Jefferson County has regarded the need to
-', share the 'burden of-concurrency-between locally- and regionally-generated traffic as an important point
of discussion because state routes provide both local and regional access through travel routes. As
regional travel routes, state routes within Jefferson County provide access to the Olympic Peninsula and
the Pacific Ocean and, therefore, are important links in supporting the regional economy.
Distinctions can also be made between roads that are similar in functional classification, but serve a
community or area differently, For example, SR 104 and SR 19 are both state routes, but SR 104 does
not serve adjacent needs to the extent that SR 19 does, Maintaining through travel capacity on SR 104
could be a higher priority than on SR 19, which already provides access to several local businesses.
A second equity issue surrounding concurrency is the scale of responsibility -- is a small developer as
responsible for mitigation of impacts as a large developer? The resolution of this question centers
around the interpretation of the concurrency wording in the GMA. No single interpretation has been
entirely agreed upon. These issues will be discussed further between the Washington State Department
of Transportation and Jefferson County.
A strict' translation of the law would place developers of all sizes' equally responsible for impacts
exceeding the LOS threshold. That is, a small developer whose project generated enough trips to exceed
the threshold would be held equally responsible as a large developer, but only for the impacts he/she
generates.
This potential inequity could be avoided by developing a concurrency management system that focuses
on the proportion of impact. Implementing a proportionally-based concurrency management system
requires a more flexible interpretation of the GMA. This approach has been used in other communities.
The more flexible approach can be implemented in coordination with the State Environmental Protection
Act,
Conclusions
__H Jefferson County is coordinating with the State to develop 'an equitable concurrency management system,
although a system has not been resolved as of this Element's completion date, A flexible concurrency
management system based on proportional impacts has been considered because it would be easier to
implement and could be more equitable, This concurrency management system would be based on a
review process similar to SEP A which would allow the system to be managed on the basis of significant
concurrency impacts rather than a more strict "impact/no impact" approach, This plan projects that no
concurrency issues on County roads ,related. to ,excess traffic volumes will occur during the planning
period. Other issues of concurrency relating to safety along roadways and at intersections are likely to
arise, however.
The flexible approach to concurrency focuses on developing policies that identify when a concurrency
management system should be implemented. The flexible approach can also be implemented through
evaluation. Regulations would be required under either the strict or the flexible approach to
concurrency. However, under the flexible approach, the regulations are guided by policies and can be
1,'01-
2 A '~r;ç
If: r",
2 ~4:2
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-6
August28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
written to focus on the main impacts requiring mitigation. This is in contrast to a strict "impact/no
impact" approach.
The policies would-also -identify the . criteria -to - be used to ---<ietennine when .concurrency should be
implemented. For example, a policy could say that concurrency mitigation should occur when a
- development contributes a certain percent or more of the existing traffic volume to the roadways. Or, the
policy could say that access mitigation is required for all developments that contribute more than X
percent additional traffic to the roadway system. Developments that generate less than X percent of the
current traffic volumes would be small businesses and would have little to no mitigation responsibility.
At the policy level, distinctions between the uses of the roadways can also be made, such as between the
uses of state routes and local roads. Distinctions can also be made between roads that have the same
functional classification but serve the communities differently. For example, SR 104 and SR 19 are both
state routes, but SR 104 does not serve adjacent needs as much as SR 19 serves local needs. Policies
might suggest that maintaining the through travel capacity is a higher priority on SR 104 than on SR 19,
which already provides access to several local businesses.
Safety, maintenance, and preservation policies can also be established and used as thresholds for action.
For example, a policy could be worded as follows:
Unacceptable increases in hazards or reduction in safety will be mitigated, The definition of
"unacceptable" will be based on analysis of the common roadway, intersection, driveway and
nonmotorized design standards in the WSDOT Design Manual, AASHTO, or other commonly used
references, such as publications by the Institute of Traffic Engineers,
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions portion of the Transportation Element describes Jefferson County's current
transportation system, which is divided into two main categories: motorized and nonmotorized. The
motorized transportation system includes all automobile and transit travel (vehicular), as well as some
motorized transportation modes that travel on off-road routes (e.g., air, waterborne, rail). The
nonmotorized system describes on-road modes for pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian travel. In addition,
a brief discussion of weather-related traffic hazard areas identified by the County Public Works
Department and the public is provided,
This section also provides a discussion of the level of service (LOS) standards for the County's
transportation system adopted by the Transportation Planning Advisory Board, These LOS standards are
recommended for adoption in this Transportation Element.
Motorized Transportation System - Vehicular
A description of the motorized transportation system in Jefferson County begins with an overview of the
area's roadway functional classification system. The functional classification system is a hierarchy of
roadway types. Each type is described by standards that guide the road's design, use, and travel volumes.
Following the description of the functional classification system is a summary of the current traffic on
the County's roadways and on surrounding roads.
VOL
24 r~r,~
2~13
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-7
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORT AnON
Included in this overview of the roadways' designated function and actual use is a review of accident
data. The accident data indicates areas where further investigation of the transportation system may be
necessary. The reported data summary does not reveal the cause of the accidents -- rather, they only
indicate where the accidents are occurring. . Eurtber inv.estigation.ataccident locations helps define the
problem and appropriate solutions.
.
The emergency service routes and facilities within the County are also presented. During emergencies or
disasters, the highway system is critical to providing emergency fire and medical services, as well as
being the route for evacuation or delivery of supplies.
As a part of the motorized. transportation system, transit service, air and waterborne traffic, and freight
traffic are also discussed.
Roadway Functional Classification
Roadways are categorized according to their role and use in canying vehicles. The categorization is a
hierarchy of roadways ranging from principal arterials, such as state routes, to local streets in residential
neighborhoods. The different categories vary in their ability to cany traffic for long distances, and in
their ability to provide access to land uses.
State routes are roads owned and operated by the Washington State Department of
Transportation. These highways provide for regional and interregional travel. In the Jefferson
County Transportation Element these routes are classified according to how they function within
the County (for example, as principal or minor arterials, or major collectors). State routes within
the County include US 101, and State Routes 19,20, 104, and 116.
.
Principal arterials provide the most mobility. They provide for regional and inter-regional
travel, typically carrying large volumes of through traffic, with limited direct access to abutting
properties.
Minor arterials provide more access to adjacent land uses, but still function primarily to link
destination points. Minor arterials tend to link intra-city destinations instead of inter-regional.
Collectors provide more access to adjacent land uses than any arterial, but they do not provide
the full-access that local streets provide. These Toads collect and distribute traffic between
neighborhoods and business areas, and the rest of the arterial system, They provide for easy and
direct access to abutting properties and cany low to moderate volumes of traffic. Major
collectors are those collectors that carry higher volumes of traffic directly to the arterial system,
Minor collectors typically carry lower traffic volumes directly from local access roads, or from
less densely populated areas, and distribute the traffic to major collectors or directly to the
arterial system.
Local access roads provide direct access to abutting land uses and cany traffic to the
collector/arterial system. Local roads typically cany low volumes of traffic, travelling at low
speeds. Because of the generalized level of analysis provided in a comprehensive plan, the
inventory for the transportation element does not present traffic data on all local roads, only
those canying higher volumes or linking significant collectors.
.
VOL
24 rAe>
2~114
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
The existing roadway transportation facilities serving urban and rural areas of Jefferson County consist
of principal and minor arterials, major and minor collectors, and local neighborhood streets. The
County's existing roadway network and functional classification is depicted in the map sheets in Figure
10-1.
At present, 35 percent of the County's road system is classified as major or minor collectors. Functional
classifications of individual roadways within Jefferson County are presented in Table 10-1. US 101, and
State Routes 20 and 104 are classified as principal arterials and SR 19 as a minor arteriaL SR 116 is
classified as a major collector.
US 101, SR 20, and SR 104 in Jefferson County are designated as tourist corridors by the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization. Tourist corridors were identified by the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization using a set of criteria. These criteria require that PRTPO
Technical Advisory committee members agree that such corridors serve as a primary conduit providing
access to and from tourist attractions. In addition, full WSDOT design standards apply to these
identified "tourist corridors" which should include a minimum of 8 foot shoulders. However, a modified
design level may apply based on a corridor or project specific basis. Road segments along tourist
corridors not meeting these design standards were listed as deficient and improvement projects were
recommended.
Most of the County's roadways have minimal gravel shoulders except in locations bordering suburban
development, shopping centers, and various other public facilities. In these more developed areas,
roadways tend to include paved shoulders and/or sidewalks in addition to an upgraded roadway cross
section. The County will develop a plan to upgrade roadways to meet current standards.
The County maintains 390 miles of roads and 24 bridges. Approximately 30 to 40 miles of road are
resurfaced annually. All roadways and bridges maintained by the County are evaluated and ranked for
inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program, as funding becomes available.
","I'
'fU'-
2 J! 'Irr
q r,.,,'
2~tl5
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-9
August 28, 1998
......... ---...
"""IIL 001>0/101
~
n
;¡¡
..
OIl
0
:J
n
0
t:::
:J
Q
()
0
~
. . g.
n
:I
!!!.
<
n
."
§
0
......
0
)-
t:::
OQ
t:::
!:Z
N
00
\0
\0
00
SI1([T 1 or 1
..-...
=
,-
"'I'
þo
~,~
"1
N
{"
~
(!"';
r
--.-
-""-
-.......-
..., K.ol£ ,.,
- -~~~
.
ClALl.AM
COUNTY
------
JEFFERSON - - - ~
COUNN
SHEET 4
OLYMPIC
NATIONAL
PARK
-----'-
CRAYS HARBOR
COUNTY
--'-
NO
OAK
REVISION
MASON
COUNlY
)
.--' SHEET 1
-J
SHEET 2
, '
. .
)
\
"
)
"
/
I
/
KITSAP
COUNTY
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
KEY MAP
APP'O. It(
.
JEFFERSON I
COUNTY /
\
_/
r
"
r
--~
/'
SHEET 3
. .
'21
oë'
c
.,
tþ
-
0
,
-
-
.
-'I
~
Z
VI
"tI
0
;:ç
-'I
)-
-
Õ
z
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
Figure 10-1
2
%
""
... ~
"' z
:> ""
...... ...
:i § -::- -::-
§ ';::0 ;;! ;;!
-0<-." :> :>
-:-. ~ ð ð % ~
~ : ë ë = !Ii
c ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~
Z "" ~ s g ~ ð ~ ~
W ~ .._u U t "' 2 ~
e ~ ! "' "' ~ U~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ i ~ 8 9 5 !
g
;¡
..
~
""
<>
.,
<>
~
'"
'"
~ H.1.YON
..
I : ¡ I ..---
: ; Ie --
I ! I ----'
I , , --.
~~ --------- - - ~ - -- -' - - .----
. ~ sfrØt<P"
---:
'I
~~
u
U
Ii
~
--...:~- ~~ .
'oo...-r1Y"Cl .
~,
5
Ç>
!
i
>t
i!
~3
!~
YûL
24
rA('~
-. 2 L - ':1/ i'
I --
August 28.1998
Jefferson County Compr~~!=nsîve Plan
10-11
z
~ < 'P'"
~ ...J
0-
Z
Q
...
<
... en
a: z
:t g
en .-
z <
< 0
a: ü:
... ëi)
> en
... 'II(
Z ...J
:) 0
0 ...J
0 <
Z Z
0 0
en ¡::
a: 0
, Z
u. ::I
tt u.
..,
...
w
W
:t:
en
ID
C
å.
!it
z
0
¡¡;
¡;;
II:
¡
.:;
z
'...
...
0
coo
E
:r
1/1
~
~
ü!
0
::3
()
'0
c::
~
n
0
3
'. ..J
'm
::3
'"
<'
m
'1:
[
coo ru: -V~~u."
"'If"", ...,,"'"
-ru:,,-
..., ....., ,.,
-.-
-...-
>
c::
~
'"
...
N
JIO
..
.
-
0
I
-
IV
/
..
/
,
,
I
,
,
I
'%. - :
~ \
'i "
~ \.
'",
""".
\
,
,
J
//
,/'
.'/'
,/"
./'
,/'
,,/,'
. ,/"
,j(' - . - ,I'tIINCIf'Al ARURlAl (RURAl/URBAN);
;/' -"-..-..- IIINOR ARURlAl fRUR.u./un...,
,/'
,/'
/'
'U/ '
,~,
II
- I '
r
ø 2 IlII.E9
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
<-
=
,-
LEGEND
r ........... UAJOR COLl.ECTOR (RURAL)
UlNaR COLlECTOR (RURAL)
COLlECTO" (URIAN)
-------'~-. . lOCAL ROAD
CIT"( UIolIT
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORT A TION PLAN
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS - SHEET 2
-
\0
\0
00
SHErr J or 7
DATE
APP'o. BY
REViSION
.
.
~
....
(JC
=
'"I
rÞ
-
Q
I
-
~
Z
en
'1:
0
:::0
~
.....¡
õ
z
~
.
TRANSPORTATION
.
.
.
'1
#~
2~
Jj
f
h
r
..
h
!:
~=
I~
Figure 10-1
4
'--,0:.
'b '::-;.-
~7!>:¡.
"', - -- :.: -....
-_u_.. ~j!j ,
¡.. "\"
\
'Z
'"
III .-
'" %
~ :¡
i ~ ¡ ¡
~ '" '"
3 g:;:;;-
'" 0 0 æ
~ ¡ I ~ ~ :>
W:;t~88i~¡
ff: ~ '" I!i '" ... .... ;;¡
..J ! ~ ~ ~ g -. ð ~
... ;8 ;8 ;8 <J 9 <J
('I
I-
W
W
I:
UJ
W
W
UJ
J I--IIII!
i
~i
~
\
'\
\
~
¡¡¡
1¡J
~
co
9
!i
..
z
0
z
z
æ
g:¡
,
"-
"""', ~ HJ.I:ION
\
..
'.
~
uC::
-°
Q..1io:.
2..:1
~<
O~
~
<
Z
i
3§
t.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
z
c( CO)
~ I-
W
Z W
0 ;¡:
¡:: (I)
c(
I- (I)
a: Z
0 0
CI. -
(I) I-
Z c(
c( t,)
a:: -
I- ~
> (I)
I- (I)
Z c(
j ..J
0 t,)
t,) ..J
Z c(
0 Z
(I) Q
a:: I-
W (,)
U. Z
U. j
W U.
..,
lii
ci
iI.
~
%
Ii!
~
'"
~
g
..
...
Q
..
Ei
:r
III.
10-13
VOL
24 fAC~
- 2 "~'\~gust 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
','
"
Cl.ALI.AU¿~~- ~--- -,- --- ~-~ ~
- ----~-------'--~--'----------.õT(~Ð. COUIII'; i
-----~----f~77., .
-._-~--~. ~~~; ,
~~ ~
~ ~~'
,:- -; . - OLYMPIC, NATIONAL PARK
~~~ ~%~'ø;" "'" . , .
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ .~%~ ~ ~ .~.~ .
-Ý ". .' ,,' ',' ,', ,', " ,,' '/" ".., " ,/ ,;' ," /, ,"
~%" é' -~("/';'-<'", ," ,:;¿:; '%,';;¡¿~" '~",%",~~, ",
~- -. i%':-X-;¿" ,,' -< ". ",' ',' ':' ," ,"
I"~", ~~~"'__L%,
I"~"""I --J r~"
~-J ~~"
r" "
""'. , "
" ¡~
' ~
'~""'~" ..".....
~.. \IPP£R - ROAD -. ,."...:--
."'..a..a"'..a.....,..... \,. ....
. .....-
\"",.. I
" J
' " I
\.~l.¡
~,:
I
l
1
)
~~,,/
<t""
'-/
.!'/'
!
/
/
/
>
~
!!l-
N
.00
....
CD
¡;¡
;;¡
0
::I
n
0
§
~
n
0
.g
'g.
g
'"
<'
CD
"'C
i
-.. -
-'~II-
-....u-
..... ICM.(, I-I
f
0 I IiIILD
I r
GRAPHIC SCALE
..-
0
I
-
.þ.
-
\0
\0
00
REVISION
.
Q£AllIIMIlR ROAO
LEGEND
PRINCIPAL AIIIEIIW. (IU!lAt/URBAM)
IilIHOII AIIIEIIIAL (RUIlAL/URBAM)
lWoR COLI.ECIOR (RURAl)
IilIHOII COWCIOR (RURAl)
COLI.£CIOR (URIWt)
LOCAl. IIOAO
CITY UIiIII
" .
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORT A TION PLAN
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICA TrONS - SHEET 4
APP'O, 8'1'
.
~
...
I1Q
=
...
ftI
~
<=
I
~
UI
.
TRANSPORTATION
.
.
.
Figure 10-1
¡~
; ~
....... ...
-: ; ¡ 2
._- ! ~ i ~
...i--2'
!:~!"'='
Q ~ ::! u ~
ffi :-~ ¡ 0 ¡ ~ to
,..~.. Ut¡¡¡'"
w !i! ti ti ti ~ ~ :J
-' ¡¡;¡ æ :¡¡ æ S ;
~ '" '" '" U U
IIIIIII
~
I-
W
w
:t
tn
w
w
en
'1
J:¡
~~
U
H
Ii
r
1
t~
~~
I!
~:
3~
Jefferson County Comprehensive 'Plan
~ .
6
g
2
~ ~
..
~ HUlON Ii!
!.!
~
"
0
z
0( It)
-'
a. ~
w
z w
0 X
¡:: en
0(
~ en
CC z
0 0
a. -
en ~
Z 0(
0( CJ
II: -
t- ~
> en
.... en
z 0(
::;) ..I
0 CJ
CJ ..I
Z 0(
0 Z
en Q
II: ~
W CJ
u. Z
u. ::;)
w u.
.,
~
ci
å.
~
~
z
0
~
~
d
OCE~"
CIVIC
p~
r-
IA.
0
...
E
:z:
VI.
10-15
VOI-
24 ~ 2~51
" f- AG~ - August 28, 1998
....
n
~
;;¡
g
()
0
¡::
~
()
0,
.g
..
-0 n
, ::r
n
:3
'"
~.
>ø
[
....
0
.
....
0\
---
c:>
,.
N
~
--"
1>0
-~
, "
N
{,
>C"H
~N
'"
...
t-)
~oo
....
\0
\0
00
'... - ..,-_.....
NIT"'" ""IJII
.... -
_'U'-
--...-
"'" ....... ,-,
,..
~
MALlo PONT DR.~
.~ . ,
\\ PII~C' ~~L.J
'\,/'i'-----~----
~
- ...
\
'(J.'
'2-
0
1:11
->
....
~r?
,ö .
c..~ ~.
...~ '
,,'---'..
í -'.
,
.
SHEET 1 Of' 1
NO.
CAfE
.
'@
R£VISION
f
¡
\.
----'\
i a
o1l~-
0 I IIIU
I I
GRAPHIC SCALE
APp'o. BY
.
CD
, J
... ¡¡¡¡
\ ;:
,.__~ILL RO ¡¡
101 [~J-"---J
~-'... 1,1, ,
,I '-~ ~'
¡¡¡ CIoIIII1 All -
g
-'t.~~- J
Ir;: ST.
¡p
¡Ii
LEGEND
PH-AI. AIIJEIIIAl (RUIlAl/UllBAH)
-..-
- AllT( IAl (RUIlAL/llllIlAN)
IWOII cow:~ (RURAL)
----.------~
--------~_.
IIINOR CDU£CTOR (RURAL)
- ----- cow:croa (URIWI)
-----------~
LOCAl. IIOAD
,
- - --- -
Cln UIlIT
@
DlLAllGEIiENT AReAS
roll LOCATION)
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORT A TION PLAN
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS - ENLARGEMENT AREAS
~
...
(JQ
=
.,
tD
....
Q
I
....
~
en
'"Ø
0
~
..,¡
~
~
.
.
.
.
Table 10-1
Functional Classification of Roads
Jefferson County
-Principal Arterial
"Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Hwy 101
SR20
SR 104
SR 19 (Airport Cut-
off/Rhody Dr/Beaver
Valley Rd)
Center Rd
Chimacum Rd
-' - - -- --, -- --
Irondale Rd
Quinault-S. Shore Rd
SR 116 (Ness' Comer
Rd/Oak Bay
Rd/Flagler Rd)
Upper Hoh Rd
"
.--.
--., --" -- - .
-'-'--
Source: Berryman & Henigar.
Accident Data
Minor Collector
Anderson Lake Rd
Bee Mill Rd
-- . --- ---
Cape George Rd
Clearwater Rd
Cook Ave Extension
Coyle Rd
Dabob P.O. Rd
Dabob Rd
Dosewallips Rd
Duckabush Rd
E. Quilcene Rd
Eaglemount Rd
Four Comers Rd
Hastings Ave W
Hazel Point Rd
Larson Lake Rd
Oak Bay Rd
Paradise Bay Rd
Penny Creek Rd
Point Whitney Rd
S. Discovery Rd
South Point Rd
Thorndyke Rd
TRANSPORTATION
Local Access
'"
Carrol Ave
- ,- C~Øar Ave
E, Marrowstone Rd
E. Maude St
Egg and I Rd
Gardiner Beach Rd
Glen Cove Rd
Hoh Village Rd
Kala Pt. Dr
Leland Valley RdW
Lindsey Hill Rd
Linger Longer Rd
Lords Lake Loop
Lower Hadlock Rd
Mason St
Mill Rd
Oil City Rd
North Otto St
Osprey Ridge Dr
Patison St
Pioneer Dr
Prospect Ave
Queets River Rd
Robbins Rd
S. Jacob Miller Rd
Sandy Shore Rd
Seamount Dr
Shine Rd
Snow Creek Rd
Swansonville Rd
Teal Lake Rd
Thomas Dr
Thomas St
Walker Way
W Uncas Rd
W Valley Rd
Zelatched Point Rd
5th Ave
7th Ave
S 8th St
S 7th Ave
Table 10-2 provides a listing of the corridors within Jefferson County (including State and County
roadways) which have experienced a high rate of accidents. The table is organized by corridor and
details the number of accidents along that corridor, by year.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-17
- VOL
2 4 UG~
2-,...~
i -:.J
.:k:: ugust 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
Table 10~2
Jefferson County Transportation Network
Traffic Accidents by Location
.
SR 20 State Milepost N/A 34 47 43 N/A NfA 55 53 68 53
00.00-12.56
SR 104
SR 101
SR 101
Airport Cut-
off(SR 19)
Beaver Valley
Rd (SR 19)
Cape George
Rd
Center Rd
Chimacum Rd
Coyle Rd
Flagler Rd
(SR 116)
Four Comers
Rd
rondale Rd
Ness' Comer
Rd (SR 116)
Oak Bay Rd
Paradise Bay
Rd
Rhody Dr (SR
19)
S Jacob
Miller Rd.
Swansonville
Rd
S Discovery
Rd
Thorndyke Rd
State
State
State
'State
State
County
County
County
County
State
County
County
State
County
County
State
Milepost
00.00-14.67
Milepost
143.98-184.62
Milepost
274.65-314.01
Milepost
11.88-14.20
Milepost 0.00-
9.10
Milepost 0.00-
7.52
Milepost 0.00-
14.98
Milepost 0.00-
1.57
Milepost 0.00-
14.17
Milepost 1.98-
9.83
Milepost 0.00-
1.33
Milepost 0.00-
1.93
Milepost 0.00-
1.12
Milepost 0.00-
-10.80
Milepost 0.00-
6.00
Milepost 9.10-
11.88
County Milepost 0.00-
_., '.' ..2.00 v. '.'
County
County
County
Milepost 0.00-
3.21
Milepost 0.00-
4.81
Milepost 0.00-
8.52
N/A == Not Available
Source: Berryman & Henigar.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
NfA
NfA
N/A
7
18
3
13
0
5
3
3
7
5
17
4
3
1
0
5
3
43
65
32
41
88
101
3
13
22
18
4
8
9
10
3
6
8
0
3
2
16
18
9
11
1
,.. ,--
2
11
2
10-18
1
5
8
3
4
2
7
8
3
1
6
2
47
35
97
5
16
4
8
4
3
8
6
7
6
17
16
II
3
1
6
3
VOL
NfA
NfA
N/A
NfA
NfA
N/A
5
18
8
15
0
3
4
2
6
6
N/A
12
11
8
3
4
8
2
24
' ~r ~
(...\)~
2
2
6
7
6
5
3
3
5
7
1
3
2
1
6
3
61
36
87
NfA
NfA
20
5
13
0
5
10
2
2
3
13
10
N/A
1
0
9
6
2,::54
44
32
80
18
7
12
0
3
5
1
2
6
13
7
N/A
1
3
2
0
64
33
-.
68
6
18
12
16
1
1
6
2
6
4
21
10
39
30
81
15
30
5
16
0
4
.
4
3
5
10
15
8
4
15
3
2
0
1
2
5
5
3
.
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORT AnON
Weather-Related Traffic Hazards
Inclement weather affectsdriving.-conditions, contributes to accidents, and can damage the roadways.
High elevation roads, such as Dosewallips and Duckabush Roads, are subject to frost conditions. During
periods 'of thawing, the Public Works Department installs signs infonning travelers of load-limit
restrictions due to freeze/thaw conditions. Some roadway segments require sanding during winter
conditions, including Irondale Road (dip); Flagler Road/Oak Bay Road intersection; SR 19 Beaver
Valley Road/Center Road/Chimacum intersection; .Walker Mountain above 700 feet elevation;
Dosewallips and Duckabush River Roads; and several roads in the Brinnon area. In addition, some roads
are subject to flooding and washout during stonn events, such as the Oil City Road, Quinault-South
Shore Road, and Upper Hoh Road. In the last twelve or so years, the Upper Hoh Road has experienced
severe flooding washout damage and has been totally closed on several occasions due to the impacts of
severe weather.
Emergency Service Routes and Facilities
During emergencies or disasters, the highway system is crucial to evacuation and to the delivery of
supplies. The County has developed an Emergency Management Plan (September 1996) that addresses
transportation issues and needs.
The Emergency Management Plan provides for actions to be taken in the event that certain transportation
systems become disabled, and requires the cooperation of various County departments, police and
sheriffs departments, the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson Transit, school districts, and the State of
Washington. Majorroutes of travel in the County include northbound on SR 101; westbound on SR 104;
northbound on Center Road, SR 19 Beaver Valley RoadlRhody Drive/Airport Cutoff Road), and
eastbound on SR 116 (Ness's Comer Road, portion of Oak Bay RoadlFlagler Road).
Fire trucks, sheriffs vehicles and ambulances must also be considered as part of the evaluation of
emergency service routes. These vehicles must be able to respond to emergencies as quickly as possible.
Access to roadways by emergency vehicles as they leave the station, as well as the road conditions on the
way to the emergency, are both safety concerns. Potential safety hazard locations include the Chimacum
Fire District access to SR 19 (Rhody Drive) and Fire District 6 access to SR 19 (Airport Cutoff Road).
Chimacum Fire District has requested a fire signal from the Washington State Department of
- Transportation. .
Public Transit
Jefferson Transit was created in 1981 to provide transportation services primarily to transit-dependent
persons. Jefferson Transit Service serves Port Townsend and Jefferson County with additional service to
Sequimand.Poulsbo. ,Transfers are-available between,the City and County bus routes. Adjoining transit
systems include Island Transit, Kitsap Transit (from Route 7), Clallam Transit (from Route 8), Mason
Transit (from Route 1) and Grays Harbor Transit (West Jefferson Transit service connecting Forks and
Amanda Park along the Pacific Coast). Bicycle racks are available on all Jefferson Transit routes. Table
10-3 describes the destinations, passenger trips, and ridership per service hour for August 1996. Major
transit routes are depicted in Figure 10-2.
YOI-
~)4 'u;
'-' r ...." -
2 -.-r-
'i.-x: .'JJ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-19
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
Table 10-3
Jefferson Transit Routes: Ridership - January 1998
.
:"::",:,R,'::~",,,u, :t~'~~~,:,:,';:~,:,::e,:,;','t:.,:,'i"l',:,:,'":",!:,,,: "'Pa~~~~~r
': ,~,lil¡~~}'
""'~~1U""
Brinnon
Shuttle (serving Port Townsend: Water St at
Quincy/Sheridan at Hastings, etc.)
3
1,809
5,445
10.19
32.49
Shuttle (serving Port Townsend: Water St at
Quincy/Sheridan at Hastings, etc.)
(Saturday)
3S
1,033
31.98
Shuttle (serving Port Townsend: Water St at
Quincy/Sheridan at Hastings, etc.) (Sunday)
North Beach
Sequim
3D 544 23.86
4 774 8.19
4S 162 9.00
4D 126 8.75
5 605 6.21
5S 141 8.39
5U 103 7.66 .
6 397 9.46
7 1,921 8.78
7S 258 10.42
7U 95 9.65
8 2,018 10.02
8S 184 9.53
9 1,825 12.80
17,440 13.28
902 3.71
1,927 2.90
1,734 N/A
22,003
North Beach (Saturday)
North Beach (Sunday)
Fort Worden
Fort Worden (Saturday)
Fort Worden (Sunday)
Landfill Shuttle
Kitsap/Seattle
Kitsap/Silverdale (Saturday)
Kitsap/Silverdale (Sunday)
Sequim (Saturday)
Tri-Area
Transit (fixed route)
West Jefferson (fixed route - transit service
between Forks and Amanda Park)
Dial-A-Ride
Other (Søecia:ls, V àripoöl; 'Còm:munitý Van)
TOTAL RIDERS
N/A - Not applicable.
Source: Jefferson Transit, 1998.
, VOI-
24 rA['~
2~,56
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-20
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
Air, Waterborne, & Freight Travel
Airports
The Jefferson County International Airport covers approximately 240 acres, of which 40 acres are
reserved" for runway and 22 acres for aviation-related industry. Figure 10-3 depicts airport and port
locations.
In 1992, the airport recorded 43,000 take-offs and landings.. In 1994, the Port completed a master plan for
the airport that was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Port of Port Townsend
recently received a $1 million grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to rehabilitate
existing taxiways; construct additional taxiways, taxi lanes, and hangar pads; and to extend the runway
apron. In order to coordinate their planning with the mandates of the Growth Management Act, the Port
is currently working on a subarea plan for the immediate airport area. The plan is intended to minimize
future. conflicts between airport activities and other land uses.
Ferry Service
Ferry service is provided by the Washington State Ferry System (WSF) to Whidbey Island via the Port
Townsend/ Keystone ferry route, and to the greater Puget Sound through Kitsap County via the
KingstonlEdmonds, Bainbridge Island/Seattle, BremertonlSeattle, and SouthworthlVashonl Fauntleroy
routes. The ferry service can accommodate automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists, kayaks, and canoes. A
private carrier, Puget Sound Express, provides passenger-only service between Port Townsend and the
San Juan Islands.
WSF service at Port Townsend is provided by two Steel Electric Class ferries. Schedules vary according
to the season, with fewer crossings during the winter months. Service between Port Townsend and
Keystone, in general, begins at 7:00 a.m., with the last ferry leaving Keystone at 9:30 p.m. Special fares
are available for authorized vanpools containing seven or more regular passengers. Special fares are also
available to disabled passengers; however, not all terminals and vessels are wheelchair accessible. The
ferry system supports a tourism loop that runs through the North Cascades Highway. The system brings
visitors to the City of Port Townsend and experiences overloads, particularly on weekends and holidays
during summer months.
- Development of additional passenger-only runs from Port Townsend to areas within greater Puget Sound
is an option. Expanded ferry service would potentially increase commerce within the city, but may also
result in higher seasonal or permanent populations.
Freight Travel
-There are three,basicÆorms of freight travel in Jefferson County: truck, waterborne (shipping and ferry)
and air. Trucking is the predominant mode of freight transportation. Most of the total westbound truck
freight is carried over the Hood Canal Bridge, towards Port Townsend, or up US 101 through Shelton.
VOI-
24 r~G~
2 L~57
d
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-21
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
Figure 10-2 - Transit Routes
eM...., ""-""'-2.'"
",-"f""" """"1M
-..-
-"'-"
-,...",,-
"'-", $C.<L£, 1-1
ss~
!t.
\\
;'
LEGEND
--------------
RQ/1[ "
<-. 0Ac01E. POll' -I
RQ/1[P
'"""'~-~
RQ/1t 18
(51:-1
@)
,,--...-
.
f
.
.
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES
Jefferson County Comþ~ehensive Plan
10-22" VOL
24
rA~:
2LXS~
August 28,1998
TRANSPORTATION
.
Figure 10-3
Airports and Ports
.
.
!!
J~
~~
U
~ HJ.HON
~ ¡ i I
I.W ",
§ @~ I
H
,,=
II
f
t~
!z
~~
_!~
24 HL~ - 2~,J9
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comþ~ehetisive Plan
10'-23
, VOL
TRANSPORTATION
Washington State Ferries are also a part of the freight transport system in the County, carrying
commercial trucks from East Puget Sound via Keystone to Port Townsend. Port Townsend Paper
Corporation also owns a 600-foot dock that can accommodate large ocean-going vessels. Due to shallow
waters, ships cannot leave fully loaded. The-..Port-Townsend Paper .corporation-generates more than 40
in-bound trucks per day. In-bound freight consists primarily of raw materials such as wood chips, and
outbound trucking freight is paper goods. Most air freight is handled at Fairchild International Airport in
Port Angeles. Regularly scheduled commercial air service is provided by Horizon Airlines, Federal
Express, United Parcel Service, and Pony Express Air Service. Port locations are depicted in Figure 10-
3, along with airport locations. -
Freight travel can have impacts on County roadways and roadway needs. The heavy weight of trucks
breaks down pavement structure and is a significant factor in the need for maintenance of roadways.
Road characteristics such as width, alignment, and sight distance on some roads may be inappropriate for
trucks.
Nonmotorized Transportation System
Pedestrian Circulation and Bicycle and Equestrian Trails
Given the rural nature of Jefferson County, travel occurs predominantly by motorized vehicle or bicycle.
However, pedestrian circulation is an important traffic consideration, as it can reduce demand for
motorized vehicles. There are several pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian routes available in the County;
some are in need of improvements.
Information regarding specific pedestrian problem areas was obtained during a public workshop on
November 23, 1992. The following problems were identified: mode integration (pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit), pedestrian safety in centers, pedestrian safety on lrondale Road, and pedestrian safety in
general.
Bicycles are a popular form of transportation for County residents and visitors, and several roadways have
been designated as bicycle routes. Figure 10-4 depicts the roadways frequently used by bicycle riders,
including bicycle clubs (this map will be updated in the future). A 1989 recreational survey cited in the 1996
Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan indicated that 36 percent of the survey respondents participated
in bicycling activities. More than 30 percent of survey respondents indicated trails for bicycling were very
important. South Discovery Road and Paradise Bay Road are currently being used for the annual "Around the
n- Sound" biking event. - -- -- - -- ---- - -- -- "
There are several equestrian trails within the County, according to the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive
Plan. While there are numerous hiking trails in the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest and
associated wilderness areas, there are no designated hiking trails connecting communities, parks and recreation
areas. More than 50 percent of the recreational survey respondents participated in hiking activities, and almost
"-54 percent of the respondents indicated that trails for-hiking and walking were "very important." Bicycle and
hiking routes were identified as needed for the following areas:
. Cape George, Beckett Point and Four Comers;
. Marrowstone and Indian Islands;
. Port Hadlock, lrondale, Chimacum, Kala Point and Glen Cove;
. Discovery Bay and Gardiner;
. Port Ludlow, Mats Mats, and Oak Bay;
. Quilcene, Bolton Peninsula, Crocker Lake and Lake Leland; and
. Brinnon.
,VOL
24 r~r,~
n- ,....0
ë~o
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-24
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
.
Figure 10-4
Bicycle Trails
~
0
u
ADMIIUlTY 1?t1..ET
~
U
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
i
.
.
.
--~._._--_.:
UŒ
!ZLJ..'(D/,
OLYMPIC
NATIONAL FOREST
~
N
l
BIKE TRAILS
- TRA IL ROUTE
uum ROUTE ON IMPROVEI> SHOUlDERS
.
Excerpted From:
Jefferson County Cornprehenisve
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
, BICYCLE TRAILS
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
"
10-25 'VOL
24 r'AC: ~ 2~~'51 August28,1998
TRANSPORTATION
The Plan noted the lack of a public trail system in the County and the need for a comprehensive trail
system to meet the growing demand. The Parks Plan includes policies containing standards for
development of new trails, including the need for trails to perfonn a transportation function and connect
and serve schools,shoppingareas",entertainment-and recreation facilities, churches and-places of
employment. The Plan's action plan includes development of a master plan/inventory of existing and
potential trails'as part of a comprehensive trails plan. Plans also include an agreement with the
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation to begin acquisition of trail properties to create the Larry
Scott Memorial Park Trail and coordination between the Parks Department and Public Works Road
Design Section to create safe conditions for bicycIepathways along _County roads,.
EXISTING ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES
Jefferson County has developed three systems for use in evaluating deficiencies of transportation
facilities (roadway segments, intersections, and bridges) and ranking them for improvement according to
need. 'Two systems, Road Project Priority Programming System and Intersection Rating System, are
used to detennine what structural, design, or other characteristics may need revision to improve the
functioning of the facility. The third system used by the County to evaluate facilities is the State of
Washington Inventory of Bridges and Structures (SWIBS).
Road Project Priority Programming System
The Road Project Priority Programming System was developed in order to equitably balance the various
needs of the transportation system: general capital and operational needs; safety needs; nonmotorized
needs; transportation planning needs; and others. The model contains three main steps. The first, needs
identification and screening, identifies a list of potential improvements from a large number of sources.
Projects identified are then screened for 1) feasibility, 2) whether they are maintenance projects rather
than capital projects, or 3) inappropriateness because they conflict with existing County policy or they
are not the best solution to the problem. Remaining projects are grouped according to the category of
project (e.g., general transportation, nonmotorized needs, safety needs, planning project, or other). The
second step evaluates prospective projects using a technical evaluation and ranking. Eighteen criteria
have been developed (e.g., accident history, nonmotorized needs, public request or complaints, Average
Daily Traffic). A point system ranging from 1 to 10 has been developed to reflect the degree of need,
deficiency, or demand. The third step is to include the policy direction of the Board of County
--Commissioners who detennine the weight to~beappl.ied--tothe 18 criteria and--how the transportation
revenue is to be split between categories. The end result is a ranking of the roads within the
transportation system. This ranking provides direction for the allocation of funding available for
improvement projects. These projects are then listed on the County's annual Six-year Transportation
Improvement Program update, and are listed in the Capital Facilities Element of this Plan.
,While th~. planniqg_.a.n.alysisjs, more .~'ÞrQa.d"brushn...thisranking .system would be used in conjunction
with more detailed analysis of specific segments and/or intersections.
Intersection Rating Procedure
The procedure used by the County to identify and rank needed intersection improvements is similar to
the program used to identify and rank road improvements. The methodology for this process combines
factors such as the number of accidents at the site, annual accident rate, accident severity, sight distance,
VOL
24-' 'H-,
r F':
? "~2
1', txO
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-26
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
speed, and accident severity in order to develop a hazard ratio. Intersections are then ranked according
to their respective hazard ratios, and their improvements are funded accordingly.
State of Washington Inventory -orBridges-and Structures (SWmS)
The State of Washington Inventory of Bridges and Structures (SWIBS) utilized by the County enables all
bridges in the State to be inventoried and rated for structural and operational deficiencies. The bridges
can then be ranked much like roadway segments and intersections (as discussed in the preceding text).
SWIBS also meets the Federally mandated inventory of b~idges required by the Federal Aid Higþway
Act (now the Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act - ISTEA).
The methodology used to rate bridges by SWIBS consists of at least bi-annual inspections that includes a
rating of individual members of the bridge for conditions; a structural rating based on the bridge design;
and, for bridges over water, a scour evaluation. Functional operation is also considered in the evaluation.
Observed and Perceived Deficiencies
In addition, a list of observed and perceived transportation facility deficiencies has been developed
through a cooperative process with members of the. Transportation Planning Advisory Board (TP AB),
County staff, and attendees at a public workshop held in November 1992. Roadway deficiencies
identified through this process were categorized as roadway preservation issues (e.g., lane striping and
ditch cleaning), roadway structural issues (e.g., shoulder widening, intersection reconfiguration), and
safety issues (e.g., blind comers and signalization needs). Roadway capacity issues addressed at this
public workshop included the potential need for a bypass in the Tri-Area from Four Comers to
Chimacum. In addition, development of an additional park and ride facility on SR 20 at the Port
Townsend city limits was recommended. The transportation facility deficiency infonnation provided at
that meeting was used in the development of Technical Memorandum No.2, Transportation Data
Inventory, and is available, as updated, in that document. This list of projects continues to serve as a
reference and is considered in the ranking of roadway improvement projects.
Overall, roadway deficiencies and issues relating to capacity are addressed in the Traffic Forecasts
section of this Element.
CRITERIA USED IN TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS
The County evaluates several factors in deciding what transportation improvements should be
undertaken. Factors to consider include the level of service (LOS) standard for each roadway adopted by
the County in this plan, and the County's transportation goals and policies.
- - _LevelofSery.ce$Jaodards -. .
Level of service (LOS) is a multi-dimensional measurement of the quality of service provided by the
existing transportation system. The concept of LOS has traditionally been used in transportation
planning and engineering to describe an actual or expected operating condition for a road. A lower LOS
implies worsening conditions, either as perceived by the traveler, or as a measure of efficient movement.
LOS is the desired minimal operational condition for a facility, something against which actual
conditions can be assessed. By applying LOS standards and then monitoring the actual LOS, a
1,'01-
? A 'rc
....... ':ì r~u:
2 ~'Ô3
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-27
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
jurisdiction can implement a system for establishing traffic flow objectives, prioritizing transportation
projects and funding, and directing growth of the transportation network.
.
LOS can be described-by one or more factors, such as travel times, levels of congestion, volume of use
compared to system capacity, frequency of service, comfort and convenience, or safety. LOS
measurements can address other modes of transportation including transit or bicycles.
The Growth Management Act requires the establishment of a level of service standard as a gauge for
evaluating the performance of the existing transportation network, including roads and transit. LOS is
also used to determine whether transportation improvements or transportation services will be made
available to serve proposed development.
Vehicular Traffic - Level of Service
For roadways, LOS is typically described in terms of congestion, which may be measured by average
travel speed or vehicular density. Table 10-4 provides general definitions of LOS categories typically
used- bŸt~äffië engineërs for roadways. 'Six ïëvels of service are defined from A to F with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.
The Jefferson County Transportation Planning Advisory Board adopted level of service standards for
State and County roadways within Jefferson County; these level of service standards are recommended
for adoption by the County in this Plan. The recommended LOS standards are consistent with those set
by the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization and the Washington State Department
of Transportation. These standards are as follows:
Rural Roads (roads outside an urban boundary line) = LOS C
Urban Roads (roads within an urban boundary line) = LOS D
Urbanffourist Corridors (rural coITidors carrying an
urban level of traffic) = LOS D
.
The standards recommended in this plan are depicted in Table 10-6, which also presents the existing
Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) on each roadway segment and identifies the maximum AADT
allowable at the level of service standard established. Table 10-7 consolidates the information in Table
10-6 and identifies existing and forecast traffic volumes and levels of service for roadway segments.
CuITently, all roadways are operating at, or above, established LOS standards. Figure 10-5 depicts these
existing traffic volumes and LOS standards on map sheets showing the County road network.
Transit - Level of Service
F or transit level of service, Jefferson County worked with Jefferson Transit to establish a level of service
standard. This standard, detailed in Transportation Policy TRN 2.5, establishes a minimum level of
..,' service ., based--.on.-Annual Transit ,. Revenue199J-94 Service Hours (A TRSH) for fixed routes in
unincorporated Jefferson County. The actual standard as described in Transportation Policy TRN 2.5
calls for providing a minimum of 8,400 ATRSH.
A TRSH is defined as the total number of hours the transit service is used on fare-producing fixed routes
for one year. For example, a fixed fare route takes 3 hours per .round trip and makes the trip 3 times a
day for 5 days a week. The A TRSH for this route would be calculated as follows: 3 hours x 3 trips x 5
days x 52 weeks = 2,340 ATRSH. All routes added together provide the system total.
.
. VOL
2'4 r~r,~
2 L:: 6-4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-28
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
Table 10-4
Level of Service Definitions - Roadways
.
LevelofSernce Category-
- Jj~ìiliîtioïi"m - --
,..
,,--.
'"
u
.
Level of Service A
Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is
extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal.
Represents reasonablý unimpeded trafficflów operatións at average travel
speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly
restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally
subjected to appreciable tensions.
Level of Service B
Level of Service C
In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely
controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now significantly
- affected by -interactions - with' others' in the -traffic' stream,' 'and maneuvering'
within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user.
The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.
Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are
severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor
level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will
generally cause operational problems at this level.
..
Level of Service D
Level of Service E
Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level.
Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is. extremely difficult, and it is
generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to
accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely
poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this
level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor
disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns,
Level of Service F
Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above theoretical
capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a
point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind
such locations, and operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-
go waves which are extremely unstable, Vehicles may progress at reasonable
speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop in a cyclic
fashion. ' U
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual: Special Report 209, Washington, D.c. 1985.
Jefferson County has also estimated a conversion between A TRSH and population. This conversion is
provided only as a planning guideline and is not intended to be a fixed measurement of service. By
linking¡)opulátìon'to ATRSH, à "giiideiii:te' ûf'ATRSH per person can be determined. Using recent
population estimates, 0.472 ATRSH per capita (472 ATRSH per 1,000 population) can be applied as a
current service provision guide.
In contrast, the PRTPO transit level of service is based on the type and frequency of service between
activity centers. To coordinate the Jefferson Transit service transit standard with the regional service
standard, Policy TRN 2.5 also establishes a planning guideline for Jefferson Transit to seek to provide
service to meet the PR TPO origin-destination goals. '
"'-"
'11)1-
?-4 r'H~
--' o<u-
2~6S
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-29
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
The PRTPO origin-destination level of service distinguishes between Rural Routes, Commuter-Regional
Routes, and High Capacity Feeder Routes (to ferry tenninals). Table 10-5 depicts the adopted PRTPO
transit level of service. Because many of the routes are inter..,county, .the table includes Rural and
Commuter routes for all counties participating in the PRTPO. High Capacity Feeder routes are not
designated in Jefferson County because the Port Townsend felT)' route is predominately a tourist route.
.
Table 10-5
Peninsula Regional T~ansportation Plan~ing Organization LOS Summary An~ly.sis
=
Satisfies recommended LOS standard
Exceeds recommended LOS standard
Does not satisfy recommended LOS standard
iiJ
iiJ+
(-)
=
":""::','T~Ö~'if~~~~~~:Ê~,~~,'¡k,:,..t'
t.¡¡~~r~l'~~:!' ..
.':: I:: '~~ript~~ ,t~~~, I: ~r~~~'cj: ~L~S) ,.'t(','¡"
.t'¡,l:.Õ$¡~*,~~iti,:",:",,¡\:¡',
Port Townsend. Brinnon
¡:II":"
':::':<I),:t,~:,:Tti~ ~~~:,"D,$~:t¡"
i.Y+
""""
(-)
Brinnon - Port Townsend
Port Townsend - Port Ludlow
7
i.Y+
i.Y
Port Ludlow - Port Townsend
Port Townsend - Cape George
Cape George - Port Townsend
No Service
(-)
(-)
.
Port Townsend. Marrowstone Island
No Service
(-)
(-)
Marrowstone Island - Port Townsend
Amanda Park - Forks
N/A
i.Y+
(-)
Forks, Amanda Park
'n.~~t~~::~~~¡i~b~I;'Jt~ia' ..
, "':::I:::::;:1t:t,:~p~t~¡'~ðJ:,I¡::_'I::,,:
Sequim - Port Townsend 8
-¡::¡i.t~~~:'~,~t,:~~i:,'iI"I.:I::':
i.Y
i.Y+
Port Townsend - Sequim
Port Townsend - Poulsbo
7
(-)
i.Y+
Poulsbo - Port Townsend
, ChimacüInlPoi'fHidlóëk ~Pôrt townsend""
'9
i.Y+
i.Y+
Port Townsend - Chimacum/Port Hadlock
Port Townsend - Kingston
No direct service
(-)
(-)
Source: Berryman & Henigar, 1996.
As is evident in the following table, Jefferson Transit meets the PRTPO transit level of service for the
number oftrips per day where there is service, but not for the number of days a week. The PRTPO has
VClL 24 r~f.~ 2 ~66
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-30
August 28,1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
set a goal of seven days a week while Jefferson Transit primarily provides regular service five days a
week.
PROPOSED PLAN
Approach
The County considered several land use alternatives in developing the Comprehensive Plan. To meet the
requirements of the Growth Management Act and to allow the community the opportunity to analyze the
various land use alternatives, travel forecasts were developed for the alternatives and the baseline
condition. The analysis of these land use scenarios and their impacts on transportation in the County is
available in the environmental impact statement of the Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The alternative recommended in this Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that the
County will have one Urban Growth Area, Port Townsend. However, the plan does recommend studies
to analyze whether the Port HadlocklIrondale (Tri-Area) and Glen Cove should eventually become a:
future Urban Growth Area. The final Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to be adopted in early 1998; such
studies and analysis will be completed by the first annual revision to the Plan.
It also recommends that Port Ludlow be designated as a Mater Plan Resort and the three exjsting
communities of Port Hadlock, Quilcene, and Brinnon be designated as Rural Village Centers. These
established historic rural business centers will continue to serve as commercial and service centers
serving their respective surrounding communities and rural neighborhoods, and are not to be regarded as
future urban growth areas.
The type and intensity of future commercial growth within the business district zone boundaries of each
of the four rural centers will be regulated so as to allow for only "infill" development to address the
service needs of the immediate surrounding rural area including the expected needs of the projected
future residential population.
The Comprehensive Plan recommended land use alternative proposes that any future subdivision of rural
. residential land not exceed 1:5, 1:10, or 1:20 acre densities. -The-overall land use pattern intended for
unincorporated Jefferson County in the plan alternative is rural in nature, with rural commercial activities
focused in the three Rural Village Centers and within the Rural Village Center zone designation.
It is recognized that the County has an excess of buildable lots needed for the growth projected for the
County. A large number of these lots are located in the Tri-Area. Many of these lots are at densities
§maller thaQthe J:5,d_ensityrecQmmend~dinthe"Land Use Element. Since_these lots are "grandfathered-
in" and it is unlikely that restrictions beyond Health Department requirements will be placed on their
future development, it is possible that a more "dispersed suburban" development pattern than envisioned
by the Plan will occur in these areas if these lots are developed in the future.
VOL
i) .ð
r LJ. 'Jr.,
'-' ~ r...u-
2 L:67
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-31
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
Linking Land Use and Transportation
.
The link between the future land use alternatives and the transportation system is the traffic forecasting
process. The demandfor.transportation is considered to ~be a..derived demand. That is, people do not
travel specifically for the sake of traveling, but travel to perfonn other tasks that are in different
locations. Travel is secondary and derived from the need to perfonn other tasks.
Land use designations detennine the locations of these other activities. These variations in potential land
use influence the travel demand. The travel ,forecastsc()pducted for this transportation analy,.~is were
based on the varying land use alternatives. This forecasting procedure is described below.
Traffic Forecasts
To analyze the impacts of the growth pattern designated by the Jefferson County Land Use Element on
the roadway system, traffic forecasts were developed. Traffic forecasts, shown in Table 1()"6, were
developed for the horizon year 2016. The traffic forecasts did not, at this time, indicate that bypasses of
the Tri-Area or Paradise Bay were feasible.
The methodology established to estimate future traffic growth for the proposed land use plan links the
historic growth rate in housing units to traffic growth rates. A ratio of future countywide housing growth
to historic growth in housing units was detennined. This ratio was composed of both land use factors
characteristic of this plan and planning area factors. The historical housing growth rate, based on the
years 1986-1990, was detennined for each of the community planning areas. A ratio of future growth to
historical growth was then calculated for each planning area.
This housing growth ratio was then applied to the historic traffic growth rate to develop a future traffic
growth rate and served to link land use growth to traffic growth. The land use plan characteristics and
planning area variations in the ratio served to properly weight the future traffic growth rate.
.
Historic traffic growth rates were calculated by road segments within each planning area. For most of the
routes, base data was available for the years 1986 to 1990; thus, most of the roadway historical traffic
growth rates are based on that time period.
US 101 and SR 104. Traffic growth on US 101 and SR 104 is influenced primarily by regional or
through traffic and was not considered to be influenced as significantly by local development variable.
The forecast traffic growth rates for these roadways were based strictly on the historical traffic growth
rates calculated for the road segments within each ofthe planning areas. Since the greatest influence on
US 101 and SR 1 04 traffic is through traffic, the traffic growth rates for these routes are not weighted by
planning area.
SR 19 and~SR,20.,. The..forecast .traffic'"growth rates for these roadways were detennined from a
weighted historical growth calculation. The "weight" applied to the historical traffic growth figure was a
ratio of projected housing growth rate to historical housing unit growth rate for the combination of the
Port Townsend, Quimper Peninsula, Marrowstone Island, and Tri-Area Planning Areas. A "composite
growth ratio" was used because of the inter-relationship of traffic patterns in the SR 20/SR 19 area (i.e.,
the number and type of short trips between adjacent planning areas).
.
, '- VOL
24 r.~r~ - 2¡~68
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-32
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
County Roads. The forecast traffic growth rates for local (County) roads were calculated from
historical traffic growth on those roads and weighted by the housing growth "ratios" for each of the
planning areas and the land use plan. Roads that experienced unusually high or unexplained growth rates
which would skew .the-analysis were assigned a forecast traffic.growth rate-equivalent to that being used
for US 101 or SR 104 segments within the same planning area.
Precise modal shifts from the automobile to other modes were not calculated into the traffic forecasts.
Estimating modal shifts is difficult under the best of situations, and travel forecasters often rely on
national estimates applied to local data. Jefferson County travel behavior may' not complywith national
trends and applying a nationwide estimate in the calculations was not considered appropriate.
Transportation Element Recommendations
Based on this Transportation Element and the Capital Facilities Element, Jefferson County requires
concurrency for only County-owned facilities within the County transportation system. Analysis of other
transportation facilities is provided in this discussion and in the Capital Facilities Element background
data document, Capital Facilities Element Requirements; however, the County has not identified all of
these projects in the Capital Facilities Element itself
Based on the level of service standards set forth in this Element and the projected impact of the land use
plan on the transportation system, this Transportation Element provides the following findings and
recommendations:
Capacity Analysis
Motorized Transportation System - Vehicular
The capacity analysis and traffic forecasts indicate that at the planning horizon year of 2018, no County
facilities are expected to exceed the adopted level of service standard. However, if any proposed
development were to cause the level of service to fall below adopted levels, the proponents of the
development would be required to mitigate the deficiency prior to development approvaL A However, a
number of state route highway segments will exceed their estimated capacity based on the levels of
service standards established in this Element. All Jefferson County roads are expected to operate within
the LOS standards. Based on the methodology used for this plan (i.e., using ADT to identify if traffic
volume is projected to exceed capacity), state- roads which are forecast to exceed capacity within the
planning period for the LOS standards include:
.
US 101 (JeffersonlClallam County Line to SR 20)
SR 104 (US 101 to Center Road)
SR 104 (SR 19/Beaver Valley Road to JeffersonlKitsap County Line)
SR 19 (Oak Bay" Road to SR20) -
SR 20 (Four Corners Road to MilllDiscovery Road)
.
.
.
.
The analysis performed was a "broad-brush", general planning analysis which involved road segments.
Individual intersections were not analyzed in this study. Specific studies of intersections and congested
road segments should.be performed as necessary.
VOL
24 f~F
2.:~69
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-33
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization utilized a composite growth rate
developed from the individual growth rates established by the four counties (Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap,
and Mason) within the region. This regional growth rate factor identified the same State Route segments
as exceeding capacity within the planning. horizon. The Washington > State Highway System Plan
provides a statewide analysis. Under the "financially constrained" alternative, the state system plan also
identifies the same segments of US 101, SR 104, and SR 20 as exceeding capacity as identified in this
plan.
.
Motorized Transportation System - Transit, Airports, Ferry Service, and Freight Travel
The Capital Facilities Element Requirements presents proposed capacity-related improvements for
Capital Improvements for Jefferson Transit service. Capacity-related projects for airports and feny
service are also presented in the Capital Facilities Element Requirements. Freight service is partially
addressed by the County in its evaluation of roadway and airport facilities; rail service and other port-
related freight services are addressed by those entities.
Nonmotorized Transportation System
Capacity-related needs for nonmotorized modes of travel are presented in the Capital Facilities Element
of this Plan. More detailed information is available in the Trails subsection of the Parks portion of the
Capital Facilities Element Requirements.
Non-Capacity Analysis
Motorized Transportation System - Vehicular
.
While the primary focus of this plan's analysis was capacity, a number of non-capacity deficiencies were
noted by the Jefferson County Department of Public- Works staff and in community meetings. Non-
capacity projects include those related to the safety of the transportation facility, the need for
improvement maintenance of the facility, or the preservation of the facility. These non-capacity projects
were identified using the County priority rating systems for road segments and intersections.
Recommended improvement projects, along with funding sources for these projects, are listed in the Six-
year Transportation Improvement Program adopted by the County and appear in this Plan's Capital
Facilities Element.
Motorized Transportation System - Transit, Airports, Ferry Service, and Freight Travel
Noncapacity transit, airports, ferry service, and freight travel needs are not specifically identified in the
Capital Facilities Element of this plan. Additional detail on projects is available in the Element's
background data found in the Capital Facilities Element Requirements. Similarly, transit facility and
-'""- equipmentneeds.-.identified in Jefferson Transifs--Capital Improvement Program are also presented in that
document.
Nonmotorized Transportation System
Non-capacity-related needs for nonmotorized modes of travel are included in the figures found in the
Capital Facilities Element; more detail on specific projects is located in the Trails subsection ofthe Parks
portion ofthe Capital Facilities Elem~nt Requirements of this Plan.
"" -
.
, VOL
2 A '~r.::
~ r..,-
2 --¡-"10
LX'
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-34
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
GOALS AND POLICIES
The purpose of the Jefferson County Transportation Element is to establish goals and policies in support
of the desired and projected transportation system pursuant to the Washington State Growth
Management Act. Accordingly, the overall goal of the transportation element is to "encourage efficient
multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and
city comprehensive plans" (RCW 36.70AO20(3)).
The transportation goals and policies are an integral part of the adopted plan and set forth the adopted
Level of Service (LOS) standards and other policy commitments for Jefferson County. Individual goals
are established for specific targeted issues relating to transportation planning. The overall set of goals
relate to the following targeted issues:
Highways and Arterials
Public Transportation
Nonmotorized Transportation
Land Development Standards
Intergovernmental Coordination
Demand Management
Environment and Energy
Transportation Improvement Program
Goal I
Goal 2
Goal 3
Goal 4, Goal 5, and Goal 6
Goal 7 and Goal 8
Goal 9
Goal 10
Goal II
Each goal statement is followed by policies that provide direction and mechanisms for reaching the
stated Goals. Also, the Capital Facilities Element provides a list of specific transportation projects
determined to be necessary to address deficiencies identified in roadway sections and at intersections.
These projects are also listed in the County's Six-year Transportation Improvement Plan.
IDGHW A YS AND ARTERIALS
GOAL
TRG 1.0
-- . Provide a safe, convenient; -efficient and integrated highway -and -arterial system for
the movement of people and goods, one that is functionally well maintained) reflects
local environment, and meets the demands of the future.
POLICIES
TRP 1.1
- Provide, for ,aLeveLof Service C¡,orbetter, for rural road facilities based upon Average
Annual Daily Trips.
TRP1.2
Provide for a Level of Service Ð, or better, on all road facilities within Urban Growth
Area's (UGAs), and Designated Tourist Corridors as established by the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization, based - upon Average Annual Daily
Trips.
VûL
2 4 rAG~
2 -'41
iI"
,1-'
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-35
August 28, 1998
TRANSPORTATION
TRP 1.3
TRP 1.4
TRP 1.5
TRP 1.6
TRP 1.7
TRP 1.8
TRP 1.9
Preserve and maintain the existing highway and arterial system to avoid costly
reconstruction.
.
"Maintain .the efficiency of traffic flow by monitoring traffic, upgrading traffic control
devices, and developing traffic management techniques as appropriate.
Require that streets are designed and constructed to County standards to efficiently and
effectively meet the needs ofthe community and promote overall transportation safety.
Require use of access management techniques to regulate driveway access.
Through application of standards, reflect the rural aesthetic of the county, minimize
impervious surfaces, and minimize cost to taxpayers and developers.
. "Prevent glare and minimize pollution to the night sky through the use of appropriate
roadway lighting and fixtures without compromising public safety.
Encourage the retention or use of roadway features that enhance rural qualities by
applying appropriate rural standards.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
GOAL
TRG 2.0
POLICIES
TRP 2.1
.. TRP 2.2
TRP 2.3
TRP 2.4
TRP 2.5
.
Promote a coordinated and integrated public transportation system available to all
residents, guests, and those without personal transportation options in Jefferson
County.
Support existing public transportation programs and coordinate with the Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization to improve the system as needed.
-Encourage cooperation
transportation providers.
between' private
transportation
providers
and public
Provide for a minimum Level of Service of 8,400 Annual Transit Revenue Service Hours
(ATRSH) for fixed routes in unincorporated Jefferson County. Additionally, as planning
guidelines, seek to provide for the Level of Service for Transit Service Links adopted by
",;thePeninsulaRegional Transportation Planning Organization's Plan that have an origin
or destination in Jefferson County, and maintain a 472 ATRSH per 1,000 population for
fixed routes in unincorporated Jefferson County.
Provide convenient automObile and bicycle access to park and ride facilities on
arterial/collector routes where warranted and cost effective.
Require that retail shopping facilities, offices, industrial and residential developments
and similar uses be designed to accommodate public transit plans and goals.
'VOL 24 rM:~ 2 l-~72
.
10-36
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
TRP 2.6
TRP 2.7
Identify and invest in road and pedestrian improvements that support transit reliability
and safety, and encourage use of the public transportation system.
Promote and enhance passenger and freight travel opportunities, including development
of air and water transportation alternatives.
NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
GOAL
TRG 3.0
POLICIES
TRP 3.1
TRP 3.2
TRP 3.3
TRP 3.4
TRP 3.5
Provide safe, accessible and convenient routes, trails and parking facilities that
promote the use of non motorized travel in a manner that is integrated with other
forms of transportation.
Using established standards, upgrade existing roadways and, where appropriate,
construct new roadways to provide safe bicycle and pedestrian travel in roadway
improvements projects.
Encourage development of a non-motorized transportation network_between all major
activity centers in Jefferson County.
In coordination with the County Parks and Recreation Division, federal, state and
regional agencies, utilities and other agencies, and citizen groups, promote the
development of new trails and linkages between trails in accordance with the
Comprehensive Parks Plan.
Promote development of an integrated trail system in the County by seeking
opportunities to provide links between existing trails during planning for improvements
to the County transportation system and in review of land development proposals.
Promote coordinated bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian way improvements,
emphasizing access to schools, parks, employment and service centers, and mass transit
facilities (ferry, bus, etc.).
TRP 3.6 . Require that roadway improvements and new subdivisions within the defined school
. pedestrian walking zone meet established standards intended to ensure the safety of
., ,..."pedestrians.' ,.
TRP 3.7
TRP 3.8
Support educational opportunities for children and adults that will encourage safe use of
roadways, trails, and sidewalks for all transportation modes.
Promote safe, convenient, and protected bicycle parking at activity centers such as
schools, parks, commercial centers, employment and service centers, and mass transit
facilities (ferry, bus, etc.).
. VOi-
24 r~J~' 2~73
10-37
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
TRANSPORTATION
TRP 3.9
TRP 3.10
In coordination with the Comprehensive Parks Plan, provide signage for on-street
segments of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian routes in accordance with the Federal
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
.
Promote development of adequate pedestrian walkways and crossings, where
appropriate, including facilities separated from the roadway. Evaluate safety issues
associated with pedestrian and bicycle travel near school sites and identify potential
improvements.
LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
GOAL
TRG 4.0
POLICIES
TRP 4.1
TRP 4.2
TRP 4.3
TRP 4.4
TRP 4.5
TRP 4.6
Encourage land use types, mixes, and densities that promote efficient multimodal
transportation systems.
Reinforce the link between land use and public transportation by promoting urban
residential densities within urban growth areas.
Encourage land development proposals that are consistent with the County
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Rural Element and utilize the capacity of
the existing transportation system, including the capacity of transit and nonmotorized
modes, and avoid costly expansion of the system.
.
Consider the use of impact fees as a means to ensure that adequate facilities (including,
but not limited to transit, pedestrian facilities, bikeways or roadways) are available to
serve new growth and development, and to maintain adopted level of service standards
for those facilities.
Enhance transportation system safety by requiring appropriate facility design, including
providing landscaping and setbacks adjacent to transportation facilities.
Protect outstanding scenic vistas accessible from transportation facilities through site
design, and provide visual, and where possible and appropriate, physical, access to these
resources.
Require that subdivision and commercial project designs address the following issues:
a. Cost effective transit and delivery of emergency service;
b. Provisions for all transportation modes;
c. Dedication of rights of way for existing and future transportation needs;
d. Motorized and nonmotorized access;
e. Sidewalks and bicycle pathways;
f. Compatibility between motorized vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users;
.
, VOL
2 4 r~f,~
')-~,1
'oJ .~.t: ( ....
"
10-38
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
TRP 4.7
TRP 4.8
TRP 4.9
GOAL
TRG 5.0
POLICIES
TRP 5.1
TRP 5.2
TRP 5.3
GOAL
TRG 6.0
POLICIES
TRP 6.1
TRP 6.2
g. Inclusion oftransit friendly design elements; and
h. Adequate parking for non-peak periods.
.Provide ...adequate right.,of-way for future transportation .needs,through implementation
of a systematic right-of-way acquisition program, by limiting encroachment of structures
or ancillary uses into the right-of-way (e.g., setbacks), and through the use of other
methods of preserving existing rights-of-way.
Ensure that unacceptable safetyhazards willbe mitig~ted. The definition_of unacceptable
will be based on analysis of the existing facility(s) and the CUITent standards for that
facility(s) contained in commonly used and adopted transportation publications.
Ensure that the Level of Service for County roads are met for existing and proposed
development concurrent with proposed development prior to issuing development
approvals.
Provide additional roadway aesthetic features that are consistent with surrounding
land use.
Develop additional features that enhance accessibility to and visibility of commercial
establishments, and apply the features to the appropriate locations.
Protect arterials and highways from encroachment and congestion by access, utilizing
. appropriate traffic mitigation techniques for commercial development and other
impediments to flow.
Ensure that local access roads provide through passage at appropriate speeds that
minimize impacts to the surrounding area, and discharge to an appropriate facility.
Ensure that the transportation system in Jefferson County encourages the efficient
movement of goods, services and passengers and is integrated with the statewide
system.
Coordinate with the PRTPO and other jurisdictions to ehsure that adequate Washington
State Ferry System service is provided to the community.
Allow the use of public funds that ensure that appropriate transportation facilities are in place at
the time of development in designated commercial and industrial zones.
VOi-
24 fM)~
2 ~~/75
10-39
August 28,1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
TRANSPORTATION
TRP 6.3
TRP 6.4
Ensure that access to the major air and water transportation facilities via county arterials
and state highways is safe, efficient, and coordinated with other transportation modes.
.
Recognize the existence -and--current use of private..small airfields, landing strips, and
private helistops in land use decisions, and ensure proposed expansions of these private
facilities meet all required development criteria.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
GOAL
TRG 7.0
POLICIES
TRP 7.1
TRP 7.2
TRP 7.3
TRP 7.4
TRP 7.5
GOAL
TRG 8.0
POLICIES
TRP 8.1
TRP 8.2
Ensure that the Jefferson County Transportation Plan reflects public desire and is
. coordinated and consistent with the plans of state, regional, and local governments.
Ensure efficient management of all transportation resources through cooperation in
planning and project development with Federal, State, regional, and local jurisdictions.
Coordinate with relevant agencies in the development of federal, state, and county
regulations and guidelines for transportation of hazardous materials through the County.
Reduce duplication of services, program costs, and increase the quality of service.
Coordinate planning for transportation improvements and projects with the
facilities/utility planning activities of other agencies and utilities in order to ensure that
per-project costs are reduced, environmental impacts minimized, and community
inconvenience and disruption lessened.
.
Comply with the "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)" in all transportation
projects.
- Ensure that transportation planning --inc1udesextensive opportuuities for public
involvement.
Maintain a transportation advisory committee to assist the County with transportation
'- -. -planning-and-implementation-issues,--
Continue to work with the public to review and revise application of established criteria
and standards. Such criteria and standards may include, but are not limited to.. arterials,
collectors, local access.. commercial standards, maintenance standards and residential
standards.
.
-'
VOL
24 rAL:
2 i~76
10-40
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August28,1998
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
DEMAND MANAGEMENT
GOAL
TRG 9.0
POLICIES
TRP 9.1
TRP 9.2
TRP 9.3
TRP 9.4
Promote demand management programs as a means of redncing traffic, minimizing
environmental impacts, and optimizing existing transportation investments.
.' . ,. . ,
Encourage employers to offer flexible work schedules that reduce peak period travel and
lessen the need for roadway capacity,
Encourage employers to provide on-site facilities that encourage use of alternative
transportation modes, such as transit shelters and covered bike racks, lockers, and
" ~howers at work si~,es
Facilitate transportation demand management by coordinating and assisting in the
development of transit amenities in County road or highway improvements, including
bus pullouts, passenger shelters, bypass lanes, and park-and-ride facilities, where
. appropriate.
Participate with state government and transit agencies in developing, promoting, and
facilitating regional ridesharing through such programs as parking management, and ride
match services and preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
E~ONMENTANDENERGY
GOAL
TRG 10.0
. POLICIES
TRP 10.1
TRP 10.2
TRP 10.3
TRPI0.4
Provide transportation facilities and services which are energy efficient, protect and
enhance the environment, and preserve the existing residential quality of life.
Continue the County's twenty-year commitment to use only mechanical and manual
methods to control roadside vegetation.
Ensure that all transportation projects comply with the Jefferson County Critical Areas
,...Ordinance.in order'to'protect'critical areas; preserve opeD'space, 'and maintain wildlife
habitat in transportation projects and planning. Include the mitigation of adverse impacts
on water resources, drainage patterns, and soils in the design of transportation facilities.
Protect air quality by improving the operating efficiency of the overall transportation
system, through the effective use of different modes.
Promote the conservation of energy through transportation demand management policies
and techniques.
VOi- 24 fM;~ 2L~ 77
10-41 "
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
TRANSPORTATION
TRP 10.5
TRP 10.6
TRP 10.7
Address environmental retrofitting of transportation facilities, including the
implementation of stonn water facility best management practices and the replacement
-"of culverts that impede fish passage, as-opportunities and funding allows.
Transportation facilities and services shall be sited, designed, or buffered to fit in
hannoniously with their surroundings, as appropriate. When sited within or adjacent to
residential areas, special attention should be given to noise, light, and glare impacts.
Encourage buffering between motorized travel and nonmotorized transportation modes,
where appropriate and economically feasible.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GOAL
TRG 11.0
POLICIES
TRP 11.1
TRP 11.2
Develop a transportation improvement program that is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Roadway improvement projects included in the County's six-year transportation
improvement program shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Transportation Element and the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Projects included in the transportation improvement program shall be evaluated and
ranked using the County's adopted Road Project Priority Programming System and
Intersection Rating Procedure and the criteria included therein.
u" - "..".
'VOL
2 4: r~r,ç
2/~78
10-42
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
STRATEGIES
Action Items
1. Monitor traffic volumes on all arterial and major collector facilities. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 1)
2. Develop access management techniques to regulate driveway access, including use of shared
driveway access. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 1)
3. Discourage direct access from individual lots to present and planned future arterials wherever
possible; access from these sites should be provided though local or .collector roadways that connect
to arterials. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 1)
4. Develop' a method to assess the need for rural area parking facilities on County routes using
appropriate service standards. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 2)
5. Develop site design standards for public transit facilities to be incorporated into County land use
codes and regulations. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 2)
6. As appropriate, require new roadways to address the safety needs of bicyclists and pedestrians.
(Corresponding Goal: TRG 3)
7. Address the needs of nonmotorized users of the transportation network by developing a non-
motorized comprehensive plan. The plan will include strategies that; develops a Non-mötorized
Project Priority Programming System that identifies and ranks projects necessary to provide safe
bicycle and pedestrian travel; develops operation standards and a maintenance program that
addresses the safety needs of non-motorized travelers, and; develops a proposal to the Board of County
Commissioners for inclusion in the six year transportation improvement plan a strategy potentially allocating a
percentage of transportation funds to be used to support non-motorized projects. (Corresponding Goal: TRG
3)
8. Encourage opportunities to develop abandoned railroad rights-of-way or utility corridors as future
. transportation corridors such as bikeways, pedestr-ian/equestrian trails,. and roadways.
(Corresponding Goal: TRG 3)
9. Develop incentives for developers to dedicate land for expansion of the County's trail network and
adopt into land development regulations. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 3)
-10, -Develop..and..adppt .bicy:cle/pedestrian..facilities-standards .compatible with County road standards and
those applicable standards of adjacent jurisdictions and require compliance with these standards in
the permitting and review process. (Corresponding Goals: TRG 3 and TRG 4)
11. In cooperation with school districts, identify the boundaries of school pedestrian walking zones,
develop standards and criteria for roadways within these areas, and define the types of improvement
projects that would need to comply with these standards. Adopt the standards into the county
subdivision code. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 3)
VOi-
')4
.L - rA('~
2 L~ 79
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-43
August 28,1998
TRANSPORT AnON
12. Encourage area school districts to discourage unsafe pedestrian and bicycle activities by students.
(Corresponding Goal: TRG 3)
13. Identify existing deficiencies related to pedestrian walkways and crossings, and incorporate
improvements into the six-year Transportation Improvement Program. (Corresponding Goal: TRG
3)
14. Consider acquisition of out-of-use railroad rights-of-way to preserve these resources as future
transportation corridors such as bikeways, pedestrian or equestrian trails, and roadways.
(Corresponding Goal: TRG 3)
15. Develop criteria to be met to justify expansion of transportation system, and a list of alternatives to
be considered before system expansion will be pennitted. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4)
16. Develop and adopt standards that enhance safety for inclusion into implementing ordinances.
(Corre~p()I?-4ing 99al: TRG 4) -
17. Consider use of street design and traffic management alternatives to discourage unsafe travel speeds
and inappropriate through traffic in neighborhoods, such as traffic calming devices, intersection
configuration, or the use of curvilinear streets. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4)
18. Develop and adopt site design standards and guidelines that encourage the preservation of
outstanding vistas. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 5)
19. Design residential transportation facilities to discourage high speed through traffic, by utilizing
appropriate design criteria, such as traffic calming facilities when supported by the surrounding area.
(Corresponding Goal: TRG 5)
20. Develop a plan and criteria for the use and financial support for traffic calming facilities.
(Corresponding Goal: TRG 5)
21. Review and revise, as necessary, perfonnance standards for the review of proposed developments
that ensure the proper functioning of transportation facilities. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4 and
TRG 5)
-22. As necessary,~reviewand revise minimum requirements for setbacks and rights-of-way (including
pedestrian and nonmotorized facilities) for new and existing roadways, based on the roadway
functional classification. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4 and TRG 5)
23. Develop and adopt criteria for the establishment of public roadways based on function, capacity,
health and safety, access, public need, adopted County Road Standards, and the financial capability
formaintenance-'and",preservation~--{Corresponding-Goal: TRG 4 and TRG 5) .
24. As needed, develop and adopt standards that require and promote efficient access, mobility and
compatibility for motorized vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. (Corresponding Goal:
TRG 4, TRG 5, and TRG 6)
25. As necessary, develop and adopt land development standards that provide guidance in how to include
transit-friendly design elements in developments, and require all developments to adhere to these
standards. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4 and TRG 5)
- VOL
2 4: r~r,'
2~30
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-44
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
26. Develop and adopt parking standards and provide a range of alternatives for meeting the need for
parking while not generating an oversupply of parking. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4 and TRG 5)
27, Explore opportunities for development of private or public passenger-only ferry service to Jefferson
County. (corresponding Goal: TRG 6)
28. Continue participation in intergovernmental planning efforts, and develop additional mechanisms to
achieve this cooperation and coordination as ne.eded. (Correspçmding Goal: TRG 6, TRG 7, and
TRG 8)
29. During the annual review of capital projects, identify services that may be duplicated, opportunities
to reduce program costs, and ways to increase the quality of service. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 7
and TRG 8)
30. Develop coordinated planning and construction of capital and transportation projects with relevant
parties (County, City, and State department and agencies, utility companies, etc.) through periodic
communications regarding future projects. Use the Regional Transportation Improvement Program
and local Transportation Improvement Programs to identify these potentially collaborative projects.
(Corresponding Goal: TRG 7 and TRG 8)
31 ~ Develop a mechanism in the project review process that requires interjurisdictional coordination,
where projects involve various jurisdictions, to enable shared compliance with current ADA
requirements. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 7)
32~ Develop, as needed, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that provides a range of
IDM techniques appropriate to Jefferson County. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 9)
33. Require the use of storm water best management practices (BMPs) as found in the Storm water
Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, or equivalent, in the development of transportation
projects. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 10)
34. As needed, review and revise maintenance standards and requirements that include the maintenance
of storm water management facilities. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 10)
35. Identify culverts that impede fish passage and develop a schedule for replacement of these
passageways as funding permits. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 10)
36. As needed, review the County's adopted Road Project Priority Programming System and Intersection
Rating Procedure and use the established project criteria in the updating of the County's
. .transportation improvement' program. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 10) .
37. Include in ordinances a transportation concurrency management system that requires development
proponents to mitigate the LOS deficiencies for Category A Public Facilities: Rural Road and
Designated Tourist Road Facilities. (Corresponding Goal: TRG 4.0).
Vûl-
?4 - 2 -
'-' rAG~ 'xS1
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-45
August 28, 1998
~
~
i:iI
0
::I
0
0
¡::
::I
-<
0
0
3
"0
...
,tII
::r
B
::I
U>
<'
B
"0
§"
-
0
I
.þ..
0\
>
¡::
OQ
C
U>
-
N
!1"
-
\0
\0
00
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Trame Votu.... Forecuta, 2018
TABLE 10-6
~
:z:
en
"0
0
~
>
:j
0
Z
<"-
=
I
. H/st. Ho...log His1oJicTraIfic HsI T,aIiI:
LOS Hsg. Førecasl Growth FOfecasl F<><ecast
I'\aIIrq LOS ClI Iatlly Count FOffICBSI Exkslßg Goi>wtn Growth Rates RaIio GrowIh 2018
Afu \..W¡ Rcadww From To 5TO ACT Ve.. V... 0111. ACT 88-00 Rate Local State !Hsa.! RaIe ACT
A 8 C 0 E F G H , J ( L N Q R T X AS
Diiawery 214.68 H_.vIOI JeIIeIsonIClallam CI D1dG.._Rd 0 16,100 1994 2018 2~ 8.!IOO '~55% 1.$5% NlA 2.66% 1.00 2.68% u¡~
Bov 282.25 -ovlOI Old Garõ... Rd SIOfe Rd 0 16.100 1994 2018 24 9600 (55% 1.$5% NlA 2.86% 1.00 2.66% U¡~ø
Gafdinef 282 64 tmlrwavlOI SlDfeRd SR20 0 14.300 1994 2018 24 9.600 1:55% 1.55% NlA 2.86% 1.00 266% ':¡;~-
2114.13 HinhwavlOI SR20 SR 104 0 16,100 1994 2018 24 6.500 1.55% 1.55% foliA 2.811% 1.00 286% 12.205
~.J8 SR 104 IHwv101 c..ief Rd 0 16.100 1994 2018 24 8,000 1.55% 1.55% foliA 4.61% 1.00 4.61% <'t'i:¡i¡i'
502009 G..õner BeacII Rd CIaIlam CfJü1IIf Uno Old GanII... C 1400 1995 2018 23 m 1.55% 1.53% 2.66% foliA 0.99 2.63% 405
502009 Ganinef Beadl Rd Old GanII... SR 101 C 1400 1991 2018 21 144 1:55% 1.53% 2.68% foliA 0.99 263% 24.11
500209 W. UncBSRd IHwv101 IHwv101 C 1.400 1991 2018 21 2J9 1:55% 1.53% 2.88% foliA 0.99 2.63% 412
LeIanG' 281.83 IHighwav101 5RI04 teland Valle. Rd E. 0 16,100 1994 2018 24 1.600 1.81% 1.111% foliA 5.08% 1.00 5.08% 5.255
0uiIcefIe 292.72 IHiohwav101 Leland Valley Rd E. I.Ofds Lake Looø Rd 0 16.100 1994 2018 24 1600 (81% t87% foliA 5.08% 1.00 5.08% 5.255
29UI IiiolrwavlOI tmds Lake Looo Rd OIilcene Cliv LImn 0 18100 1994 2018 24 2800 U7% 1.87% foliA 5.08 ' 1:00 5.08'110 9191
29462 f-liohwav1O1 Ouitcene CJ y UIriI Coole< Rd 0 14300 1994 2018 24 2500 U7'11o \.87% foliA 5.D8 , 1.00 5.08% 8.211
294.9 Iiiohwav 101 CenIef Rd 51 0 14.JOO 1994 2018 24 ~.500 1.87% 1.87% foliA 5.DB , 1.00 5.08% :Ü:.jjîf¡
2911.1 Hiohwav 101 WasIIInaIoo 51 PI!IIß\I Cleek Rd D 16.100 1994 2Ot8 24 2.800 1.87% 1:87% foliA 5.08% 1.00 5.08% 8.5010
300.67 Hiohwav101 pemy Cleek Rd Bud<.hom Rd D 18100 1994 2018 24 2.600 U7% 1.81% foliA 5.011% 1.00 5.08'lIo 8,s40
931501 Cenl.. Rd IHwYIOI ~Rd5.End C 8100 1991 20111 21 2484 1.87% 1:50 , 2.22% iliA 0.86 1.!10'llo J.8IIII
931501 Cenle< Rd DobabRd S. End SRI04 C 8100 1991 2018 21 2.550 1.87% 1:60% U3% iliA 0.88 3.19% 5.570
348BO11 DaiIobRd DabobP.D. Rd Cen1ef Rd C 8 IIXI 1- 20111 22 2111 1.87% 1.60% 6.119% foliA 0.88 5.- -
324209 E. CoIunöa 51 Coole< Rd IHwv101 C 1400 ,- 20111 22 551 1.87% 1.60% 6.119% iliA 0.86 5.9O'Y. U143
327508 E. 0uiItene Rd CenIef ReI UndoIN Hi. Rd C 7.400 1- 20111 22 Ø9J 1.81% 1.60% 6.119% iliA 0.86 5.9O'Y. 2443
321508 E. aunt..... Rd Undsev Hill Rd MtOonatd Rd C 7.400 1- 2018 22 194 1,87% 1.60% 6.89% iliA 0.88 5.9O'Y. l1li4
3431011 Leland Valle. ReI IHwY101 Leland CuHI~ C 7400 1998 2018 22 178 1.81% 1,60% 8.89% iliA 0.86 5.- 621
343109 LoIand Valle. ReI Leland Cul-øll 1"""'01 rlOUlllI C 7400 1998 2018 22 150 01% 1.80% 8.811% iliA 0.88 ~.90'110 5211
JJOI09 LJndse. Hill Rd E. 0Wcene ReI U.- Beach C 7400 1996 2018 22 278 Ul% 1,80% 8.811% iliA 0.88 5.90% IØJ
JOIJ09 Rd IHwY101 End C 7400 1998 2018 22 8114 1.111% 1.111I'l1o 8.89% iliA 0.88 5.9O'Y. 3111
342309 LOfds Lake too. Rd IHwY 101 Lon!s toke C 1400 199fi 2018 22 111 1.87% 1.60% 8.89% foliA 0.86 5.9O'Y. 275
342J09 I..Ofds Lake too. Rd Lon!s Lake Snow Cree\!. Rd C 1400 1998 2018 22 23 U7% 1,60% 8.89% HiA 0,88 5.9O'Y. 81
JOJ9OB PemyClee\l. Rd Ittwv 101 National FDfeSIIIotrodanr C 1400 199fi 2018 22 141 1.87% 1.60'11 II.B9'It iliA 0.86 5.9O'Y. 497
J529O9 Snow Creek ReI Ittwv 101 NaliDoai f"'SIBDundarv C 1400 1998 2018 22 135 1.87% 1.60% 8.119% NIA 0.88 5.90% 476
321J09 Washiraton 51 IHwv101 IHwo101 C 1.~00 1998 20111 22 291 1.87% 1.60% 8.811% III 0.88 5.9O'iI. 1,047
11......... JOJ.09 'HiClhwav 101 BuckIøn Rd Bee Mill Rd 0 16.100 1994 2018 24 2.61X1 1.99% 1.B1I% iliA 2.41% 1.00 2.41% 4,1105
. JO8.07 IHiohwalr 101 BeeM;i Rd Dosewaill.. Rd 0 14300 1994 2018 24 2.61X1 1.99% 1.119% iliA 2.41% tOO 2.41% 4,1105
JO948 IHighway 101 DosewaiUPI ReI MlJunllefRd 0 14.300 1994 2018 24 2,600 1.99% 1.119% iliA 2.41% 1.00 2.41'" 4805
JO9.99 'Hiohwav 101 IotlJuoIIefRel Ouc:kobusb Rd 0 14.JOO 1994 2018 24 3.100 1.119% 1.119% iliA 2.41% 1.00 2.41,. 5.490
313,27 'Ita........ 101 Dud<abush ReI Se8munlDr 0 14.JOO 1994 2018 24 :1.100 1.11&% 1.99% IlIA 2.41'110 1.00 2,4\" 5490
314,03 'ttahwa~ 101 SeamomI Dr lot 8IOIII.IeI!eI&on C. L D 14.300 1994 2018 24 1600 1.811% 1.89% NIA 2.41'110 1.00 "' 2.4'" 2.IIJ4
27- &oe 1.111 ReI IHwvIOI PoInt WIll""" ReI C 7.4ÐO 1998 2018 22 219 1.- 2,0:1'11. 1.114% iliA UI2 1.51' -
~ - PoInt Rd IHwv101 FUton Lake C Uoo 1898 2018 22 &CO 1.89% 203% UW% NlA 1.02 1.51% -
N
r.þIa
...,
'V'
c;-.
"
r"
i
.
~.
.
¡¡o
~
...
'"
0
:J
n
0
c
:J
-<
n
0
3.
"t:I
.~
;:r
n
:J
'"
:;¡-
n
"tI
~
:J
.....
0
I
~
-..I
>
C
0<1
C
~
N
~oo
-
\0
\0
00
.
.
.
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Traffic Vo1uIIIII Fontc:IIlts, 2016
TABLE 10-6
<
=
i
Hisl -. Hì¡þjc Tra/llo His! 'ra/IC
LOS Hsg. For8Ca$1 Gr-. Forecasl F-
PIamIrQ LOS (dpac¡~ Cou1I Forecast Existing Growth Growl/> Rate' RaliD Growll1 2016
....."' tirlll Roado¥a< From To S'O ACT Yea' Ye.. Dill. ACT 116-90 Rale toea! Slate IHYlI Rate ACT
A ø C o E F G H I J K t N Q R T X All
2$OOOØ Oo$ewalU~ Ad Oiwu 101 Nalianal Foresl Baundarv C 7400 1996 2018 22 703 1.99'11. 2.03'11. I,M'll. NlA 1,02 Ul'11o 991
IIIinnøn 2274OB Du<kabush Rd H~101 NaIiona! Forest BalrdaN C 7400 1996 2ð18 22 496 1.- 2.03% U4'11o NlA 1.02 Ul% -
2043011 Foreol IN IHw.l101 End C 7400 1996 2018 22 110 1.- 2,03% U4'11o NlA 1.02 1,57% 2411
24200II Idt,J""lerAd Hw.I101 National Forest Batlllda/v C 7400 1996 2018 22 98 1.99% 2,GJ'II. 1.54% NlA 1.02 1,51% 138
2159011 PainI Whilrle Rd Bee idOl Rd End C 7400 1996 2018 22 180 j,99% 2,00'11. 1.54% NlA 1.02 1,57% 254
20890II SeamaLillt Or """'101 Fores1 Servlco Rd C 7.400 1996 2016 22 243 1,99'11. 2,03'110 1.54'11 NlA 1.02 1.51'11 :u2
rli-- 633009 SR 1161N..., Comer Ad RbDdu Ad IrOJlClaloRd C 7400 1994 2018 24 5900 4,98'11. 1.20% 3,11'11. NlA 0.24 0.91'110 7330
940401 SR l1e1O8."""Rd lrondalo ReI Flagler ReI C 7400 1994 2018 24 4600 4.96'11. 1.20% 3,11'11. NlA 0.24 0.111% 5 1163
952101 SR 118/FIaaIorRd Qal:.ø~ReI RobbIns Rd C 7400 1994 2018 24 2100 4.88'110 1.20% 3,17'110 NlA 0,24 0.91% 3354
523408 AoiIorsoo LaI<e Ad SR20 A-Or/SR 19 C 8100 1997 2018 21 1303 4.88'110 1,20% 3.11'110 NlA 0,24 0.91'110 1S16
831109 CedarA.. SR 1181Neu Corner ReI IrondaIe Ad C 1400. 1996 2018 22 I""" 4.96% 1,20% 3.17'110 NlA 0,24 0,91% 2055
932501 CtOmaa.mRel ØoaverVoIlouRdlSR 19 EIWIo Rood C 8100 1991 2018 21 4 1.L~ 4.96% 1,20% 3.17'110 NlA 0,24 6.8i", 5'"'"
932501 CI»mao.nIReI EIIûni Road QaI:. 8av Road C 8.100 1981 2018 21 8164 4,96% 1,20'11. 3.17'110 HlA 0.24 0,81'" 7453
8689011 . Idaude St 511> Ave 111> Ave C 7400 1994 2016 24 254 4,- 1.20'110 3.11% HI' 0.24 0,81~ 316
801208 Four ComerI SR20 1 AIrmrI CuI-<lfllSR 19 C 8.100 1985 2016 23 2139 4,98'10 1.20% 3.11'110 HI 024 0,9j~ un
933501 I_ReI Rhndw - 19 Pallsoo Slreel C 7400 1991 2016 21 3984 4,98'11. 1.20'lIo 3,11% Nt: 0.24 0,91% 47i3
933501 Ir...-Rd Palilanot. SR I '&Wal Corner Rd C 7400 1997 2018 21 3529 4,98'11. 1.20% 3,11'11. Nt: 0.24 O,ln'llo 4267
6791011 Kola PaIn! Rd PrOl....-tRd Kala Pajnl Davalo""""" C 1400 1995 2018 23 1"5 4.96'110 1.20% 3,17'11. NlA 6.24 0.91'110 11102
652SO9 lower Ha<IDck Rd QaI:.""'RdlSRI18 Water 51 C 1400 1995 2018 23 - 4.96% 1.20% 3.17'110 NlA 0,24 0.91'110 118
1131lIOII t.Iason 51 Cedar A.. Thomas IN C 7400 1994 2016 24 176 4.96% 1.20% 3.17'110 NlA 0,24 0.81'" 984
56900II QaI:."'" Rd SanlNl Firs ReI FlaŒer RdlSR 118 C 7400 1987 2018 21 3678 4,98'11. 1.20'lIo 3,7~ WA 0.24 6.91'110 4441
835600 !PaIiIorISI S. 111> 51 IrondaIa Ad C 7400 1996 2018 22 116 4.98'11. 1.20'lIo 3.71'11. HI'" 6.24 0,91'110 814
860lIOII Pros""" Ave AI""'" Cu1-<I/tISR 19 Kala Pajnl Dr C 1400 1994 2018 24 1 ~12 4.98'11. 1.2Ð'11o 3,11'11. WA 0.24 6.9j'llo I-~
~ 6358011 S. 7th Ave Thomas Dr PaIi&On St C 1400 1994 2018 24 420 4.96'11. 1.20% 3,11'110 HlA 0.24 0,91' , 522
'" 8359011 n..m.. IN MBSOO 51 S. 111> Ave C 7400 1994 2018 24 656 4.96'110 1.20% 3,17'11. NlA 0.24 0,91'110 811
¡:¡, 8691011 5th Ave _BAd E, Mauda 51 C 1400 1995 2016 23 IMO 4.98% 1,20% 3.17'110 NlA 0.24 0,91'110 1-
1Ið51O8 7th Ave IJOIIdáa Rd W. Swønev 51 C 7400 1985 2018 23 711 4.96% 1,20% 3,71'110 NlA 0.24 0,91'110 883
8388011 JrllSt CødarAve kundala Ad C 1400 1994 2018 24 6511 4.96% 1,20% 3.11'110 NlA 0.24 0,91% 811
fcer,rrall 8,81 SR 104 C8fllerRII 8eavarValiouRdiSR 19 o 18.100 1994 2016 24 1.200 2.16% 2,16% 2.98'110 NlA 1.00 288% 14 ""7
'Inland 931501 c.ntar Ad R 104 EaatermnlRd C "100 1981 2018 21 2m3 2.16% 1.33'110 2.98'110 NlA 0.62 1.17'110 2941
JVaIIay 931501 "-Rd E"'lo"",nt Rd Eoo ønd 1 Rd C &100 1991 2018 21 27&1 2.18'11 1.3]% 2.88'110 NlA 0.62 1.17'110 3-
931501 Cerller Rd Enn and I Rd Baa_Valo..RdlSR 19 C 8.100 1991 2016 21 2RU 2.16% 1.33'110 2,88'110 NIA 0,62 I.T1'IIo 4015
, 510508 E~Iornc>u'IIRd SR20 CenIar ReI C 1400 1981 2018 21 446 2,16% 1.33'110 2.86% NIA 0.62 1,7~ 1145
J 518009 EM &1 Rd W. VaI/- Rd Canllol ReI C 7400 1991 2016 21 229 2.16% 1,33'110 2,88% NlA 062 1,11'11. 331
) 518009 EnnURd Cenlar Rd llaav8fVaUavRd'SR 18 C 1400 1991 2018 21 443 2.16% 1.33'110 2,86% NlA 6.62 1,17' 1141
5O3OD8 lMian laka Rd Cantor Rd Beaver VaIIeII RcfSR 19 C RIOO 1997 2016 21 298 2.1611 1.33'110 2,86% NlA 0,62 U1'11o 4211
......... SlKJra ReI '
50290II SR104 Lanan Uka Rd C 1400 1991 2018 21 10 2.16% 1.33% 2,88" WA 0,82 1.11% 101
514109 W.V-Rd E..lamanI Rd 1- OrlSR 11 C l.oM 1981 2018 21 647 i16'11o 1.33% 2.88'110 101' 0..82 1.11'110 -
10.- 822808 Rd 0"""""" ReI - PoInI Rd C lMID 1- 2018 23 1138 5,45'110 1.&7% 6.11'110 101' 0.31 2.11n1 2lIIB
-I
!:
z
{I
"tI
0
~
~
~
Paga2.r5
~
31
¡;¡
0
::I
n
0
c
::I
~
n
0
.ä
..,
A
:r
A
::I
II>
<'
A
"'1:1
¡;-
::I
-
0
.þ.
00
I
<-
=
,
N
~.
-"
þ.
cc-,
-,
r-v
{,
00
> ."'"
C
~
~
N
wOO
-
\0
\0
00
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Traffic VoIulnI For_.", 2011
TABLE 10-8
~
Z
00
"'1:1
0
::0
-i
>
-i
Õ
Z
,
Hill Housing HlsIDJic Tra/IIc Its!. Tra/Poc
LOS ~ ForecasL Growth ForecasL Forecas\
I'IanrWV LOS Capaclly Counl forecaoL Exlsling GrowIh Growth Rates RaIio GrowIh 2018
...... lJnI¡ Roadwav From To STD ADT Vear Vear om. ADT 811-00 RaLe LoaiI ~ (Hog) Rale ADT
A B C 0 E F G H I J K l N 0 R T )( AB
622808 .Rd lled<ett Poinl Rd Has'i..... A... W C 1400 1995 2018 23 709 5,45'110 1.61'110 8.71% NlA 0.3\ 2.61'110 1,299
622608 Cane Gøorn. Rd Haslinas Ave W Disco"'" Rd C 1400 1995 2018 23 2339 5.45% 1.ð1% 8.71% NlA 0.3\ 2.81% 4.281
~ 629311 Cook Ave E.densioll Hasünas Ave W CiLY UmIt D 12400 1995 211.18 23 6Ð2 5:45% 1.ð1'11o 8.71% NlA 0.J1 2.61'110 \.250
601508 DilawON Rd S SR20 C- GMm.o Rd IsouI/tl C 1400 1995 2{)18 23 2430 5.45'110 1.ðl'11o 8.11% NlA 11.31 2.81% 4ß1
601508 Dilawerv Rd 5 Caoo Georoe Rd ¡southl Caoe Geome Rd ¡northl C 1400 1995 2018 23 1.258 5.<$5'110 1.ðl'11o 8.11% NlA 11.31 261'110 23116
601508 OIKo¥elY Rd S Rd northl SR20 C 1400 1995 2018 23 3851 5.<$5'110 1.ðl'11o 8.11% NlA 11.31 2.61'110 1058
691008 HaslilÐs Ave W Caoo George Rd N Jacob MÐI... Rd C 8100 1995 2018 23 1213 5.<$5'110 1.61'110 811'110 NlA 11.31 2.61'110 2.223
6911111 Haslìnas Ave W S. Jacob M 1er Rd C'" Lmls C 8100 1995 2018 23 1661 5.<$5'110 1.61% 81\% NlA 11.31 2.61'110 J()f.
69\211 Haslinol A... W CiLY Limili FSI 0 12900 1992 2018 26 1834 5.<$5'110 1.61% 8.11% NlA 11.31 2.61'110 38J8
625318 5 Jacob Miler Rd HasU,.,. Rd SR20 C 1,400 1004 2018 24 1.596 5.<$5% 1.61% 8.11'110 NlA 11..31 2.61'110 3003
SI1ineI IU8 SRII14 8eaver Valley RdlSR 19 Tea Lake Rd 0 18.100 1994 2018 24 1.200 4'.29'110 4.29'110 NlA 109'lIo 1.00 1D!n(, ::::ä;i'St
P...- 13.88 SRII14 Teal Lake Rd ParadiH Bav Rd 0 18,100 1994 2018 24 11,000 4.211% 4.29'110 NlA 8.09'lIo 1.00 109'lIo :;::Ìltw
Bay 13.93 SRII14 Paradise Bay Rd Kllsao/Jelleraotl C.L D 14.300 11K14 2018 24 14,000 (.211% 4.29'110 NIA 109'lIo 1.00 109'lIo :~;ÉQ-
505509 Rd Teal lakeR<! P.._BavRd C 1400 1ØBl 2018 2\ .0 ..29'110 2.~ 14.62'110 NlA 0.58 8.52'110 223
5O36IJ8 Par8<isellall RèI 5R1114 Rd C 8100 1991 2018 21 2ð93 4.29'110 2.5li'iio 9.03% NlA 11..58 5.26'110 1612
5O36IJ8 -.. Ball R<! IAndII Coooer Rd WIIsooRd C 1"'00 1991 2018 2\ 2~ 4.29'110 2.50'lIo 9.03% NlA 11.511 5.26'110 1228
5115409 SIûIe Rd SR 104 Tea Lake Rd C 1400 1991 2018 21 298 4.26% 2.50'lIo 4.18% NlA 11.511 2.55% 5OJ
.41- SouIh PoInt Rd SRII14 ThvNMA Rd C 1400 11198 211.18 22 1018 4.29'110 2.511% 4.38'110 NlA 11.58 2.55% 1m
SO53OII Teal Lake Rd 5R1114 Rd C 1400 1991 211.18 21 214 4.2li'iio 2.50'110 4.38'110 NlA 0.58 2.55% 383
.18708 ThornII\ot<eRd Mileclost 2 South Point Rd C 1400 1998 2018 22 1114 ..26% 2.50'110 4.38'110 NI/I. 0.58 2.55'11 \.226
MIIIItJW- 952101 SR 118/F1aa\er iw Robbins Rd MeadeRd C 1400 1994 2018 24 1..100 3.24'110 0.- 2.5D'IIo NlA 11.311 0.74'14 1.552
- 1152101 SR 116/f1ao1er Rd MeadeRd Stlrwartz Rd C 1400 1994 2018 24 I.JOD 3.2.'110 0.98% 2.5li'iio HI 0.311 0.1.% \.552
1152101 SR 1161flaoler Rd Stlrwarlz Rd fort Gale Rd C 1400 1994 2018 24 4JO 3.2.% 0.96% 2.5li'iio HI 0.311 0.74'110 513
593809 E. IIeath Rd SR 116/FlalllerRd E. UlIIIOW6lone RII C 7400 1991 2018 21 148 3.24% 0.98% 2.5li'iio N/ß 0.311 0.14% 113
5939D11 E. Mart0W5lone Rd Robbins Rd E. Beath Palk 01 C 1400 1991 2018 21 269 3.24% 0.98% 2.50'110 NlA 0.311 0.1.'110 331
5114209 _Rd flaaler RIi'SR 118 E. MIIIIOW6Ione Rd C 1400 1991 21118 21 524 3.24% 0.98% 2.5D'IIo NlA 0.30 0.14% 812
Coyle .03908 ICo-.fe Rd OabobP.O. Rd c...... OJsmw!nI Rd C 8100 11198 2018 22 412 1.83% 1.88'110 5.13% NI/I. 1.03 5.89'11 1'-
403908 ColileRd leawo DilcovolY Rd ThorncMe Rd C 8,100 1996 2018 22 313 1.83% 1.88'110 5.13'110 Nlß \.03 5.- 1,313
4l139li8 CoYle Rd IThornItIke Rd C Rd C R100 11198 2018 22 411 1.83% 1.88'110 5.13'110 N/ß 1.03 5.- 1.858
<4O3Ø116 IcoYieRd Camo Harmony Rd Hazel Point Rd C 11.100 11198 2018 22 J(I2 1.83'110 1.88'110 5.13'110 NlA 1.03 5.- 1011J
34118D8 IoabOO RII CenIe< Rd OIdT-Rd C 8.100 11198 2018 22 442 f83% 1.88% 5.13'110 NlA 1.03 5.- 1.5511
J4118D8 ~Rd Old TIIIbo Rd Ðabob P.O. Rd C 8.100 11198 2018 22 410 1.83% 1.88'110 5.]3% NlA 1.03 5.8n, 1M3
425308 lDaboIip.o. Rd Dabob Rd CavIa C 1100 1996 2018 22 540 J:83% 1.88'110 5.13% NI/I. 1.03 5.89% 11101
4D8008 Hazel PoinI Rd Co"eRd llao C 1400 11198 2018 22 131 1.83% 1.88'110 5.13% NIl. 1.03 5.89% ~
418108 trhornlMeRd CoYle Rd M""""'112 C 1400 11198 2018 22 414 1.83% 1.88'110 5.13'110 N/A 1.03 5.88'110 1451
40IlOOII - PoInI Rd Co\lloRd End C 1..400 11198 2018 22 In 1.83'110 1.88% 5.13'110 NlA 1.03 UII'IIo 500
5D18111i -Dr 'lOIII lake Rd C 1.400 NlA ' 1.8~
Port End IØB1 2018 21 8411 14.11'110 5.81'110 8.98'110 11.38 :!A1%
LadM/ s-. oa-Rd _VallavR<IISR 19 Par8IIoe ... Rood C 8.100 1ØB1 2018 21 1.1181 14.17.. 5.111'110 11.88"10 NIl. 0.38 :!AI" 2.1.
~. PorI s-. 0III1Irt RII P8I8IIH IIrt Rd I 0Iwn008 IIMI C 1.400 1ØB1 2018 21 1S5II 1.,"" 5.61'110 8.88"10 N/A CI.38 3.41" 1180
.
p~.
.
~
~
¡;
0
::I
n
0
t:
::I
-<
n
0
-ä
....
..
~
::I
II>
<'
..
"C'
~
-
0
I
~
\0
>-
t:
OQ
¡::
II>
...
N
~OO
-
\0
\0
011
.
.
.
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Traffic VoIumII Fo_ls, 2011
TABLE 10-6
<::
=
;
HI,st Hc"JliIng Hisloric TlaMe HisI. Tfal!ic
LOS Hsg. FOfecasl Growth FOfecasl FOfeC&SI
Planning LOS C~ Co",,1 FOfeCast EKIsIIn¡ GfqwIh Grow'" Rale. Ralio Growth 2018
Area Unk Roadwav From To STD ADT V... Vear 01". ADT 116-00 Rat. Local Slate (Hso.l Rate ADT
A 8 C D E F G H I J IC L N Q R T X AS
Port 5699OB Oak Bav Rd Olvrnous Blvd 0IeI. PI Rd C 7400 1991 2018 21 3.028 101% 1.115% 8.911% NlA 0.13 1.I;r¡¡. ~830
LLdowI 5699OB Oá<B...Rd 0loI. PI Rd SenInoI Frs Rd C 1~00 1991 2018 21 3028 1~.11% 1.115% 8.911% NlA 0.13 1.12% 3830
N. Pørt 510109 Rd W......Wav Oak Bav Rd C lAOO 1991 2018 21 105 101% 5.81% 8.911% NJA 0.38 3.0% H2fi
L.- 50380II 'pand.. B"" Rd Walsoo Ra Oak Bav Rd C 7 ~OO 1997 2018 21 3 Ii26 107% 5.81% 8.911% NlA 0.38 341% 1.334
5.40009 Pioneef Dr SwiW1SOlMle Ra Sw.......,.,...IoRd C 7400 1991 2018 21 58\ 101% 5.8\% 8.911% NlA 0.38 3.41% 1115
51~009 Swan5OlW~1e Ra Beaver V.....¡SR 111 OakBavRd C 7400 1997 2018 21 988 101% 1.115% 8.911% NJA 0.13 1.12'110 1.250
_309 TealL.a;.eRd Ra Paracl.. 80\1 Rd C 1 ~oo 1991 2018 21 1256 10A3% 5.81% 8.91\% NlA 0.5.4 ~.83% 3.382
51 000II lwalk...Wav Oak~vRd Os"'~RIdo.Rd C 1 ~oo 1991 2018 21 800 101% 5.81% 8.91\% NIA 0.38 3.41'110 1,;113
Weot 148.11 H-av101 J.ffllfSOlllG""" Harbor C.L Clearwalel Rd 0 18.100 1994 2018 2~ 1050 0,23% 0.23% 1M 3.11% 1.00 3.11% 2517
148.03 Hiohwav101 Claarwataf Rd J.IlafSOlÝGf'" Hifbor C.L. 0 18.100 1994 2018 24 1400 0.23% 0.23% 1M 3.11% 1.00 3.1"1. :1356
181.511 HioIJo¡av 101 J.ffaraonlGr..., Harbor C.L Lower Hoh Rd 0 18.100 1994 2018 24 1150 023% 0.23% N\A 3.11!b 1.00 3.11'110 1.5511
111.33 Hillhwav 101 low« Hall Rd Oil C" Rd 0 18.100 1994 2018 24 160 023% 023% N\A 3.11% 1.00 3.11'110 1.822
I1U9 HioIrwav 101 Oi CUv Rd UOD8f Hall Rd 0 18.100 1994 2018 24 1900 0:23% 023% NIA 3.11% 1.00 3.11% ~.555
184.82 Hlllhwav 101 ~HohRd JefIersolŸClallam C.L. 0 18.100 1994 2018 2~ 1800 0.23% 0.23% N\A 3.11% 1.00 3.11% (.315
101509 lealwa\ar Rd IHwv101 EntI 01 anaIlIr _n C 8.100 19911 2018 22 200 0:23% 0.22% 3.11% NlA 0.911 3.55% 431
EntI oI_1XI!!nIY ¡action .
101509 lealwalelRd ()w Creek Rd C 9100 1996 2018 22 10 0,23% 0.22% 3.11% NlA 0.911 3.55% 151
101509 CiearWalel R<I Owl Creak Rd IHlw101 C 9100 1993 2018 25 321 0:23% 0.22% 3.71% NlA 0.911 U5% 168
1- Lower Hoh Rd IHwv101 Hoh Vii"". C 7400 19911 2018 22 1611 0:23% 0.22% 3.11% NlA 0.911 3.505% 382
135109 Made Creek R<I Owl Creak Ra End C 7400 19911 2018 22 20 0:23% 0.22% 3.11% NlA 0.911 3.55% 43
134309 DilCiIIIRd IHwv101 Goodman 1.1- C 7AOO 19911 2018 22 101 0:23% 0.22% 3.71% NlA 0.911 3.55% 230
134309 Qj CiIIr Rd Goodman Mainina NaIionaIPark C 70400 19911 2018 22 59 0:23% 0.22% 3.11% NlA 0.911 3.SS% 121
137Ø09 OwICreakRa Clearwater Rd MODI. C,eak Rd C 1400 19911 2018 22 21 0.23% 6.22% 3.11% N/A 6.98 3.55% 45
1Ø1Ø09 QueeI5 RIver Rd IHwv101 Sahnon Rillar Rd C 1400' 1988 2018 JO 32 023'110 0.22'110 3.11% NlA 0.911 3.55% III
161009 0..- River Rd Sahnon RJvar Rd End C 1~00 1988 2{)\ 8 JO 32 0.23% 0.22% U1'11o N/ 0.911 3.M% 91
1111601 Quinaull.S. SIIor. Ra Gr....._Rd NaliDnal Park C 1~00 1993 2018 25 300 0.23% 0.22% 3.11% Nl 0.911 3.55% 711
91420' Ußoer Hob Rd I~IOI Oo£ar p-.oo Rd C 8.100 1996 2018 22 191 0.23% 0.22% 3.11'110 NlA 096 355% 1116
91~201 Uooer Hoh Rd 05<:... PalelSOfI Rd Madec.eakRa C 8.100 19911 2018 22 142 0.23% 0.22'110 3.11% NlA 0911 3.SS'- 1.598
91~201 IUooar Hob Rd Ma... Creek Rd NaliDnal Park C 8100 1996 2018 22 142 0.23% 0.22% 3.11% NlA 0.911 3.55% 1.598
Trl-Area 11&1101 SR 19/AUporICuI-oK SR20 Four Comers C 10,000 191M 2018 2~ 11,900 3.114% 2.00'lIo NlA 11.38% 0.51 3.23'110 ';:~Îi;m
952001 lsR 1 9/R1'Io<h Of FOIl" Coman SR 1181N...ComerRd C 11.000 1994 2018 2~ 9,900 3.94'110 2.00'lIo NlA 11.311% 0.51 3.23'110 nni1~
952001 (sR 19/R1'Io<h Of SR 1 ISIN... Corner Rd CaIII8f Rd C l,~OO 191M 20\8 24 1.000 3.94~ 2.00'lIo NlA 6.36% 0.51 3.23% 'Ht.ø1=.
C""'aII 941501 SR 1918aa... Valley Rd CenIeI Rd SwillSOlNllle Rd C 8.100 191M 20\8 24 5.500 3.114% 2.00'lIo N/A 5,21% 0.51 2.68% :"'iô;M4:
Inland 941501 SR 19/8...... VaIIe'f Rd 5wWlSOlMlIe Rd lar$On Laka Rd C 8.100 191M 2018 2~ 5.500 3.114'11 2.00% NlA 5.21% 6.51 2.68'110 H~i~'
Valle~ 941501 SR 'IWaa...VailelrRa UtiOfl Laka Ra Oak Bav Rd C 8.100 1994 2018 2~ 5.300 3.114%. 2.00% NlA 5.21% 0.51 2.e8% ~(:.j¡'¡j-:
941501 SR 191BeavafVallelrRd Oak lIay Rd SR 104 C 8.100 1994 20111 2~ ~.200 3.94% 2.00% NlA ':;.21% 0.51 2.68% 1914
awn"." 8.28 SR20 fOIl" Comers ReI Old Fori TOWII8fIIId Rd 0 18,100 1994 20111 24 1.,000 3.94% 2.00% NlA 2.10% 0.51 1.37'11 ~:~:.-
18.100 " ~:~:~
Glaneo.e UI :sR20 Old fOIl T 0IIffIS8IId Rd MIM!Iaœ..... Rd 0 191M 2018 24 14.000 3.114% 2.00'lIo NJA 2.10% D.51 1.31%
l1li3119 CanoIAve Glen Cove Ra 111.811151 C lADO 1- 2018 2J 238 194'110 2.00'lIo NIA 2.1m!. 0.51 1.3", 325
811:\.119 fradefld<a 51 SR20 OlIo 51 C lADO 11195 2018 23 l.au 194'11 2.00'II. NlA 2,10% 0.51 U11Ii 1.G8
-I
~
Z
(J
"C'
0
~
>
::!
~
f'v
~
J.~
C-'
"1
l'\J
~,
00
CJ1
POQe' of5
~
~
...
'"
0
::I
0
0
C
::I
-<
0
0
-ä
....
n
::r
n
::I
'"
::;:-
n
"C
§
-
0
I
V.
0
>
~
~
N
.00
-
\0
\0
00
Jefferson County Transportatton Element
Traffic: Volume FOflC8118. 2018
TABLE 10-6
H¥ Housing Hsblic T<aII\c Hisl T-
LOS ~. FOlecasl Growth FO<eCaSI FOltIC8SI
I'IarIrW"o LOS CII lacUy Count FÐlecøsl &JsIIng Growth Growth Ra/as Ratio GrowIh 2618
IAœ. link RaadNav From To S1O ACT Yea< Year Oill. ACT ea;90 Rate local 51ate IHso.1 RaIo ACT
" B C 0 E F G H J I( , N Q R T X AS
~ IlllJII19 Glen Ccwa Rd North OlIo St COIro! Ava C Hoo 1995 2018 23 202 3B4'11. 2.1)(1'11. NIA 2.10% 0.51 1.31'11. 218
:õlenCove 698819 \IliAd SR20 -Mill 0 12400 1995 2018 23 \.51\ 3:04'11. 2.00'II. NlA 2.10% 0.51 1.37'110 2149
6893'9 -OlIo SI F-icb51 Glen Cove Rd C 1AOO 1995 2618 23 304 3.114'110 2.00'11. NtA 2.70% 0.51 1.37'11. ~18
1i8831' :JIIo51 FJedeòcb St SablRd C 1400 1995 2618 ¡ 1.37%
23 539 3.114'11. 2.00'11. NtA 2.70% 0.51 731
68601' Solon Rd. SR20 OlIo SI C HOO 1995 2018 23 1139 ÜM% 2.00'II. NtA 2.10% 0.51 1.37'110 1.558
8895'9 Thomas 51 SR26 P_Mil 0 12400 1995 2618 23 5B5 3.1M'II. 2.00'II. NlA 2.10% 0.51 1.37'110 IlOO
1ili5791 S. 8Ih 51 Carrol Ave MíiRd C 1400 1995 2618 23 347 3.'94% 2.00'11. NlA 2.10% 0.51 1.37'110 415
- 10.18 SR20 M;I/Discøverv Rd She<man St 0 2UOO 1994 2618 24 14.aoo 3.114'110 2.00'II. NtA 2.10% 0.51 1.31'110 1!1.4O11
r............ 11.19 SR20 She"nan SI _1St 0 21900 1994 2018 24 11.aoo 3.9C'II. 2.00'II. NtA 2.70% 0.51 1.37'110 15.2511
KeamIJII 51 11.000 ' 15.2511
12.19 SR20 llenecicl S\ 0 21 900 '994 2018 24 3.:94'110 2.00'II. NtA 2.7li'iio 0.51 1.37'110
12.56 SR20 K9<- 51 PI TOWlISe<Id Ferrv 0 21900 1994 2018 24 7700 3:114'110 2.00'II. NtA 2.1li'iio 0.5\ 1.31'110 10.815
=: i.N SR20 !HINv 1°' EæIømnnI Rd 0 12900 1994 2018 24 4100 3..'110 2.00'lIo NtA IUB'IIo 6.51 321* &"5
3.68 SR20 AlIcIerson ........ Rd 0 12.1I!IO 1984 2018 24 4100 :le4'11o 2.00'lIo NtA un. 0.51 3.2K 1.8\5
8.25 SR20 Mdnon Lake Rd Føu- Comn Rd 0 12.900 1984 2018 24 4.200 3."'110 2.00'lIo NtA 11.- 0.51 12IWo IltSZ
.>
¡"'v
j ¡:;.
'p
~
f"
00
a-J
.
page.
.
~
Z
tn
"C
0
~
>
-,
Õ
z
:;-
äI
¡;
0
::I
Q
c
::I
-<
()
0
.g,
,..
n
if
::I
II>
:;:'
n
"tI
[
-
0
I
V.
-
r
-<
=
I
f'\)
H.:ã
~~
c,-'
'q
N
¡{',
CJJ
-J
I
>
C
I/Q
C
~
N
!""
-
\0
\0
00
.
Planning
Area
A
-
DIscovery
Bay
Ganllner
Leland!
Quilcene
Brinnon
LInk
8
-
274.66
282,25
282.64
284.63
4.38
Roadway
C
Highway 101
Highway 101
Highway 101
Hlgliwav 101
SR 104
502009 Gardiner Beach Rd
502009 Gardiner Beacll Rd
500209 W, Uncas Ad
287.83
292.72
294.21
294.82
294.9
298.1
300.67
931507
931507
Highway 101
Highway 101
Highway 101
HIgIiway 101
Higllway 101
Highway 101
Highway 101
-
CeI1ter Ad
-
CeI1ter Ad
348808 Dabob Ad
324209 E. CoItJmbia St
3275Oð E, Quilcellll Rd
3275Oð E. Quilcellll Rd
343709
343709
330109
301309
342309
342309
303908
352909
321309
-
303.09
Leland Valley Ad
Leland Valley Ad
Lindsey Hill Rd
linger Looger Rd
Lords lake Loop Ad
Lords Lake loop Rd
'Penny Creek Ad
Snow Creek Ad
Welhlngton St
HIghway 1Ø1
.
Jefferson County TransportatIon Element
Existing and Forecast ADT LOS
TABLE 10-7
From
0
JefferaonfCla1lam CL
Old Gardlllllr Ad
Store Rd
SR2O
Hwy 101
Clallam County Line
Old Gardiner
Hwy 101
-
SR 104
LelandValrey Ad E.
Lords lake loop Rd
Quilcene Cìly Limit
Center,Rd
Wasliington St
Penny Creek Rd
Hwy 101
Dabob Ad S. End
Dabob P.O. Rd
Cenlef Ad
CenlerRd
Lindsey HiN Ad
Hwy 101
Leland ,Cut~olf
E. Qulk:ene Rd
Hwy 101
Hwy 101
Lords Lake
Hwy 101
Hwy 101
~
Buckhorn Ad
To
E
Old GardlnerRd
Store Rd
SR2O
SR 104
Center Rd
Old Gardiner
SR 101
Hwy 101
-
Leland Valley Ad E.
Lords lake Loop Ad
Qullcøne CIty limit
CeI1ter Rd
Washington St
Penny Creek Ad
Buckhorn Ad
Dabob Ad S. End
SR 104
Center Rd
Hwy 101
LIndsey Hili Ad
McDonald Ad
Leland Cut-olf
Hwy 101 (south)
LIndsey 8each
End
Lords Lake
Snow Creak Ad
Natiof\lll F0f8St 8otIf1dary
National Forest Boundary
Hwy 101
Bee Mill Ad
Page 1 ot6
LOS
sm
F
-
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
C
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOS
Capacity
ADT
G
-
16,100
16,100
14,300
16,100
16,100
7,400
7,400
7,400
-
16,100
16,100
16,100
14,300
14,300
16,100
16,100
6,100
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
8,100
8,100
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7.400
7,400
C
C
C
C
C
-
0
16,100
I',
I
Count; Forecast Existing
Year,; Year ADT
H! K
1994: 2018 9,900
1994 2018 9,600
1994 2018 9,600
1994 2018 6,500
1994' 2018 6,000
1995 2018 223
,
1991:
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
19~
1996
1996
1994
1994
~
~
1994
1994;
1994
1994'
1994-
1994;
2018
2018
2018
2018
2016
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
r 2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018"
2018
2018
2018
2018
-
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
1,600
1,600
2,800
2,500
4,500
2,600
2,600
2,484
2,550
279
551
693
194
176
150
2,800
144
239
278
884
78
23
!1!
135
297
.
Exisüng
LOS
~
C
C
2018
2018
ADT LOS
AC þJ'
H:~~;~~: i;:H~HH
:H~~~~~: mH~HH
H:~~~~: Hr~Hn:
r 12,205 0
F:~~¡~i nH:~mm:
405 B
248 8
412 B
5,255 B
5,255 B
9,197 C
8,211 C
n:::~!#~~f UH~mU:
8,540 C
7,360 C
3,688 C
5,781 C
984 B
1,943 B
2,443 B
664 B
621 B
529 B
980 B
3,117 C
275 B
81 B
497 8
476 B
1.174 B
4,605 B
~
Z
(J
."
0
~
>
:j
~
D
C
B
B
8
B
-
A
A
A
B
C
A
A
B
8
B
B
8
8
B
8
8
B
8
B
B
B
8
-
A
~
B
51
¡;
0
::I
n
0
¡::
::I
-<
n
0
3,
"t:I
, ..
n
:r
n
::I
'"
<'
B
'Ø
!
......
0
,
VI
N
)-
¡::
OQ
¡::
'"
-
IV
!'O
-
\0
\0
00
Jefferson County Transportation Element
existing and Forecast ADT LOS
TABLE 10-7
~
Z
en
..,
0
~
»
-I
Õ
Z
<
=
,--
LOS
Planning LOS Capacity Count: Forecast EKisIing Existing 2018 2018
Area link Roadwav From To STO ACT Year'i Year ACT LOS ACT LOS
A B C 0 E F G H ; I K AS AC AF
Blinnon 306.07 Highway 101 Bee Mill Rd OosewalUps Rd 0 14,300 1994 2018 2,600 B 4,605 C
309.46 Highway 101 Oosewallips Rd MI. Jupiter Rd 0 14,300 1994 2018 2,600 8 4,605 C
309.99 Highway 101 MI. Jupiter Rd Ouckabush Rd 0 14,300 1994 2018 3,100 8 5,490 C
313,21 Highway 101 Ouckabush Rd Seamount Dr 0 14,300 1996 2018 3,100 8 5,235 C
314,63 Highway 101 Seamount Dr MasonfJafferson C.L. D 14,300 1996 2018 1,600 B 2,702 B
273409 Bee Mill Rd Hwy 101 Point Whitney Rd C 7,400 1998 2018 219 B 393 B
242609 Black Point Rd Hwy 101 Fulton Lake C 7,400 1996 2018 640 B 902 B
250008 Dosewallips Rd Hwy 101 Nationat Forest Boundary C 7,400 1996 2018 103 B 991 B
221408 Duckabush Rd Hwy 101 National Forest Boundary C 1.400 1996 2018 496 8 699 B
204309 Forest Dr Hwy 101 End C 1,400 1996 2018 170 8 240 B
242009 Mt. Jupiter Rd Hwy 101 National Forest Boundary C 1,400 1996 2018 98 B 138 B
215909 Point Whitney Rd 8ee Milt Rd End C 1,400 1994 2018 180 B 262 B
206909 Seamount Dr Hwy 101 Forest Service Rd C 7,400 1994 2018 243 B 353 B
Tri-Area 633009 SR 116JNess Corner Rd Rhody Rd lrondale Rd C 7,400 1991 2018 5,900 C 1,134 C
940407 SR 1161Oak Bay Rd lrondale Rd FlaglerRd C 7,400 1996 2018 4,800 C 5,857 C
952107 SR 116JFlagier Rd Oak Bay Rd Robbins Rd C 1,400 1991 2018 2,100 C 3,265 C
523408 Anderson lake Rd SR2O Rhody DrisR 19 C 8,100 1997 2018 1,303 B 1,516 B
637109 CedarAve SR 116JNess Comer Rd lrondale Rd C 7,400 1994 2018 1,684 8 2,092 B
932507 Chlmacum Rd Beaver Valley RdlSR 19 ElkIns Road C 8,100 1995 2018 4,345 C 5,350 C
932501 Chlmacum Rd ElkIns Road Oak Bay Road C 8,100 1991 2018 6164 C 1,453 C
668909 E. Maude St 5th Ave 1th Ave C 1,400 1991 2018 254 8 301 B
60 1 208 Four Corners SR2O AIrport CUt-olflSR 19 C 8,100 1995 2018 2,139 B 3,312 B
933507 lrondale Rd Rhody RdlSR 19 Pallson Street C 7,400 1995 2018 3,964 C 4,881 C
933501 lrondale Rd Palison SI. SR 116JNess Comer Rd C 7,400 1994 2018 3529 C 4,384 C
679109 Kala PoInt Rd Prospect Rd Kala Point Development C 7,400 1991 2018 1,545 B 1,866 8
652509 Lower Hadlock Rd Oak Bay RdISR 116 WaterS! C 1,400 1996 2018 584 ; B 713 B
631809 Mason SI Cedar Ave Thomøs Dr C 1,400 1994 2018 716 B 964 B
569908 Oak Bay Rd Sentlnal FIrs Rd Flagler RdlSR 116 C 1,400 1994 2018 3618 C 4,510 C
635609 PaUson St S. 7th St lrondale Rd C 7,400 1994 2018 116 B 890 B
88O6OØ Prospect Ave AIrpor1 Cut-offlSR 19 Kala PoInt Dr C 7,400 1995 2018 1.572 B 1,935 B
635809 S. 1th Ave Thomas Dr PaIIson 81 C 7,400 1995 2016 420 B 517 B
N
~.
l~
C'
.,
N
r,
00
00
.
Page.
.
~
~
iiI
0
::s
n
0
c
::s
~
n
.0
~
.'"
B
:r
B
;>
'"
<'
B
"tI
§"
......
O'
,
VI
VJ
I
<
=
,-
N
~
~-
:t.-
c->
."
N
r!"",
OJ
> I ~
æ
c
~
N
!'"
-
\D
\D
00
.
.
.
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Existing and Forecast ADT LOS
TABLE 10-7
.
LOS i
!
Planning LOS Capacity Count Forecast Existing Existing 2018 2018
1
Area LInk Roadwav From To STD ADT Year.' Year ADT LOS ADT LOS
A B C 0 E F G H ¡ I K AS AC AF
Tn-Area 635909 Thomas Dr Mason SI S. 7th Ave C 1,400 1994 2018 658 B 811 B
669109 5Ui Ave lrondale Rd E. Maude St C 1,400 1994 2018 1,030 B 1,280 B
665709 lUi Ave Irondale Rd W. Swaney SI. C 1,400 1991, 2018 711 B 861 B
639809 3rd 51 Cedar Ave . lrondale Rd C 7,400 199"; 2018 658 B 196 B
Centrall 8.81 SR 104 Center Rd Beaver Valley RdlSR 19 0 16,100 1991 2018 1,200 C 13,010 D
Inland 931501 Center Rd SR 104 EagtemontRd C 8,100 1991 2018 2,033 B 2,941 B
Valley 931501 Center Rd Eaglemont Rd Egg and Rd C 8,100 1991. 2018 2,281 B 3,299 B
931501 Center Rd Egg and I Rd Beaver Valley RdlSR 19 C 8,100 1991 2018 2,811 B 4,015 C
510508 Eaglemount Rd SR2O Center Rd C 1,400 1991 2018 446 B 645 B
516009 Egg & I Rd W, Valley Rd CenterRd C 1,400 1991. 2018 229 B 331 B
516009 Egg& I Rd CenterRd Beaver Valley RdlSR 19 C 1,400 1995' 2018 443 B 664 B
503008 larson Lake Rd Center Rd Beaver Valley RdlSR 19 C ' B
8,100 199~ 2018 296 B 443
502909 Sandy Shore Rd SR 104 larson Lake Rd C 1,400 1995 2018 10 B 105 B
514109 W. Valley Rd Eaglemont Rd Rhody DrlSR 19 C 1,400 ; 2018 B 969 B
1995 647
Qulmper 822808 Cape George Rd Discovery Rd Beckett Point Rd C 1,400 1995 2018 1.138 B 2,086 B
622808 Cape George Rd Beckett Point Rd Hastings Ava W C 1,400 1995 2018 109 B 1,299 B
622808 Cape George Rd Hasdngs Ave W Discovery Rd C 1.400 1995 2018 2.339 B 4,287 C
629311 Cook Ave Extension Hasllngs Ave W City Urnlt D 12,400 1995 2018 682 B 1,250 B
601508 Discovery Rd S SR20 Cape George Rd (south) C 1,400 1992 2018 2,430 B 4,820 C
60 1508 Discovery Rd S Cape George Rd (soulh) Cepe George Rd (north) C 7,400 1994 2018 1,258 B 2,361 B
60 1508 Discovery Rd S Cape George Rd (north) SR20 C 7,400 r 2018 C 1,246 C
1994 3,851
691008 Hastings Ave W Cape George Rd N Jacob MillerRd C 8,100 1994 2018 1,213 B 2,282 B
691011 Hastings Ave W S. Jacob Miller Rd City LImits C 8,100 1994 2018 1,661 B 3,125 B
691211 Hastings Ave W City LImits FSt D 12,900 1991 2018 1,834 B 3,189 C
Hastings Rd SR2O C 1,400 ' 2018 B 2,115 C
625319 5 Jacob MlllerRd 1991 1,596
Shine.' 11.46 SR 104 Beaver Valley RdiSR 19 Teal lake Rd D 16,100 1991 2018 1,200 C HA~!~t ::H!~JH
Paradise 13.88 SR 104 Teal lake Rd Parad.1se Bay Rd D 18,100 1996 2018 11,000 D !H#.1#i.~! ::H!~}H
Bay 13.93 SR 104 Paradise Bay Rd KllsaplJefferson C.l. D 14,300 1994 2018 14,000 D H:#'¡~ij: ::U~,)H
505509 Andy Cooper Rd Teal lake Rd Paradise Bay Rd C 1.400 1994 2018 40 B 285 B
503608 Pøradlse Bay Rd SR 104 Andy Cooper Rd C 8,100 1994 2018 2603 B 8,913 C
503608 Paradise Bay Rd Andy Cooper Rd Watson Rd C 1,400 1991 2018 2462 B 1,228 C
-I
~
Z
u:I
"tI
0
~
~
~
Page 3 of 8
....
n
~
üI
0
::I
(")
0
¡::
::I
~
(")
0
3-
"t7
,~
:r
fII
::I
II>
::'
fII
"'D
§"
.....
0
.
lit
.þ.
>
¡::
( Q
¡::
II>
..
N
$JO
-
\CI
\CI
00
Planning
'Area
~
Shine!
Paradise
Bay
Marrow-
stone
Coyle
----
=
I
N
,.p.. Port
~ Ludlow!
('" N. Port
Ludlow
N
¡.t,
c.o
0
.
Unk
B
-
505409
4476Ol1
505309
418708
-
952707
952707
952707
593809
Roadway
C
Stline Rd
South Point Rd
Teat Lake Rd
Thorndyke Rd
SR , 16/Flagler Rd
SR 116/Flagler Rd
SR 116JFlagler Rd
E. Beach Rd
593909 E. Marrowstone Rd
594209 Robbins Rd
403908 Coyle Rd
403908 Coyle Rd
403908 Coyle Rd
403908 Coyle Rd
348808 Dabob Rd
348808 Dabob Rd
425308 Dabob P.O. Rd
408008 Hazel PoInt Rd
418708 Thorndyke Rd
409009 Zelatched Point Rd
507809 Highland Dr
569908 Oak Bay Rd
569908 Oak Bay Rd
569908 Oak Bay Rd
569908 Oak Bay Rd
510109 Osprey Ridge Rd
503609 Paradise Bay Rd
540009 Pioneer Dr
514009 Swansonvll/e ReI
505309 Teal Lake ReI
510009 WalkerWay
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Existing and Forecast ADT LOS
TABLE 10-7
From
D
SR 104
SR 104
SR 104
Mllepost2 .
Robbins Rd
Meade Rd
Schwanz Rd
SR 116JFlagler Rd
RobbinsRd
Flagler RdlSR 116
Dabob P.O. Rd
Camp Discovery ReI
Thorndyke Rd
Camp Harmony Rd
Center ReI
Old Tarbo ReI
Dabob Rd
Coyle Rd
Coyte ReI
Coyle ReI
Teal lake Rd
Beaver Valley RdlSR 19
Paradise Bay Rd
Olympus Blvd
Olala PI Rd
Walker Way
Watson Rd
SwansoswIIIe Rd
Beaver ValteylSR 19
Andy Cooper Rd
Oak Bay Rd
To
E
Teal lake Rd
Thorndyke Rd
Andy Cooper Ad
Souttl PoInt Ad
Meade Rd
Schwartz Rd
Fort Gate Rd
E. MarrowstoRB ReI
E. Beach Park Dr
E. Marrowstone Ad
Camp DIscovery Ad
Thorndyke ReI
Camp Harmony Ad
Hazel Point ReI
Old Tarbo Rd
Dabob P.O. Rd
Coyle
Bay
Mitepost 2
End
-
End
Paradise 8ay Road
Olympus 81vd
Olela PI Ad
SenUnal Firs ReI
Oak Bay Rd
Oak Bay ReI
SwansonvJlIa Ad
Oak Bay Ad
ParadIse Bay Ad
Deprey RIdge Ad
page.
LOS
SID
F
-
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
LOS
Capacity
ACT
G
-
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
-
7,400
7,400
7,400
Count Forecast
Year: Year
H~
-
199t
199t
1996
1996
199$
1996
7,400
1996
1996
~
199a
-
1997
1997
7,400
7,400
-
8,100
8,100
8,100
8,100
8,100
8,100
8,100
7,400
7,400
7,400
-
7,400
8,100
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
7,400
199Y
1991
1997
1997
1997
1OO?
1997
.l!2r
1994
1994
1994
1994
,
1994
199~
1996
19Q6,
1993
1996
1996
7,400
7,400
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
, 2018
2018
2018
2018
20 1 I .
2018"
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
Existing
ACT
K
2018
2018
2Q6,
1018
2018
2018
-
2018
214
704
-
1,300
1,300
430
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
-
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
840
1,087
3,550
3,028
3,028
705
3,628
581
988
1,258
600
Existing
LOS
AS
-
B
B
148
289
524
412
373
471
302
442
410
540
137
414
142
2018
ACT
AC
-
503
B
B
-
B
8
B
B
B
B
-
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
1,728
373
1,226
-
1,529
1,529
506
174
340
616
-
1,369
1,240
1,566
1,004
1,469
1,363
1,795
455
1,376
472
-
1,879
2,431
7,940
B
-
8
8
C
C
C
B
C
B
B
8
B
3,960
3,960
1,577
7,584
1,215
1,307
3,54&
1,255
2018
LOS
AF
-
B
-¡
!:
:z
fI
"'D
0
"
-¡
)-
-¡
Õ
:z
B
B
B
-
B
B
B
B
B
B
-
B
B
B
B
8
B
B
B
B
B
-
8
B
C
C
C
B
C
B
B
C
B
.
....
II
~
...
'"
0
::I
(')
0
¡::
::I
-<
(')
0
a
"0
'...
II
::I"
n
::I
'"
<'
II
"C
[
-
0
.
VI
VI
>
¡::
OQ
¡::
'"
...
N
~oo
\0
\0
00
.
.
.
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Existing and Forecast ADT LOS
TABLE 10-7
..-::
=
j
LOS '
PIaMing LOS Capacity Cou"t Forecast Existing Existing 2018 2018
Area Link Roadway From To SID ADT Yea~ Year ADT LOS ADT LOS
A B C 0 E F G H' K AB AC AF
West Side 146.9 Highway 101 Jefferson/Grays Harbor C.L. Clearwater Rd D 16,100 1996 2018 1,050 A 2,340 A
148,03 Highway 101 Clearwater Rd JeffersonlGrays Harbor C.L. 0 16,100 1996 2018 1400 A 3,120 8
167,59 Highway 101 Jefferson/Grays Harbor C,L. Lower Hoh Rd 0 16,100 1008 2018 650 A 1,939 A
177.33 Highway 101 LowerHoh Rd Oil City Rd 0 16,100 1988 2018 760 A 2,267 A
178.49 Highway 101 Oil City Rd Upper Hoh Rd 0 16,100 199~ 2018 1,900 A 4,724 B
184.62 Highway 101 Upper Hoh Rd JefferøonlClaliam C.L. D 16,100 199'6 2018 1,800 A 4,012 B
107509 Clearwater Rd Hwy 101 End of county sec:llon C 6,100 19~ 2018 200 B 431 B
107509 Clearwater Rd End of county section Owl Creek ReI C 9,100 1996 2018 70 A 151 A
107509 Clearwater Rd Owl Creek Rd Hwy 101 C 9,100 1994 2018 321 A 741 A
1211809 Lower Hoh Rd Hwy 101 Hoh Village C 7,400 199'4 2018 168 B 388 8
135109 Maple Creek Rd Owl Creek Rd End C 7,400 199-4 2018 20 B 46 B
134309 ODCllyRd Hwy 101 Goodman Mainline C 7,400 1994 2018 101 B 241 B
134309 ODCllyRd Goodman Mainline National Parle C 1,400 1994 2018 59 B 136 B
131909 Owl Creek Rd Clearwater Rd Maple Creek Rd C 1,400 1994 2018 21 B 48 B
101909 Queets RIver Rd Hwy 101 Salmon River Rd C 7,400 1994 2018 32 B 14 B
101909 Queets RIver Rd Salmon RlYer Rd End C 1,400 1994 2018 32 B 14 B
911607 Qulnaull~S. Shore Rd Grays Harbor Rd National Park C 1,400 1994 2016 300 B 693 B
914207 Upper Hoh Rd Hwy 101 Oscar Peterson Rd C 6,100 1995 2018 797 B 1,771 8
914201 Upper Hoh Rd Oscar Peterson Rd Maple Creek Rd C 8,100 1995 2018 742 B 1,655 8
914201 Upper Hoh Rd Maple Creek Rd National Park C 8,100 1995 2018 742 B 1,655 8
Tri-Area 951701 SR 19/Airporl CUI-off SR20 Four Comers C 10,000 1995 2018 9,900 C ~?~~;~~: H4/H
952001 SR 19/Rhody Dr Four Comers SR 116/Ness Comer Rd C 9,000 1995 2018 9,900 D n:j¡);~: lnU~n!}
952001 SR 191Rhody Dr SR 1161Ness Comer Rd Center Rd C 7,400 1995 2018 7,000 C ))~¡~rj HH:i~lHH
CentraV 941501 SR 191Beaver Valley ReI Center Rd Swansomlilte Rd C 8,100 1995 2018 5,500 C Uj~~~.~ HH.MU;
Inland 941501 SR 19/BeaYer Valley ReI Swansonville Rd Larson Lake Rd C 6,100 1995 2016 5,500 C H)~;9ij: :HJfHl
Valley 941501 SR 19/BeaverValley Rd Larson Lake Rd Oak Bay Rd C 8,100 1995 2018 5,300 C HUM~t HA;WH:
941501 SR 191BeaYerVailey Rd Oak Bay Rd SR 1Q4 C 8,100 1994 2018 4,200 C 1,914 C
Quimperl 8.28 SR2O Four Comers Rd Ok! Fori Townsend Rd 0 16,100 199¡¡ 2018 14,000 D HHMlJ un:,-):::
Glen CoYe 9,81 SR20 Did Fort Townsend ReI MillIDlscovery Rd D 18,100 1994 2018 14,000 D Hj~~J nH~nU~
693119 Canol AYe Glen Cove Rd S. 8th SI C 1,400 1994 2018 238 B 330 B
693419 Fredericks SI SR20 Otto SI C 1,400 1994 2016 1044 8 1,441 B
...¡
~
Z
en
."
0
~
>
:j
~
f'\:)
¡..þa.
-"
:t-
~
"'-'
N
~
~("I
~
.....
PaGe 5018
"-
II
~
...
II>
0
::s
(")
0
&:
::s
~
(")
0
:I
'Ø
.¡;
::r
II
::s
II>
:cr
II
'"0
§
....
0
I
VI
0\
>
c
~
II>
-
N
~OO
\0
\0
00
Jefferson County Transportation Element
Existing and Forecast ADT LOS
TABLE 10-7
~
Z
(II
'"0
0
~
>
-i
Õ
Z
LOS J !
Planning LOS Capacity Count Forecasl Emling Existing 2018 2018
Area link Roadwav From To STD ADT Year) Year ADT LOS ADT LOS
.
A B C 0 E F G H K AS AC AF
Qulmperf 693819 Glen Cove Rd Nosth 0110 51 Carrol Ave C 7,400 1994 2018 202 B 280 B
Glen Cove 698619 MIliRd 5R2O Paper Mill 0 12,400 1994 2018 1511 B 2,118 B
689319 NolIh Otto 51 Fredericks 51 Glen Cove Rd C 1,400 : 2018 B 416 B
1995 304
686319 Otto 51 Fredericks 51 Selon Rd C 1,400 1995 2018 539 B 131 B
686019 Seton Rd. 5R20 0110 51 C 1,400 1995 2018 1,139 B 1,558 B
699519 Thomas 51 5R20 Paper Mill 0 12,400 1995 2018 585 B 800 B
695191 5. 8th 51 Carrol Ave MiIIRd C 1,400 1995 2018 341 B 415 8
POll 10.18 SR20 MillIDlscovery Rd Sherman 51 0 21,200 1994 2018 14,000 C 19,409 0
Townsend 11.19 5R20 Shennan 51 Benedict 51 0 21,900 j 2018 C 15,250 C
1994 11,000
12.19 5R2O Benedict 51 Kearney 51 0 21,900 : 2018 C 15,250 C
1994 11,000
12.56 5R20 Kearney 51 PI Townsend Ferry 0 21,900 1994 2018 1,100 B 10,615 C
Discovery 1.84 SR2O Hwy 101 Eaglemonl Rd D 12,900 1994 2018 4,100 C 8,915 0
Bayl 3.68 5R20 Eaglemonl Rd Anderson Lake Rd D 12,900 1994 2018 4100 C 8,915 D
Gardiner 6.25 5R20 Anderwon Lake Rd Four Comers Rd D 12,900 1994 2018 4.200 C 9,132 0
<:
=
.-
N
~
~'
JJo
C-,
, "
N
rf'
W
f'J
.
~.
.
.
.
.
TRANSPORTATION
FIGURE 10-5
JEFFERSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
EXISTING VOLUMES AND LOS
.. ..',-," .~- -.
.. .. ,.. ,,-, ..
VOI~
2 A 'Irr
-' ':i ( r' ',; ~
2~93
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10-57
August 28, 1998
- IUI -~
I'I.CII' DAm 0I/DIt8
~
¡;¡
~
;:I
()
0
C
~
()
0
~
-.. g.
n
~
:;:-
n
'"tI
§'
1
......
0
I
VI I I <
00 ?
,
(
H:;
,~
~þ
~...,
..,
I"
~:.
t.Q
.¡;..
I I
).
c
~
~
N
.PO
-
\0
\0
00
I
SHEET 1 OF 7
.
IIIIIJII ThnIooIo
..... IIIJþM
SHEET 4
IV IUI I, 4MI'
PUlT........ I-,
ClALLAM
COUNTY
- - J'ffi-r-¡;SOÑ - - - - I-. - -
COUNTY - - -
OLYMPIC
NATIONAL
PARK
MASON
COUNTY
GRAYS HARBOR
COUNTY
-)
r--'
I
1
SHEET 1
\
I
I
\
\
.2
I
\
"
)
'"
/
I
I
KITSAP
COUNTY
Key Map
Jefferson County Transportation Plan
NO.
APP'D. BY
DATE
REVISION
.
I
_J
SHEET 2
JEFFERSON; I
COUNTY
,
SHEET 3 ."J
r--
I'
r'
7'
,/
.
~
~
Z
tI)
'"tI
0
~
).
:j
~
......
n
~
...
'"
0
1:1
()
0
§
.:<
()
0
.so
...-
.oSo
B
'"
<'
n
'"C'
§
.....
0
I
V\
1.0
<
=
i
,~
~
~
C-,
'~1 ._-
N
~ -~
W
tit
>
dii
=
¡! .
N
~oo
.....
\0
\0
00
.
.
'cob fIEI _"""'1001-
"-ØI' DA'" DI/UIU
--
.....,........
POP fIEI L.J-
""""""1-1
..,....
""""""'"
""""""'"
.."....
""""""""
..,.."..,
""""
...... " " ,
~CJ.r1AlŒ
""'"
SEE SHEET
LEGEND
.
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (RUR"LjURSAN)
-" -" - ,,- MINOR AllTERIAl. (RURALjURBAN)
I
====== w.JCR COLlECTOR (RURAL)
MINOR CCu.[CTOR (RUIW.)
COLLECTOR (URBAN)
\
\~ ------
\\~ ----=
'h -,_._,
~ @
I
,
,
I
i
,
I
I
i
,
,
\
,
\
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
LCC,I,L ROAD
CITY UIoIIT
ENlÁRGEWENT AREAS
(SEE PUN SHY 8 OF 8)
3450/C TRAFFIC VOWNESjLOS
f
0 2 IIIlJ
I I
GRAPHIC SCALE
..
Existing Volumes and LOS
Jefferson County Transportation Plan
SH££T20f7
DATE
REVI~ON
APP'D, BY
NO,
Sheet
~
tn
'"C'
0
~
~
Õ
z
1
CAD IUI -\wHooUwo
I'U1 ...m O!/U/M
IØIEFII "....
1M> 2oUpn
PCP PU: Lj 111'
........... ,-¡
, "-
<
C>
.-
r
~
UJ
'1:
0
~
»-
.....¡
Õ
z
~
¡;¡
ü!
0
::I
()
0
§
~
()
i
. ....
. f1)
::I"
f1)
::I
<II
<'
f1)
"'Ø
i
-
0
.
0\
0
. . , , , .
, , , , . , , ,
LEGEND
-..-..-...
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (RURALjURIIAN)
MINOR ARTERIAL (RURALjURBAN)
M,f.JOR COU.£CTOR (RURAL)
MINOR COWCTOR (RURAL)
COLlECTOR (URBAN)
=.-~..==...
------
----- LOCAL ROAD
-'-'-'-'- CITY UMIT
34SO/C TlW'nc VOWloIESjLOS
~
~
~
N
wOO
. . , , , , ,
-
\0
\0
00
Existifl9 Volumes and LOS
Jeffersòn County Transportation Plan
Sheet
2
SHEET 3 OF 7
NO.
DATE
REVISION
APP'D. BY
.
.
.
;:¡-
¡;¡
fi!
0
::s
(')
0
~
(')
0
3
'1:1'
....
'CD
-::r
9
II>
<'
CD
"C'
§',
-
0
,
0'1
-
<:.
C>
,-
C'û
H::.
-"
:v.
ç-,
",1
N
~,
to
>-J
Jii
=
~
N
~oo
-
\0
\0
00
.
"e-
---8-
---
"-",,--,
--",-
GAIl fUI -........-....
PLOI...1II œ/U/N
--
..., "'.....
I'a'PUI LJ-
NIT""" 1-1
SEE SHEET 2
~ ~TANœ:
OLYMPIC
NATIONAL FOR~ST
LEGEND
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (RIIRÞ.L¡\IRBAN)
WINCR AflTERIAL (RIIRALjURIIAH)
WAJOR COllECTOR (RURAL)
MINOR COLL£CTOR (RURAL)
COu.tCTOR (URBAN)
----------- ------ - ÆffEIISON co.
-- -¡¡-...soil CD. - -
LOCAL ROAD
CITY UWIT
0 etIILIB
I I
GRAPHIC SCALE
~
en
"C'
0
~
>
..;
~
34:iO/C TRAFF1C VOLUMES/LOS
Existilì9 Volumes and LOS
Jefferson County Transportation Plan
Sheet
3
SHEET 4 OF 7
RE.V!SION
APP'D, BY
NO,
DATE
IN fUI J_~
PLØI' OA1I> Oð/UIII
IOIEJII_..
_iIIUpm
...
tÞ
~
...
'"
0
::s
(')
0
§
.:<
(')
0
~
.. n
. ::r
g
II>
<'
n
"'tI
~
f
0 RWJ!:II
I I
GRAPHIC SCALE
......
0
I
0'1
tV
...
, ~ ,
.,
'\
-
\0
\Q
00
SHErr 5 OF 7
. -.
,ep IUI ¡,¡ ...
I'UIT -.... 1-1
~~~~ - - - - - - - ---- ---
-- -- - - -- - h- -- --- -- -BFrIIsON COUNTY,
----h-
- --- - ---n - V.77..--
-------- V;<'/
,1'" "I',
~" I' ..
r,;,: , ., " OLYMPIC. NATIONAL PARK
~""'I'%'" :"';/':", "', ',' "
"I' ~!; "'I'ø:;~' "'zrjl' """ " , .~' '" ,
.¿ ¿L L " '/" /, " " '/. " " " '/,' " " " .
ø 'LI'"", :"-~'~" ~;~"/"'/" ::I':::;?!;f!¿~"~",, '~'I'~",~""",
~- - , '~;;"" .!â'&:.-;-. , " " " ""
. '..1:- ~ '" I' I' " A V "'" "", "", '" "'~'"
I I' " I '" (. .t.- - "',
. , " " -, "
" ""-'4 ~""
. ~ "
'-""L " , '.
- ,
>9>. i;¿^
1900/A -~ ' .-....=/
!JP/IÐt ':'.-~~ --742/9
"~";" Ie - ;-')
, 20/9 ~
!:/.UJI~ J
321/A '-
LEGEND
PRINCIPAl ARTERIAL (RURALjURÞNf
MINOR AIIT[f /AL (RURAI,/UIIIAN)
IoWOII COLJ.ECTOR (RURAL)
WINOR COWCTOR (RURAL)
COLJ.ECTOR (URIWI)
lOCAL ROAD
CITY UWIT
3450/C TIWFIC VOWWESj\.D$
SEE
SHEET 5
Sheet
Existing Volumes and LOS
Jefferso;n County Transportation Plan
4
DATE
REVISION
APP'D, 9Y
.
.
.....
CD
~
;;!
0
::I
(")
0
§
~
Q
.g
.. ...
.' CD
go
::I
'"
~'
"'Ø
§"
-
b
I
0'1
t,¡..)
""-
'--=>
,-
i~
I~
'--
::;-.
."
['\:)
If;
(0
~
c
~
!4
tV
~0t0
.....
\0
\0
0t0
8-----
e-
.
!WI fUI -~
...... ..... œ/DI'M '
--
1Wt II"'"
PCPfUlU-
-"""'1-1
LEGEND
PRlNCI~AL ART£AIAL (RUIW.jUABAN)
MINDA ÁRT£RIAL (RUItALjURBAN)
MAJOR COtL£CTOA (RIIIW.)
MINDA COlLt:CTOR (RURAL)
COWCTOR (URBAN)
LOCA.L ROAD
CITY UWIT
SEE
SHEET '4-
,-
345D/C TIWTIC VOLUWES/LOS
....
>
...
f
... '
0
...
, ...
,>
.z
0 4 IOI.Z!I
I I
GRAPHIC SCALI
Existing Volumes and LOS
JeffersQn County Transportation Plan
Sheet
~
en
"'Ø
0
~
~
5
SHEET 6 OF 7
DATE
REVISION
APP'D. BY
NO.
"cAD fill --..-...
I'LG'T DAm U/8IM
--
_II-
... fill ... ...
..... 8!.fUo I-I
~
if
<II
0
::I
(')
0
~
(')
0
~
. ñ!
,::r
9
<II
<'
(11
'1:1
[,
, , , , ,
~
UJ
'1:1
0
¡;.;I
~
>-1
@
.~ , -
..-..
C>
¡-
,
~ ~
~ ¡(fILA POINT D~.
, 1545/8
. :;. .
9900/8 ~~ PIIDSPECT AVE:....-
'. /'572/8
y, '
!:PYR
, , . , , , , . , , , , , , , , , ,
, , . , . . , , ,
. . , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , . , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , . ,
, , , , , ,
-0
, , , , . '~ ' , . , .
, , . , , '..... ""
, . , . "å ' , , , ,
"\.""
,',',~ ',',','
, , , , ,<:I
Q)
',',',',',',~ "
"
~
~
'"
ANtOSON 0
~ I;]
,~..:.
"'.t/~ ~ ~;
f
CD
LEGEND
PRINCIPAL ARTmAL (RUIW.¡'URIIAH)
-"- 101111011 ARTERIAL (RUIW.¡'URIIAN)
--------- WAJOR COIl.ECTOR (RUIIAI.)
--------
WINOR COLJ.ECTOR (RURAL)
--'---- ÇOLUCTOR (UIIIN!)
1
¡, ---- I.OCAI. IIOAO
-,-,-,-,- CITY UMIT
,ø ENWlGtWENT AII£AS
~Π!'UN SHUT Of ,
R lDCAnON)
3eO/C 1IW'FIC VOWMES/!.OS
......
0
I
0\
.þ.
U i 11118
~' I
N
r -
,-'
-43.5/C
GRAPHIC SCALE
@
>
~
f!I.
N
~OIJ
-
1,0
1,0
OIJ
Existing Volumes and LOS
Enlargement Areas
Jefferson County Transportation P
Sheet
I SHEET 7 or 7 ~ 1 IÞPP'D, BYI I
DATE REVISION
. ---' . .
6
.
.
.
UTILITIES
UTILITIES ELEMENT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Utilities Element is provide goals and policies to guide Jefferson
County in (1) reviewing private utility development proposals, including service provision and siting of
facilities; and (2) reviewing and regulating utility services and facilities provided by other public agencies
and the private sector.
Relationships With Other Comprehensive Plan Elements
The Utilities Element and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan collectively address utility planning
Issues:
1. - The-sitingof-domestic-water- systems.andsanitary- sewer-systems-, defineð'underWAG 365-19-5-200-- . ---.
as being public facilities, is addressed within the Utilities Element and the Essential Public Facilities
Elements ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The process for siting utility facilities (those subject in cases of
siting difficulty to a separate siting process) is contained in the Essential Public Facilities Element.
The Capital Facilities Plan Element identifies levels of service and policies for utilities (including
solid waste) owned by Jefferson County.
2. The Capital Facilities Plan Element discusses the financial feasibility of providing capital facilities to
accommodate anticipated growth; but does not provide siting criteria. The Utilities Element presents
policies concerning how utilities are to be sited and, in general terms, designed, but does not address
financing issues.
3. The Environmental Element provides goals and policies for the protection of water resources for
public water supplies.
EXISTING FACILITIES
Facilities Background and Description: This section provides an overview of the existing facilities
locations, service area, capacity, general issues, regulatory concerns and an historic perspective on each
utility as it relates to planning for existing service and future system expansion.
Electrical Utilities: Introduction
Most of the discussion in the electricity section will be focused on Puget Sound Energy (PSE), as it
provides electricity to over 90% of the residents of unincorporated Jefferson County. PSE (formerly
Puget Sound Power & Light Company and Washington Natural Gas Company) is an investor-owned,
private utility headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. PSE proyides electricity and natural gas services
to approximlitely 1,300,000 metered customers within the company's 6,000 square mile service territory.
This territory includes Eastern Jefferson County, with the exception ofthe Brinnon area. PSE is regulated
by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). As a public service corporation, PSE has a duty under law to furnish electricity to
all persons and corporations who may apply and be reasonably entitled to thereto (RCW 80.28.110).
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-1
~4 rM ~: ~2 5Dtugust28,1998
VOI-
UTILITIES
The State's mandated "duty of service" requires electrical utilities to furnish and supply service and
facilities that are safe, adequate, efficient, and in all respects, just and reasonable. The WUTC applies this
standard by reviewing and approving the tenns and conditions under which electrical service is provided.
These tenns and con.ditions relate to both the~cost and levels of service.
.
A key principle underlying this regulatory structure is that utility facilities must be provided on a unifonn
basis to all customers and equitably recovered through unifonn rates. Regulatory law therefore prohibits
Puget Sound Energy from differentiating among jurisdictions as to the cost or levels of service.
Mason County P.u.D. is a public utility district that provides electricity to 1700 residents of the
southeastern portion ofJeffersoß'County in the Bríhiiori area.' -. -' - - - - ,
The Grays Harbor County P.U.D. is a public utility district that provides electricity to 172 residents of the
southwestern portion of Jefferson County in the Queets/Clearwater and Quinault areas.
The Clallam County P.U.D. is a public utility district that provides electricity to 200 residents of the
, h < ,nm:thwestem.ponign-ofJefferioo-County,in-the,Hoh River area. ~- -""-,,.. '- -- _."_n"" ",-- ,-...- -"._-" '.'---'---,m..., "--,
Electrical Utilities: Issues
Siting of New Facilities: As development occurs within Jefferson County, a proportionate increase in
area electrical service demand and resulting service load is anticipated. Due to the service on demand
requirements of this utility, it is important that the County and utility providers maintain open lines of
communication regarding siting of new facilities. The timing of construction of new and/or expanded
facilities will be driven by the rate of growth and the need to improve reliability in an area.
Capacity of Electrical Utility Facilities: As the local transmission system is designed as an integral
component of a regional power system, development occurring outside the County may have local
impacts on system capacity. At the same time, growth in the County will contribute to the electrical
service load of the regional power system and the potential need for systems facilities outside the County.
Building codes and utility facility siting policies affect the service loads and the capacity to upgrade
existing facilities.
.
Description and Capacity of Existing Electrical Facilities
The Puget Sound Energy electrical system serving the projected Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) of
Jefferson County is geographically bounded in general by the Admiralty Inlet to the north, Puget Sound to
the east, Hood Canal to the south, and the Olympic National Forest to the west. -
The Puget Sound Energy planning subarea for Jefferson County contains approximately 250 square miles,
and includes the communities (from South to North) of Quilcene, Port Ludlow, Chimacum, Port Hadlock,
Gardiner, Nordland, and Port Townsend. The County's electrical system includes a wide range of service
demand intensities, from areas of wetlands with no demand to areas of high demand commercial
customers. '
Please refer to Page 11-16 of the Utilities Element which identifies the specific service areas of Mason
County PUD, Clallam County PUD, Grays Harbor County PUD and Puget Sound Energy in January
1998.
.
','01-
24 '~r~
r ~,,~
2502
Jefferson County: Comprehensive Plan
11-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
Generation: There are no Puget Sound Energy generation facilities within Jefferson County's designated
Urban Growth Area (UGA) other than small capacity generation at the Port. In summary, only the utility
transmission network and distribution substations support the County UGAs.
Transmission Network: Puget Sound Energy's transmission network transports electricity from
generation resources to transmission substations, and from transmission substations and switching
stations, to distribution substations.
Electrical utility service is supplied to Jefferson County by Puget Sound Energy through the larger
regional transmission grid (interconnected system 'of'electric lines and" associated equipmertt) at 500 kV
(500,000 volts) and 230 kV (230,000 volts) voltages from distant generating plants along the mid-
Columbia River. The region's transmission grid lines carry this power from the generation facilities
westerly to the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) Olympia Transmission Substation.
From this point, a majority of the Olympic Peninsula, including Puget Sound Energy's Kitsap County and
Jeffersoo..County regionalloadsra-re$erved to- the north-via.the,ßP A-Shelton Transmission Substation to.,,---.
the BP A Kitsap and BP A Fairmount transmission substations. At the Pairmount transmission substation,
the power is transformed down from 230 kV to 115 kV and 66kV for delivery to neighborhood
distribution substations within the County.
Power transformed from 230 kV to 115 kV and 66 kV is provided by two transformers at the BPA
Pairmount Transmission Substation. These voltages are used to serve specific Jefferson County
distribution substations.
Transmission Lines: New 115kV lines have been installed on the lrondale-Shine line and the Port
Townsend #1 line. These new lines allow for contingencies when one major transmission line is out of
service. The existing 66 kV lines in Jefferson County were designed to only serve distribution substation
loads only; therefore, these new lines allow for alternate service if for any reason one major transmission
line is out of service. At this time the Irondale-Shine line is operating at 66kV and it is anticipated that
additional equipment will be installed in 1997 to upgrading the system capacity to 115kV. The majority
of the existing electrical system within the County relies on the supply of bulk power flowing through
BP A lines. As the electrical service demand in Jefferson County and adjacent counties continues to grow,
additional 230 kV lines may be required to raise the transfer capability of the transmission network. A
cost-benefit analysis was perfoI1Ded on upgrading the main service lines from Kitsap across Hood Canal,
although due to the resulting non-economical costlbenefit analysis this 'project has been deferred.
Distribution Substations: There are six (6) existing distribution substations within Jefferson County
which serve distribution feeder lines (circuits from a distribution substation to the customer, usually
energized at 4, 12 or 34 kV). These distribution substations are located at Discovery Bay, Hastings Rd.,
Irondale, Kearney Street, Port Ludlow, and Quilcene.
Telecommunications Systems: Introduction
Telecommunications include a wide range of rapidly expanding services, including conventional
telephone service, personal wireless services, and video delivery systems. The most pressing reality
confronting the telecommunications services industry is dramatic and constant change. Technology is
moving foIWard at a pace, which makes planning or even speculation extremely difficult. Due to the rapid
advances in telecommunications technologies, the subsequent changes in transmission equipment and
capabilities, and federal legislation encouraging future development, it is important that the County and
telecommunications services providers maintain open lines of communication.
VûL
~4
P 'r ~
(.., fA II "
25u3
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-3
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulates utility and transportation
providers to ensure safe and reliable service to consumers at reasonable rates. All of Washington's
investor-owned electric, natural gas, water, and telecommunications utilities are regulated by the WUTC.
As a result of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, it is anticipated that telecommunications
services regulations will continue to be developed and refined. .
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the telecommunications airwaves including
radio frequency emissions standards, all antenna and dish structures used for telecommunications
services, and is responsible for issuing licensðs'tö'bperate'wireless common cårriets'services (cel1tdai
telephone, personal communication services, mobile radio services, and other wireless common carriers).
Local government involvement in regulation of the development of telecommunications services,
particularly wireless common caITiers, includes identifying systems facilities siting criteria and a penn it
review process on applications for the placement, construction, or modification of a wireless common
,., .carrief.JaciJity.site..",~-, 'o..,"_V' -. -,.~,"- "".._,....",~",,-,., .,._.~.,.. ."... ---, .",....~"...- ,--, "-""'......" .,,-. ",
Local governments have been preempted by federal case law from regulating Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) covered facilities. The FAA reviews location and height of proposed towers to
prevent interference with operations of airports and flight paths. The FAA regulates proposed towers that
exceed 200 feet and smaller towers located within 20,000 feet of a major airport and 10,000 feet of
general aviation airports. The FAA does not have the authority to deny a FCC construction permit, but it
can cite a proposed tower as a hazard to navigation.
Conventional Telephone: US West Communications, a subsidiary of US West, provides the majority of
conventional telephone service in the County. US West Communications offers telecommunications
services to 25 million customers in 14 western states. Telecommunications regulations require US West
Communications to provide adequate telecommunications services on demand.
Telephone exchange areas define the area within which US West Communications is pennitted to
transport their services. These areas are called Local Access and Transport Areas (LA T As). Calls
outside of the Local Access and Transport Area require long distance carriers such as AT&T, US Sprint,
or MC!. There are 94 US West exchanges located in the State of Washington.
The facilities in which calls are switched are called Central Offices. From each Central Office, there are
four main cable routes generally headed North, South, East, and West. Connected to these main feeder
routes are branch feeder routes from which service is routed to all subscribers through local loops. These
types of facilities may be aerial or underground, and copper or fiber. Technology such as fiber optics
allows for multiple paths over a single wire. The technology used by telecommunications facilities in
Jefferson County means that capacity is not a problem for telephone companies providing service locally.
Wireless Common Carriers (Including Cellular Phone Service): Cellular telephone in the County is
'provided by AT&T Wireless Services, and'byAirTouch Cellular. The FCC limits to two the number of
licensed providers in each Cellular Geographical Service Area (CGSA) in order to ensure there is market
competition. Service must be available to all customers within a service area, but there are no level of
service standards. Cell sites must be located so that radio signals from the systems stay within the
boundaries of the CGSA.'-,
Signals to and from mobile phones are handled by a system of low powered transmitting antennae, which
are called cell sites. The signal coverage radii are called a celL Cells meet in a hexagonal grid pattern, so
calls are in effect handed from one cell to another over a given area. Calls are routed through a central
2 4 r~r:~ - 2SV4
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-4
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
UTILITIES
computer called a Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO), and are connected to their destinations.
Cells can provide continuous coverage over an urban area, or they can provide coverage along well-
traveled transportation corridors. Because all cellular systems are compatible, callers can travel from one
system to another, and still be able to use their cellular telephones.
Cable Television: Cable television services are provided to residents of the County via existing franchise
agreements with Summit Cablevision, Hood Canal Telephone, Western Cable Service and Interstate
Cable Inc.. The franchise agreement(s) states that cable services must be provided on demand in all areas
as follows:
.
Interstate Cable Inc.: All County areas south of the Port Townsend City limits east of Olympic
National Forest lines consisting of density minimums of 19 homes per mile.
. Hood Canal Telephone: All County areas that include Range 2 West, Township 26 North, Sections
19,20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 28, 27, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. Range 2 West, Township 25 North,
...- -...Sections.2,~.3-,-4,"S,-6,~1;-8:;.9,lo-,.15; 16, 1-7, 18;-20, 29;~3o.,31, and J2;--Range 3-West;-Tewnship-J5- "'
North, Section 36.
.
Western Cable Service: All County areas that include County roads lying in Sections 26,27,28, 33,
34, 35, and 36, Township 30 North, Range 2 West, W.M.; and in Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35,
Township 28 North, Range 1 West, W.M.; and in Sections 4,5,6,7,8,9, 16, 17, and 18, Township
27 North, Range 1 East, W.M..
.
Summit Cablevision: All that portion of Jefferson County lying East of the Olympic National Park
Located at the origin of a cable system are a receiver and a headend. The headend includes electronic
equipment such as antennae, frequency converters, demodulators, and preamplifiers. The headend
processes the signals in a manner that allows them to be distributed to the network. Trunk lines carry this
signal, and amplifiers located along the system maintain its strength. Amplifiers allow for feeder line
connections and the eventual hookup of individual customers. The cable franchise agreement(s) allows
the provider to use County rights-of-way for their equipment.
Telecommunications Systems: Issues
Rapidly Changing Technology, Services, and Providers: Telecommunication services, which were
..once discrete systems, are becoming linked with competition encouraged through Federal legislation. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 promotes enhanced service and system development through open
market competition. Ownership alliances are rapidly shifting, making it very difficult to predict future
products, regulatory systems, and service providers.
Ability of Utilities to Provide Telecommunications Services: Antennae and towers are used by utilities
to provide communications and electronic controls. Utilities must have the ability to provide
telecommunications services. --
Expansion of Local Calling Areas: The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC)
provides the sole control for local calling area regulations.
Co-location of Telecommunications Facilities: The co-location of telecommunications facilities using
existing structures is desirable because it is an efficient use of land, and potentially has less of an impact
aesthetically. As more cellular cell sites are located within an area, the transmitting antenna structures,
VOL
("';4
~ rArJ:
2 -.'~-i""
JJ~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-5
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
which are required, become smaller. Although it is desirable to co-locate facilities, the County is aware
that there may be circumstances where co-location is impossible. However, it is a policy of this element
to promote co-location of antenna structures as a means to support current FCC and other Federal
telecommunications services regulations.
.
,Adverse Effects from Radio Frequency (RF) Energy: Electromagnetic fields (EMF) produced by
cellular telephones are known as non-ionizing, as opposed to ionizing sources, such as x-rays. Cellular
telephones use frequencies (UHF) which previously have been used by UHF television stations, so their
presence is not new. The American National Standards Institute has established a standard for exposure
to EMFs. The standard recommends that' the"'sþë~ificabsörption rate (SAR) 'is less tliaii 1.6
watts/kilogram for an exposure of thirty or more minutes. The maximum output from a portable cellular
phone is 0.45 watts/kilogram, well below this established threshold. The RF energy from a cellular phone
is less than from a hand-held CB radio, or from standing one foot away from a typical microwave oven.
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that all telecommunications antenna structures
meet the radiation standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
--'--_'__0-,..',_-._.._"-""."--.,,.,-..-,,,-- ",--,--~-"",.,_._---"-----,,.--
, "-'- -- -,." , ", ".-'"-,--,,,
Competition among Cable Companies: State and federal laws do not allow an exclusive use by an
individual provider on public rights-of-way. Any franchised cable company can serve unincorporated
Jefferson County. However, exclusive cable providers are allowed to serve private properties, such as
apartment complexes and condominiums.
Description and Capacity of Existing Telecommunication F~cilities
Conventional Telephone: US West Communications, Inc., United Telephone, and PTI Communications
provide service to the residents of Jefferson County. Statistical customer infonnation is not available on
the basis of local political jurisdictions because exchange territories are not compatible with local political
boundaries. Disclosu're of certain infonnation would be disadvantageous to these communications
companies, limiting the amount of infonnation that can be outlined here. Calls outside the local service
areas require a long distance carrier.
.
There are 8 exchanges, which cover the Jefferson County area. These exchanges are 379, 385, 437, 765,
732, 796, 797, and 374. The Central Office, which serves most of the County, is located in the general
vicinity of Port Townsend. There are also Central Offices located in Quilcene, Port Ludlow and Forks.
The capacity of each Central Office is dependent on the type of switch it uses. A single area code and
prefix can carry 10,000 phone numbers. Digital transmission allows US West to increase the capabilities
of switches. Due to the competitive nature of the telecommunications business, US West is unable to
provide statistics on the number of customers they currently serve. However, with an increase of
approximately 6500 new households projected in the County including the City of Port Townsend by
2016, there will be a significant impact on existing facilities, and the need to plan for new facilities.
Wireless Common Carriers (Including Cellular Phone Service) Service: AT&T Wireless Services
currently has 6 cell sites located in Jefferson County. These cell sites contain low powered transmitting
antennae. AirTouch Cellular currently has 6 cell sites located in Jefferson County. These cell sites
contain low powered transmitting antennae.
Where feasible, cellular facilities utilize existing tower structures, poles, and buildings where antennae
can be mounted on rooftops and electronic equipment located within the building itself. Topography and
other engineering constraints_can influence specific site selection because of the- need to "hand off" the
signal so that it can be picked up by another facility. Efforts are made to construct cell sites that are
compatible with surrounding land uses.
.
VOL
24 rAC::
2 -~:'6
- ~lJ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
Cable Television: Cable television service is provided by 4 companies: Summit Cablevision, Hood
Canal Telephone, Western Cable Service and Interstate Cable Inc.. Summit Cablevision is the only active
service provider in January 1998 and Summit estimates they provide service to approximately 1,400 -
1,500 subscribers within Jefferson County including Port TQwnsend, Shine andKala Point areas. Summit
Cablevision currently provides a base package providing customers access to 40 channels, in addition the
cable company offers 4 pay-for-view channels, resulting in a current system capability of 44 channels.
Summit Cablevision's communications signal is transmitted via both coaxial cable and fiber optic cables.
Sanitary Sewer: Introduction
The major federal regulation governing sanitary sewer services and sanitary wastewater treatment is the
Federal Clean Water Act. The Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
national effluent standards, authorizes grants for wastewater treatment facilities, requires the use of the
NPDES permits, and allows EP A to impose penalties for violations. The Act delegates responsibility to
the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) for administration of federal water quality regulations,
",.and.grants.DOE."the-authority.:to.develop.and, adoptadditionalstandards.- -." -" ," -_m", --..-". .---.. --- - " .._, -"-..
The State's laws regulating sewage service and treatment are contained in the State Pollution Control Act
(RCW 90.48), the Management of Sewage SludgelBiosolids Act (RCW 70.951), and the Sewer, Water
and Drainage System Act (the County Services Act) (RCW 36.94), which authorizes Jefferson County to
establish and operate a sewerage system. The State also establishes and requires use of specific planning
and design standards for wastewater facilities, and water pollution controls and abatement plans for
sewage drainage basins.
The main sanitary sewer service areas serving Jefferson County's population include the Port Ludlow
service area, various service sub-areas in East County managed by PUD No.1, and other service areas
including the City of Port Townsend.
Port Ludlow Service Area: Olympic Resource Management, a pu\:)licly-traded limited partnership,
owns Ludlow Sewer, which operates the wastewater facilities, treatment plant, and outfall to Ludlow Bay
(Admiralty Inlet). An alternative service agreement with Jefferson County PUD No.1, calls for the PUD
to operate the wastewater collection facilities if Olympic Resource Management (ORM) is unable or
unwilling to properly operate and maintain the facilities.
Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 Service Area: It is the intent of PUD Nò.l to continue to assume the
management of community septic systems within eastern Jefferson County. The PUD also provides
municipal oversight services (MOS) for individual septic systems throughout eastern Jefferson County.
Currently, the PUD provides inspections for more than 400 active septic systems. An additional 300
inactive systems are listed on PUD No.1 records.
Other Service Areas: The City of Port Townsend provides wastewater treatment and collection for City
residents. Sanitary sewer service in eastern Jefferson County is currently provided via septic systems for
existing and new development. '
Sanitary Sewer Description And Capacity Of Existing Facilities
The main sanitary sewer service areas serving Jefferson County's population include the Port Ludlow
service area, various service sub-areas in East County. managed by PUD No.1, and other service areas
including the City of Port Townsend.
.-', -
VOL
n.4
/' 'H,~
{....., ¡ ""L-
2507
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-7
August 28,1998
UTILITIES
Port Ludlow Service Area: The sanitary sewer service areas for Port Ludlow, a master-planned
community established in 1967, include the North Bay and South Bay Service Areas. The North Bay
Service Area includes the original plats of Port Ludlow Divisions 1 through 6, and the ResortlMarina
areas. However within this service area, not all platted lots are servedby the sanitarysewer service.
The existing South Bay Service Area includes the original plats of South Bay 1 through 3, plus Ludlow
,Point tracts, Inner Harbor Bay View Village, and other approved development sites. Ludlow Point tracts
are at the northern end of South Bay Lane. Sanitary sewer service was provided to these lots as part of
the Inner Harbor project approved by DOE on September 6, 1989.
.
Public Utility District (PUD) No;1 Service Area: -Presently, sanitäry'sewer serVice witliiifthëPUD's
service areas is provided via septic systems. Most of the septic systems throughout the eastern County
area are constructed by developers to support new development. Table ll-IA identifies the septic systems
owned and managed by PUD No.1:
m'H-- --
Table ll-1A
-"---~":""~'-"~'-".""""--".'" "..C:ur.rentP..U.D.No~,lSepticSystems --""""'---'-.'_.,... -- ._MO-__-
Septic System Location Current
Connections
Levine Drainfield Gardiner 3
Discovery Ridge Quimper Peninsula 5
Ocean Grove Quimper Peninsula 5
Schoenfeld Phase I Coyle Peninsula 3
Maximum
Connections
8
40
49
12
Table ll-1B
Future Septic Systems
.
Septic System Location Current Maximum
Connections Connections
Discovery Yacht and Discovery Bay 0 53
Racquet Club
Old Alcohol Plant Port Hadlock 0 0
Schoenfeld Phase II Coyle Peninsula 0 12
Wally Pederson's Trail's N/A 0 12
End
Suquamish View N/A N/A N/A
Steve Wakefield N/A N/A N/A
Tri-Area Service Area: As of January 1998 existing Tri-Area residential and non-residential areas
utilize septic systems for sanitary waste and effluent control. At some future date the existing City of Port
Townsendsanitàry wastewater treatmeIit'aiid cOllection facilities may be reviewed as a potential service
for the Tri-Area.
Solid Waste Management: Introduction
In the State of Washington, local governments have lead responsibility for solid waste management and
moderate-risk waste management. However, local governments must manage and handle waste
according to State laws, which are comprehensive in scope, and include specific mandates for solid waste
.
VOL
24 :f;~Œ
2508
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
management, handling, and disposal systems. Local governments do not manage hazardous wastes, but
are required to adopt a local hazardous waste plan for moderate-risk waste.
The State Solid Waste Ma:nagement--Reduction and Recycling Act designates the Department of Ecology
(DOE) as the State department responsible for overseeing solid waste regulations. The administrative
codes, which implement the law's requirements, are WAC 173-304 and 173-351, established Minimal
Functional Standards (MFS), and established Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The Criteria
for Municipal Solid Waste provides standards and criteria for the location, design, operation, and
maintenance of solid waste facilities.
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires that each type of solid waste facility possess an
approved solid waste permit. Solid waste permits are reviewed and issued by the Jefferson County
Environmental Health Department annually. The Department of Ecology (DOE) has ultimate approval
authority over solid waste permits.
. State law.-authøf..Ïzes.oounties,.to own ancl--oper.ate-disposal facilities,-but prøhibits-counties,fromoperating
a solid waste collection system, otherwise known as a "solid waste utility." Cities are delegated authority
to establish collection utilities. Counties are allowed to establish a collection district for mandatory solid
waste collection, and a disposal district that allows a county to levy a tax to fund solid waste operations.
As of January 1998 Jefferson County has not established a solid waste district.
Although counties cannot contract for solid waste collection, they can contract for residential recycling
collection. As of January 1998 Jefferson County contracts with a private commercial carrier to transport
the majority of the County's solid waste to a landfill site in Goldendale, Washington. Jefferson County
and private recycling activities manage the remaining solid waste material.
Solid Waste: Issues
Achievement of Recycling Goal in a Cost-Effective Manner: The County has the opportunity to
develop and implement a variety of recycling collection programs and facilities, but these programs can
be costly. The County needs to continue to build incentives into its recycling programs; encourage
private recycling and compo sting businesses; and devise new and increasingly economical ways to
remove products from the disposed waste stream cuITently handled at the Recycling Center.
Special Waste Handling: The County has established a funding source through Washington State
Department of Ecology for the implementation of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, for collection
programs and facilities for household hazardous waste and small quantity waste. Working in close
collaboration with the Port of Port Townsend, Jefferson County presently operates a facility that collects,
recycles, and disposes of Moderate Risk Waste. Funding is also specifically used for educational
programs for businesses regarding proper management of moderate risk waste.
Description and Capacity of Existing Solid Waste Façilities
No solid waste is cuITently received at the closed County landfill site. The County will continue to
contract with private commercial carriers to transport solid waste to other landfill sites outside the County
during the foreseeable future. On Page 11-21 of the Utilities Element a map identifies, the location of
existing Jefferson County solid waste management facilities.
VûL
"'A
~ If rAC~
25D9
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-9
August 28,1998
UTILITIES
Water: Introduction
.
Water for residents in Jefferson County comes fro~ two types of "systems." The primary systems of
supply are public water systems. However, a significant number of residents obtain their supply from
wells, springs, or other "individual" water systems.
According to Washington Department of Health (DOH) records, the County had 166 "public water
systems" as of March 1995. According to DOH regulations, any domestic water supply system serving
more than a single family residence is classified as"á'þubliè Water system. Watetsystèrtis aÏefurther
divided into "Groups". Systems with fifteen (15) or more permanent connections are defined as Group A
systems. Systems with two to fourteen (2 to 14) permanent connections are defined as Group B systems.
(DOH regulations currently allow a waiver of requirements to residential systems with two services - a
two party system.) Also included in the Group categorization are subgroups of community and non-
community (business) systems, transient (State Parks), and non-transient systems. In Jefferson County,
,,:. ..-app¡:oximatel¥~half QÍ-the.-:;pub.tiG~water"systems~:~ are.. Group A systems. Location ..of-JeffersooCouaty
Water Service Areas in eastern Jefferson County is depicted on Page 11-22 of the Utilities Element. The
large Group A Systems include: Cape George Colony Club, Inc.; Kala Point Water System; Ludlow
Water Company; the Jefferson County PUD; and the City of Port Townsend~
It is recognized that many residents of the County receive their water supply from private sources
(individual water systems) such as wells or springs. This practice is expected to continue in the future, at
least in the rural areas. In developing a water demand forecast related to public water supply needs, it is
prudent that an allowance be included for that segment of the population expected to remain on private-
source individual water systems. .
An estimate of the number of people utilizing private domestic wells or springs can be derived using
Department of Health (DOH) records on water systems, existing population estimates, and deducting
those populations from the County total. In 1992 DOH developed an estimate in preparation of the Draft
Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP Draft 1992). According to that analysis, approximately 8,000
people in Jefferson County, approximately 30 percent of the County population were utilizing private-
source-individual-water systems, typically wells.
.
Water: Issues
Issues Relating to Public Water System Planning: The Public Water System Coordination Act,
--enacted in 1977 and codified as Chapter 70.116 RCW, establishes a procedure for the State's water
utilities to coordinate their planning and construction programs with adjacent water utilities and other
local governmental activities.
This Act specifies that either the Department of Health (then entitled Department of Social and Health
Services) or Jefferson County (County) Legislative Authority may declare an area within a County as a
, Critical Water Supply Service Area (CWSSA). This declaration must be based upon the findings of a
Preliminary Assessment identifying issues related to:
. . Inadequate water quality
. Unreliable service
. Ineffective and uncoordinated planning
.
vot
'2 )~ ., u'r
. 'if: r ,,'Ii:
- 2 ~ilO
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-10
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
Based upon the findings of the Preliminary Assessment, the County Board of Commissioners, with the
support of the water purveyors, declared the County to be a CWSSA, by resolution on October 24, 1983,
and confinned in 1995.
In 1995 the original Assessment and CWSSA boundaries of water systems were reviewed. The
Assessment and boundaries were confinned by the County Commissioners in September 1995, indicating
a continuing need to address these issues.
The Jefferson County Water Utility Coordinating Committee prepared an update of the Jefferson County
Coordinated Water System Plan which was' approved" by the State DOH' in Mây, 1997: Thcfp1ârfwill"bë
revised upon adoption of this Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the plan, particularly with
reference to the current and future supply situation.
Issues Related to Water Resources Development for Public Supply
.. ". Indian,. T-reaty-Rights:-,The..1-974~'BoldC-decision held.that-the Indian-- Tr:ibes .signatory to .18S5..treaties- '..
(in what is now Washirlgton) were entitled to the opportunity of harvesting half of the harvestable salmon
and steelhead returning to off-reservation fishing grounds. A subsequent decision held that the right to
harvest fish implies a right to protection of the fisheries habitat. The method by which the Tribes were to
execute this right to protect the habitat has not been defined.
In the 1980s, the State and the Tribes entered cooperative arrangements to manage the fisheries, and to
explore the implications of the Boldt decisions on water resources and habitat management. Discussions
of these topics eventually lead to a 1990 retreat at Lake Chelan to fonnulate and implement a cooperative
watershed planning initiative for the State.
Watershed Planning: Development of watershed plans generally involve local committees and
considerable local, state, and federal agency involvement. In Jefferson County, the Quilcene/Dabob Bay
Watershed Action Plan (June 1991), the Ludlow Watershed Action Plan (November 1993), and the
Discovery Bay Watershed Management Plan (March 1995) have been developed.
The most comprehensive watershed planning effort to date is the Dungeness-Quilcene (DQ) Planning
Process, funded in 1990 by the State as a pilot planning effort under the Chelan Agreement.
Representatives of state, local and tribal governments, and agricultural, business, environmental, fisheries,
and recreational interests participated through caucuses to gather and evaluate infonnation which led to
the final DQ Plan, dated June 30, 1994.
The DQ Plan provided regional strategies and recommendations to address water use, management,
conservation, and related habitat issues for both the Dungeness and the Quilcene watersheds. A special
recommendation for the region was to conduct a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the
quantity and quality of surface and ground water. A work plan for a five-year study was developed by the
United States Geological Survey for the DQ project. An accompanying recommendation included
continuing water quality and quantity data monitoring and management which is recognized as essential
for ongoing water resource and land use planning efforts.
Recommendations of the DQ Plan specific to Eastern Jefferson County included limiting new surface
water rights or pennits until such time as in stream flows for each stream are adopted by rule by the
Department of Ecology. Ground water, habitat, fish management, education, and conservation strategies
were also developed. It was recommended that a Watershed Council representative of all interests be
fonned to focus and coordinate habitat restoration effort, to investigate the resources, to design and
implement projects, and to work with Ecology on instream flow and water rights issues.
24 'F"~ 2 ¿Jl1.
~ r. u-
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-11
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
The Jefferson County Water Resources Council was fonned in January 1995 in order to implement the
DQ and other watershed plans. In October 1997, the County joined the Water Resources Council. The
Council has been designated as the watershed planning and management unitfor the Quilcene-Snow
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 17) under state funding for watershed planning. The DQ Plan
will serve as the basis for the next level of watershed planning, technical studies, and policy development.
.
Other watersheds in Jefferson County have not had the benefit of pilot planning efforts, and will require
coordination with other counties. Jefferson County watersheds in WRIA 16 along Hood Canal, including
the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers', willbe'planned'under a"multHurisdictional þroc-ess with Mason
County, Skokomish Tribe, and other stakeholders. The County will work cooperatively with Clallam and
Grays Harbor Counties and local tribes to develop watershed planning units for the western portion ofthe
County, where WRIA 20 (Soleduck-Hoh) and WRIA 21 (Queets-Quinault) will be addressed.
The watershed planning process will require new coordination and organizational efforts across both
"u watershed and jucisdictionalboundaries..,.Jefferson County is in the- process of laying- the-foundatiou-for -- -""
these efforts as this Comprehensive Plan is being completed.
The proposed listing of salmon and bull trout native to Jefferson County streams under the Endangered
Species Act highlights the need to integrate watershed and fish habitat recovery plans. The County will
work with local, state, and federal agencies to implement potential recovery projects and develop land use
regulations based on these plans to protect the water resources of the County for use by future residents
and to recover the salmon and other fish species that are threatened with extinction.
Existing Water Facilities
.
Water Rights: In preparation of Jefferson County's Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP - 1996
Draft), systems serving over 50 connections were examined to detennine the adequacy of existing supply
and capacity for future growth. These systems, in addition to others in the County, are identified in Table
11-3, A summary list of water rights and water systems by planning area is identified in Table 11-7.
Adequate water rights are a requisite for regional water supply development and planning. Being able to
acquire new water rights is a necessary component of new source selection and development.
The City of Port Townsend: The City is in a unique situation because the municipality pOSSesses
- substantial water rights, has current capacity to contract water supply to several other entities, and thus act
as a water "wholesaler."
The City's water rights include:
.
19.39 MGD from the Big Quilcene River (perfected, primary water right).
6.18 MGD from the Little Quilcene River (perfected, low flow restricted, water right).
32.32 MGD from the Dosewallips River (application only, not a perfected water right).
3.53 MGD from the Chimacum Valley in the fonn of ground water (perfected water rights).
.
.
.
The combined surface water rights equal 25.57 MGD and ground water rights equal 3.53 MGD for a total
of 29.1 MGD. The Little Quilcene water right is low flow restricted, making the combined use of the
Little and Big Quilcene sources difficult during summer months. However, both of these sources can be
used to fill storage reservoirs (e.g., Lord's Lake and €:ity Lake).
.
VOL
'2,4 '~r;.
,- r,,--
~~ --1 .-,
2J~¡(;,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-12
August28,1998
UTILITIES
.
Supply to the City of Port Townsend (and Port Townsend Paper Company) is restricted by the existing
pipeline capacity (19.4 MGD). The City's available average supply is a combination of the pipeline
capacity (19.4 MGD) and Chimacum Valley ground water pumping and treatment capacity (0.900 MGD)
for a total of 20.3 MOD.
Table 11-2
City of Port Townsend Water Supply
The City is under contract to supply 14.9MGD"6fits water, as shown below:
User
Port Townsend Paper Company
NavylIndian Island
Fort Flagler
Fisheries
"PUD (S~"iIãstihgsJ" .. ,~. -, - ..".,..
PUD (Glen Cove)
Total Supply
Quantity (MGD)
14.400
0.114
0.015 (5,5 MGlYear)
0.042 (15.5 MGlYear)
""0"280-.--."- --.
0.050
14,901
PUD and PUD Satellites: PUD Satellite Systems are listed below:
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
Bywater Bay
Glen Cove Water System (Commercial and Residential)
Glen Cove South
Lazy "C" Water System (LUD No.8)
LUD No.3 (Hastings Loop South)
LUD No.1 (Gardner)
Triton Cove Estates-Marshal Addition - (LUD No.6)
The LUD No.3 and the Glen Cove Systems have been dependent on water supply from the City of Port
Townsend. However, for the Glen Cove System, the PUD has recently acquired water rights to
supplement City supply. The remainder of the current PUD systems is dependent upon ground water for
their source. In general, the current availability of water appears adequate, although as indicated in the
Water Rights Infonnation, some may need to secure or confinn water rights.
In addition to the systems noted above, the PUD has several additional small systems. It is anticipated
that the PUD will increase this number significantly over the next few years.
Other Systems: Other systems examined included the following:
. Jefferson County WD No.1
. Jefferson County WDNo. '3
. Cape George Colony Club
. Ludlow Water Company
. Kala Point Water System
. Bridgehaven Water System
. Olympic Mobile Village
. . Olympus Beach Tracts, Inc.
. Pleasant Tides Water Co-op
. Seamount Estates Community Club
\ 'n'
y 1.)1-
'-"4
f<' '
, r'- \ r c-
..., "'.LJ,
2J~3
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-13
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
There are no reported critical problems with any of these systems, and water availability appears adequate
for current needs.
.
Table 11-3
Jefferson County Water Systems oflnterest
Identification Number Facility Name
PUD Systems**(Expanding)
17741X
025164
00058D
07877W
02676T
0204JP --"'k ,,-' " .'.,
894470
Glen Cove (Commercial and Residential)
Glen Cove South
LUD No.3 (Hastings Loop South)
LUD No.1 (Gardner)
Lazy "C" Water System (LUD No.8)
_J~~a~~rBay (f9Pf\ R~s()\lrces) , n ,-,' , . '" -on
Triton Cove Estates - Marshal Addition (LUO No.6)
Other Systems
69000R
08330N -
11050C
36705Y
375006
68700L
367115
205141
637009
03313C
76986X
Port Townsend, City of
Bridgehaven Water System
Cape George Colony Club, Inc.
Jefferson County Water Dist. No.1
Kala Point Water System
Ludlow Water Co.
Jefferson County WD No.3
Olympic Mobile Village
Olympus Beach Tracts, Inc.
Pleasant Tides Water Co-op
Seamount Estates Community Club
.
SURFACE/STORM WATER UTILITIES
Surface/Storm Water Quality: Introduction
In November 1996 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners detennined that a County stonn water
management ordinance was necessary in order to comply with the 1991 (revised May 1994) Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan, and to meet the applicable goals of the Growth Management Act
(GMA), RCW 36.70A
The 1991 (revised May. 1994) Puget Sound WateLQuality Management Plan requires that all cities and
counties in the Puget Sound Basin adopt ordinances requiring stonn water controls for new development
and redevelopment including:
.
VOL
24 r~Œ
2 !:it4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-14
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
1. Control of off-site source water quality and quantity (as related to quality) impacts.
2. Use of best management practices (BMPs) for source control and treatment.
3. Use of the Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (The Technical Manual) and
BMPs for the ~ffective treatment of the stonn size and frequency (design stonn) for proposed
development.
4. Use of infiltration (downward movement of water from the surface to the subsoils), with appropriate
precautions, as the first consideration in stonn water management.
5. Protection of stream channels and wetlands.
6. Erosion and sentiment control for new development and redevelopment projects.
Jefferson County's Stonn Water Management Ordinance (No. 10-1104-96) adopts the Stonnwater
Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (current edition) as the stonn water manual, adopts
thresholds for detennining development requirements, and provides a means of regulating land disturbing
activities on private and public land and subsequent stonn water runoff. The Ordinance defines "stonn
water" as follows: "That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or
evaporate,- but. flows via. overland t1øw,.interflow,-channels or.pipes.intQ a.defIned-surface water channel, .-
or a constructed infiltration facility."
Surface/Storm Water Quality: Issues
Jefferson County's strategy for future management of surface/stonn water systems will be based on a
coordinated approach, including collaborative watershed management, with an emphasis on water quality
and quantity management. The key future activities include:
1. Development of a comprehensive County-wide Surface/Stonn Water Management Plan that includes
infrastructure inventory, public outreach, technical basin planning requirements, financial planning,
and operational components.
2. Development of Flood Control Management plans, in collaboration with local and regional groups
such as flood control advisory boards, watershed planning groups, and other agencies, that includes
financing and implementation components.
3. Development of a Jefferson County Ordinance for stonn water facility maintenance.
4. Participate as a member ofthe Water Resources Council for Water Resources Inventory Area 17 and
other areas of eastern Jefferson County, and as a member of watershed management unites) fonned by
multi-jurisdictional and community interests for watersheds in western Jefferson County.
5. Review and update the County Storm Water Management Ordinance as surface/stonn water
management plans become available for implementation.
VûL
CJ,ß
I' 4- . H,~
-- - rrl,,-
2'-1 ~
~-L':>
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-15
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
LOCATION OF CURRENT ELECTRICAL UTILITY FACILITIES
(j)
W
J-
.:J
0
«
IJ..
>-
I-
-..J
J-
::::>
-..J
e:(
()
-
a:
I-
()
W
-J
W
IJ..
0
Z
0
J-
e:(
C,)
0
-..J
---
..
..
.
..
..
.
s
'"
<.:I
ì:
;¡:;
~
8
=
c
'"
~
.
.. ,
. ...
.4 ì:
;¡:;
:>
c
~'"'
'"
C
'"
'"
...
=
"
r "
..
~...
q
=!
a..
q ~ ~
=! z
a.. ::J =!
0
~ u a..
z 0:: ç 0::
::J 0 Z
0 0 ID ::J LLJ
Z e::: ~
w u '" 0 0
CJ =- J: U a..
,W
,-I :5 (J') z ~
-I ~ 0 LLJ
:5 (J') c.:>
a::: '" ::J
U c.:> ::E a..
~II
..
¡:
§
C
'"'
~
:5
'"'
,,-
-" I"
-:",:q'
. . . .
. "
'-,;:. .
',:'
11-16 Vot
'24
")5:16
Ie:.
r~i[~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
.
LOCATION OF CURRENT CONVENTIONAL TELEPHONE FACILITIES
(f)
W
t-
~
0
«
u.
w
z
-0
I
a..
w
....J
W
J-
~
«
z
0
J-
Z
W
>
Z
0
0
J-
Z
W
a:
c: V)
::::> z
(,) w Q
z !;(
0 ~
:t:
u.. a.. z
0 w =>
...J ::¡
0 tii w :::E
~ 0
z w
Z w == 0 u
c.:> w
0 w v?- !:::
...J z I-:
- => => a..
J-
«
-0 " I~
0 "
"
"
~ "
.
.
...' ...
'. f;:
z
::>
0
~u
I'
f:
z
::>
8
;:II
3
::s
'-'
. -
.-
. '
;" I' . ..
, .
~, ,
. ..,.,... ", ".'
. . , -,
.
..
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
11-17
YOI-
24
'ACri
r,.. ~:
~.2 ¿;l7 August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
LOCATION OF CURRENT CELLULAR PHONE FACILITIES
.
en
w
-~
-:J
0
«
u.
a:
«
....J
::>
....J
....J
W
0
I-
Z
W
a:
a:
::>
0
u.
0
z
0
-
I-
<C
()
0
....J
a::
S
::¡
...J a::
, ¡j:5
CI u ::¡
Z ...J
..... ::I: ...J
~ U .....
tj ::¡ u
0 l-
I:¡;: .1/:1
::( !;t
1
~
Z
:0
8
;¡:;
0
::!
;:;(
~
.
~
I:
::>
8
I
. .
.
"
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
>, ~.
11-18
VOL
2 4 r~Œ
'2 518 August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
.
LOCATION OF CURRENT CABLE TELEVISION FACILITIES
.
(J)
W
t-
...J
0
. .C:(
LL:.
Z
0
(J)
>
W
....I
W
t-
W
-.J
m
.«
u
t-
Z
W
a:
a:
::>
0
u..
0
Z
0
-
l-
e:(
(,)
.0
...J
.
..... .....
~ z u
u 0 5
Z :r: a::: Z
- a.. .....
..... ..... U') Q
...J...J U')
II) ..... ..... -
« I- ...J (;j
C U ...J ~ ...J
Z ..... ~ u ~
~ ~ « z u
~ tñ U a::: t::
a::: 0 ~ ~
~ 0 U') :::¡;
z 0 ..... ::>
- :r: 3: U')
~~I ¡I!
--
¡:.
:>:
;¡
c:>
. '-'
,~' :>:
. ~
~ ~
. ...
, ...
:>:
;¡
c:>
~'-'
. "
,...
~
:>:
;¡
c:>
'-'
r::
:>:
;¡
8
'"
c:>
..
~
=
~
"
11-19
val.
ë 4 rA~~ ~~ 2¿{~Ugust28, 1998
Jefferson County Corrlp~ehensive Plan
-'
......
CD
¡;¡
üI
g
n
0
§
~
n
0
3
, "C
...,
go
g
'"
<'
('II
:g
~
.......
-
I
tV
0
ci
,,~
N
~o
~
::;~
, "1
N
U,
À".
,....
0
i
t;..)
~oo
....
\0
\0
00
LOCA TION OF CURRENT SA'NIT ARY SEWER iF ACILITIES
,;
ow:: ':~:::
..
. , , . . ..
..
,
..".",
. .. . '.
OCEAN GROVE SEPTIC SYSTEM
DISCOVERY RIDGE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
LEVINE DRAINFIELD
PORT LUDLOW SERVICE AREA
~1'
.
"
-
"
.
NASON COUNTY
.' a'
CRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
CRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
.
t
i
.
.
t"
0
(')
>
~
....
0
Z
0
~
i
z
~
~
~
~
tf1
~
~
~
I,:j
).
(')
)ooo
~
)ooo
~
t;1
tf1
§
t""
::¡
Eri
(/)
.
UTILITIES
.
LOCATION OF CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT F ACll.ITIES
.
C/)
W
I-
~
()
«
u.
I-
Z
W
~
W
(!) ...J
=-
« u.. x
0 0
z m
Z :5 a..
« ~ 0
~ eI::
Z 0
:::J
0 ::.:::
W u u
0
I- z ...J
0 0
(/) (f «
eI:: :I:
« La.J I-
u..
u.. eI::
~ La.J 0
.. a..
C
-
~
0
en
I-
Z
W
a:
a:
:::>
(,)
u.
0
z
0
I-
«
()
0
...J
.
-"""-':.-
x
0
[D
a..
0
eI::
0
La.J
Z
La.J
U
...J
5
0
\\
4 ~
z
;;>
0
~u
'"
0
'"
'"
, " ;¡
..
.. ""
Ø!
\'" <:I
. .
. . ' ~
;;>
0
u
'"
0
'"
'"
...
:::
~
'"
<:I
/:
z
::>
<:>
u
eI::
La.Jx
~o
:--[D
œa..
jo
...JeI::
uo
11-21
VOL
24 rArL --2 J,¿1.
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
"
UTILITIES
PROPOSED JEFFERSON COUNTY WATER SERVICE AREAS
.
,/-j:,.,=>
J-/
PROPOSED
JEFFERSON COUNTY
WATER SERVICE AREAS
BY WATER UTIUTY'
COORDINATING COMMI'ITEE
c...- .. """'.... by
PUDItIlol1do"'Y_'"
L
I
t
.."'M'". , ,.".
"~r""~""
~
h
CUUAK
[ì
PUD No.1
e,...... Da,
.
LEGEND:
k" "'::11 CUlllll:NlLY SER'IID A1IZM
W~%"4 PImJIIII SDW:II 01IBAS
IŒœ PORT -
~ crt'( SIIIVIa ADA
~ PORT tVWIIaIID PROPOSED
~ !I:I'ØIIAL RRVIÇJ: ØÞ$
-- It. ....
~1
~ I
JEFI'ER&,.."\'f i
~i
....... I :
.
NOTE:
FOR INFORMATION ~UR~OS£S ONLY --
The IOMS do.. Dol all..t lo Ule .eonra..,. ot lhe
jDlo"",olio" eo"lo:oed he....", o"d make. no ......only
"'tb ro.p.., lo it. correclne.. 0' .aUdlty.
MASON
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-22
, \lot
'24rME
".. 2 Li22
August 28, 1998
"
.
.
.
UTILITIES
PROPOSED FACILITIES
Facilities Background And Description: This section gives an overview of the proposed facilities
locations, service area, capacity, general issues, regulatory concerns on each utility as it relates to
planning for future system expansion.
Electricity: Future Capacity Needs and Requirements
Future Capacity Needs: The future electric load for Jefferson County is the current MY A customer
demand and anticipated 1998-2018 MY A load growth (Mé'gavölt.:Ampet'è electric power requirement in
1,000,000 volt-ampere units). Jefferson County population and employment forecasts (OFM) for the next
20 years are converted to demand in MY A, which in turn can be used to determine the amount of new
capital facilities needed to meet future needs of customers within the County.
13 MY A is the load predicted to be added to Puget Sound Energy's service areas of Jefferson County
during the next.20 years, including:Chimacum, Gardiner, Port Hadlock, Nordland, Port Ludlow, Port
Townsend, and Quilcene. This projected increase in MY A is expected to be reduced by 6.3% and 9% due
to the impacts of future conservation and demand-side management, respectively. Overall, the projected
net increase in MY A load during the next 20 years is shown below.
Table 11-4
2018 Projected Load Level
Existing Load (1997)
Less: Projected Conservation
Less: Projected Demand-Side Mgt.
Projected Load Increase (Growth)
TOTAL
72,0 MY A
(4.5)
(6.5)
24.0
85.0 MY A
The 2018 planning horizon for Jefferson County is based on a peak winter load of 85 MY A. An analysis
of capacity needed to meet growth is contained in Puget Sound Energy's Draft Electrical Facilities Plan
for the Jefferson County SubArea.
Future Facilities Requirements: Capital facilities are required during 1998-2018 to (1) serve the
CQunty's projected load growth, and (2) remedy specific transmission/distribution problems within the
existing electrical system. The following projects reflect a combination of overall system improvements,
transmission substation/line improvements, and distribution substations construction: 115 KV
Conversion; Port Townsend 66kV Loop Transmission Line; Irondale Transmission Substation Additions,
BPA Fairmont-Shine 230 kV ConversionIHood Canal Crossing, New Chimacum Distribution Substation,
and New Teal Distribution Substation.
Telephone: Future Capacity Needs and Requirements "
Conventional Telephone: State law requires US West to provide adequate telecommunications services
on demand. Accordingly, US West or other telecommunications providers will provide facilities to
accommodate growth within Jefferson County, regardless of growth pattern. Various regulations speak to
growth within service territories. WAC 480-120-086 requires maintenance of adequate personnel and
equipment to handle any reasonable demand and traffic. Furthermore, WAC 480-120-071 requires
establishment of a line extension policy, which is contained in US West's tariffWNU-24 Schedule 9, filed
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan ,
11-23
. VO'-
24 UGE: -2 523
August28,1998
UTILITIES
with the WUTc. The same tariff contains the company's policy for underground utilities, as required by
WAC 480-120-076.
.
us West's construction planning is driven by the needs of its Jefferson County customers. As the County
grows and telecommunications services evolve, facilities are upgraded to ensure adequate service levels.
US West's goal is to maintain routes at 85% capacity. When,usage exceeds 85%, additional facilities will
be planned, budgeted, and installed.
US West submits local planning and construction documents with Jefferson County and/or the City of
Port Townsend to obtain necessary developmentpennits mtdauthorizations. USWèst's ability to meet its
capacity commitments is affected by the efficiency of the local land use pennit process. County and
Municipal Departments of Public Works and Planning can also affect US West's ability to maintain
adequate public facilities. US West works with private developers, Jefferson County, City of Port
Townsend, and other community planners to develop plans that meet customer service demands. At the
present time, US West does not plan to expand current service areas.
...,........>....'."..,......--.- '.,...--...,....""..""
".". .. ,,--. -
Wireless Common Carriers (Including Cellular Phone Service): Unlike other utilities, the cellular
phone industry does not necessarily conduct long-range strategic facilities planning. Market demand is
analyzed to detennine expansions into new service areas. Cellular phone service can be expanded in a
given area to provide better service to cellular customers in two ways:
.
Extending the coverage to new areas, or
Increasing the capacity of the system within the current service area.
.
A decision to expand the system depends on a number of factors. First, the number of current customers
within the area and the capacity of the current system are analyzed to identify the need to expand.
Second, the quality of service within the area is continually evaluated, both electronically, at the
switching equipment, and through feedback from customers. If there are a significant number of service
failures reported, including dropped calls, continuous busy signals, or an "all circuits are busy" message,
the capacity of the system must be evaluated and usually improved to maintain consumer market share.
Third, the FCC license granted to the cellular carrier requires that service be provided to 75% of its
Cellular Geographical Service Area (CSGA) within five years from the date the license is granted.
Maintaining a high quality, interference-free service is essential in order to comply with these FCC
requirements.
.
In general it is anticipated that additional sites within the Jefferson County service area will be located
responsive to customer service needs, generally following increases in population densities and high
volume traffic corridors.
Sanitary Sewer: Future Capacity Needs and Requirements
Port Ludlow Service Area: Growth in the Port Ludlow area has been steady since 1967, despite
fluctuatiôJÌsÎn regîòriälhousing"dénhiIids."Sewei' connections were pròvided to 845 ERU (Equivalent
Residential Unit = 785 residential + 60 commercial ERU) by the end of 1995, another 80 ERU will be
connected through 1996, and an additional 521 ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit = 230 gallons per day
[GPD] @ 1O0.GPD per Table 14A person X 2.3 persons per household) are forecasted during 1997-2002
(growth estimated @ 80 residential per year + 47,500 sq. ft of commercial @ 200 GPD/l,OOO sq. it).
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-24 'VOL
':¿ 4, ~ q:
, . ,r-,.¡,\,.
2 ,.-r) \
. oJ ,<.- L.
,'"
August28,1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
The current and recommended LOS for wastewater treatment and transmission is 230 gallons per
dayÆRU (Equivalent Residential Unit @ 2.3 persons per household). This is based on 100 GPD per
person, which is the Department of Ecology (DOE) design criteria required for developing sanitary
sewage treatment facilities.
There are approximately 1,446 total sanitary sewer connections anticipated through 2000, which include
845 ERU for Actual 1995 (785 residential + 60 commercial ERU); 80 estimated additions during 1996;
and an additional 521 ERU during the 1997-2002 growth period (growth estimated at 80 residential per
year plus 47,500 sq. ft of commercial @ 200 GPD/1,OOO sq. ft).
The total average daily gallons per day (GPD) wastewater treatment requirement resulting from growth
demands (ERU) though 2002 will be 0.34 million gallons per day (MGD) at the current and
recommended LOS of230 gallons per dayÆRU.
The wastewater treatment plant (WTP) will be upgraded to treat 0.64 million gallons per day (MGD)
maximum monthly average, flow {with the addition of the third .aeration basin). -This-capacity upgrade.is ..-
anticipated to accommodate the projected 1997-2002 growth in ERU.
The capacity of the WTP, by conditions of various permits, cannot be expanded beyond the maximum-
monthly-average flow capacity of 0.64 million gallons per day (MGD). Therefore, the WTP capacity
controls the number of sewered residential and commercial ERU in the Port Ludlow community.
Public Utility District (PUD) No.1 Service Area: The systems are being constructed to a specific,
limited size, and will not be increased beyond the original design capacity.
Tri-Area Service Area: At the present time, septic systems provide the only mechanism for wastewater
disposal and treatment. If sanitary sewer service is to be provided to the Tri-Area in the near future,
specific level of service standards and wastewater capacity/facilities requirements will be necessary.
These requirements are discussed in this section of the Utilities Element, and are based on the results of a
recent study: Tri-Area Water and Wastewater Systems: Capital Facilities Requirements Analysis for
Jefferson County (October, 1996).
Wastewater Treatment: The recommended wastewater treatment LOS of 259 GPDÆRU for the Tri-
Area would require a current 1996 capacity of 0.670 MGD. The estimated GPD demand is based on 0.49
MGD for residential/commercial ERU's plus an additional 0.18 MGD for other current GPD City water
uses and contracts (EPA recommended 135 GPDÆRU for non-residential use is 20% of 687 MGDÆRU
water supply requirement for Tri-Area non-residential 0.898 MGD, which equates to 0.179 MGD). The
following anticipated future MGD requirements are: 1997-2002 = 0.727 MGD and 2003-2016 = 0.095
MGD for a 1996-2016 total treatment capacity requirement of 0.823 MGD.
Wastewater Collection: The recommended wastewater collection LOS of 1,361 GPDÆRU would
require a current 1996 capacity of 2.75 MGD. The estimated GPD demand is based on 2.57 MGD for
residentia:ltcommerCial"(ERU's)'plus'wf'ðdditiotlàl~0.18'MGD 'for other 'current GPD City water uses and
contracts (EPA recommended 135 GPDÆRU for non-residential use is 20% of 687 MGDÆRU water
supply requirement for Tri-Area non-residential 0.898 MGD, which equates to 0.179 MGD). The
following anticipated future MGD requirements are: 1997-2002 = 3.057 MGD and 2003-2016 = 0~501
MGD for a 1996-2016 total collection capacity requirement of3.558 MGD.
Wastewater Lift Stations: Based on a criteria of one lift station per 7,500 GPD or 25 ERU's at 300
GPD, the Tri-Area would require a current 1996 capacity of 0.747 MGD (100 lift stations). The
estimated GPD dem,lDd is based on 0.567 MGD for residential/commercial (ERU's) plus an additional
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-25
VOL
~4 r~G~ - 2525
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
0.179 MOD for other current GPO City water uses and contracts (EP A recommended 135 OPDIERU for
non-residential use is 20% of 687 MODIERU wa~er supply requirement for Tri-Area non-residential
0.898 MOD, which equates to 0.179 MOD). The following anticipated future OPD requirements are:
1997-2002 = 0.067 MOD (9 lift stations) and 2003-2017 = 0.110 MOD (15 lift stations) for a 1996-2016
total lift station requirement of 0.924 MOD (124 lift stations).
.
Solid Waste: Future Capacity Needs and Requirements
As of January 1998, Jefferson County has a services contract with a private commercial carrier to
transport the majority of its solid waste to a ländfilhité'inOóldendale,Washíngton.TlíèCoui1tyand
private recycling efforts manage the remaining solid waste material.
The County will continue to contract with private commercial carriers to dispose of solid waste at landfill
sites outside of Jefferson County for the foreseeable future. The County will also continue the use of
private contractors to manage the solid waste recycling effort. The County will continue to manage the
collection of Moderate, Risk,Waste -at the. County facility constructed in 1995-.- The~Moderate RiskWaste. '
is packaged and shipped off site for disposal outside of Jefferson County.
Table 11-5 shows the demand-ton 20-year forecast and recommended Levels of Service (LOS) for solid
waste management. The elements of analysis are as follows:
1. Time Period: Beginning with 1994 and continuing annually through 2017.
2. County-Wide Population Projection by Year: This population base is used since the County's
responsibility for solid waste operations is regional.
3. Annual Demand Tons: Refers to the annual total amount of tons of solid waste and recyclables
generated during the growth periods 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997-2002, and 2003-2017.
.
4. Level of Service (LOS): Refers to the forecasted waste demand in pounds on a per capita basis. This
demand level is predicted to increase based on an average rate of 3.99 pounds of solid waste
generated per person per day in conjunction with projected increases in Jefferson County population.
5. Recycled Tons: Refers to the amount of tons of solid waste that is recycled on an annual basis. This
data has three components: (1) curbside recycling collected by private solid waste commercial
carriers; (2) market-driven programs such as corrugated cardboard; and (3) the County recycling
programs at the recycling stations located pennanently at the Solid Waste Management Facility, Port
Hadlock and Quilcene Transfer Stations, and other areas in the County as detennined by the County,
providers, and the recycled materials market.
Table 11-5 reflects a recycling LOS which follows a County-wide (Jefferson County Department of
Public Works) 1997-2002 goal of 15% average recycling effort through the County's private
, -recycling"contractor. ,'It is anticipated therecýtling'goål would gradually increase to a 20% average
from years 2003 through 2016, and Table 11-5 reflects this assumption.
6. Recycled Material Percentage: Gives the percentage of waste recycled each year as either the result
of forecast tonnage or as a LOS, as described above.
.
'VOL
',2 A::, 'I:T':",
'i ~...,I'L
2', r(')6
, J ,..,
I
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-26
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
Waste Tons Migrating: Refers to the tonnage (15%) migrating out of the County's solid waste
system, predominantly construction and demolition material, because facilities are not available to
accept this waste, or because of lower cost alternatives for disposal or recycling compared to the
County's tipping fee.
Residual Tonnage Requiring Disposal: Refers to the remaining solid waste that is neither recycled
nor "lost" due to migration under the County's current policy of not using the landfill. The privately
hauled tonnage for the preferred LOS is based on the County-wide recycling· percentage goal (20%)
for 2003-2016.
TABLE 11-5
Solid Waste Forecast and Recycling LOS For Jefferson County
Recommended LOS=3.99 lbs. per person per day with a 15% recycling effort by 2002
.... 1 ......................... 2 ............ 3 ................ 4 ....... 5 ...... 6 ............... 7 ..... 8-.
Tim~ County Annuai ....... Level of Recycled RecyclEd Waste Tons Residual
Period Population Demand Tons Service Tons Material % Migrating Tonnage
Requiring
Disposal
1994 24,300 16,9~0 "- 3.86 1,930 11.30% 2,544 12,486
1995 25,196 18,341 3.99 2,383 13.00% 2,751 13,207
1996 25,754 18,805 3.99 2,445 13.00% 2,821 13,539
1997 .... 26,312 19,160 3.99 '~,491 13.00% 2,874 13,795
1998 26,886 19,578 3.99 2,741 14.00% 2,937 13,900
1999 27,477 20,008 3.99 2,80i"'"'- 1~.00% 3,001 14,206
2000 28,084 20,506 3.99 2,871 14.00% 3,076 14,559
2001 28,708 20,904 3.99 3,136 15.00% 3,136 14,632
2002 29,351 21,373 ' '' 3.99 3,206 15.00% 3,206 14,961
2003 30,012 21,854 3.99 3,278 15.00% 3,278 15,298
2004 30,693 22,411 3.99 3,586 16.00% 3,362 15,463
2005 31,394 22,860 3.99 3,658 16.00% 3,429 15,773
2006 32,1i5 23,385 3.99 3,742 '16.60% 3,508 16,135
2007 32,783 23,872 3.99 4,058 17.00% 3,581 16,233
2008 33,469 24,438 3.99 4,154 17.00% 3,666 16,618
2009 34,175 24,885 3.99 4,230 17.00% 3,733 16,922
26i0 34,900 25,413 3.~ 4,574 18.00°~o-'' 3,812 17,027
'2'0~1 35,645 25,956 .... ~'~99 4,672 18.0~% 3,893 17,391
2012 36,412 26,587 3.99 4,786 18.00% 3,988 17,813
2~1~ 3'7,200 27,088 3.99 5,147 19.00% 4,063 17,878
2014 38,012 27,679 3.99 5,259 19.00% 4,152 18,268
2015 38,698 "' 2~]~ 3.99 5,354'" 19.00% 4,227 18,598
2016 39-~3~97 28,766 3.99 5,753 20.00% 4~315 18,698
2017 40,087 29,190 3.99 5,838 20.00% 4,378 18,974
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan '- 11-27 August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
Water: Future Capacity Needs And Requirements
.
Water Demand: Estimates of water demand can be perfonned with multiple levels of sophistication and
for a range of planning timeframes. For individual water system plans (WSPs), estimates are generally
focused on a 20-year horizon. However, special emphasis should be made to the short-tenD (six years)
for capital planning and short tenD projects, and to the long-tenD (50 years) for major infrastructure
planning. The challenges associated with a 50-year forecast are the level of uncertainty, and the lack of
equivalency of the uncertainties between water systems. These uncertainties can be worse when planning
on a regional basis, where land use and economics can encourage growth in a variety of directions over
time. For the purposes of this Plan, a 20-year populàtiön projection and dêl1iand 'fóreCástliiíVè heeD used.
Based upon the population growth projected in planning areas represented in Table 11-6, an average day
demand and peak day demand for the area was detennined. To arrive at these numbers, data from various
utilities and data derived during the development of the Jefferson County's Coordinated Water System
Plan (CWSP - 1996 Draft) was used. An average day per capita use of 120 gallons per day (GPD) was
".. appropriate for use-in all areas except for. the-City ",- F oT-..the City, data indicated that the per capita use-was. ....,
closer to 200 gpd, in all likelihood due to commercial and industrial use in the area.
Table 11-6
Jefferson County Population Growth Projections
Number Area 1996 2016 Change Growth
RatelYR
1 Port Townsend 8,366 13,876 5,501 2.56% .
2 Quimper Peninsula 2,927 4,076 1,149 1.67%
3 Marrowstone Island 839 1,015 176 0.96%
4 Tri-Area 4,324 5,489 1,165 1.20%
5 Discovery Bay 1,085 1,470 385 1.53%
6 CenterlInland Valleys 1,351 1,759 408 1.33%
7 Port Ludlow/Oak Bay 1,985 4,900 2,916 4.62%
8 ShinelParadise Bay 897 1,471 574 2.50%
9 Coyle/Toandos Peninsula 411 596 185 1.88%
10 Quilcene 1,308 1,797 489 1.60%
11 Brinnon 1,299 1,943 644 2.03%
12 West End 962 1,005 43 0.22%
Total 25,754 39,389 13,635 2.15%
The use of these figures is consistent with those provided as Level of Service Standards (LOS) in the
Capital Facilities Element since a per capita figure should generally be multiplied by 2.2 (for Jefferson
County) to get a per connection figure. The resulting number should then be multiplied by 2 or 2.5 to get
- .." "'a anticipåiêd'péák day dem-aÏ1d. Translatiñg"iI1è"aboveflgures into a span for peak day demand (per
connection) of between 660 GPD and 880 GPD. For long range and County-wide planning, these
numbers compare well with the LOS and DOH standards of 400 GPD (average) and 800 GPD LOS
(peak). This is particularly true given the uncertainties of the effects of conservation programs and the
variety of demand throughout the County.
.
'v:mt
,('14
')! /'. ":I'r"'-
if- - r-¡.¡\.¡,~
2528
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-28
August28,1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
Table 11-7 shows the results of this analysis. By 2016, the County can expect to be using over 6,500 acre
feet of water a year. On a peak day (using 2.5 as a peaking factor), the anticipated population of 39,000
people will demand about 14.6 MGD. These figures do not take into account conservation measures yet
in effect as of January 1998.
With the general demand calculations as a function of population, the high demand areas are those where
mentioned high rates of growth are anticipated. Accordingly, Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, Brinnon, and
ShinelParadise Bay are anticipated to provide the largest increase in demand.
Assessment of Needed Capacity: The assesSrtiêht"prövided below'is broken doWn ilito 12 "planning
areas~ Although the discussion focuses on several of the larger water systems in each area, smaller water
systems and individual supplies will continue to be significant in meeting future demand.
The following analysis is intended to put the water supply needs in perspective to available supply. The
major assumption used for this analysis is that people will want to go, or will go, where there is supply.
The record is clear-that construction and. demand are geographically a function of perceived and desired- "-
lifestyle, economics, and regulation (resource management). If the economics are such that a lifestyle can
be obtained with private water supply, and there is no regulatory (or resource) reason to prohibit well
construction or diversions, then private supplies will be developed regardless of public supply
availability.
Again, any comparison of water rights to demand and system capacity with regional demand, must be
done with these limitations in mind. It is interesting and valuable, however, to know whether public
supply in an area (planning area in this case) is in a position to meet some, most, or all of the area's
anticipated growth. This information can serve to highlight critical supply issues, or draw attention to
areas where on a relative basis, supply may not be as much of a problem.
The following analysis, is provided for this purpose and is not intended to portray a precise prediction of
supply needs.
Port Townsend: The City has a surface water withdrawal right of up to 25.57 MGD. However, pipeline
capacity is limited to 19.4 MGD. The paper mill (Port Townsend Paper) has contract rights to 14.4 MGD
of this diversion and other contracts to total 14.8 MGD. The remainder (5 MGD) is available to meet the
City's growth.
Population and related peak day demand at 2016 could be in the range of 6.9 MGD. The current 5 MGD
surface water supply will be insufficient to meet the City's needs on a peak day basis. The City has
projected a buildout scenario (City limits) of25,000 people (included in "Population Change in Jefferson
County: The Next 20 Years", April 1992, Jefferson County). With this scenario, at 200 GPD average
day, demand might reach 5 MGD (with peak day at nearly 13 MGD). This might be a conservative
estimate. With the growth rate continuing at the Watterson Report rate (2.62 percent per year) to the year
2046 (50 years), Port Townsend's population would be expected to reach about 30,000. Under either
scenario; exi'stingsupply.ofS-MGD wiUnot "íIieet-tbeseÌleeds in the absence of conservation measures
now in effect.
Quimper: The Quimper area's water systems have the capacity and water rights to serve only about 75
percent of the anticipated population increase. Total increase in this area is expected to be about 1,150
people by 2016. The largest available capacity exists on the PUD's South Hastings Loop (LUD No.3)
where capacity and water rights for about 250 connections currently exists. Cape George and the Glen
Cove Systems both expect to serve significant increases over the next 20 years (collectively increasing
from the current 614 connections to 1,065), but both currently lack water rights and capacity to do so.
, - - YOI- 2 4 UC~ 2 ~29
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-29
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
Consequently, without new water rights and capacity, about one quarter of the projected new growth will
occur on small public systems or private individual wells. Water systems and capacity for this area are
shown in Table 11-8.
.
Marrowstone: Very little public water service exists on Marrowstone Island. While a significant new
public water system might be possible, the addition of only about 80 new dwellings to serve about 175
people over the next 20 years may not justify such a system. Consequently, the area will rely on ground
water sources which, based on DOE Water Resource Bulletin No. 59 and the PUD Report "Ground Water
Characterization in East'Jefferson County", appeatto'b~ subjecnö possible overdtafting and seawater
intrusion.
Tri-Area: The Tri-Area is a much more complicated situation. Three large public water systems
currently serve the area (Kala Point, the POD, and the City). While Kala Point and the POD both plan on
serving a considerable number of new customers over the next 20 years with their existing capacity
(combined~ this would mean aboutJOO new connections), the City and the management of its supply- and
service area are an important component of future water supply in this area.
This area as a whole is expected to grow by about 1,150 people over the next 20 years. This will roughly
equal about 525 new connections. Subtracting the PUD and Kala Point capabilities, this leaves the need
for about 200 new connections.
The City has been serving its service area (significant areas of Irondale, Hadlock, and Chimacum), with
supply from two wells in the area supplemented (or vice versa) with water from its Quilcene supply.
Looking to the future, the City may not be able, given DOH treatment/chlorinating rules. to provide
surface water to this area. The City has ground water rights of 3.53 MGD in the Tri-Area, with only
about 800,000 gallons to I MGD of that developed. In addition to the Tri-Area, the City has
commitments to provide water throughout the area to Indian Island and Fort Flagler. These commitments
are about 700,000 GPO at the maximum. The City (Fact Sheet dated July 17, 1995) has listed a
maximum day residential and commercial demand for the area at 919,048 (399,586 average day) GPO.
The City also listed its current surface water commitmentto the area at 1 MGD.
.
Future demand for the entirety of the needed 525 connections could be an additional 0.5 MGD at 800
GPD per connection. (Again, this assumes build-out of Kala Point and the POD Glen Cove South, and no
private well development.) As noted above, the City has water rights for potentially 3.53 MGD from the
two wells in the Tri-Area. If the City were able to provide an additional 0.5 MGD (Total well production
of about 1.4 MGD) from these wells, then total peak demand could be met by this additional supply.
To meet the total supply needs from its ground water sources, the City would need to provide 2.1 MGD
(919.048 current demand, 700,000 contracted, and 500,000 new demand from 500 new customers). This
is theoretically possible from the water rights available to the City. From a water rights standpoint. this
area could have a surplus by 2016 even without new conservation measures. Water systems and capacity
for this area'areshowu-inTable'U-8. . .
Discovery Bay: Discovery Bay planning area has only one large non-transient public water system. The
POD's Gardner Water System (LUD No.1) is about half developed with about 100 connections
remaining. These will only meet about 60 percent of the area's anticipated growth of about 385 people
over the next 20 years. Smaller water systems and private wells will be required to meet the remaining
need. The Gardner Water System capacity for this area is shown in Table 11-8.
.
ViGil
<),(j'AT,r
;(.., ":t (,..;\;,':
2 .-. ("""to
: . J-..)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-30
August28,1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
CenterlInland Valley: No large public water systems exist in this area. Consequently, it is anticipated
that all of the nearly 400 new residents in the area will be on small systems or private domestic wells.
Port Ludlow/Oak Bay: The Port Ludlow/Oak Bay area is forecast to experience the largest population
increase (nearly 2,900 people or about 1300 dwellings) over the next 20 years. This area is served by two
water systems (the Ludlow Water Company and Olympus Beach Tracts, Inc.). According to size, Ludlow
is the main water supplier for the area. The system has a capacity of about 2,450 with about 800
residential connections currently. This leaves sufficient capacity to meet the forecast demand for the area.
Water systems and capacity for this area are shown in Table 11-8.
Shine/Paradise Bay: This planning area is served by three of the larger water systems (PUD's Bywater
Bay, Jefferson County Water District No.1, and the Bridgehaven Water System). Altogether these
systems have water rights and capacity to meet the anticipated demand from roughly 575 new residents to
the area by 2016. Water systems and capacity for this area are shown in Table 11-8.
Coylerroandos Peninsula: The CoylelToandos Peninsula is served by. only one of the County's larger.
water systems - Jefferson County Water District No.3. This utility has the capacity to serve an additional
350 people, if necessary. Growth for this rural area is anticipated to be only about 185 over the next 20
years. Because of its rural nature, the Water District may not find it necessary to tax its resources
significantly to meet demand. Jefferson County Water District No.3 capacity for this area is shown in
Table 11-8.
Quilcene: With support from a Washington CERT Grant, the Quilcene area is actively involved in a
planning process for a public water system to serve the community. Pending final development of this
plan the projected 489 additional people expected to reside in the area by 2018 will need to rely on small
systems and private domestic wells.
Brinnon: This area is served by several water systems. These include the PUD's Lazy "C" System, its
Triton Cove System, the Pleasant Tides Water Co-Op, and the Seamount Estates Community Club
system. The combined capacity and water rights of these systems will nearly meet the anticipated
demand of over 600 additional people in the area by 2018. Of the systems, the Lazy "C" system is
expected to expand to accommodate 48 additional connections over the next several years. Water
systems and capacity for this area are shown in Table 11-8.
West End: The limited growth in this area will need to be met by private domestic supplies or small
water systems, since there are no significant public systems in the area now, and the low growth rate is
unlikely to justify larger new systems~
vnl-
') A 'He
::"1 r,.,,-
5'531
~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.11-31
August 28, 1998
--
UTILITIES
Table 11-7 Water Demand and Capacity Projections Summary .
Area Demand 1996 Average 2016 Average 2046 Average 1996 Peak 2016 Peak Day 2046 Peak Water Right Water Right
Daily Daily Daily Day (MGD) (MGD) Day (MGD) (MGD) (AcFtlYr)
(AcFtlYear) (AcFtlYear) (AcFtlYear)
Port Townsend 1,874 3,107 6629.50 4.18 6.93 14.79618 29.1 0
Quimper Peninsula 393 548 900.33 0.88 1.22 2.009429 1.04 692
Marrowstone Island 113 136 181.54 0,25 0.30 0.405176 0 0
Tri-Area 581 738 1055.25 1.30 1.65 2.355189 4.27 2,010
Discovery Bay 146 198 311.60 0.33 0.44 0.695457 0.44 155
Center/Inland Valleys 182 236 351.26 0.41 0.53 0.783976 0 0
Port Ludlow/Oak Bay 267 659 2555.78 0.60 1.47 5.704167 1.44 492
Shine/Paradise Bay 121 198 415.24 0.27 0.44 0.926754 0.56 317
Coyle/Toandos 55 80 139.90 0.12 0.18 0.31223 0.2 126
Peninsula
Quilcene 176 242 388.97 0.39 0.54 0.86812 0 0
Brinnon 175 261 477.77 0.39 0,58 1.066325 0.679 334
West End 129 135 144.25 0.29 0.30 0.321939 0 0
Area Capacity Water Right In Service In Service Ac In Service In Service Ac. Notes Notes
Surplus or Deficit 2016 Supply Ft Capacity Supply Ft Capacity
(AcFt/Year) 2016 (MGD) 2016
Port Townsend 0 0 0 5.00 -1.93 1 1
Quimper Peninsula 144 818 270 0.73 -0.49
Marrowstone Island -136 0 -136 0.00 -0.30
Tri-Area 1,212 1,686 - 948 1.51 -0.14 2 2 .
Discovery Bay -43 493 295 0,44 0,00
Center/Inland Valleys -236 0 -236 0.00 -0.53
Port Ludlow/Oak Bay -167 1,266 607 1.13 -0.34
Shine/Paradise Bay 119 515 318 0.46 0.02
Coyle/Toandos 46 213 133 0.19 0.01
Peninsula
Quilcene -242 0 -242 0.00 -0.54
Brinnon 73 874 613 0.78 0.20
West End -135 0 -135 0.00 -0.30
1. From Surface Supply minus Port Townsend Paper Supply-Pipeline Capacity at 19.4 MOD with Contract for 14.8 MOD.
2. 785 from Port Townsend Paper Supply Pipeline
.
,24 '9 "~2
: V:0L +,~r,:: ,z,wJ~) ~J
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 11-32 August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
Table 11-8
Jefferson County Large Water Systems
Grouped by Planning Area
System Water Capacity % Current Information Capacity ERU Basis
Rights % of of Subarea ERU Source ERU
Subarea
Area 2 - Quimper
LUD No.3 (Hastings 0% 0% 180 SSA 445 DOH
Loop South) (1) Approved
Cape George Colony 74% 81% 391 SSA 460 DOH
Club, Inc. Approved
Glen Cove Water 0% 0% 117 SSA 154 DOH
System (i) Approved
Olympic Mobile 26% 19% 76 SSA 99 DOH
Village Approved
Area 4 - Tri Area
Glen Cove South 3% 9% 43 SSA 117 DOH
Approved
Kala Point Water 14% 39% 405 SSA 617 DOH
System Approved
Port Townsend, City of 83% 52% 3015 Calculated (1) 4413 Calculated
(Ground Water) (1)
Area 5 - Discovery
Bay
LUD No.1 (Gardiner 100% 100% 100 SSA 200 DOH
Water System) Approved
Area 7 - Port Ludlow
Olympus Beach Tracts, 4% 6% 52 1992 CWSP 75 Calculated
Inc. Draft
Ludlow Water Co. 96% 94% 817 SSA 2452 WSP @ 160
per ERU
vn!-
"'4
¿> "r~
L - r,~,,~
2533
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-33
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
Table 11-8
Continued
.
System Water Capacity % Current Information Capacity ERU Basis
Rights % of of Subarea ERU Source ERU
Subarea
Area 8 - Shine
Bywater Bay (PUD) 7% 9% ", ..." .",. ..25. SSA. .36. . DOH
Approved
Jefferson County Water 43% 30% 190 SSA 432 DOH
DistrictNo. 1 Approved
Bridgehaven Water 50% 61% 87 1992 CWSP 350 Calculated
System Draft
. -. ."
Area 9 - Coyle
Jefferson County Water 100% 100% 95 1992 CWSP 250 Calculated
District No.3 Draft
Area 11- Brinnon
Lazy "C" Water 15% 13% 120 SSA 168 DOH
System Approved
Triton Cove Estates 3% 12% 33 SSA 99 DOH
Marshal Addition Approved
(LUD No.6)
Pleasant Tides Water 18% 15% 63 1992 CWSP 150 Calculated
Co-op Draft
Seamount Estates 65% 60% 56 SSA 151 DOH
Community Club Approved
.
.
vat
'2:,11 ., In;:
, Lf r,...,,-
2534
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-34
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
Table 11-8
Continued
System ERU Population Total Preliminary To be % Capacity
Available @ 2.2 per Available Demand Served with Public
ERU Projection Service
Area 2 - Quimper
LUD No.3 (Hastings 265 583 583
Loop South) (1)
Cape George Colony 69 152 152
Club, Inc.
Glen Cove Water 37 81 81
System (1)
Olympic Mobile 23 51 51
Village- .
TOTAL for AREA 867 1,149 282 75%
Area 4 - Tri Area
Glen Cove South 74 163 163
Kala Point Water 212 466 466
System
Port Townsend, City of 1,398 3,075 3,075
(Ground Water)
TOTAL for AREA 3,704 1,165 (2,539) 318%
Area 5 - Discovery
Bay
LUD No.1 (Gardiner 100 220 220
Water System)
TOTAL for AREA 220 385 165 57%
Area 7 - Port Ludlow
Olympus Beach Tracts, 23 51 51
Inc.
Ludlow Water Co. 1,635. 3,597 3,597
TOTAL for AREA 3,648 2,916 (732) 125%
VOI-
24 ur,:
2~3S
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-35
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
Table 11-8
Continued
.
ERU Population Total Preliminary To be % Capacity
Available @ 2.2 per Available Demand Served with Public
ERU Projection Service
Area 8 - Shine
Bywater Bay (PUD) 11 24 24
Jefferson County Water 242 , 532, ." 532 -."
District No.1
Bridgehaven Water 263 579 579
System
TOTAL for AREA 1,135 574 (561) 198%
Area 9 - Coyle----. -- --- --,,- --- -- "'---'" "'--,,- "" --- ---
Jefferson County Water 155 341 341
District No.3
TOTAL for AREA 341 185 (156) 184%
Area 11- Brinnon
Lazy "C" Water 48 106 106
System
Triton Cove Estates 66 145 145
Marshal Addition
(LUD No.6)
Pleasant Tides Water 87 191 191
Co-op
Seamount Estates 95 209 209
Community Club
TOTAL for AREA 651 644 (7) 101%
.
.
I,'! r:¡'~
~4 ,¡,it:r ,.2-" "':-.36
""- _. ,-,., ,. -- '-"
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-36
August 28,1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
GOALS AND POLICIES
NARRATIVE: The Utilities Element is closely linked with all the other elements of this Comprehensive
Plan. As in all elements of this Plan, the Goals are general statements while Policies are more specific.
Goals state the general growth management intentions of the County while the Policies provide direction
and mechanisms for reaching the stated Goals. Strategies identify. specific activities that will be used to
implement Policies.
GENERAL
GOAL:
UTG 1.0
POLICIES:
UTP 1.1
UTPl.2
UTP 1.3
UTP 1.4
UTP 1.5
'GOAL: ..
UTG 2.0
Provide adequate. utility capacity. for future growth. consistent - with.. the,
requirements of the Growth Management Act.
Identify where infrastructure is not adequate to support future growth, initiate planning
for the development of infrastructure required for future growth, and ensure that utility
infrastructure is adequate to support projected population growth and economic
development.
Extension and sizing of facilities will be based on the Land Use Element. In those cases
where engineering standards are in excess of the requirements for the immediate
development but are required to meet established levels of service for proposed uses and
future needs, the excess capacity will not be a reason to allow growth out of sequence
with the Land Use Element.
Require that adequate public facilities and services are available prior to, or concurrent
with, development.
Support efficient permit and application processing for utility systems projects to
facilitate timely completion of utility development to meet growth demands.
Ensure that all citizens served by an expanding public water supply or other utility are
represented by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) or
otherwise maintain representative and elected leadership to help ensure that long term
decisions are made in the best interests of rate payers.
Coordinate planning and provision of utility services among Jefferson County, the
State of Washington, local governments, and utility service providers.
VGI-
2'4 '¡r~
r ",,'
2 ::; ry...,
,-,vII
,J
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-37
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
POLICIES:
UTP 2.1
UTP 2.2
UTP 2.3
UTP 2.4
UTP 2.5
UTP 2.6
UTP 2.7
UTP 2.8
GOAL:
UTG
3.0
POLICIES:
UTP 3.1
UTP 3.2
UTP 3.3
Provide coordination between Jefferson County, agencies and utility providers to ensure
consistency between utility systems development and the growth plans of the County.
.
Require utility providers to consistently utilize the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element in utility systems planning.
Require the joint use of utility corridors whenever possible, provided that such joint use
is consistent with limitations"'pres-critiett 'by' aþþliëablé law and"pruderit'utility'system
practice.
Coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions when transmission facility additions or
improvements cross jurisdictional boundaries. Coordination to include maximizing
efforts to achieve consistency between jurisdictions in efficient development pennit
issuance.
Coordinate and consolidate public service or public facility districts, where feasible, to
distribute public services and facilities more efficiently.
Encourage WUTC acceptance of and reliance on local plans.
Develop a process for assessing and collecting impact fees from development for
publicly funded utilities infrastructure.
Require that utility infrastructure associated with new development, which the County
will assume maintenance/ownership, will be constructed to comply with Jefferson
County growth projections and standards.
.
Minimize adverse environmental impacts of utility systems development through
proper utility design, siting, regulation, ongoing monitoring, and education.
Design, site, and construct utility systems facilities to reasonably minimize significant,
individual, and cumulative adverse impacts to the environment, including protection of
environmentally sensitive areas.
Discourage the use of herbicides to cpntrol vegetative growth around utility facilities and
encourage alternative methods, such as mowing or selective treatment.
Participate in regional comprehensive watershed planning process, and incorporate
appropriate elements of watershed agreements between the County and stakeholders,
state, federal, tribal, and other local governments into ordinances and utilities planning
processes.
.
'~'n::
'5'11 :' ~Ir,
,_..I, Ir~--
?538
I~",
11-38
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
. GOAL:
UTG 4.0
POLICIES:
UTP 4.1
UTP 4.2
UTP 4.3
Identify, conserve and preserve resources, and to provide cost effective services.
Research and, as appropriate, implement resource conservation technologies in all areas
of new construction and large scale renovation of public facilities.
Maintain operating efficiency of existing resource consuming facilities in Jefferson
County.
Investigate, maintain current information, and, as appropriate, support implementation of
changes in technology and other changes that improve the provision of utility services
and provide for enhanced conservation.
WATER UTILITIES
GOAL:
UTG. 5.0
.
POLICIES:
UTP 5.1
UTP 5.2
UTP 5.3
UTP 5.4
.
UTP 5.5
Promote coordination of water utility planning among purveyors, government
agencies, and citizens to ensure an adequate potable water system, to protect tbe
quality oftbe water supply, and to conform witb tbe Comprehensive Plan.
The creation and the extension of public water supply systems outside Urban Growth
Areas shall be consistent with the rural densities specified in the Land Use Element, and
shall be financed entirely by the benefited properties and not the general rate payer.
Support the County Water Utility Coordinating Committee's (WUCC) routine review of
the Department of Health (DOH) records of the County water systems operational and
financial status, and work with the WUCC, DOH, and purveyors to determine required
corrective actions.
Participate in and assist the facilitation of regional discussions and analyses on water
quality and quantity issues through the WUCC, the Water Resources Council and other
regional forums.
UTP 5.3.1
Work in cooperation with, and as a member of, the Jefferson County
Water Resources Council in a cooperative process to assess the
-availability of water"fori'uture growth in the context of a watershed
planning process integrated with salmon recovery planning
Update the adopted Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan (1997)
incorporating the adopted land use, population allocations, and pertinent policy identified
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Take an active role in approving Satellite Management Agencies that are allowed to own
and operate multiple water systems that are not physically connected (satellite systems).
VOI-
24 f~r,~ ~ 2539
11-39
Jefferson County Comprehensíve Plan
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
UTP 5.6
UTP 5.7
UTP 5.8
UTP 5.9
UTP 5.10
UTP 5.11
Routinely review the Critical Areas Ordinance and CUITent data to identify and improve
processes that will reduce the risk of salt water intrusion.
.
Work to implement a long-tern ground water quantity and q\lality monitoring program
for basins that provide domestic water supplies.
Work with purveyors to promote the use of unaffected upland water sources and other
alternative supplies, where appropriate, to supply new and existing development in
affected areas.
,. ,-" "'"
Establish the best possible infonnation system to assess the status of water resource(s)
adequacy.
Identify and support implementation of conservation strategies that reduce average
annual and peak day water use for public and individual water systems.
--- ,-..- .
,,- -, -- - -~ -
The County recognizes the authority of Public Utility District #1 pursuant to RCW 54
and other applicable statutes. The County will cooperate with Public Utility District #1 to
develop final development regulations consistent with that authority.
SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES
GOAL:
UTG 6.0
POLICIES:
UTP 6.1
UTP 6.2
UTP 6.3
Promote sanitary sewer systems that accommodate growth, are cost-effective to
construct and operate, and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
.
Encourage development of community septic systems in Rural Centers to protect public
health, the environment, and foster a reliable, integrated collection system.
Existing sanitary sewer treatment facility capacity will not be used as a justification for
expansion of a sewer system or development inconsistent with County-wide Planning
Policies and the Comprehensive Plan.
Encourage the use of water-conserving fixtures with new systems or services.
SOLID WASTE UTILITIES
"GOAL:-
UTG 7.0
-'.'"'-
..-- -".--
Provide solid waste facilities and programs that are efficient, and which utilize
recycling to the maximum extent practicable.
.
VGt
:24r~Œ
254.0
11-40
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
POLICIES:
UTP 7.1
UTP 7.2
UTP 7.3
UTP 7.4
UTP 7.5
UTP 7.6
UTP 7.7
UTP 7.8
Implement, to the fullest extent possible, and in descending order of priority, solid waste
management processes that reduce the waste stream, reuse waste materials, promote
recycling, provide for the separation of waste prior to incineration or landfill disposal,
and provide guidelines and strategies for disposal of all special waste types.
Initiate and support public educational outreach on solid waste management, including
recycling opportunities, methods to reduce solid and chemical waste, and related
environmental issues.' .., ,.,
Identify and implement appropriate measures to ensure mitigation of adverse
environmental impacts associated with solid waste collection activities.
Maintain the Solid Waste Advisory Committee involving citizens, waste management
providers, regulatory agency representatives, the County, and other affected interests to.
identify methods for efficient and practical solid waste management, including small and
moderate-risk waste handling strategies.
Provide appropriate levels of collection and recycling opportunities which will maximize
public participation, and which offer the fullest practical and economical potential for
waste materials.
If incentive programs fail to reach the waste reduction goals identified in the Capital
Facilities Element, consider mandatory programs to the extent allowable by State law.
Identify and preserve for future use solid waste facility sites, including potential landfill
sites, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Solid Waste Management Plan.
Ensure reclamation of areas currently serving as solid waste disposal facilities to promote
the recovery of such areas for future functional land uses.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES
GOAL:
UTG 8.0
POLICIES:
, UTP8.1
UTP 8.2
UTP 8.3
Accommodate telecommunication technologies and service providers by allowing
systems development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
~-Promote the' widespread availability of tèlecommunications technologies in cooperation
with other public and private entities, to facilitate communication among members of the
public, public institutions and businesses.
Require consolidation of antenna siting, transmission media, utility pole, and trenching
placement to minimize adverse aesthetic and environmental impacts.
Develop, with public involvement, telecommunications systems service-antenna
structure-placement criteria, including identification of appropriate public sites,
'.
n'4
~ r A[,~
25(11
VOL
11-41
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, for use by
telecommunications technologies and service providers.
.
ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
GOAL:
UTG 9.0
POLICIES:
UTP 9.1
UTP 9.2
Encourage conservation of electricity and accommodate- efficient siting of electrical
utilities infrastructure consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
-", ..','-"-"--
Accommodate additions and improvements to electric utility facilities which improve
capacity and reliability of regional electrical utility services, particularly when multiple
jurisdictional benefits within the region can be achieved.
..,--",---,-----------,--,-,----
Accommodate electrical distribution facilities as a permitted use in appropriate locations
to ensure that land is available for the siting of electrical facilities.
SURFACE/STORM WATER UTILITIES
GOAL:
UTG 10.0
POLICIES:
UTP 10.1
UTP 10.2
UTP 10.3
UTP 10.4
UTP 10.5
UTP 10.6
Manage surface/storm water quantity and quality consistent with comprehensive
surface/storm water and watershed management plans and to minimize adverse
suñace/storm water impacts from development.
.
Develop a County-wide comprehensive Surface/Storm Water Management Plan.
Participate with other agencies and watershed councils to undertake joint planning,
financing and implementation of regional surface/storm water facilities.
Utilize criteria developed for the management of surface/storm water such as the Stonn
Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin.
Coordinate with state, regional and local agencies, including watershed councils, to
develop and implement policies for surface/stonn water management.
Consider the use of surface/storm water facilities, when appropriate, as meeting the
" . 'requirements for open space-orhabitat conservation corridors.
Initiate and support public education programs to improve public access to technical
information, public awareness of existing challenges with private and public
surface/storm water runoff, and continued public involvement in surface/storm water
management.
.
~¡Gt
'2- ,A ",:ArT" '- 25,12
: Lf r,"'ll,,_~ :' -
11-42
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
STRATEGIES
A.
GENERAL UTILITIES STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for utility services is based on allowing for adequate future capacity,
coordination through appropriate planning, conservation of resources, and is environmentally sensitive
and fiscally responsible.
Action Items
1.
Consistent with the requirements of the Capital Facilities Element, planning for public utilities
owned by the County would identify new facilities, expansions and improvements that will be
needed to support growth at least 20 years into the future. This 20-year projection should be
updated during the. annual- budget ..processandlor a Capital _Facilities. .Element review. ..
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 1.0)
2.
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)
3.
Where feasible, identify future utility facility and corridor locations on the UGA and
unincorporated County maps. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 2.0)
4.
Provide the utility providers with annual updates of population, employment and development
projections. Work with utility providers to jointly evaluate actual patterns and rates of growth,
and compare such patterns and rates to demand forecasts. Utility service areas will be consistent
with the capacity of the utility provider as well as projected growth. (Corresponding Goal: UTG
2.0)
5.
Locate major utility infrastructure and distribution facilities such as electrical transmission lines,
domestic water, stOITI1 and sanitary sewer, and telecommunication services within shared utility
corridors, to ensure more efficient utilization of County land area for these services and mitigate
the physical division of communities by utility corridors. (Corresponding Goal:UTG 2.0)
6.
Where found to be safe and appropriate, develop joint use of utility corridors for recreational
uses. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 2.0)
7.
Coordinate road construction and maintenance activities with utility providers' construction and
maintenance- activities' to 'minimize 'disruptions -to - the public and provide more cost-efficient
services. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 2.0)
8.
Negotiate interlocal agreements and contracts that resolve:
. Boundary disputes.
. Inclusion of service areas in Urban Growth Areas.
. How utility service areas will be adjusted and service provided after annexations and
incorporations.
. Level of service differences. (Corresponding Goal: UIG 2.0)
2 4 r,~r,:
VOL
2CJ13
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-43
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
9.
10.
Request that the WUTC give significant weight to local comprehensive plans and to approve
utility requests supported by the County's Comprehensive Plan. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 2.0)
.
Coordinatejoint planning of new road construction and maintenance of existing roads with utility
trenching activities. Provide timely notice to utilities when the construction, maintenance or
repair of existing and new roadways is anticipated. (Con-esponding Goal: UTG 3.0)
11.
Design, locate and;construct utility infrastructure to reasonably minimize significant, individual
and cumulative adverse impacts to the environment and to protect critical areas. This should
includeactions-suchas:""" ","..","X" "', . ""'; """"",'.','- '..
. Identify and locate existing underground utilities, and use construction methods and
materials to eliminate or minimize the risk of accidental spillage.
. Locate utility facilities and utility corridors outside wetland areas.
. Minimize crossings of fish-bearing water courses.
. Use bio-stabilization, rip-rap or other approved engineering strategies to mitigate erosion
'where'utility services may be required-to be installed. ,..", " , " "
. Minimize utility system corridor widths.
. Design and site solid waste disposal facilities to mitigate adverse public health,
transportation, and environmental impacts.
. Encourage use of drought-tolerate and native plant materials to enhance water conservation
and promote successful landscape restoration.
. In landscape restoration utilize landscape materials which are compatible with 10ng-teIm
maintenance and aesthetic considerations.
(Corresponding Goals: UTG 2.0, 3.0,4.0)
.
12.
Implementation strategies to reduce energy consumption, encourage conservation of energy
resources and control solar gain where feasible; be focused on such measures as:
. Support of trip-reducing or transit-oriented land use.
. Use of alternative-fuel in County vehicles as outlined in the Clean Air Act.
. Allowing clustering with common wall construction.
. Effective enforcement of the energy code.
. Expansion of the availability of energy efficiency measures to low-income residents.
. Establishment of standards and regulations that provide appropriate locations, which peImit
the development of alternative energy infrastructure.
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 4.0)
B.
WATER UTILITIES STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for water utilities is based on coordination, cooperation, water resource
development and water resource protection that includes participation and leadership in watershed
management.
"""', ~~ -- ',' ".. .
Action Items
1.
Develop standards for development of new water sources/systems consistent with the County-
wide Planning Policy, the Coordinated Water System Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Water,
Land, Rural and Environmental Elements. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 5.0)
.
VOI-
24 u~: - 25rl4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-44
August28,1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
2.
Adopt methods to manage small water systems:
. New water systems should be permitted consistent with the Coordinated Water System Plan
and the Comprehensive Plan.
. Encourage the extension of distribution systems into areas to serve customers with individual
water supplies where such service meets County policy.
(CoITesponding Goal: UTG 5.0)
3.
Amend and develop ordinances where needed to protect and regulate water sources.
(CoITesponding Goals: UTG 1.0, 5.0)
4.
Develop an ordinance implementing water utility standards, including procedures for determining
appropriate minimum fire hydrant flow pressure standards.
(CoITesponding Goals: UTG 1.0, 2.0, 5.0).
5~
Work with the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) and watershed planning groups
. to:
. Establish long term public supply needs.
. Create specific programs to improve the status of water systems that experience fiscal or
operational problems.
. Ensure adequate representation by affected parties.
. Ensure wellhead (source) protection programs are developed and assist these purveyors to
protect the resource. .
(CoITesponding Goals: UTG 2.0, 5.0)
6.
Cooperatively fund (with other public bodies) and participate in regional water resources
assessment(s) and allocation studies. (CoITesponding Goal: UTG 5.0)
7.
Cooperatively fund and participate in regional water quality and quantity monitoring efforts such
that long term data is developed to support future allocation decisions. (CoITesponding Goal:
UTG 5.0)
8.
Support with funding water resources education efforts targeted to school age children.
(CoITesponding Goal: UTG 5.0)
9.
Work with the Department of Ecology to expedite water rights processing for satellite water
systems. (CoITesponding Goal: UTG 5.0)
10.
Encourage developments that offer clustering and can utilize community systems.
(CoITesponding Goal: UTG 5.0)
11.
Conservation techniques aimed at reducing average annual and peak day water use shall, if
possible, illc:lude such implel11_ent~!io,1! .~!t:~t~gi~s as: .
. Use of billing rate structures that encourage conservation.
. Imposition of water restrictions at appropriate times.
. Reclamation of wastewater for industrial and irrigation use.
. Provision of technical assistance for leak detection, design of low-water use irrigation, and
other water saving measures.
. Promotion of a long-term ongoing water conservation education program.
. Use of drought tolerant plantings and native vegetation in landscaping.
.' ,
1,'01-
':)L1
' I rr
é..., ~ r"",è
2¿¡lS
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-45
August 28, 1998.
UTILITIES
" 14..
.
Updating building and plumbing codes to require water conservation devices.
(Corresponding Goals: UIG 4.0, 5.0)
.
12~
Work with the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WOCe) to:
. Determine a strategy for increasing the general level of metering among utilities.
. To establish regional conservation programs and funding mechanisms.
. Ensure that water purveyors meet Department of Health and Ecology regulations and
guidelines.
. Work as a member of the WOCC, a~>~ 9.!~er org~niz~ti,ons and ~gencie_s, ~<? a4dre~s~fticient.
and timdy purveyorship of water in areas projected for future growth. (Corresponding Goals:
UIG 2.0,5.0)
13.
Establish a "Water Audit" program for the County to assist commercial and industrial customers
with water conservation programs and technical information. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 5.0)
" To tdnservtYfutute"resource",'use Best Management Practices and restrict the location'of high --
capacity wells where there is a demonstrated risk of saltwater intrusion into the water aquifer.
(Corresponding Goals: UTG 4.0, 5.0)
15.
Review demonstrations and feasibility studies on water-conserving systems including "trickle"
water systems, use of cistern-type storage system, reverse osmosis, roof collection, and gray
water re-use. (Corresponding Goals: UIG 4.0, 5.0)
c.
SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES STRATEGY
.
Jefferson County's strategy for sanitary sewer utilities is based on utilizing current criteria available for
the review of systems to protect the health and environment and promoting cost- effective systems.
3.
Action Items
1.
Review and update existing on-site and community sewer system regulations including minimum
lot size criteria on a bi-annual basis utilizing the most current information and County policy.
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 6.0)
2.
Where feasible, require the following for wastewater facilities:
. Provide mains in all public and private streets within and adjacent to the development.
. Provide off-site mains as needed to connect to the existing system in order to meet level of
service standards for wastewater discharge.
. Provide wastewater pump stations needed to serve the development because of topographical
considerations.
. Replacement and/or improvement to existing facilities in order to meet established level of
,,~~rviç~ fQr wasJewater di,S¡.;ha(ge from. ade:velopment.
. Provide off-site facility improvements required to prevent the level of service for existing
customers to drop below adopted standards.
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 6.0)
Working with the State of Washington, develop requirements for and review impacts associated
with a regular and mandatory inspection program of Jefferson County on-site sanitary sewer
systems. (Corresponding Goal: DIG 6.0)
.
-VUL
'24 +~[)r -2~)16
11-46
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
D.
SOLID WASTE UTll.ITIES STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for solid waste utilities is based on reducing the solid waste stream by
identifying opportunities for source waste reduction, and encouraging recycling after source materials are
used through public education regarding opportunities to recycle, and by utilizing efficient management
of the system.
Action Items
1.
Educate the public on solid waste mamtgem:~f1r;"i1icludingi'ecyclílÍ'g"bppoftüöitieš; wa:ÿs fo reduce"'"
solid and chemical waste, and related environmental issues. (Corresponding Goal UTG 7.0)
2.
Utilize applicable grant funding for fmancial assistance for solid waste programs, such as public
education on solid waste issues. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 7.0)
3.
Develop, strategies for achieving a reduction in. Jefferson County's solid waste- stream, and where
feasible, ensure the strategies include:
. Improve the processing of recyclable materials, as acceptable under appropriate regulations,
in order to help alleviate the need to stockpile materials.
. Providing opportunities for recycling to the public and commercial carriers at transfer
locations.
. Reducing the solid waste stream by encouraging manufacturers and retailers to reduce
packaging waste at the retail level.
. Encouraging procurement of recycled-content products.
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 7.0)
4.
Consider all practicable alternatives for the efficient management of the solid waste system.
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 7.0)
E.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTll.ITIES STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for telecommunications utilities establishes a telecommunication task force to
assist in developing action plans for addressing issues of land use, right of way, public service (Level of
Service Standard), and a compensation system associated with telecommunications systems providers'
use of public property.
Action Items
1.
Establish a Telecommunications Advisory Task Force including telecommunication providers,
the County, citizens, and other affected interests to assist in developing an action plan that
addresses land use, right of way, public service, and a compensation system associated with
telecommunications systems providers' use of public property. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 8.0)
2.
Develop a rights-of-way and compensation ordinance for telecommunications systems providers'
use of public property based on the criteria provided by the Telecommunications Task Force.
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 8.0)
VOL
24 UC'
25'17
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-47
August28,1998
UTILITIES
-.3. ,.
F.
ELECTRICAL UTILITIES STRATEGY
.
Jefferson County's strategy for electrical utilities is based on resource conservation through reductions in
energy consumption, and coordination of the siting of electric utilities infrastructure with land use.
Action Items
1.
Implement strategies to reduce electric energy consumption and encourage conservation of
energy resources, including:
. Allowing clustering with common wall' construction.
. Effective enforcement of the energy code.
. Expansion of the availability of energy efficiency measures to low-income residents.
. Establishment of standards and regulations that provide appropriate locations that permit the
development of alternative energy infrastructure.
(Corresponding Goal: UTG 9.0)
2.
Coordinate with the current electrical provider when considering land use designations or new
development in the vicinity of specific proposed utility facilities that are adopted in utility plans.
Review whether such land uses designation and development might affect the suitability of the
designated areas for location of utility facilities. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 9.0)
G.
SURFACE/STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for management of surface/storm water will be conducted with a coordinated
approach that includes collaborative watershed management, with an emphasis on water quality and
quantity management.
.
Action Items
1.
Establish a surface water management plan that includes components of basin planning,
financing, and implementation including conflict resolution. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 10.0)
2.
In response to the surface water management plan developed, consider establishing storm water
utility(s) if required to implement the plan's recommendations. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 10.0)
Establish flood .control management, plans that are .developed,.through local and regional groups
such as flood control advisory boards, watershed planning groups, and other agencies, and that
contain financing components to insure that implementation is feasible. (Corresponding Goal:
UTG 10.0)
4.
Review, develop, and utilize standards for surface/storm water facilities that are consistent with
~e.~elo]Jed pl~sJÇorrespondi~g Go~,~:" .ll.~G 1~.0)
5.
Develop a storm water facility maintenance ordinance. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 10.0)
6.
Participate as a member of the Water Resources Council for Water Resources Inventory Area 17
and watershed councils for other areas of Eastern Jefferson County, and as a member of
watershed management unit(s) formed by multiple jurisdictional and community interests for
watersheds in Western Jefferson County. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 10.0)
.
VOL
'2.11 ~. 2 ~,:t8
Lf f~Π,J.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-48
August 28,1998
.
.
.
UTILITIES
7.
Review and update the County's Storm Water Management Ordinance, including an expanded
public information program, as surface water management plans become available for
implementation. (Corresponding Goal: UTG 10.0)
.. .<,~--^_u".,.,--- "",. ,- -, - ..
-" ,. - - -.. """ ,.--,---,
-" " -, ", '-'-- ..,--_u ,"
VûL
24 'H";
r ,,\; ~
- 2 ¿)19
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-49
August 28, 1998
UTILITIES
"--'C,."'- -,'. ,,-,,-
, "'" -"".- ,.,~ ,
"~~ØL
'124
:,' -,' A'r:~
" " ,(,..)-
:2 :j 50
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
11-50
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
CAPITAL FACILITIES
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Capital Facilities Element is to identify and provide for public
capital facilities.
Capital facilities generally have. very, . long useful.-lives- and.signifieant -eosts,.Publie--capital,faoilities....
include the capital improvements and systems of each of the following: airports, animal control,
community centers, corrections facilities, county administrative buildings, Superior and District Courts,
fire protection and emergency medical services, hospitals, libraries, parks, roads, sanitary sewer,
schools, solid waste, surface water management, transit, water.
Traditionally, public capital facilities strategic planning bas. involved developing--"wish lists". Often
there were limited external legal frameworks mandating implementation, and often no accountable link
to land use planning. The Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates a significantly different approach.
As a result, the Capital Faci!ities Element identifies a fully-funded six-year capital facilities plan that
supports Jefferson County}§" existing and projected population and the development identified in the
Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element. The Capital Facilities Element contains the following
components:
An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, and the location and capacity of
these facilities.
Establishment of Level of Service standards for public capital facilities based on quantifiable,
objective measures of capacity.
County population projections for Years 1998 - 2003.
Determination of the public capital facilities necessary to serve future population based on the
adopted Level of Service standards.
Projected capital costs for those public capital facilities.
A plan to finance those public capital facilities.
The Growth Management Act mandates that the Elements of the Comprehensive Plan should be
internally consistent. Provision is made for regular assessment of the Capital Facilities Element and the
other Elements of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain consistency between Plan Elements.
Relationships with Other Comprehensive Plan Elements
The Capital Facilities Element is the Comprehensive Plan Element that makes other elements
achievable. The Capital Facilities Element is a plan to provide the public facilities necessary to support
expected growth and development while achieving the community's vision expressed in other elements
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Growth Management Act requires that the public facilities identified in
the Capital Facilities Element be fully financed. If the public facilities identified cannot be fully
financed, the County is required to modifY the Comprehensive Plan through reduction of the current
Level of Service standards, reduction of public facility costs, and/or modification of the Land Use
Element to achieve balance with the public facilities the County is able to fund. This Growth
Management Act requirement provides a realistic check on the vision articulated in the other
YOL
24 UΠ-. 2~51
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 1
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Comprehensive Plan Elements. The Capital Facilities Element is the vehicle to ensure that the quality of
life ofthe community envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is consistently evaluated and clarified.
.
Support Documents
Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element includes three support documents:
1. Capital Facilities Requirements: An analysis of the need for additional facility capacity to serve
current and future development. Multiple scenarios utilize different Levels of Service (i.e., current
LOS vs. recommended LOS) to quantify needed capacity and to estimate capacity-related facilities
costs.
2. Financial Capacity Analysis: A six-year forecast of the operating costs of revenue sources
available to Jefferson County. This analysis identifies ending-fund balances. Positive balances
represent funds that can be used for capital projects. Negative balances indicate no support for
capital projects and potential "deficits", which must be eliminated by increasing revenue or reducing
costs.
3. Revenue Sources for Capital Facilities: Forecasts of each source of revenue available to the
County for capital facilities. These revenue sources include sources currently available as well as
other potential known sources of revenue.
The three support documents are not included as attachments in the Comprehensive Plan. They are
available for review at the Jefferson County Department of Public Works located in Port Townsend,
Washington.
.
Capital Facilities Planning Approach: Adopting Levels of Service (LOS)
The Growth Management Act requires a forecast of the future needs for public capital facilities through
adoption of Level of Service standards or similar objective planning assumptions. Level of Service
(LOS) is a measure of the amount of public facilities that will be provided for the community. Choosing
a Level of Service is like making a choice from a menu: the selections offered we desire the most are
often the most expensive, while the more affordable choices may not be as appealing. Likewise, the
higher Levels of Service may provide a higher quality of life, but at greater cost. The lower Levels of
'Service may cost less, yet at the same time'provide the County with "quality of life" not acceptable to
the public. The method Jefferson County has used to choose Levels of Service enables the County to '
balance the desire for higher Levels of Service with the ability and willingness to pay for those Levels of
Service.
The adopted Levels of Service serve two purposes. First, they will be used to calculate the quantity and
. cost .'ofpub1æ1àt:itities"the"Countyneedsto'"financecapitä:lfacilities Second, they will be the standard to
measure whether the County is achieving the requirement to provide public facilities adequate to support
development. Adequacy of public facilities is detennined by a comparison of the capacity of capital
facilities necessary to serve proposed development with the unused capacity that is available. If the
unused capacity is equal to, or greater than the capacity required, the facility is adequate. If the unused
capacity is less than the capacity required, the facility is not adequate.
.
VOL
24 r~r;~
2 ,~- r-z
JJ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Typically, measures of Levels of Service are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e.,
actual or potential users). Table 12-1 lists examples of Levels of Service unit measures for typical public
capital facilities:
Table 12-1
Level of Service (LOS) Unit Measurements
Type of Capital Facility LOS Unit Measurement
Corrections Inmate Facilities Bedsfl ; 000, populatien.". '" '...," "..,,- ." '"" "
Fire and Rescue Average response time
Hospitals Beds/1 ,000 population
Sheriff Administrative Facilities Building Square Feet/1,000 population
Library Collection size per capita and Bldg. Sq. Ft.. per capita
Parks Acres/1,000 population
Roads arid Streets Actual traffic volume to roadway design capacity
Schools Building Square Feet per student
Sewer Gallons per customer per day and effluent quality
Solid Waste Pounds per capita per day
Transit Annual Transit Revenue Service Hours (ATRSH)/lOOO Population
Water Gallons per customer per day and water quality (Washington State
Department of Health Drinking Water Standards)
Each Level of Service measure requires the specific quantity that measures the current or proposed
Level of Service.
Method for Using Levels of Service
The GMA requires the Capital Facilities Element (CFE) to be based on Levels of Service standards that
are measurable and financially feasible for the six fiscal years following adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Level of Service method answers two questions that must be addressed in order to develop a
financially feasible CFE that meets GMA requirements:
.
What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of Year Six: 2003?
Is it fmancially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by the end of Year Six:
2003?
.
The answer to each question has been calculated by using objective data and formulas. Each type of
public facility is examined separately (i.e., roads are examined separately from parks). The costs of all
the types of facilities are then combined in order to determine the financial feasibility of the CFE.
The Capital Facilities support document "Capital Facilities Requirements" contains many ofthe results
of the use of this method to answer two questions for Jefferson County.
YOi-
2 4 ur¡~
2~53
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 3
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Question # 1: What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of Year Six:
2003?
.
F onnula 1.1: Demand X Standard = Requirement
Where Demand is the estimated 2003 population or other appropriate measure of need (e.g.,
dwelling units) and Standard is the amount of facility per unit of demand (e.g., acres of park per
capita).
The answer to this formula is the total of public facilities needed, regardless of the existing facilities
being used by the public.
Fonnula 1.2: Requirement - Inventory = Surplus or (Deficit)
The Requirement is the result of Fonnula 1.1, and Inventory is the quantity of facilities available as
of December 31, 1997 (The start date of the Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan: CFP). This formula
assumes use of the existing public facilities inventory to offset the total requirement from Formula
1.1.
The answer to Fonnula 1.2 is the net surplus or deficit of public facilities. A deficit must be eliminated
on or before December 31, 2003. If a net deficit exists, it represents the combined needs of existing
development and anticipated new development. Detailed analysis reveals the portion of the net
deficiency that is attributable to current development compared to the portion needed for new
development (Please reference the CFE support document "Capital Facilities Requirements" for the
delineation between current development and new development.)
.
Question # 2: Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by the end of
Year Six: 2003?
A "preliminary" answer to Question 2 is prepared in order to test the financial feasibility of proposed
Level of Service standards. . The preliminary answers utilizes "average costs", rather than specific and
detailed facilities total project costs. This approach avoids the inefficiency of developing detailed
projects and costs that would be unusable if the LOS standard proved to be financially infeasible. If the
'standards are feasible -at the preliminary level~ more detailed project cost models in preparation for a
more "final" answer to Question 2. If, however, the preliminary answer indicates that a Level of
Service is not financially feasible, The following options are available to the County:
1. Reduce the Level of Service standard which will reduce the cost and quality standard; or
2. Increase revenues to pay for the proposed Level of Service standard (higher rates and/or new sources
""ofrevenue);t>r'""""" , .."-..",'.,,.' ,., ., .,., ,
3. Reduce the average cost of the public facility (e.g., use alternative ownership or financing strategies)
through life-cycle cost analyses to evaluate initial cost/benefit and quality; or
4. Reduce public facility demand by restricting population (i.e., revise the Land Use Element), which
may cause growth to occur in other jurisdictions; or
5. Reduce public facility demand by reducing consumption (i.e., transportation demand management
techniques, recycling solid waste, and water conservation, among other strategies.) which may
provide cost benefit in a life cycle versus initial cost analysis.
6. Any combination of the preceding five options.
.
, VOL
2 4 r~r):
?554
,...,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 4
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
The preliminary answer to Question 2 is prepared using the following formulas (P = Preliminary):
Formula 2.lP:
Deficit X Average Cost per Unit = Deficit Cost
Where Deficit is the result of Formula I.2P and Average Cost per Unit is the usual cost of one unit
of facility (e.g., mile of road, acre of park).
The answer to Formula 2.IP is the approximate cost of eliminating deficiencies of public facilities,
based on the use of an "average" ,cost for each unitofpublic facility_thatjg, needed.,-,""., -
Formula 2.2P:
Deficit Cost - Revenue = Net Surplus or (Deficit)
Where Deficit Cost is the result of Formula 2.IP and Revenue is the money currently available for
public facilities.
The result of Formula 2.2P is the preliminary answer to the test of financial feasibility of the Level of
SelVice standards. A revenue surplus means the LOS standard of selVice is financially feasible with a
resulting fund surplus~ A deficiency of revenue relative to projected costs means that insufficient funds
are available to develop the facilities; and, therefore the LOS standard is not financially feasible. Any
LOS standard that is not financially feasible must be adjusted using the six strategies listed above. Please
reference the CFE support document "Capital Facilities Requirements" for Jefferson County scenarios.
The "final" demonstration of financial feasibility uses detailed costs of specific capital projects in lieu of
the "average" costs of facilities used in the preliminary answer, as follows (F = final):
Formula 2.IF:
Capacity projects + Non-capacity projects = Total Projects Cost
Where Capacity Projects is the cost of all projects needed to eliminate the deficiency for existing
and future development (Formula 1.2), including upgrades and/or expansion of existing facilities as
well as new facilities. Non-Capacity Projects is the cost of remodeling, renovation or replacement
needed to maintain the inventory of existing facilities.
Formula 2.2F:
Project Cost - Revenue = Net Surplus or (Deficit)
Where Project Cost is the result of Formula 2.1F and Revenue is the money available for public
facilities from current/proposed sources.
The "final" answer to Question 2 validates the financial feasibility of the Level of SelVice standards that
are used for each public facility in the CFE and in the other elements of the comprehensive plan. The
fmancially feasible Level of SelVice standards and the resulting capital improvement projects are used as
the basis for policies and implementation programs in the CFE.
Establishing the Levels of Service (LOS) Standards
Because capital facilities capacity needs are largely determined by the Level of SelVice (LOS) standards
adopted, the foundation of the Capital Facilities Element (CFE) is the selection of the LOS standards.
Levels of SelVice standards are measures of the quality of life of the community. The standards should
be based on the County's vision of it~ f':J:ture and its values.
'101-
24 r~:;:
? ,-: ës
. ¡;"., d"J
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 5
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Traditional approaches to capital facilities planning rely on technical experts (Le., staff and consultants)
to detennine the need for capital improvements. In the "scenario-driven" approach used in this Element,
these experts play an important advisory role, but they do not control the outcome. Their role is to define
and implement a process for the review of various scenarios, to 'analyze data, and provide
recommendations based on technical considerations.
The final, legal authority to establish LOS rests with the Board of County Commissioners because the
Board adopts LOS that represents the County's vision. The Board's decisions are based, in part, upon
review of recommendatiol1s, provided by the following entities:
.
The Jefferson County Planning Commission
Providers of public facilities (e.g., County departments, special districts, private utilities, State of
Washington, tribal governments, and others)
Fonnal advisory groups that make recommendations to the providers of public facilities
The general public through individual citizens and community civic, business, and issue-based
organizations that make their views known
.
.
.
An individual has many opportunities to influence the LOS standards and all other aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan. These opportunities include attending and participating in meetings, writing
letters, responding to surveys or questionnaires, joining organizations that participate in the development
of the Capital Facilities Element (CFE), being appointed/elected to an advisory group, providing
testimony at the meetings of any group or government agency that influences the LOS decision, and
formal comment during the SEP A review process.
The scenario-driven approach to developing the Level of Service standards provides decision-makers
and anyone else who wishes to participate with a clear statement of the outcomes of various Levels of
Service for each type of public facility. This approach reduces the tendency for decisions to be
controlled by staff or consultants, opens up the decision-making process to the public and advisory
groups, and places the decisions before the Board of County Commissioners~
Selection of a specific LOS as an "adopted standard" was accomplished in through a ten-step process:
1. The "current" Level of Service was calculated.
2. Service providers were given national/regional standards or guidelines and examples of local LOS
from other local governments. ," '" ,', "
3. Service providers researched local standards from County studies, master plans, ordinances and
development regulations.
4. Service providers recommended a standard for the County's CFE.
5. The first draft ofthe Capital Facilities Requirements support document forecast needed capacity and
approximate costs of 2 Levels of Service (e.g., the current actual LOS and the providers'
;"recömmended'L'OS);"';~ ", ,,"'n" ' " ," '
6. The Board of County Commissioners reviewed and commented on the first draft Capital Facilities
Requirements report.
7. Service providers prepared specific capital improvements projects to support the current LOS
(unless the Board of County Commissioner's workshop indicated an interest in a different LOS for
the purpose of preparing the draft CFE).
8. The draft CFE was prepared using the 1997 LOS (unless the Board of County Commissioners
indicated an interest in a different LOS).
, \'OL
oJ A
l-lf r~Œ
t"} ",- L 6
" ~'.:J
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
9. A draft CFE was reviewed and discussed during Board of County Commissioners/Planning
Commission joint workshops prior to fonnal hearings on the CFE by the Board of County
Commissioners.
1O. Three additional public workshops were held with the Board of CountyCommis!;ioners to review
the final draft of the CFE. Workshop I reviewed the capital facilities planning process framework.
Workshop II reviewed potential financial plan strategies including known revenue sources available
for capital facilities and Board of Commissioners preliminary "preferences". Workshop III reviewed
two strategies for a six-year Capital Financial Plan.
d.,_, .. ",.--,_...-.."..
The Board of County Commissioners support the Levels of Service standards and selected a six-year
Capital Financial Plan in the CFE that includes two funding strategies, with a "Primary" strategy
identified, and a "Secondary" strategy identified. Both strategies aggressively utilize grant funding for
an initial funding source as indicated in Tables 12-S-A and 12-S-B. In developing the two funding
strategies, the County's debt capacity (currently approximately $56,000,000) and debt service capability
wtlreconsidereq.
The Level of Service standards are identified in the Capital Facilities Policy 1.1. The Level of Service
standards are critical because:
.
LOS detennines the need for capacity-related capital improvement projects (See Policy 2.1).
LOS is the benchmark for evaluating the adequacy of public facilities for proposed development,
(See Policy 3.2). '
.
Population Growth Assumptions
This Capital Facilities Element is based on the following population data:
Table 12-2
Population Growth Assumptions
Year Countywide Unincorporated County
1998 26,886 18,074
2003 30,012 19,997
2007 32,783 21,652
2015 38,698 25,097
2017 40,087 25,521
VOL
'1fJ.
I'i.+ 'Ir,
~ - r",,-
? '--7
t..,., ~"J
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 7
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Cost Projections: 1998-2003
.
The 1998-2003 capital improvements cost projections are summarized on Table 12-3.
Table 12.3
County-Owned/Operated Public Facilities Capital Cost Summary
Type of Public Facility 1998-2003 Cost
(x $1000 in 1998 Dollars)
Transportation $12,013
Community Centers 706
County Corrections Inmate Facilities 942
County Sheriff Facilities 321
County Justice Facilities 10,900
County General Administrative Facilities 1,160
County Maintenance Shop Facilities 813
Parks and Recreation Facilities 6,294
Solid Waste Facilities 559
Stonn Water Management/Flood Control Facilities 2,242
Water System Facilities 40
TOTAL REQUIRED $35,990
.
Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Financing Strategy: 1998--2003
Table 12-4
Revenue Source Summary
Revenue Source 1998-2003 Revenue
(x $1000 in 1998 Dollars)
Existing Revenue $15,731
Revenue to be Identified (Refer to Tables 12-5-A and 12-5-B) 20,259
TOTAL REQUIRED $35,990
.
VOL
24 ur;::
2558
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 8
August28,1998
-
..
f
~'
::I
-<
0
0
-ä
'3
:r
9
...
:ë'
ft
"U
§"
-
tV
.
\0 I <:.
=
,
l"'V
r-Þa- .
-"
~
7'
, .,
i
fv
C¡
C..Il
~
I
>
c:
i
N
!O
i
..
.
.
JEFFERSON COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN: 1998-2003
PRIMARY STRATEGY (STRATEGY" A ")
FUNDING THE UNFUNDED BALANCE SUMMARY UPDATE: (All Amounts x S 1,000 In 1998 Dollars')
NO'R NO I: REVENUE FROM GRAm FUNDS Will CONTINUE TO BE THE FIRST OPTION UTILIZED FOR FUNDING All CAPITA J. PROJECTS, IF GRANT FUNDING CANNOT
BE SECURED, AND IF, SUBSEQUENT1.Y, NON-GRANT FUNDING SOURCI!SCANNOT BE SF.cUIŒD, THE 1.I'.Vli!. OF SF.RVICI'. STANUARIJ Will. NEED TO III'. MOIJlflF.O, I
NUTIr NO.1: Gr:NI:RAI. OßU(ì:H10NS IIONn COSTS A lIE IIASr:fJ ON ^ 11). Y E,"II TEltM, [!EVENl fE/r:XPENnITlIIŒS !'IIOM (ìENI!RAI. OIILlI iA'rlON UONns A lIE 1UI'N'! 11'11;1
IN 11IIS StJt.lt.t.-'.kY IIASUl> (IN A SIX- YliAlIl'lNANt 'jA L PI,AN,
SUMMARY: BY CAPITAL. FACILITY PRIMARY STRATEGY: STRATEGY itA" EST, NEED
. '.I.p T.l.I. 5n 1~,I,"C
'~ farili&ie£ . loa .Iud SI"" ìfl' '\~",i'btoJ,i.." P"hlic \",IC' 1""JIO"li""sS¡I..'r,., l,,~ll1l1l,rj"¡' 1t,II.1.1111
I'-.........r-..ilili.... Puhl;.. Vo,<, fì.",~.1 mliL!Ot~", OWl~ , UO.9ßfU111
. ('.-,., Nil AdJì,i"".1 ('u"il.1 R.,...""" Re< "i....! ".001."". 50.lJII
r- ~!3onn .'KiH,i<. ItCVCtlUC fiM' ('""WI Oner.li"ns 51~U,1II1
PAnTY C'APITAI. 11-.00
- ('~ AflmiaÏscratiw F..iliric.. No Addilional C...i",1 Rcveftu. R-oi.eoIlD Rob"" 50,011
I'aJl¡I """lie Voce: Park" Recoalioo nillric:l ' IUO,OII
. hrb No AddilÌllnal ('ani",1 Rey...ue R.nuired 10 II.1liUIU $Ð,OII
"":""'¡hob , Publw Vol., M.tr"""lilan "'.fIr. Dimi.1 /Cuun"Wllle\ , $.4ßJ},OO
nìk No Addi,;"",. Canir.:dlleyc"uc Renuired ID Balance SII,OII
No AoIdiLioa.1 ('a.illlll.....uc 1I..."i"", In IIslan.. 50,00
Usor fees. PoaJ!llm r-ec. Donati""l $.430,00
- W*""""",, c-..¡ CountY-Wid." FlOOII S"bmne t.cYics 5U161,OO
SoIWI W- faålilio:l No Additional C&IIital Revenue R-uireolln 8s""'" 50,00
W- - faålilio:l No Addilional eanitalllevenue tenuifed 10 IIabncc In,OO
II'" .. faål8ia DcIø IlIIDlelllCl\ll\Ìoll 11.1)6.00
T-a. RollI Facilirics No Addi1iollll Conital ReycnUl: R""oi"", 10 Ø.IIIIICC 50,00
SUBTOTAL EST. REVENUE ' UO 59,00
SUBlUTAl EST. SIX-YEAII CONCEPT PLAN OEFlrlT ' ruo 159,001
11'5TIMATI!:D SlX."...aD ('ONCE" PI.AN 8.4 ~N(,E SD,OO
SUMMARY: BY REVENUE STRATEGY EST, SIX-\'F"'R R~:V"'NlI'" EST SIX-YEAR EXPF.NIIITlIRE EST. SIX.n:AIt II"'I.AN(,~:
Puhlio.""'...."I......IOat.....S.¡""'f..,, ~1hI H( "I'I'~ 11,S6II.OO 5111.u~1 iU¡.'"
(" _ft! ObIio:>fioJo 1IoJuoIs, Pul,t... \'0'" 110,01111,00 ~lo.~oo.OO iI'.I~1
E..oÌofIiIIIf('-C'8naI EIMDlCIMlic Wodr.l O'¡;¡;:oeI' 1140.00 IJIO,oo 50.00
..... Yule ,.,. A 1Iemati08 l>isañcl 1130.00 5UO,00 50,00
........ Yale: Pad. DisañcI ICllUniVWioICf $.1.00.00 "-60,00 5000
U. f8s.. -fca $U6.00 54)0,00 so.oo
~W8 .. FIoaIII WIrDnc lmn SJ.D6'7.oo SJ 167,00 50,00
DeItr . orll""l. I u II tUÐD II KOO 10,00
_..L.o\ - OM 10.00
nn 59.00 un,GO
.
"11
=
=
c.
5°
(JQ"tI
.,
~ §'
~
C::::"......
='<-.
ë"'I1~
= -. C"
Q.¡;;-
" = -
Q.nN
= ¡r ~
» - .
-00>
1:1 ....
= .,
n »
ftI ....
VJ~
='<
:I
:I
~
.,
......
()
).
"1:1
::¡
;Þ>
r-
'T
>-
0
?
::)
ë1
.....
n
~
.,
'"
0
::I
()
0
C
::I
-<
()
0
3
"'C
.,
n
:r
n
::I
!!!
<
n
"'C
i>
::I
tV
I
0
>-
c
OCI
c
!!1
N
.00
'-D
'-D
00
JEFFERSON COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN: 1998-2003
SECONDARY ST~ TEGY (STRATEGY "B")
FUNDING TilE UNFUNDED BALANCE SUMMARY UPDATE: (All Amounts x $1,000 In 1998 Dollars)
NOTI: NO I: REVEN! IE FROM GRANT FI JNOS WILL CONTINI [! TO BE 1111; I'IRST OPTION tJTllIWO!'OR FUNDING ALl. C AI'IT Al PROJI!CT& IF GRANT 1'1 JNOING CANNOT
HE SECURE ), AND IF,SUHSI'.QUENTI.Y, NON.GRANT I'UNI)ING SOliRCESCANNOT 8E SECURE ), THE U¡VI'.L OF SERVICE Sl'ANI>ARI} Witt. Nf£ ) TO Hf. MO )I~'IH),
Non: NO 1: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS DOND COSTS ARE BASED ON A IO.YEAR TERM. REVEN!JEIEXPENDlTl1RES FROM GENImAl OBLIGATION BONns ARE IOI:NTIF1UJ
IN TIns SIJMM A RY BASE ) ON A SIX. YEAR HNAN( 'IAlI'LAN,
SUMMARY: BY CAPITAL FACILITY
CArAClT\' eArlY AI.
SECONDARY STRATEGY: STRATEGY"B"
EST. NEED
~
11.111,1"'
\11I.'.hI,IUJ
\11.1111
i.HU.11U
(',~.n:lic,nj I""ilitb, I.il a"d SI",¡IT .ld,"ÎII>I"'¡""
,'oo"wlu..i,'" I:.,il;.¡..
('","","i". C"">TI
r """,,,. Mainl,".nce Sho~ t'o,'jl;lie,
,"'"lIrih".,,¡.- t,elltl.1 ( Wi'~J¡¡"" II""J: 11<111 S,'I>i,:. (""" 11101 I"~ ,,1'1., ItI':r r
1'IIIIIi,' \',,'e: (j,."",.I(lbliclli'"1 n""J "j,b CU>t 1'.,lid,"'I;.",.br .~J,lil¡UßII.~"U.."ili,',
N.. ^J.lili""JI rll,il.1 Itc,e"o,. t"'III;red III ""1111"" -
~I:II" 1"'1ilif Worb"l "'... FoIIJ. IJ..." 11I,.r..IL...",): )cI~ S."ie. r""" CII"enl n""'"'1¡"'"
N.oN-CArACITV CAPITAl.
$7,906.00
50.00
5130.00
50.00
S4,IIH.OO
50.00
50.00
S4JO.OO
SZ,ll61.00
. 5Ð.OO
----šiï:iiii
5I,J6.00
-šõ:Oo
No Addilio..aTC.p¡"1 1t0""'"0 Rtlluiri:,j to 0.10....
l>onalions
Nil Addilion.al Capila' Re...n"e Rcq,,;mI to Oalallce
Do"oli""s
No Addilion.1 Capital Rc,'cn... ROct"ired 10 Do'.nce
No Addili"".1 Capilli Rc.cn". Itcquimllo lIalance
Itnl ESIOle E.c¡seTI. ¡REET): 200 1140(1% -
Public Vote: locor IIOPlo.........1 Dime( A løw.lmercSi Fc""'.lloans
No Addi¡òonol "",illl R«...... R...o;,'" 10 O.w.ce
No Addilòon.1 C.~~II R......."olttllui~ In nIb-
Ocr.. IIIIPlon""'tlli"n -
No Addilioo.' CapillI Rovenlle Rtllui....111 Oorlnce
<
ö
,-
CllllIIIU\>U1I4S
SfOfDI Wa1a1FlOOoi COAIIO!
Soli<! Wa... Fxilihcl
Wit.. S1'5ICfU FacilÒlin
R...., R"'" Faciriti..
¡¡;;;;¡--., Role! fK¡¡¡¡¡..
SU8mTAL EST. REVENUE
SUBTOTAL EST. SIX.YEAR CON,EPT PI.AN nF.FICiT
;: 1£:.-TI1,un:n SIX-YEAH ('ONn:PT PLAN B.-\I..-\NCF.
C"'"
"1
5JÐ,15~.!!!!.
SZO,JS:!:!!!!!
O,IM'
SUMMARY: BY REVENUE STRATEGY
....sT, SIX-YEAH REVENUE
EST. SIX-YRAR EXPENUlTlIRR
EST. SiX-YEAR IIAI.ANCF.
"_'ih".."k(f,~""'II",i~~,','li"", 1,,01 I!~ ,,71% MEET
. uhtit VIMe: !""'er.1 OIdi..li.", !lu"d: ('".,1',";'; ut¡"n I, -\oId¡I;.",., ,~lId.".ilie'
l: 'UI.I'IIb1icw.~h'I""lh"J.,I""ln'<I('II."."";IM IS<"Ì<'.rr,,,,.rf.
, )onal;"",
, IÌO8S
..1 Esaa", E.oci.. TII ¡!tEEn: 2nd 1/4 or 1% --
Pë1ic VOle: Locallmp<oYrmen! DiI1ritl A Low.lnl"'" F......, Loans-
Ode< 1q¡1erne8111Ì08 or ROAdw.y Impl1l\'Cl1lCnll
C08_1ÍO8 flllulell for FuhIIC Discuuioo
....1!!!:!!!!
5111,911000
~
....!!l!!!!
~.0.u.00
~
51,067.00
$1,JJ6.00
$0.00
8f.IJO
~
111~'JI~IIIO
U~U.( Ij
~
~
$00.00
SJ,ß61.00
51,1)6,00
!!!:!!!!
.to
101 ,.,
11100
~
!!!:!!!!
10,00
~
!!!:!!!!
10,00
$0.00
.
.
~
C
:I
c.
Eï rJJ
(fQ fÞ
- n
=,,0
~ 6-
~~
:I ,':]....¡
........~
C~O"
:I _.-
Q,=fÞ
tII Þ -
Q,::IN
o:~. ~
~ Þ I
--tI:
~ CI.J
::I -
n .,
fÞ ~
(I);:
CIJQ
8<-<
8
~
.,
.~
.
0
>
"Ø
::¡
>
r-
"T
>-
Q
r-
:3
IT!
VI
.
.
.
CAPn AL FACILITIES
Level Of Service (LOS) Impacts
The 1998-2003 Capital Facilities Six-Year Plan (CFP) enables Jefferson County to accommodate 14%
population growth based on a projected 2003 population of 30,012 people. Modifications to Level of
Service (LOS) standards for County-owned or managed facilities follow:
Table 12-6
LeveIOfService(LOS)..Standard:-Status.Quo..,.. "..' .. '"' ,.
Facility LOS Unit 1996 LOS Standard CFP LOS Standard
Solid Waste Lbs.lPersonlDay 3.99# 3.99#
Animal Control Shelter Sq. Ft/l,OOO population 79 SF 79 SF
Stonn Water Standards in Progress Standards in Progress Standards in Progress
,- ".',." ,.
Table 12-7
Level Of Service (LOS) Standard: Increased
Facility LOS Unit 1996 LOS CFP LOS
Standard Standard
Corrections Inmate Facilities Beds/l,OOO population 1.57 Beds 2.08 Beds
County Sheriff Facilities Sq. Ft./l,OOO population 558 SF 656 SF
County Justice Facilities Sq. Ft./l,OOO population 789 SF 1,310 SF
General Administrative Offices Sq. Ft./l,OOO population 1,619 SF 1,860 SF
Trails Miles/l,OOO population 0.38 Miles 0.52 Miles
Table 12-8
Level Of Service (LOS) Standard: Reduced
Facility LOS Unit 1996 LOS CFP LOS
Standard Standard
Transportation LOS A, B, C, D, E, F LOS C or Better LOS C or Better
Community Centers Sq. Ft./l,OOO population 1,621 SF 1,450 SF
Maintenance Shop Facilities Sq. Ft./l,OOO population 1,828 SF 1,738 SF
Regional Parks Acres!I,OOO population 18 Acres 11.50 Acres
Community Parks Acres!I,OOO population 1.30 Acres 0.51 Acres
Neighborhood Parks Acres! 1 ,000 population 0.24 Acres 0.14 Acres
Dpen .space .' . Acresll ,000 -population 1.90 Acres 1.52 Acres
Campgrounds Acres!I,OOO population 1.70 Acres 1.30 Acres
,VOL
24 rAf::
_2 ~G~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 11
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN: 1998~2003
.
This section identifies capital improvement schedules and the financing plan for County owned and/or
operated public facilities. Also included are inventories of existing facilities, the Level of Service
standards, estimates of future operating and maintenance costs associated with capital projects.
Each category of public facility is presented in a separate subsection. Throughout this section, tables of
data are identified with abbreviations that correspond to the category of public facility, for example,
Table 12-CC-l refers to Table 1 for CC (Community Centers). Each abbreviation corresponds to the
category of County owned and/or operated public facility.
Inventory of Current Facilities: Table One information includes existing capital facilities, including
the name, capacity (for reference to Levels of Service), and location.
Level of Service Capacity Analysis: Table Two information summarizes facility capacity. The
analysis utilizes the same analytical technique and format as the support document "Capital Facilities
Requirements". The statistical table at the top calculates the amount of facility capacity that is required
to achieve and maintain the standard for Level of Service. The capital improvement projects that are
projected to provide the capacity required are listed below the requirements table, and the resulting
capacity is reconciled to the total requirement.
Capital Projects and Financing Plan: Table Three includes a schedule of capital improvements that
are intended to provide the capacity required to meet growth, and repair/replace existing facilities
through December 31,2003.
.
Individual capital improvement projects are identified. The cost for each of the next six fiscal years is
shown in thousands of dollars. All cost projections are in 1998 dollars; no inflation factor has been
applied because the costs will be revised as part of the regular review and update of the Six- Year Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP). Capital improvement projects were prepared in association with the department
managing the public facility.
Specific revenue sources and projected revenue amounts are shown. The revenue forecasts are based on
data from two support documents ("Revenue Sources for Capital Facilities" and "Financial Capacity
Analysis"), and reflect the results of the February and March 1998 work of a Jefferson County
"'Governfuental Financial Task Force. The TaskForce identified pötential financing strategies based on
known potential revenue sources available.
-""'"",- "" ,,' ,,' "-",,
.
, VOL
24 'H.~
- (""
,- .-.2
2'dÜ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan '
12- 12
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
The report "Financial Capacity Analysis" includes forecasts of existing revenue and expenditures that (1)
reflect the County's overall financial position, and (2) identify existing Jefferson County revenue that can
be used for future capital facility projects. "
The report "Revenue Sources for Capital Facilities" forecasts new sources of revenue that the County
could generate for capital facilities projects.
Operating Impact of Capital Projects
Capital Facilities Concept Plaii"Section Tables 5" i~~e~ast i~t~;e "~perati~g/~~i~tena~~'~'c~~ts~f capital
improvement projects. The impacts are presumed to begin in the year after the year in which the project
is completed. Since it is not possible to forecast the completion date of each project, no attempt has been
made to identify impacts for any portion of the year in which the project is completed.
The ,?~s~s i~T~~le )2~9..refl~c"t tþe amou~tþy whi~h e~,?h fu~re year's operating budget may incre_!ls_e
relative to current operations budgets. In other words, as a project is completed, the project may impact
operating budgets in all future years.
The forecast of operating impacts is not required by the GMA, but is included due to the substantial cost
impacts of some facilities to County expenditures. This impact may be substantive enough to warrant
reconsideration of the County's decision to proceed with the project (and, perhaps, to modify the Level
of Service standard). No "financing plan" is offered for the operating costs, but the County will be
obliged to identify revenue to pay for such costs. Some of the revenue may come from increases to the
tax base that accompanies new development that created the need for the public facility. There is no
assurance, however, that increased tax revenue from new development will be sufficient to pay for the
cost of operating new public facilities.
The total of all operating costs of all capital projects is calculated as the sum of all the Tables
12-9. The tables are listed in the Capital Improvement section describing each facility (e.g. Animal
Control Shelter). The annual totals are:
Table 12-9
Summary of Capital Facilities Concept Plan Operating Cost Impacts
Year Annual Impact (x $1,000)
1998 0
1999 80
2000 128
2001 228
2002 357
2003 357
Selecting Revenue Sources for the Financing Plan
Sources of revenue are analyzed in two support documents "Revenue Sources for Capital Facilities," and
"Financial Capacity Analysis" referenced on Page 12-2.
VQ!-
? tl 'Ir,'
,...., ~ r~,,-
?~53
~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 13
August28,1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
The process of identifying revenue requirements that provide the basis for the financing plan is as
follows:
.
Determine total estimated project costs for each category of County owned ahd/or operated public
facility identified in Annual Capital Improvement Plans.
Match existing restricted revenue sources to the type of facility to which they are restricted.
Subtract existing restricted revenues from costs to identify unfunded deficit.
Apply new restricted revenues to the type of facility to which they are restricted.
Subtract new restricted revenues from costs to identify remaining unfunded deficits.
Allocate new unrestricted revenue to unfunded deficits.
.
.
.
.
.
., ~ .--. .
-,. ",. - - . ..,
, YOI-
24
' If:
( ,.,'.;-
? "".,.... A
:"'JO~.
.....
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 14
August 28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN
ANTI»AL CONTROL SHELTER
Current Facilities: The Comity-owned Animal Control Shelter was constructed at Critter Lane in 1994.
The Animal Control Shelter is available to residents of both the unincorporated and incorporated areas
ofthe County. Table 12-AC-l, "Current Facilities Inventory", identifies the current facility capacity and
location.
TABLE 12-AC-l
Level of Service (LOS): The proposed LOS of 79 square feet per 1,000 population requires only 57
square feet of additional space through the year 2003. This LOS will enable the County to respond to
the need for additional square feet of animal control shelter space as the County-wide population
continues to increase over time.
VOL
24 uc:
.- 2 --,-",-
Jù<::)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 15
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12-AC-2
.
1998 Base year 1 26,88 2, 12~ 2,31 ", 190 ¡
---'-..,-",.._--------,_....."""....,.."..""-------"'"",..,.._,,--... """"""""'-"-"---"""""""""----"-,,-,,-,,, ..,"_.._---....""""""_............."",,, ~_""""""""""""'..._--_..."",..,-+----",...~-",-_......_..""",_..---r-"'-"""""-"-""'",---,,----
1999 Growth I. 591 47: OJ (4~
2000 Growth 607 48: 0, (48)1
2001 Growth 624 491 ~ (49)1
2002 Growth 643 51, 0: (51)!
26o:rGroWtlì"'----"""""-------"""'--~"""""'-'--------- """""-----""""""""661 ""'---""""""'-5'21-"""""'----""""'01--"""---'-(32))
I ..
.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing: There are no capital projects proposed in the 1998-2003
CFP.
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: There are no net operating impacts during
1998-2003 included in the 1998-2003 CFP.
Planning Levels of Service and Adequate Facilities: In compliance with the GMA and Capital
Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate animal control shelter space must be planned within the Capital Facilities
Element.
, VOL
24
' ~ r::-
r...IO..
"'-"'6
2~)n
.
Jeffel1!on County Comprehensive Plan
12- 16
August28,1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
COMMUNITY CENTERS
Current Facilities
-.-....""...,....--""--."..-,.-
Brinnon Comnnmity Center 3,400 Brinnon
Gardiner Community Center 5,000 Gardiner
Port Townsend Community Center 17,708 ort Townsend
Quilcene Community Center ! 3,850 Quilcene !
~~~'~~~~~~~~~§.~~~ti_~~~!~~:-:,.~:,-"",~,~~,,. ,":: =~=~:=t"-".. -... 6~9:g'--"- _~~1~~~~~~~~§~:~':=:' ,.,...". '" r""".'" .~... - .""...
Coyle Community Center - 2,200 Coyle ¡
>---------------
Level of Service (LOS): The proposed LOS of 1,450 square feet per 1,000 population will require an
additional 4,477 square feet of space through the year 2003. This LOS will enable the County to respond
to the need for additional square feet of community center space.
VOL
2 4 fX~
2~57
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 17
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12-CC-2
.
Base year 26,886 38, 39,083 98
1999 Growth '--~--59r ...,--, 857 '----'-Om~==,~,~~?2J
!2Ö'Öö"'Gro\vll;m_...... """"""""':'~~=~~-=~~~=.~~:.~~:=~.~~:':' -'::'-'~":'_::::~"-:':':'?6""02"~~!===9~:0~~5""'-=--::"~=::"':':"--""OO"""'-----_"""~"""~ 8 8 ~2.J
2Ó()TGrowth--,..,."..,.."..".,__m (905) ¡
2002 Growth 643 932 0 (932) !
2003 Growth '6611----958 ----~...~ 0 (958) ..
.
VÜi-
~4 'Ire
'- r...l)-
2558
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 18
August 28,1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing:
-~-_..__._~-~-'".._- Tabfë 12-CC-3
_..,.~--~~~~._~ ..._~----
: Grants
¡ Facility Fund
Total Sources of un s
: Capacity Projects: . -1 --,.._.,_..--+-~~--_--1_,_..._.-J----
fConlmunity Centerl)rõJe'êt'.'.'.'."_."'~:',~=::,~=~,~",.,===--.J,::,:,:,=:,~~,=,~=~~,~:-C~~~'=,~==-, ""'..",,,..,-,-,_.. ¡,_..,..,-",..,~..,_",l._..""""""-_..""".L_,,,-,,----
i----'---'---"-'-'-""""""""""""""""""""""""'""'..."""" ,..¡ , -
: 0.00: 60.00: 525.00 0.00: 0.00' 0.00: 585.00
0.00 60.00 525.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 585.00
-+--~-+~tl--~---!- I
~~ni~t"' ~_.:-~¡-:¡;:¡
~~c..tiT'--t-=:"'--~:~1 8.00 I o~~~~r::r-=I
'Gardiner Comnnmity Center "" i : ' ' ,
,-,--- --,... -.-,-,.""-.,.. ..,,'" -... -, ,""",.. '" '" ,_.... '" """........", - ",.. mm_",i- ""'" ""cf'o Õ""'1' " """'1'0:06"";"'.' "'., "'1"3 :õ'õ"" 'r' "-0:00-:"0:0 0 ':""'(>':60";' ,..", """25:'"60- i
'Total Non Capacity Projects 33.00 40.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121.00
Total Capacity & Non Capacity ,Projects 33.00 100.00 573.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 706.00
Total Capacity Projects
; Non-Capacity Projects:
I Quilcene Cörnm-üTiÌtyCeñte"'j:"m_,m 'mn"-"_'"
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: The net operating impact during 1998-2003 of the
capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted Level of Service standards is shown on
Table 12-CC-5.
VûL
24 rAG:
2¿j59
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 19
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Planning Levels of Service (Adeqnate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with the GMA and
Capital Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate community centers must be planned within the Capital Facilities
Element.
COUNTY CORRECTIONS INMATE FACILITIES
Current Facilities: The current inventory of the corrections inmate facility totals 58 inmate beds, and
serves both unincorporated and incorporated populations of the County. Table 12-CF-l "Current
Facilities Inventory," lists the facility as well as its current capacities and location.
TABLE 12-CF-l
'..-"11-
24 r~r:~
25f;~O
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 20
August28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Level of Service (LOS)
TABLE 12-CF-2a
;1998 Base year 26,886 56: 58: 2
:T99¡rGroWtli-------""""""""'" -""-","'"""",,,'" """"'" """""'" ,"""""""""""""""""""""'3'9'1"\"""""""""" """""""""""""}--------'---Or--""""""""""" """("0"1
'2000 Growth 6071], 01 (1)'
:200] Growth 624Î 1 i O! (1)
:2002 GTowth--"""'--'-"'-""""."""'~."""."""-----"""-"'~ "--""""""""""'6431-"------------1r-------'-'--"O-r"'-"~"'""""-., "Tn
. "" "'"-,,,,-,,'" ",._-,,- ---------- ------------------------------ -------------- --------------- -- ----m----i---------------"-"---- "-"""",, "."'". f'" "."""..". "'. -"._'------>f-- ------------------
:2003 Growth 661 i 1; 0: (])
1,'01-
24 r~U:
2 ,- :-;1.
'.J' í
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 21
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
COUNTY SHERIFF FACILITIES
.
Current Facilities: The current inventory of Sheriff Administrative Facilities is 9,451 square feet.
TABLE 12-CF-2b
¡ ..~..~.~.~. :~~~~~~~ __m_____mm__mm_m- _____mm.... ............. ...~...~.:~ ~ ;1-- ------~~_:~~. ~"I' ................. ........ ?:.~.~.~.L.m_____~~t;~~~
12000 GroWth -~-- 368! 241! 0 (241)
t~?~~_Gr~wth ------............. ............-'_.m.___m:__~_~~-_._...............~.~~J-......._........_....~:_._....__~L__Q.~~~.
!2002 Growth 391! 256! 01 (256)
,-------------.---.,....---.----- .-.,---------...-.--..-...-.-............ -..... ......-m............ -....... ............... ---' --- ---- __om_. -------.L...... "'.... - ..... -....... ....-----t-------...------------.+---.---..--... ....--.......... ....-..---
: 2003 Growth 404! 265 i 0 i (265)
.
.
VOL
2 4 Uf,~
2 -"""-"".2
~j{
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 22
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
."""OO"'-""""""""'mm_.___.......""""",.O"'" ""'TABLE"-l2"~-Cr::J"oo""--""""""'.""'m
......_.._mmm.----_..",..--,.."""...,.,...... .....----m..--....,.,o",.......",...........-.-----......-..---."o,o..,..
.. 10.00: 10.00 . -- ! 10.00 ](J.oo¡ 10.00, 60-00
................,... ...., ""'mm____. -,...,......... I"'" :::;:¿~:r=:::~i~:~r,::,:::::~, ~~:~~:r:::~!}~~c:,:::~ :'~~t::,:"i;:g~r::,~::::,:~~~~~: ~~¡
125,00 714.60 343,10 25.00 15.00 40.00 1,2 2.70
! ;apaclly l)rOJccts: : : : : i: ..
Q~"-~~!~=i!~~J~ij~,!~!~:," §p~~~~~~~11 ts==~:~= ..~....~~..====,=: .",:,: ,:':':::_:::T -=-=---10--='=0 ,. - ~='=:=::]:--::===:C=::,=:~'J"":------'""j===:::::= -.-¡
, 95.00: 613.60 0.00, OJ)O i 0.00, 0.00: 708.60 ,
,Administration Expansion:
. m................... ........ """"""""""""""""m"
. .
....................L_-m--m..i...........,....----l
0.00 ¡ 0.00 i 32LlO :
0.00 0.00 1,02 _7
mm_............................
. .
. .
. .
'__----__mmO:O¡j"i]ïï:öi,r' """"'283.1
. 5.00 651.60 283,1
>--------"'-"""'-- """"__--"'00""" .,. . ......_...~....m._____...),.. '0"'_." '-"-'------'--'-'-" """...._---:=["=~__m_o"__,';'....,..""...,... ........:=J m_.._______.L,_._..,....,.,Jm--__.-......'m,__....-------.l
i jPlumbmgfPamtmglGutters : 15.00 : 10.00, 15.00: 10.00: 0.00 ¡ 0-00 I )0.00 :
¡..C¿;m:ëi¡õrlfãci1ítÿT¡pg¡.aaes:'~"~-----'--'T,. _0_" """'m_--m_.____. m "'M._." """-'., '--"'--"-'-""---'-----"¡- ...-.. ,...,.,. ,o""""""j...--.-----..---,_o"",...... '¡---.-----,-.........-......-..------¡
0- --....- '-..,.....-. ..... _mm--_;'_-----+-_""M--__~__';""'_---,,:
r-----o,_",____m_",_"",o,--"-",,,----------,---_ooooo-:DrîiliilìeJdiXDNPTumbliïgT- 15.00 i 53,00: 45.00! 15:°0: 15.00 i 40.00, 183.00 ,
Tota! 1"011 t:apaclly I)rojccts' .. 30.00' 63.00 60.00 25.00 15.00 40.00 233_00
I (Ita! Ütpacity and Non CapaCity Projects 125.00 714,60 343.10 25.00 15_00 40.00 1.262.70
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: The net operating impact during 1998-2003 of the
capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted Level of Service standards is shown on
Table 12-CF-5.
¡.. ..... ."" ""."m__- _.~-- _m_mmm___--..m," _mo,.. 0....... ..-..... ..",--,,- ----o-TABLE-12:C F=S""'" ...m..'..'__.-. --------- ---- --,..,-, -.. m.. ....,..,..-" --------,.. ¡
Planning Levels of Service (Adequate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with the GMA and
Capital Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate corrections facilities must be planned within the Capital Facilities
Element.
V{)1-
"'AI
:.:: l:1: f .1 ~ :
2 :;:;;3
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 23
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
COUNTY JUSTICE FACll.ITIES
Current Facilities: The current inventory of Justice Facilities includes a total of 20,367 square feet
including Superior Court, District Court/Probation, Juvenile ServiceslFamily Court, and the Prosecuting
Attorney's offices.
; Jefferson County Courthouse ¡
¡mm____.__.............~mm_.m.._mm_mm.m.....m_.m.._mmmmmm_m"""""'Supenor Court m_- 8,846 ,mmm_mm__m_.mmm......m!
P==~~~i=f-====-l=-=-3
VOI-
24 rAr)~
2G74
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 24
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Level of Service (LOS): The LOS of 1,310 square feet per 1,000 population will require a net additional
18,950 square feet of space through the year 2003 based on current population projections (See Table
12-CJF-2). This LOS will enable the County to respond to the need for increased life and safety
protection for the public and staff and provide additional square feet for both administrative offices work
space and Courtrooms.
TABLE 12-CJF-2
1998 Base year
1999 Growth I
- - .-----~ .-----------.._,,-~.... -----,,--...-. -....... .................. --" -". ------- --- -------- -- _-t-__mm
2000 Grov.1h !
,2001 Growth
2002 Growth
2003 Growth
35,221 , 20,367 (14,854)
591 774 ¡ 0 (774)
m"_""~""'--'._--""'-"--'I"""-"-""'-""""""'__'-__m____---m"-"".",,-,,-_................... .......-...----""------
607: 7951 0 (795)
624i 8171 0 (817)
643 i 8421 0 (842)
661 - 866: 0 (866)
VOL
2 4 UG~- 2 ~!';f5
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 25
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing: County Justice Facilities includes a capital placeholder of
$10,900,000 for the construction of a new approximately 40,000 square foot facility. The proposed
financing plan is shown on Table 12-CJF-3.
.
......-.......-..---.-.......-.,.... "."""""""""""""""""""""""""",1"""""""",""..."",-+. --~:~~~:(~?I_....._"""""~,l,?,:,~,~)",L,.,,, 3.270,00 ¡
:
JO,900,OO I
"'""""""'","'",,, Y"-"'--- -"""""1
Total Lapaclty I'roJ-cts 272.50 L635,OO 817.50 3 ,270 ,()O 4.360,00 54$,00 10,900,00
¡Non~Capacìty I'roJ_CIS: I
; I
[None O,O(j OJ]O 6]1j"T" 0,00 0,00 ¡O.OO 0:00
I I ;
I'lltal Non Capacity Pro,¡ecl5 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 OJ)() 0,00
Total Capac,ty and Non Capacity !'roJccts 272.50 1.635,00 817,50 3,270,00 4,360,00 545,00 10,900.00
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: The projected net operating impact during
1998-2003 of the capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted Level of Service
standards is shown on Table 12-CJF-S.
.
.."'-.,...----------...--.-----..-...... '-"- '"""..."'. """"""" """"""-"""'--'" ---1 AD L Y-fZ=c JF:~r""""'-"" "" "."....-..,---..-...-.-."---..,, ""--"""-""" """""""'.""'" "" '" """'_.""'..'. ,-..
COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
Current Facilities: The current inventory of County government administrative offices includes two
County-owned facilities (Courthouse and Multi-Service Building Annex) and two leased facilities
(Castle Hill and Federal Building). Table 12-CAO-l "Current Facilities Inventory", lists the facilities as
well as the current building square footage and location.
.
. VOL
2 4 r~C~
2 ::)11'6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 26
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
----,--
'County Courthouse General Admin. Offices
¡County Courthouse Storage Building
¡Castle Hil1 (Leased Facility)
~Fëaeï-arBuITdrn-g-([e'ä'seër,Þ-iCì I ityf""""""""""""""-----"----------
!port Townsend
!Port Townsend
Port Townsend
o-11-To~vïisend---------
15,420
2,112
;---
---_:_-------~~~~~~-----
, 9,037
J
-..... ""-"-'-"""""""'--""-"""---j
Level of Service (LOS): The proposed LOS of 1,860 square feet per 1,000 population will require a net
additional 14,854 square feet of space through the year 2003 based on current population projections
(See Table 12-CAO-2). This LOS will enable the County to respond to the need for additional square
feet of general administrative work space as the County-wide population continues to increase over time.
No capital capacity-related projects are proposed. Additional space requirements are anticipated to be
met, in part, through continued use of leased space.
TABLE 12-CGAO-2
:1998 Base year 26,8861 50,008 41,777¡ (8,231)1
,1999 Growth 591' 1,099 01 (1,099)
:"----.....'-'----..-...."..-..-...-...."..---......--..'-.. ----..---..----------..- --------_.._--------------.- ---..---------------------..-----------'....--"'....'..'..'...""---..-..---;
¡2000 Growth 607 1,129 OJ (1,129) I
¡"2ÕÕ'I"'Ôrowth,-_m.."...""..,.....,.....""............,-,.._.........."..""'-""""""""""-------------6-2:4 ----T}6T ---------------óT---'-('~-16 ITI
,2002 Gro\'.1.h 643 1,196 01 (1,196) I
12003 Growth 661 1,229 oi (1,229) ¡
.. Vnl~
2 4~ Hrr
')~- ~j7
.. o_} (
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 27
August 28,1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing: The County's government administrative facilities includes
only non-capacity related capital improvement projects.
.
,.""...""""""""""".",.,."
""TÄnr;F."' '~:Ct;Åo:::j"""
¡CapIta Improvement Fund
irj;a;iïs""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
fotaI Sources of Funds
mm_m"""""""""""""""""m..
. .
;""""...,.---.,.....,...--..... .....-..-...-.....-....".."...,.....::"":=:':"".:,,""=::::".,""._,--_..._'::!:':::':,,"::::'~~~(!::J::,,"""","",:','~~~:"j::::':::::':::"",,?~~::"::::=':::=:(Üj~:::t::.~':"::"':"Ù:Öi)m
¡ ,
Total CapaCIty PnlJe<:ts 0,,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
,
,
"'(j':Öùi-_._m_'-""'OJiij""';
""'m"T"'"""'"-"""._.__._m.._.....,
0.00
0.00
;. 'on .apaclty ro.lects: , , ,
Ct;;,':¡Iiou..<iÄdin¡;;¡;;;¡iŸiI"ii't;¡iOïti;,;;;""",...."""...._.m_mm_"""'t"------.. m.'m I".'
t.m-ëãJ~ili,g7pa;nï¡og'-'---'-""""""" ..... """"-"""""""""'.'."'...m__..- '-"-1'30:00""':"'" """9d:oa:!"::_'::_"::i;~:;~::':'"==::~ï:~~:~~~r":~':"i:~;~~i,:],.,::::..."",,:~;;;~C:::-::',,';;;o(~-~
iëoUifi,ouic'Biitïd,ng:,.m "...""",...""""",...¡"""""" ,.-mmi"""""""""""""""""""'!"-"-'" m__m'_"""";""""""".._"m___m".;
f""Hotït;r¡Wj;iaõws!ÖooriJ)Ü5Á-- - _____m"""""""", "'..."'-. -"'65jjQ""" i"" """"""" 20: (JöL__m _m2iÜïömj- - _m ""15jjiï"'" ,...."" mm 0. 0 Ù'" i"" ""..... "" mo: 00'(""" """ ...." Tsö:öÙ-j
Multi-SeIVice BlInding: "" ¡ , , , ¡
¡ ----El"ë'Ÿiíï:õi 'iJpgrõ(f¿:m ë"äìiXõAIïï.:öõf&--Mjic-:----'-"""""'" """"" ; -"---25;00""""'--""':[80:<10 ""T" '" "'" """",B: oïf - ,..- -------a:OÖ""¡-"""" """""jö:M-T-"-' - ""'lïJ)o'---J'iiÙ-:öõ-' i
'lotaINonCapacltY"roJect>; , 220.00' 390.no 165.00' 175.00" 11(1.00' ,Ino.no' 1,16n.oo'
rota I CapacIty and Noli Capacity "roJecu
220.00
390.00
165.00
175.00
110.00
100.00
1,160.00
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: The net operating impact during 1998-2003 of the
capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted Level of Service standards is shown on
Table l2-CGAO-5.
.
__..m_..__"_"m_.._.,,mm.__mm._m""'_"_""""""""""_"._m..
mm_--"_'_'--"""""""""""""""....._m.....--__"-".."..,,
Planning Levels of Service (Adequate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with the GMA and
Capital Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate County administrative facilities must be identified within the
Capital Facilities Element.
.
VOL
2A 'Hr
'i r ",,:
2578
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
"'..
12- 28
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
COUNTY MAINTENANCE SHOP FACILITIES
Current Facilities: The current inventory of County Maintenance Shop facilities totals 42,962 square
feet, and includes four (4) County-owned facilities: Brinnon Storage/Shop, Quilcene Road Maintenance
Shop, Hoh River Road Maintenance Shop, and the Port Hadlock Main Shop. Table 12-MF-l "Current
Facilities Inventory", lists the facilities as well as capacity and location.
------""'-""'""'-'------------'.
Level of Service (LOS): Although the proposed LOS of 1,738 square feet per 1,000 population is 90
, square feet per 1,000 population lower (5%) than the County's current LOS (See Table 12-MF-2), it
represents a higher square feet requirement than does the current LOS (-21,010 sq. ft vs. -12,232 sq. ft).
This occurs because a lower current inventory of square feet (30,000 sq. ft vs. 42,962 sq. ft as shown in
Table 12-MF-l) is assumed in calculating the proposed LOS to reflect the recommended construction of
replacement maintenance shop space. In short, this inventory adjustment avoids double counting
existing square footage being replaced by new square footage construction, which incorrectly creates a
higher LOS.
This LOS will enable the County to respond to the need for additional square feet of maintenance shop
space as the County-wide population increases.
VOL
24 r~.r,~
2 ::J~79
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 29
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12.MF-2
.
¡ 1998 Base year 26,88~ 46,72 30,001 (16,726)
E~~~5~~ 0 ~!:l.~~~~=::=:..:,::,~=::':: _:,="=::::~::~=:=,~,.., .=:~::::::~:::~~:?!r.'..~:":'::.:~:_};O~ ...=~=~:::..gL-=.~l!: '~~~]
;2000 Growth 6071 1,05 0, (1,055)
rf O(rrGToWth-_mm",.....- ."-" - 'mm --.....". ""-.- ------ _n' "'"-'.-- -- -" - ",," """'.--"-6'24 r--- - ,m....... r 08 "..-m"o1"". "-,, -(1 ;084)
12002 Growth' 643: 1,11 0: (1,117)
f'20Õ:r-GTow1h---""""'."""""'-------'-""""."."'----....,.,....._"---- _m'__"'_""~""'-"""'-66Ii-'_.mm"_"""'"i":T4,- -'-'-'.""..---Tj¡"""""'."-"-(T~T49l
I
jBrim1On New Maintenance Shop ¡ 1,500 - (20,659)
~~~=~=~r~~
[Hadlock Maintenance Shop Addition I 3,400 ¡ (1,959)
.
"' '.
.
~Ol
24 ¡-~~:
2:-;:'ÇJO
....CJ
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 30
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
TABLE 12-MF-3
Existing Revenue Fund Balance (ER & R) 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 450.00
Asset Sale: Quilcene Shop 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 30.00
Current Operations Revenue 75.00 75.00 75.00 54.00 54.00 0.00 333.00
Total Sources of Funds 150.00 150.00 150.00 159.00 129.00 75.00 813.00
Capacity Projects:
Relocate/Reconstruct Brinnon Maint Shop 0.00 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.00
Relocate/Reconstruct QuiIcene Maint Shop 0.00 100.00 160.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 260.00
Construct Addition to Port Hadlock Maint Shop 0.00 99.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.00
Total Capacity Projects 0.00 284.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 444.00
.
N on-Cft pacityProjects:
Relocate/Reconstruct Hoh River Maint Shop
7.500 Sq. Ft 369.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 369.00
Total Non Capacity Projects 369.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 369.00
Total Capacity and Non Capacity Projects 369.00 284.00 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 813.00
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: The net operating impact during 1998-2003 of the
capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted Level of Service standards is shown on
Table 12-MF-5.
,- ---- -,._~,_.._._-,.,-------- --.. - - .....-...,. ...,-_m_-TA::ïJI: E'-t-i ::::MF - 5-- -..- -. -.- -..., ,-, -.--, --..----------.. - --- "-"-""""---' '---,
.
jBrinnon Maintenance Shop
!Quilcene Maintenance Shop
:Hoh River Maintenance Shop
," P art"' 'fiãdlõï;'î(~'M äTñfé-ñ'anceShop--' -...
0.00 ! 0.00 0.00
o~oo 0.00 0.00
; 0.00 1 0.00 0.00
"-j----O])OI-'-O:OO- "0.00"""
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-"-'o~üo'"'" """"'0':'00""
0.00 i 0.00
0.00 i 0.00 -
0.00 i 0.00 I
m______-------,.......--.............,-c
0,00 i 0.00 -
: VOl.
24 r~r,~- 2 :181
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12-31
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Planning Levels of Service (Adequate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with the GMA and
County CFE Policy 3.3, adequate County maintenance shops facilities must be planned for within the
County's Capital Facilities Element (CFE).
.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Current Facilities
The 1997 County-owned parks (including the Park and Recreation District No.1 Coyle Community
Center) inventory includes 543.7 acres of parks and 15 miles of trails:
Type of Park Acres
Regional Parks 422.8
Community Parks 30.9
Neighborhood Parks 5.5
Open Space: Does not include "Public & Preserved Open Space" (National & 45.8
State Parks) & "Active Open Space" (Marinas, Trails, Golf Courses, and
Sportsfields)
Campgrounds 40.7
TOTAL ACRES 545.7
Table 12.11
Acres of County Owned Park
TABLE 12-PR-l
.
¡NOTE: The voluminous inventory of current parks and recreational facilities is available 1
land on file in the Jefferson County Department ofPubJic Works
Level of Service (LOS): Acreage that is currently owned, regardless of its state of development, is
included as "capacity" for the purpose of calculating LOS for County-owned parks.
The LOS are 11.5 acres per 1,000 population for Regional Parks; 0.51 acres per 1,000 population for
Community Parks; 0.14 acres per 1,000 population for Neighborhood Parks; 1.52 acres per 1.000
population for Open Space; 0.52 miles per 1,000 population for Trails; and 1.3 acres for Campgrounds.
The LOS will enable the County to respond to the need for additional park acres and facilities. and trail
miles as the County population continues to increase over time.
.
, I.,'OL
2A 'Hr
"i. ( ~ " ..
2:182
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 32
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12-PR-2a
1998 Base year
1999 Growth
2000 Growth
2001 Growth
2002 Growth
2003 Growth -
---¡
i
26,886
591
607
624
643
661
309.43
6.80
6~99
7.18
7.40
7.61
422.80 I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.3.37
I
(6.80) !
(6.99) :
(7.18) i
(7.40)
(7.61)
VOL
2 d. '.Ire
." ~ r..."..
2383
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 33
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12-PR-2b
.
,.-_~- 1998 Base year ¡ 26,886 +~~.82 ~0,90 ¡ 17.08.j
! 1999 Growth ! 591 ! 0.30 O.OO! (0.30) i
;- . . I ;" . " i
¡~...""""_.~~---"--~~~~-g~~~~-,-",,,.............,,..+-'-'-".'~~-~-------i----'~:; ~ -_._._"'~::~~.'---I-----t~~j~~-l
¡.-....--- - I - -- -- I , ,,;
I 2002 Growth ! 643 0.33 0.00 i (0.33) :
;...--------",,------".""'.""._'-""__."".""_""_._--------------------~--"i--"---- .._""",....,..--"",'"",.",.......,..,. ",.,......,.."......."",...,..."",.....", ..",."..""""",.-",-"...",..""""""."",..__..._------;
! 2003 Growth j 661 0.34 I 0.00 i (0.34) -
.
.
, VOL
24 Uf;~'
2 G8L\
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 34
'I, '"
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12-PR-2c
1998 Base year
1999 Growth
r 2000 Growth
!-~'"'--------------20ÒrGrõwth
~
2002 Growth
1""",.""""",.---
---~'2"ÜÖ3-GioWtj)-
26.886 3.79 5.50 1.71:
¡
591 - ¡ 0.08 0.00, (0.08) -
: 607 ! 0.09 O.OO! (0~09) !
- _.'_m_""I¿';:f""~"'-'-r-"""m""""'ò':'ö'r-""""" "'-'--õ.06-ICÖ:ܧ).m""Î
¡ 643 ! 0.09 O.OO! (0.09) I
-- ---... """ -"-,,,,---,,-<-------------------- -------- ,----- ---------------------- ---------------------------,-- m'~_"'" -, -- ----,
: 661 : 0.09 O.OO! (0.09) --
VOL
24 r~{~
-2:85
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 35
August 28,1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12-PR-2d
.
1998 Base year 26,886 13 .96 15.00 J 1.04 I
.__._.."-"..._~"_."._..--_._------_........._---_._.....,,",,..---...-,,--..--- -,."."_.,.~-,,._"'...__..- ----,."-"..,,..,,- ----'.__._"""""--+--~-""-"-----i
1999 Growth 59) 0,31 0.00, (0.31)i
2000 Growth 607 0.32 0.00 (0,32);
:m<)] GroWth-._----_."_...~---_.._,--,,."'-"-t---------624'._._."--_.-"----0.32 "."""----õ'.OÖ-j--------10.3i)!
2002 Growth I 643 0.33 0.00 i (0.33) i
...-..--...--------- -,-".~-----,.. ."..........._"-------,-"",._....,.",, ....-¡.--------- ---- .",,_.. -,,--..,,-,,-- -...--..."",-." ""'" ""......----...- -- --,,- --+- ,..""----- -.-"'.
¡2003 Growth I 661 0,34 0.001 (0.34)'
.
.
, VOL
24 '1r--
-- r "j , ::
2586
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 36
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
: 1998 Base year
, 1999 Growth
12000 Growth
12001 Gro-w1h
!2002 Growth
12003 Growth
TABLE 12-,PR-le
26,88q
5911
6071
,
6241
643!
6611
40.7T
0.901
0.92'
0.951
0.981
1.00:
45.80
0.001
O.OO!
0,00:
0.001
0.001
5.031
(0.90)'
(0.92)!
:
(0.95)1
(0.98)1
(1.00)1
VOL
"4
L ~ r~C~
2:j87
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 37
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
TABLE 12-PR-2f
.
1998 Base year i 26,886 I 34.98 40.70 i 5.72 ,
_...,...,.......,.m"""_"'-'-'-'-----'-------__::;M'."'~-'-'----'-"~-"--'----------'-----'--_--"'m_.___.._...........m..--t--...-..---------- ,..__.._----~.._----->-'_..._.._...m_-"--I
.. 1999 (.Tfowth '591, 0.77 O.OO! (0.77) i
, i ¡
! 2000 Growth L~.79 0.00, (0.79) I
H~~-----+-~~l~ -~~~~
I 2003 GrO\...1h I 661 t- o.~ 0.00 ! (0.86) I
.
.
'- ','01-
24 r~\'\:
2 ~J88
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 38
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing
"'-TABLETFPR~J-
26.00 27.00 , 28.00 . 29.00 30.00 31.00 171.00 j
"---O:ÕO------O~OÕ-r-' --:¡ÖÖ:OÕT"-"""'wm¡----- 300.00 """0:00'."--- -(;00:00-1
,'DOnations""""'.""" .....--....,..---.-..--,.-,.""'.."" ""--""-0:-00' --""""'--[cio...'t"""""""""'ô:ö¡r¡""--"'---o:oõ--;-'--""-""""'-44rï:6Õ- -----'0.00 . "'-""--""'-441(0'0"'1
¡'AddiïioiïiïiTJiatiifuñdíïlg-'--------'" ------ -----"""röö:<jïJ"'" "".'.""""H¡ö:¡¡ö""'-'---Too:öö-T---Yöö:örj""":""""""""'"""""""'ïiöjïo-"o:r¡¡f' """"""""."480Xfö"-'
~~~:'~~~~,-~~;~~~~~;:~:~~;:~:Iery-.""--"--- ---"'~"=6~~~~- "-_.-6~~~~]==-'~-~;~:~[--=~~~~~~1=~:=.=67 5 . 00 --~::-~;i~~:~=~'~~:~~",..l
'ca;;ïpgroïî"I'i;¡"U;¡Ù¡¡>;:,:¡iiïiiiïï Fc,,¡;&:""" "7'nm- """""72:00-'-"'1Z:'ö(¡"""""""""."" "'-12:0¡¡-t"""""7Z:ÖO"'" """"""""""'-;¡Troo-'
ota ( urceso un S 891.00 1,197.0 98.00 1,619.0 800.00 6,294.0(
,Non-Capacl!)' Projects: -r -..----.---------j..-------____-----L..._.._............................. ;
I~_ï~~:~~f~;;;~~:~~~~;~:(~:~~:; ~ ;~::::::. -":.:"':=~,~.::,~~ =: :::~:=~:~-~=::=:~~ =~~J..... :::==::=:~~::L.. ,- =~:=~:o.Ö::'~", ::='~~:-=:~~;~;:~.'~:~~'~=::~~?;=~=:~:~::~;.~~--'.....'
¡V¡¡'noiï,,'friùll'ã¡;¡iTãild-------""""""""""" I
¡"""TAcë¡¡¡,;¡,Üõïï(ïCëfMìjc¡;¡--------""""""""""'" ---..;.."" ""....,...,.. "¡Hio'" ---'---Ö~õ(fT-----o:i¡0..t--"""""'24(j-:i¡¡)""';-"'--------'240:¡jÖ""'¡"""""'" """".'0:00"" """"'----;¡:8¡¡:¡j¡)--'
: I Trail Sub'lota! 0.00 0.00 0.00 240.00 _40.00 0.00 4&),00
: Regionaï Park,,""'-- m.--- -- ..- -- - ,
iH,J.CaIToIiPark ,I .
1--TFíejds!!rnganoi17i;¡;ï:klïï¡'7fì'gïïi¡ïïii7cic--' ....:::'::'::'::::,,:!.:::'::~::~~~~~-~~.. -~-:::::::::~::~~:::l.==::'::::~~?:~?'::::[.:::~~:':"'~~~~¡:?ij::r:l::::::~:::!:~~:?~!:~~"],,, '::-ï;~~:??l.::..--~::~~!~:~':~?:::':
!MeiïÏonãT:Fíëil'i"(Ex¡;;;;;;r""-' ,." ._,.,-,.....,..,_......_.,.
:---IIìg¡;:fSJíïï;ígiïtioiîí'F~¡¡¡'ìïïii!Êï~--'-"""""""- -'-..,,-.... "T:i:ôO""-:io:6õ"-'------1f:(>õ-r--"'-36:oö':""
¡Gibbs Lake Park , ,
,"':Ra¿,;;iitè-ànëïrepïliccèlïretak¡;;:¡ìo\ï:iíìig""-"- ""."'.'-"~5.00"--'--10.oifr----25:ÖÕ---'- "'2ÖXj¡r:"- ---ii:(jifT-.. ¡rÕ(j"---6Ú:ÖÕ"
, ReglOllall'ark Sub Torn I 617.1TO 30.00, 625.00 700.00 , 1.400.00 1,882.00 5.254.00
[Nc¡iiìGõriïöõ;¡piï;:ï,s:":::::::::""::,:...::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~.~:::~:::..:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::..:..:::::::::..::::""""------::::::_-..::":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::----------..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::;
:lrondale Park
. : Toilctlsepticlsheltermil.tìii7iiãikÎul!ietc ..--. O.{ O 20.Q(J 8(jJj(r"] 0.00 0.00 '30.00 130_00 ,
>caïïïp'ii¡:;;ï;iï'd5~"" ....._..N~j~~borhoodPa,~~..~,~~~Toral__,__,.._"."" "..?:,~,?"..",._,..,........?,o.OO. ---~?:??..;- ()'.?~~,.."" ""..,."... ..,._.__.?OO".-._--,........~.~.:?~"" "........._...",....!_~~~:~?_.
!L3kc'LÙiilid" ......---....---....-.. ..--.-----. -.."..,........ .-------...----.,-.. ...."".._..".._"~ ,- ----~..._._L._..---_..._----_.._'-_.._.....".."",.""_"",,,,,,~,---,,_,,---..--. -..----.,.... -......, ,...- ....." ....-,.,-..--------..-.-..-..,
¡----, Wiïï¡;-,7í:'ieç,DOCk7etë""'-""""""""""'------------""""""¡----------o:oof---- 20.001...-- 80:00-""----"0.00 --¡----""'--6:ölr-\'---30.00- ----T30.50..
..iQuhc¡;ïïi:----------"-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'~--"'-- """""""'j""""""'-'-"-'------'- ..-----------------t----..-----.....................,....................."..,,-.-----..---------.......................,.........,¡............,....,,-----------..----------..--...""""""'1
¡--lRvlïookupš".'-"""'."-"'.'.'~--_.".""'---"-"""'-'."-i---------Ö:OO--"--""""o~(jif-"'---"""'5Ô"]ö-:"'-'--5Õ:ÕO-~---"""'."""'5'Õ-:ÕÖ-:----o.öö-----'--""r5õ':õõ".'
'cîïi'iïïäëUïr¡---..-..----..---...___--__m_.._.....",......-.........----....-..-,.....,.......,.."""...,....,.., .........."'.-------.....--_----_m_..:.._..-..-.-------.-.-._..--_..'m.._..'"..",......"..,......",.... ._----_.._._-_..~-..._..._"" ""..,....""..m'm'_"._----...-----.---
. .
I , TIt 'S C' Elcctn ' r ........................... -..--. """""""""""""'.""""--Ö:OO-----"-----'¡¡jj(¡---'-----"-"--,ïLoo"""'" """""""""'Ö:¡m'" _.___n_.. 50 O(¡"""" 0 00 ""'-----'--'-l-OÖ:ÖÜ-
¡~~~::;[;~:,,!~~::~>~:~~y~::- ",..""."",.,.. -".,.,.""......,.."",..,......., ........, , "'...-, --,------------- --"--- --'~':"""""""""""""""""""':"""""""-------_.._----.
. -"¡TolíëisiÞi'ljpperPãrk---------"'" ,.,....,,-- ,"""'-0:00.. '._""-"'-0-:-6¡¡--!'----5{fl)¡)"1'-'o.'Ö¡r;"""':~::=~:~;;;;~,--o:Öo- . "".""""".""'So.ffi¡-¡
i CampgrOUl1d SubTotal i 0.00 20.00 230.00 50.00 100.00: 30_00 ~30_00
'-[Oiii'--' ""'¡rólï"" ----- -620(>Ö-
PrOJeclS Sub I otal
6I7J!O
70.lH!
935.00
990,00
1,740.00
1,942.00
6.294.00
VOL
24
- 2=89
rAro~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 39
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: The net operating impact during 1998-2003 of the
capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted Level of Service standards is shown on
Table 12-PR-5.
.
',-----
Non-Capacity Projects ¡ i ,
I " 'I
!Regional Parks "--"r-- i ! ¡ " I :
r-""""""""""""-'.""""'TH~rcärrõïI"ì)afi(_m--t"""O':'õ'Ö"-t--4ö])o'i"-6Õ~ÖÖ"."l-60.-Ö-O-.t-85~8(r"'r'"iß":ì~Ü--rI3[6"Ô"""
iM.em~ria~ Field, i- o.oo ö.oo ! 0.00 J-~.oo ¡o.ÖO I ,,~:OO ' 0.00
¡GIbbs Lake Park I 0.00 ! 0.00 i 0.00 I 0.00 i 0.00 ! 0.00 ¡ 0.00
S b I . I I ' - I I '
~~~.U tota ! O.O~ I 40.00 ! 60.00 I 60.0~--t- 85.80 i 85.80 i 331.60
NeIghborhood Park ¡It I, I
'~'~~~=.'~~~~~l!iõndaí~~~~~~~-_~_~:=I=_~:~~::~¡'.~~~~:~~[,,~:.~~~=C=:~~:!_?~=t:=!]¡f'T'--'~:;~~~~::T-_:~~~~_m'
. ¡Subtotal ! 0.00 i 0.00 ! 1.10 -I 1.10 I 1.10 : 1.10 ¡~40-
Park Campgrounds I ¡I!
¡Lake Leland Park ! 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 ! O.~"~ 0.00 i -~~~~.OO
,Quilcene Park! 0.00 i 0.00 ! 0.00 I 0,00 i 0.00 1- 0.00 : 0.00
"""" "'"""." -......"""""""'" I' c hhn'ãc u m"p"aik-mm- r'. "'õ':Ü if"" "["'--ö: OO-"!' ""'0':"66" "-1\, "m_o:oo mm1m" '"0: 00" ....'" r""" "'6 "Xi' õ"-1-'-¡f:6Ü""'"
. '" '" ,,"'.. '" """"""""""""-ì ~l:::~~rp' ã:ik,.m- ,"~: ~~. """'r- -~ :~~:~=,.~: ~"~' .,.." ,...,. ~:~~-r=~:~~"-'T"'~..'~':'~~'~:~~---"
'I '
Bayshore Motel ! 0.00 O.OO! 0.00 0.00 O~OO I 0.00 , 0.00
'-I-- --'--~.
¡Subtotal : 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 ' 0.00
.
Planning Levels of Service (Adequate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with provisions of
the Growth Management Act and Capital Facilities Element (CFE) Policy 3.3, adequate
ParkslRecreation facilities must be planned within the Comprehensive Plan's Capital Facilities Element
(CFE).
SOLID WASTE
Current Facilities: Jefferson County is responsible for the management of solid waste generated within
the County. Presently, Jefferson County contracts with a private hauler to transport solid waste to a
landfill site in Goldendale, Washington. The County and Skookum Environmental Services, a private,
non-profit entity, manage recycling of the remaining solid waste. No solid waste is disposed at the
closed County landfill. The County will continue to contract with private haulers to transport solid waste
to landfills outside the County during the foreseeable future.
.
'VOL
?! 'H:;;
....,.... r.. ".
25'90
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 40
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
The County's recycling program includes three elements: (1) curbside recycling collected by private
solid waste haulers; (2) market-driven programs, such as corrugated cardboard; and (3) the County
owned recycling bins at various sites (the Jefferson County Solid Waste Facility, Port Hadlock,
Quilcene, Brinnon, and other sites determined by the County's recycling contractor, Skookum
Environmental Services).
Level of Service (LOS): The current LOS is twofold: (1) 3.99 pounds of solid waste per person per day;
and (2) 8.73% recycled material. The proposed LOS of 3.99 pounds per person per day is the same as
the current LOS, while 12.0% recycled material by 2001 is 37% higher than the current LOS.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing: The County's solid waste program includes 2 capital
projects at a cost of$559,000. The proposed financing plan is shown on Table 12-SW-3.
"'....."..."-...........-..... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'...-TABLEI2':'8W=3""""""""""""""""""'."""""'."""""""""""""""""".'"""...""""""""""."""".""""....-..........
,Revenue Bonds
,Total Sources of Funds
1~~~~~'~d~J;~~~is""'..""""'.".'."-"'-"""""" ...................,."......,._........,-_..._.....~---....."--"'.[""'-""""""""""'¡"'--.-""'-'-.""r -.."...... '-""".1""""
¡Total Capacity Projects O.OOi 0.001 0.00: 0.001 O.OO!
" I . , : .
I . .!" ,
I ! I I ......_......._"....-+..._""._"._.....__.."".,_._.._-._-"..~"'._"....,,".,...",.." ...........-.........-....-..-----'
iNoõ:CapaêiiY"ProJects':"""" ".".""""""-."-'.""-".""""""""'."."-."-"r---'.---'-¡-.' : ' :
i.."........-.....-.-.-......................................""""""""""""",""".......""""",................""..."""..."."....................................¡"..............."...""""i""""""""""""""""""""i"""."".""""""""""!..""".".............."..."...".¡..."""""""..."."."... ...............................-..........""..."""".,
I.~.?:l.~~"!~~~~!.~~.~~~.~...~.~~~~.?~,:,...".."...,,..."........""""......-.--......,1...,.."..."............[.....................,."..............1 i' I
:_.._...l~_~st~~tio~,~~..~..,~~'p~~~.~,~~"n.:~..". ......."._.._.__..._...........--~.~.:?,,?l...,.,~,~?:.~?J._~.?: 00 I 173 . ._.~:.?ÕL~~~_~:?,?J
ISo:lid Waste Management: ".: :: I
!-.-FãCITltiesrmprovemeÏitsÆqulpmeïii-- '--"'..." 0 . õÕI-~...Toö---62.0Ö --.-56'-00" ..5.inio.¡.38:ÕÖ-"""2'i¡:Õ(}
ITotal Non Capacity Projects : 22.00 127.001 87.001 229.00 56.001 38.00. 559.00:
""""."""'~"""_._""".'-.'-i
O.OO! O.OO!
!Total Capacity and Non Capacity Projects
! 22.001 127.001 87.00: 229.00 56.001 38.00, 559.00:
VOL
2 4 r~(~
2:.91
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 41
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: The net operating impact during 1998-2003 of the
capital improvement projects required to maintain the adopted Level of Service standards is shown on
Table 12-SW-S.
.
Planning Levels of Service (Adequate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with the GMA and
Capital Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate solid waste facilities must be planned within the Capital Facilities
. Element.
STORM W A TERIFLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES
Current Facilities: Flood Control: There are several major watersheds within Jefferson County
including the Duckabush, Dosewallips, and Big Quilcene Rivers in the east County and the Bogachiel,
Hoh, Clearwater, Queets, and Quinault Rivers in the west County.
Presently, the County does not have an adopted comprehensive County-wide surface water management
plan that identifies specific needs and requirements, planned capital facilities projects, and a financing
plan.
.
Unstable channel conditions on the Dosewallips and Big Quilcene Rivers have resulted in increased
frequency of over bank flows, channel blockage, adverse impacts to fish habitat, and damage to shellfish
beds. Routine channel changes on the Dosewallips River have eroded platted lots in the Lazy C
development. Downstream at the Town of Brinnon aggradation on the lower reaches of the river has the
potential to result in frequent overland flows and possibly radical channel changes.
Along the lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River, dikes have confined the river. This has lead to the
aggradation of the bed, which is now at a higher elevation than the surrounding area. Annual high water flows
often cause the river to top the dikes. This has had adverse impacts on local residents and shellfish and fish
resources.
The Department of Ecology awarded a grant to the County to prepare a Comprehensive Flood Management
Plan for the Big Quilcene River. Subsequently, the Lower Big Quilcene River Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan was fonnally adopted by Jefferson County in July 1998. It is expected that significant
facilities and projects based on this plan will need to be implemented, and, as a result, are included in the
1998-2003 Capital Financial Plan.
Current Facilities: Storm Water: Jefferson County does not own nor does the County operate stonn water
management facilities with the exception of collection and conveyance systems designed to manage stonn
water runoff from County roads. There are numerous private stonn water management facilities that were
constructed to serve private development projects. These private systems include collection, conveyance, and
detention facilities. They are typically operated and maintained by private parties or hoJDRWgers associations.
24 2 J~~
, YOI- .... r ~G~
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 42
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Level of Service (LOS): Flood Control: Jefferson County will be developing options for a Level of
Service standard for stonn water management/flood control facilities.
Level of Service (LOS): Storm Water: Jefferson County does not have an adopted quantifiable Level
of Service standard for stonn water management facilities. The County has adopted a stonn water
management ordinance to guide planning, design, and construction of stonn water management facilities
by the County, State, and private parties. The standards for stonn water management facilities are the
standards of the Washington Department of Ecology Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget
Sound Basin.
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing: A range of potential non-capacity capital projects are
included as capital placeholders recognizing that there is a possibility that the preliminary planning
completed to date may progress to a more detailed level of planning and implementation within the
1998 - 2003 CFP timeframe.
--.---------.-..--...--...-..----.",,-,,-,..--.............-........-,..-.-"-"",, ......-.....-+---.""':"'---.----'-.-..-...-,..-.-"."<..""",,,....,....................-.-..-.-.....--...-.-.-...--.-...-...:--...""...,,.,.""."....1....... . ¡ .....,."-",,,._.,......,;
Grants : 23.00 1 42.50 ¡ 5_00 ¡ 44.00: 7.50 :-~ïni¡rT- 176,00 !
j COuntY: Wia e- &I'iooii'sïïïï z ï;ïï ë LevT;;;;' ""'" """'."""". -- -"'--T"'34):0 0" ""'" 34)': oõ'" "': "" """" ""344 :M-¡--344:ÖÖ""'T '" 3'44 Xi (fT' -:3 44:60-;-"2: mJ¡i;:ÖÕ"" '1
¡ I.O18I'Sources of Fullds ¡ 368.00 387.50' 349.00 388.00 ¡ 351.50: 398.00 2,242_00,
~::: ;~;, :~~ ~~!:~~-._..._.- "'-"""'-"-""-'----"'""",.",..._m, - ",--- ¡----- -- ---- ----------_:."",--", "-,,,,--- --.-.----------1-""., ,--- - L" _.,- ,------1------ ",.",J
! i I
: Total Capacity I'rojeds 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 ,
¡£~ ;~~: ~~~§;!;~~!'~~~~i~Îñ §~:~§~=~~:=::: ~~=~.=i==----:-=[===== ~~ t.:"= :::==~::::~=I:=~:=~~=t:'=:::'==t=:,,:::~..:=r"'-_== ::j
~o~~~¥-;~~~~~~~~~~:',~===:::=:,::,:,.',,:::'=:,,:"=::t.=='=~=I--~-=~~'~~:-J:":"::::::':~~~:=~,,I:::===~~==-:t-::::::='=,~=t='=(~~~l=:-~~==.~.:=~:j
Acquisition ! 0.00 i 0.00, 0.00 ¡ 0,00 ¡ 3 LOO! 219.00 ¡ 250.00
: o.a . 011 apaclty roJects 0.00 50.0 800.00 1,142.00 31.00 219.00 2,242.00'
110.al Capacit)' and Noli Capacity j'l"Ojects 0.00 50.00 800,00 1,142_00 3 LOO 219.00 2,242.00
VOL
2 4 r~[~
2 ¿J93
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 43
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements: There will be no operating impact (1998-2003) of
the capital improvement projects required during 1998-2003 to maintain the adopted LOS (See Table
12-SWM-5).
~---'"-'---"""...".~-"~_,.'--'mT ABLE î2:SWM~.~"~'-------~-
.
Planning Levels of Service (Adequate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with GMA and
Capital Facilities Policy 3.2, adequate storm water management facilities must be planned within the
County's Capital Facilities Element (CFE).
TRANSPORTATION
Current Facilities: The County's road system inventory consists of 390 County roadway miles (major
collectors: 36 miles; minor collectors: 102 miles; and local access: 252) and 24 County-owned bridges.
This does not include any streets within the City of Port Townsend. Other Inventoried transportation
facilities include 125 miles of State highways (principal arterioles: 91 miles; minor arterials: 24 miles;
and major collectors: 10 miles) and 25 State-owned bridges.
.
--------'----------.",--.,-""""",m""".."",--,,-
.-mm...................................-.......-----..---..,,---..
"""'_m_.."".."......,."..,
---------"----,,
,
,
i
"-_-_.~_m__-:
Level of Service (LOS): As discussed in the Transportation Element, complex data collection and
mathematical formulas are used to determine Level of Service (LOS) for transportation facilities.
Roadway Level of Service is generally rated on a scale of "A" through "F". This is a qualitative measure
that describes operational conditions within a traffic stream and takes into account factors such as speed,
travel time, delay, comfort, and convenience. LOS "A" through "C" signify free flowing traffic with
minimal delays. LOS "D" and "E" signify unstable traffic flow with significant delays. LOS "F" signifies
forced, unstable traffic flow with substantial delays.
.
" VOL
24 rAŒ
2 .,.- 9 ,1
~~ ...
....
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 44
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
The Transportation Element sets forth the following County roadway LOS standards:
.
Policy TRP 1.1: Provide for a Level of Service "C", or better, for rural road facilities based upon
Average Annual Daily Trips.
Policy TRP 1.2: Provide for a Level of Service "D", or better, on all road facilities within Urban
Growth Areas (UGAs), and Designated Tourist Corridors as established by the Peninsula Regional
Transportation Planning Organization, based upon Average Annual Daily Trips.
.
VOL
2 4: r~C~
2G95
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 45
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Capital Facilities Projects and Financing:
:~--~-_..,_.,."~"
,~, --rABLTI1:TR w 3---"."'~"'-'----' .. ,~,-, ._,--,-_... .--------.-
.
I#~~~;; :~~ ~?,,~~~~~,,=:~ """',, ',,'~.~ ',,~~..~-.:::= =:~~~: ..~~,,~~~;~~:~i :~",,::..'~ ~l~~ :+: :.:,~" '~~~~;l=!:~:=~i~~ +:::,~~,~~~:J ,,==:~::~il =J.:~i! ~~:~':J
¡CAPP Funds 0.00; 126.00! 126.00 ¡ 0.00 ¡ 0.00 ! 0.00 I 252.00 ¡
IRAP Funds ...- , 345.00 """-85,00 ~OO i 712.00 rn'2.oo !'-7T~ 2,566.001
~-=====-~3~:~: r=~~ß~!_~
¡Defer hnplementation ofPr~iects 206.00 206.00 ' . 0 206.00 I 206.00, 206.00 [ 1,236.00 i
Total Sources 0 'unds 2,587,00 2,056.00 1,413.00 2.397.66 1,890.67 1,668.67 12,013.00
"I~:~:~;~po:~~~~~:'--~-'-'-"--'" ....."..------..t'-""""'--"+---i-............_...._L.",._,",.,. "'....f""-"---""'I"-----"""'" .
. Tota 'ap¡\city Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E~~~~~~~ ~~m=-~~
f~i"~I~~~N~!~,:I~_~E:?~ìE."...._.._-_...--.._..,...I__~.~~:~~'T...__..~~-~;H--'-""""'~:~6 ."'-_..~~~..,...... .......~:~~. +.""'"" .....i~~661-"-""'~~~~66--1 .
~"""'~"""'~""'-""""'-"'""""'-"",""c"'-"",_"""""M"""',...._--.."'--""',,-_....._.,, ....--"",..""",..1........................",....+--..-...."",..,.......... ...._"'-),....,",".."'..m.;'..'..................-.._.._m~_..m"..".........'i""'-~..""'-,........"._............._.~
~~=iËH~}~i~tj~~
:PARADISE RD. PHASE 2 0.00 ! 0.00 ! 0.00 I 279.66 i 279.67 i 279.67: 839.00 I
: Wn:'TC)fJGHi'fY-BRfDCIE---"""""""""-"'-""'------'. """"--"""0. OOT-""""(i:õÕ-!""""--"'Ö~ÖOì"""""""-Š7.TI-t---""."'87:3J't"""""'--g'r.-33i---262:Öër"¡
i DOSEWALLIPS RD. 17.00 0.00 i 0.00 , 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 \ 17.00 ¡
iJACOB MILLERfLANDFILL INTERSECT! N:o~õoi O.OO! 0.00 ~225r66 i 225.67 ¡ -225.67 I 677.00 ¡
'MILL RD. ' . O,OO'¡ 0.00 I-'" 0.00 33.33 ¡ 33.33!' 33.34! 100.001
is. DISCOVERY RD. 0.00 ¡ 0.00 i 0.00 213.33' 213.34 i 213.33 i 640.00 '
jrQUïlcEN E R CfiU5--"---""""""-'-----"-------""""", """'-"'-"Ö~ÕÖ"'¡""""""-"õ])(rr---"'--""6:õõ' --'3T33 "¡"""""""""'I.DTr-'" Tf341""""'-"'j"ÕÕ:Ü(¡",
¡SAFETY PROJECTS 43.00 ¡ 60.00 I 60.00 ! 60.00 :. 60.00 ¡ 60,00 I 343.00 ..
~i;~~=:=t:1i=¡§=it=¡UB
¡FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS ¡ 0.00 58.00 : 0.00 ' 0.00 .00 ! 0.00 i 58.00 I
j~~~:~~:~~~)~~~~..~.I.D. ! ~:~~! 62~:~~ I ~:~ : ~:6~ ' 6:~~ I ~:~ i 62~:~~ I
Total Non Capacity Projects 2,381.00 1.850.00 1,207.00 2,191.63 2.191.66 2,191.69 12,013.00
TotalC¡lpncityandNonCnpacíty.Projects 2.381.00 1,850.00 1,207.00 2,191.63 2,191.66 2,191.69 12,013.00 .
vn!...
2 4 r~r,~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 46
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Operating Impact of LOS Capital Improvements
There will be no operating impact (1998-2003) of the capital improvement projects required during
1998-2003 to maintain the adopted LOS (See Table 12- TR-5).
---"---T ABLE 12- TR-5
---'1
Concurrency (Adequate Public Facilities Criteria): In compliance with the GMA and CFP 3.1, roads
and transit facilities must meet the Level of Service Standards for existing and proposed development
concurrent with proposed development. Table 12- TR-3 indicates there are no capacity-related capital
projects planned because all Designated Tourist Road and Rural Road facilities in Jefferson County are
projected to meet the LOS standards.
\'01-
24 rH,~
- 2 J37
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan -
12- 47
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
: VOL
2 4 rAC~
2598
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 48 ,
','.
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
GOALS AND POLICIES
NARRATIVE: The Capital Facilities Element unites all the elements of this Comprehensive Plan. The
function of the Capital Facilities Element is to establish a viable planning link between inventory, Level
of Service, and financing for future public facilities. The goals state the general growth management
intentions of the County. The policies are guidelines for decisions on how goals will be achieved.
Strategies describe specific,programs or actigns.to iItlplementpQJicier:;,.. '., ,". """, -, - ., .,'
GOAL:
CFG 1.0
Establish appropriate Level of Service standards for public facilities.
POLICIES:
CFP 1.1
Levels of Service for Public Facilities: Establish the following Level of Service
standards for categories of public facilities and apply the standards as follows:
Cateeorv A Public Facilities are the public facilities owned or operated by Jefferson
County subject to concurrency.
Category A Level Of Service Standards:
Rural Road and Designated Tourist Road Facilities: Maintain Level of Service standard
C or better for rural road facilities based upon Average Annual Daily Trips. Maintain
Level of Service standard D or better on all road facilities within Urban Areas (UGAs)
and Designated Tourist Corridors as established by the Peninsula Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), based upon Average Annual Daily
Trips.
Apply Category A Level of Service standards to development approvals issued by
Jefferson County after adoption date of this Comprehensive Plan. Category A Level of
Service standards will guide the County's capital budget and capital improvements
program beginning with the 1999 fiscal year.
Cateeorv B Public Facilities are the public facilities owned or operated by Jefferson
County subject to Levels of Service standards.
Category B Level Of Service Standards:
Animal Control Shelter
Community Centers
Corrections Inmate Facilities
County Sheriff Facilities
County General Administrative Facilities
County Justice Facilities
County Mainten~nce Shop Facilities
Neighborhood Parks
VOI-
79 square feet per 1,000 pop.
1,450 square feet per 1,000 pop.
2.08 beds per 1,000 pop.
656 square feet per 1,000 UNINC. pop.
1,860 square feet per 1,000 pop.
1,310 square feet per 1,000 pop.
1,738 square feet per 1,000 pop.
0.14 acres per 1,000 pop.
24 UC~ ~ 2 ~99
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 49
August 28,1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Community Parks
Regional Parks
Trails
Open Space
Campgrounds
Solid Waste
Storm Water/Flood Control Facilities
Water System Facilities
0.51 acres per 1,000 pop.
11.5 acres per 1,000 pop.
0.52 miles per 1,000 pop.
1.52 acres per 1,000 pop.
1.3 acres per 1,000 pop.
3.99 pounds per capita per day
Pending
Pending
.
Category B Level of Service standards will guide the County's capital budget decisions
and the development of the capital improvements program beginning with the 1999
fiscal year.
Catee:orv C Public Facilities are the following facilities owned or operated by the
Federal or State government, independent districts, the City of Port Townsend (outside
the incorporated limits), and private entities.
Roads: Maintain Level of Service C or better for rural road facilities based upon
Average Annual Daily Trips. Maintain Level of Service D or better on all road facilities
within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and Designated Tourist Corridors as established by
the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO), based upon
Average Annual Daily Trips.
Sanitary Sewer:
City of Port Townsend:
Port Ludlow (Ludlow Water Co., Inc.):
Water:
City of Port Townsend:
Port Ludlow (Ludlow Water Co. ,Inc.):
PUDNo.l:
Tri-Area (City of Port Townsend):
Airport:
Jefferson County International Airport: Airport capacity equals 100% of aircraft
operations demand.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services:
Fire District I(Chimacum): 0.863 fire units in service per 1,000 pop~
0.31 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
4.1 fire units in service per 1,000 pop.
1.4 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
L25 fire units in service per 1,000 pop.
0.5 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
1.25 fire units in service per 1,000 pop.
0.5 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
3.0 fire units in service per 1,000 pop.
3.0 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
0.67 fire units in service per 1,000 pop.
0.29 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
Category C Level Of Service Standards:
Fire District 2 (Quilcene):
-.'.".Fire District 3 '(Port Ludlow):.-"""" ",
Fire District 4 (Brinnon):
Fire District 5 (Gardiner):
Fire District 6 (Cape George):
. VOl_. -
.
260 gallons per day/ERU
230 gallons per day/ERU
840 gallons per day/ERU
160 gallons per day/ERU
200 gallons per day/ERU
800 gallons per day/ERU
.
2 4 r~C:
2GJO
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 50
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
CFP 1.2
CFP 1.3
GOAL:
CFG 2.0
POLICIES:
CFP 2.1
Fire District 7 (Clearwater):
Port Townsend Fire Department:
.-Hospital:-
Jefferson General Hospital:
Library:
Jefferson Co. Rural Library District. 1:
School District facilities:
Brinnon School District46: '.
Chimacum School District 49:
Port Townsend School District 50:
Port Townsend School District 50:
Port Townsend School District 50:
Queets/Clearwater School Dist.20:
Quilcene School District 48:
Quillayute School District 402:
Sequim School District 323:
Transit:
Jefferson Transit:
2.0 fire units in service per 1,000 pop.
0 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
0.29 EMS units in service per 1,000 pop.
1.3 beds per 1,000 population
433 square feet per 1,000 population
"' ,- ,K,,&:,Not toexceed.23 students/classroom ",'
K-12: Not to exceed 27 students/classroom
K-3: Not to exceed 26 students/classroom
4-6: Not to exceed 30 students/classroom
7-12: Not to exceed 34 students/classroom
K-12: Not to exceed 26 students/classroom
K-12: Not to exceed 26 students/classroom
K-12: Not to exceed 26 students/classroom
K-12: Not to exceed 26 students/classroom
472 Annual Transit Revenue Service Hour
(ATRSH)/1000 pop.
Misc.:
In addition to the LOS standards outlined above, the policies of the Land Use, Rural, and
Utilities Elements relating to the development and financing of public facilities in rural
and urban areas constitute additional Level of Service standards in accordance with the
County-wide Planning Policies.
Category C standards guide the capital budget decisions and the capital improvements
programs of the appropriate entities.
Urban and Rural Levels of Service: Jefferson County may create different Level of
Service standards for Urban Growth Areas and rural areas of the County.
Level of Service Standards in Unincorporated UGAs: Level of service standards for
public facilities in the unincorporated portion of Urban Growth Areas are the same as
the County's adopted standards.
Implement a Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan which ensures that County-
owned public facilities meet the established Levels of Service.
Detennining Public Facility Needs: Detennine the quantity of capital improvements that
are needed to eliminate existing deficiencies and to maintain the Level of Service
standards for Category A and B public facilities.
YOI- "
.2'4 ',Ir.~
r ~"-
,-2 GO1
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 51
August28,1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
CFP 2.2
CFP 2.3
CFP 2.4
CFP 2.5 -
CFP 2.6
CFP 2.7
CFP 2.8
CFP 2.9
CFP 2.10
GOAL:
CFG 3.0
Priorities: Establish priorities among capital improvements projects through
amendments to the Capital Facilities Element and the County's Six-Year Capital
Facilities Concept and Transportation Improvement Plans.
.
Financial Feasibility: Ensure that the estimated cost of all capital improvements does
not exceed a conservative estimate of available revenues. A conservative estimate need
not be the lowest estimate, but does not exceed the most likely estimate. It does not
include revenues which require approval by a referendum, if that referendum has been
rejected.
Budget Appropriation for Capital Improvements: Include an appropriation in the annual
budget for all of the capital improvement projects listed in the Capital Facilities Element
for that year. Omit from the budget capital improvements for which there is a binding
agreement with another party to fund those capital improvements in the same fiscal year.
Monitoring: Monitor the implementation of the capital improvement program and
development to ensure that the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital Facilities
Elements are coordinated and consistent, and that established Level of Service standards
for public facilities are achieved.
Financing Policies: Finance capital improvements and manage debt consistent with
Capital. Improvement Plans and the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Operating and Maintenance Costs: Provide public facilities or accept their provision by
other entities only if Jefferson County or the other entity is able to pay for subsequent
operating and maintenance costs.
.
Revenues Requiring Referendum: Revise the Level of Service standard for a public
facility if either revenue for capital improvements for that facility requires approval by
referendum and a referendum has not been held, or a referendum was held and did not
meet the approval of the public.
Financial Responsibility: Detennine through a public process how to apportion the fair
share of funding capital improvements for County-owned public facilities between
existing and future developments.
Contingent Revenue: Condition approval of private developments that require public
facility capital improvements, which will be financed by contingent sources of revenue,
upon acquisition of that revenue. An example of a contingent source of revenue is debt
-which-requires approvalby-'a"referendum.-Make provision in the approval conditions for
substituting a comparable amount of existing revenue if the contingent funding sources
are not approved.
Ensure that public facilities are adequate to support proposed development at the
adopted Levels of Service.
.
VOL
24 '.-~r¡:
I" "
2GD2
12- 52
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
POLICIES:
CFP 3.1
CFP 3.2
CFP 3.3
CFP 3.4
CFP 3.5
GOAL:
CFG 4.0
POLICIES:
CFP 4.1
CFP 4.2
Adequate Public Facility Concurrency: Issue development approvals only after a
detennination has been made that there is sufficient capacity of Category A public
facilities to meet the Level of Service standards for existing and proposed development
concurrent with the proposed development.
Planning Levels of Service: If the Level of Service standards for Category B or C public
facilities .are not achieved, the funding. will either be increased. to achieve.the. Level of
Service Standard, or the Level of Service Standard will be modified through amendment
to the Plan, and/or other Comprehensive Plan Elements will be amended.
Urban Growth Area Tiers: Designate "tiers" within designated Urban Growth Areas to
discourage urban sprawl and leapfrog development and to encourage development of
adequate public facilities and services concurrent with development as follows:
First Tier: Includes existing commercial centers and urbanized areas for which the Six-
Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan provides urban services and facilities.
Second Tier: Areas for which urban services and facilities are planned for years 7-20 of
the 20-year planning period. Urban services and facilities will be provided by the
developer concurrent with development, or by public providers by implementing all or a
portion of an approved capital facilities plan.
Financing: Providers of public facilities may require users of those facilities to pay for a
portion oftheir cost and/or may require new development to pay impact fees, capacity
fees, system distribution charges, special assessments, and/or mitigation payments
allowed by law.
Reserving Public Facility Capacity: Reserve public facility capacity for vested
development approvals that were issued prior to the adoption of this Comprehensive
Plan.
Ensure that all capital improvements are made in conformance with the goals and
policies of the other elements ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
Consistency: Locate all Category A and B public facility capital improvements in
confonnance with the adopted land use map and the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Integration and Implementation: Integrate land use planning and decisions with
planning and decisions for public facility capital improvements.
VOL
2 4 rAlJ~
.2 GD3
12" 53
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES
GOAL:
CFG 5.0
POLICIES:
CFP 5.1
CFP 5.2
Implement interlocal agreements with municipalities and other entities to
coordinate efficient provision of public facilities consistent with the Capital
Facilities Element.
Planning Coordination: Establish interlocal/joint planning. agreements.. with
municipalities and other providers of public facilities to coordinate planning for and
development of Urban Growth Areas.
Fiscal Coordination: Coordinate funding of public facilities, including tax revenue
sharing, the provision of regional services. and annexations through the development of
interlocal agreements.
"".. .
\'01-
24 t'-¡r¡:
- "u.
2CJ4
12- 54
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
STRATEGIES
Jefferson County will use the following strategies for implementing the Capital Facilities Element.
These strategies are both action items and detailed guidance for developing implementing ordinances
and the County's Capital Improvement Program.
A.. Strategy for Detennining Quantities and Pd9[itie!i J9r,Ça,pit~1 Impr9vement PrQ.Íe.c.ts"""
B. - Strategy to. Finance the Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan and Manage Debt
C. Strategy to Review and Update the Capital Facilities Element
D. Strategy to Ensure Adequate Public Facility Capacity. Concurrent with Development
E. Strategy for Monitoring Adequate Public Facility Capacity Concurrent with Development
A.
STRATEGY FOR DETERMINJNG QUANTITIES AND PRIORITIES FOR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Jefferson County will use the following strategies to detennine the quantity and types of capital
improvements and to set priorities for capital improvements.
1.
The quantity of capital improvements. needed to eliminate existing deficiencies and to meet
future demand will be detennined for each public facility using the following calculation:
Q = (S x D) - I
- where Q is the quantity of capital improvements needed, S is the Level of Service standard, D is
the demand (such as the population), and I is the inventory of existing facilities. The estimates of
demand will account for demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development
approvals as well as future growth. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 1.0, 2.0)
2.
The Level of Service standards will not detennine the need for a capital improvement in the
following circumstances:
A. Repair, remodeling, renovation, and replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities; or
B. Capital improvements that provide Levels of Service in excess of the standards adopted in
the Comprehensive Plan provided the following conditions are met:
1) The capital improvement does not make financially infeasible any other capital
improvement that is needed to achieve or maintain the Level of Service standards
adopted in this Comprehensive Plan, and
2) The capital improvement does not contradict, limit or substantially change the goals and
policies of any element of this Comprehensive Plan, and
3) One of the following conditions is met: -
a. The excess capacity is an integral part of a capital improvement that is needed to
achieve or maintain Level of Service standards (i.e., the minimum capacity of a
capital project is larger than the capacity required to provide the Level of Service);
or
b. The excess capacity provides economies of scale making it less expensive than a
comparable amount of capacity if acquired at a later date; or
c. The asset acquired is land that is environmentally sensitive or designated by
Jefferson County as necessary for conservation or recreation; or
VOI-
2 4: r~r,~
2GD5
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 55
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
d. The excess capacity is part of a capital project financed by general obligation bonds
approved by referendum. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 1.0, 2.0)
.
3.
All facilities scheduled for.construction or improvement.in accordance with this strategy will be
evaluated to identify any plans by State or local governments or districts that affect, or will be
affected by, the proposed County capital improvement. Project evaluation may also involve
additional criteria that are unique to each type of public facility, as described in other elements
of this Comprehensive Plan. (Corresponding Goal: CFG 5.0)
4.
The priorities for capital improvements among types of public facilities were established during
the development of the Capital Facilities Element by adjusting the Level of Service standards
and the available revenues until the. resulting public facilities became financially feasible.
(Corresponding Goals: CFG 1.0, 2.0)
5.
Jefferson County will direct its capital improvements within types of public facilities to:
A. Address current deficiencies;
B. Provide new or expanded capital facilities and services currently enjoyed by County
residents;
C. . Eliminate actual or potential threats to public health and safety; and
D. Retain the attractiveness of Urban Growth Areas as suitable for new residential
development. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0,3.0,4.0)
6.
The priorities for capital improvements within a type of County-owned public facility will be in
the following order:
.
A. Reconstruction,rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation, or replacement of obsolete or worn
out facilities that contribute to achieving or maintaining adopted Level of Service standards.
B. New or expanded facilities that reduce or eliminate deficiencies in Levels of Service for
existing demand. Expenditures in this category include equipment, furnishings, and other
improvements necessary for the completion of a public facility.
C. New facilities and improvements to existing public facilities that eliminate public hazards.
D. New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted Levels of Service for new development
and redevelopment during the next six fiscal years.
E. New facilities that exceed the adopted Levels of Service for new growth during the next six
fiscal years by providing either:
1) Excess public facility capacity that is needed by future growth beyond the next six
years; or
2) Higher quality public facilities than are contemplated in the County's nonnal design
criteria for such facilities.
.F .cFacilities "not -described"in-the"above.'priøfiities" but~which Jefferson County is obligated to
complete, provided that such obligation is evidenced by a written agreement the County
executed prior to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0,
3.0,4.0)
VOL
24
' ,r-
-' r",,~
2't"jD6
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 56
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
7.
In the event that the planned capacity within a type of County-owned public facility is
insufficient to serve all proposed development and redevelopment, capital improvements for
new and expanded public facilities of that type will be scheduled in the following order of
priority to serve:
A Previously approved redevelopment,
B. Previously approved development,
C. New approved redevelopment, and
D. New approved new: developm~nt...
(Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
. .~. ,.,... ~. '" .. ".
8.
The County may acquire land or right-of-way in advance of the need to develop a public facility.
(Corresponding Goal: CFG 4.0)
B.
STRATEGY TO FINANCE SIX-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES CONCEPT PLAN AND
MANAGE DEBT
Jefferson County will use the following strategies to finance capital improvements and fund debt,
including financing debt, funding excess capacity, adjusting for rejected referenda, and apportioning the
cost of capital improvements between existing and future development.
1.
Capital improvements . financed by County enterprise funds (i.e., solid waste) will be financed
by:
A. Debt repaid by user fees, charges, and excise taxes, and/or connection or capacity fees for
enterprise services; or
B. Current assets (i.e., reserves, equity or surpluses, and current revenue, including grants,
loans, donations and interlocal agreements); or
C. Fonnation of a taxing district; or
D. A combination of debt, current assets, and taxes.
(Corresponding Goal: CFG 4.0)
2.
Capital improvements financed by non-enterprise funds will be financed by:
A. Current assets (i.e., current revenue, fund equity and reserves), or
B. Debt, or
C. A combination of debt and current assets.
(Corresponding Goal: CFG 4.0)
3.
Financing decisions will consider which funding source will be:
A. Most cost effective,
B. Consistent with prudent asset and liability management,
C. Appropriate to the useful life of the project(s) to be financed, and
D. The most efficient use of the County's ability to borrow funds.
(Corresponding Goal: CFG 4.0)
VOI-
2 4 rA(~
- 2 CD?
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 57
August 28,1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
4.
Debt financing will not be used to provide more capacity than is needed within the schedule of
capital improvements for non-enterprise public facilities unless the excess capacity:
.
A. Is an integral part of a capital improvement that is needed to achieve or maintain Level of
Service standards (i.e., the minimum capacity of a capital improvement is larger than the
capacity required to provide the Level of Service); or
B. Provides economies of scale, making it less expensive than a comparable amount of capacity
if acquired at a later date; or
C. Is land that is environmentally sensitive Or designated by the C,Qunty as necessary for
conservation or recreation; or
D. Is part of a capital project financed by general obligation bonds approved by referendum.
(Corresponding Goal: CFG 4;0)
5.
When a referendum, which is intended to finance capital improvements, is unsuccessful,
adjustments for lack of revenues may include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Reduce the Level of Service for one or more public facilities;
B. Increase the use of other sources of revenue;
C. Decrease the demand for and subsequent use of capital facilities; or
D. A combination of the above alternatives.
(Corresponding Goal: CFG 4.0)
6.
The Board of Commissioners will detennine whether impact fees, as allowed by law, are
necessary to maintain Level of Service standards. If adopted, impact fee ordinances will require
the same Level of Service standard as is required by Capital Facilities Policy 1.1 and may
include standards for other types of public facilities not addressed under Capital Facilities Policy
1.1. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 1,0,2.0,3.0,4.0)
.
7.
Payments by existing development to fund capital improvements may take the fonn of user fees,
charges for services, special assessments and taxes. Payments by future development to fund
capital improvements may take the fonn of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for
the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, mitigation payments, capacity fees, dedications of
land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees, charges for services, special
assessments, and taxes. Future development will not pay impact fees for capital improvements
to any public facility that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. (Corresponding Goals:
CFG 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
8.
Both existing and future development may have part of their costs paid by grant entitlements or
public facilities from other levels of government and independent districts. (Corresponding
Goals: CFG 4.0,5.0)
C.
STRATEGY TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
The following strategy provides guidance for updating the Capital Facilities Element, for funding
scheduled capital improvements, for monitoring implementation of the Capital Facilities Element, and
for making minor corrections and modifications to the Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan.
.
VOL
24 r,\C":
2GD8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 58
August 28,1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
1.
2.
The Capital Facilities Element will be reviewed and updated regularly in conjunction with the
County budget process and the release ofthe official population estimates and projections by the
Office of Financial Management of the State of Washington. The update will include the
following:
A. Revise population projections;
B. Update inventory of public facilities;
C. Update cost of providing public facilities;
D. Review the Level of Service Standargs; ,--.- ""'" .
E. Update capacity of public facilities (actual Levels of Service compared to adopted
standards);
F. Update revenue forecasts; ,
G. Revise and develop capital improvements projects for the next six years;
H. Update analysis of financial capacity;
I. Amend the Capital Facilities Element, including amendments to the Level of Service
standards, capital projects, and/or the financing plan sources of revenue. (Corresponding
Goals: CFG 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
Jefferson County's annual budget will include capital appropriations for all projects identified in
the Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan that are necessary to maintain the Level of Service
standards during that fiscal year. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 1.0, 2.0, 4.0)
3.
Jefferson County will prepare regular evaluation reports to monitor the implementation of the
goals and policies of the Capital Facilities Element. The evaluation will include:
A. Regular reports of the Concurrency Implementation and Monitoring System.
B. Regular updates of the Capital Facilities Element, including updated supporting documents
as appropriate. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
4.
The Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan may be adjusted by ordinance not deemed to be an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for corrections, updates, and modifications concerning
costs; revenue sources; acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with
the Element; non-capacity projects which do not affect scheduling of capacity projects; or the
date of construction (so long as it is completed within the 6:..year period). (Corresponding Goal:
CFG 4.0)
D.
STRATEGY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITY CAPACITY
CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT
The following strategy provides guidance for developing implementing ordinances, including an
ordinance to deteITIline ifthere is adequate public facility capacity concurrent with development.
1.
Jefferson County will adopt an ordinance, which will establish policies and procedures for
deteITIlining if there is adequate public facility capacity concurrent with development.
2.
For all public facilities, except roads, in order to deteITIline that capacity is available to serve
development:
VOL
í1'4
C. rAG~
2 ,'"" ...--, 9
t.t'U
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 59
August 28,1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
A. The facilities will be in place when a development approval is issued; or
B. The facilities will be under construction at the time a development approval is issued and
will be in place when the impacts of the development occur; or
C. Development approvals may be issued subject to "the condition that the facilities will be in
place when the impacts ofthe development occur. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0,3.0)
.
3.
For Rural and Designated Tourist Road Facilities, in order to determine that capacity is available
to serve development:
A. Any of the three provisions listed in Strategy D.I. may apply; or
B. The County will have in place a binding financial commitment to provide the capacity
within six years. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0,3.0)
4.
Jefferson County will issue preliminary development approvals which are subject to
concurrency if the applicant complies with one of the following:
A. The applicant receives a determination of the capacity of Category A public facilities as part
of preliminary development review and approval; or
B. The applicant requests preliminary development approval without a determination of
capacity of Category A public facilities, provided that any such approval is issued subject to
requirements in the applicable land development regulation or to specific conditions
contained in the preliminary development approval that:
1) Final development approval for the subject property is subject to a determination of
capacity of Category A public facilities, and
2) Neither rights to obtain final development approval nor any other rights to develop the
subject property have been granted or implied by the County's preliminary development
approval without determining t)1e capacity of public facilities. (Corresponding Goals:
CFG 2.0, 3~0)
.
5.
The following conditions will apply to development approvals subject to concurrency:
A. The determination that facility capacity is available will apply to specific uses, densities and
intensities based on infonnation provided by the applicant and included in the development
approval.
B. The detennination of public facility capacity and the validity of the capacity for the same
period of time as the development approval, including any extensions. If the development
approval does not have an expiration date, the capacity will be valid for a period not to
exceed two years.
6.
County Development Regulations will address the circumstances under which public facilities
.ma~.be.prov'¡ded"by'applicants for-dev.el.opment approvals at the applicant's own expense in
order to ensure sufficient capacity of public facilities. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
7.
Development applications, which require the provision of public facilities by the applicant, may
be approved subject to the following:
.
VOL
24 r~Œ
2G~1 0
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 60
August 28,1998
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
A. Jefferson County and the applicant enter into an enforceable development agreement which
will provide, at a minimum, a schedule for construction of the public facilities and
mechanisms for monitoring to ensure that the public facilities are completed concurrent with
the impacts of the development, or that the development will not be allowed to proceed.
B. The public facilities to be provided by the applicant may be contained in the Six-Year
Capital Facilities Concept Plan of the Capital Facilities Element, and will achieve and
maintain the adopted Level of Service standards. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
8.
,., ....'.-' ".... ---"."",.. "" '" ." ........ ".,. ..." "...". , ..
Jefferson County will adopt policies and procedures for reserving capacity of public facilities
needed to serve vested development approvals. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0, 3.0, 4.0)
9.
Jefferson County will reserve capacity of public facilities in order to serve approved
development at the adopted Level of Service standard. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0, 3.0)
10.
In the event that there is not sufficient capacity to serve the development which would use future
public facility capacity, Jefferson County will develop criteria for determining which
applications will be deferred to a future fiscal year because of insufficient capacity of public
facilities during the current fiscal year. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 3.0)
E.
STRATEGY FOR MONITORJNG ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITY CAPACITY
CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT
The following strategy provides guidance for a monitoring system.
1.
Jefferson County will establish and maintain a regular Monitoring System which will include the
following components:
A. A regular report on the capacity and Levels of Service of public facilities,
B. A review of public facility capacity for development applications,
C. A review of changes to planned capacity of public facilities. (Corresponding Goals: CFG
1.0,2.0,4.0)
2.
Report on the Capacity and Levels of Service of Public Facilities: This report will summarize the
actual capacity of public facilities compared to the Level of Service standards adopted in the
Capital Facilities Element. The report will also forecast the capacity of public facilities for each
of the six succeeding fiscal years. The forecast will be based on the most current schedule of
capital improvements in the Six-Year Capital Facilities Concept Plan. The report will provide the
initial determination of the capacity and Levels of Service of public facilities for reviewing
development permit applications during the following 12 months. Each application will be
analyzed separately for concurrency, as described below. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 1.0, 2.0,
3.0,4.0)
3.
Public Facility Capacity Review of Development Applications: Jefferson County will review
applications for developments in the unincorporated areas of the County to determine whether
there is adequate capacity of public facilities concurrent with development. Records of all
development approvals will be kept to indicate the cumulative impacts on the capacity of public
facilities.
VOL
""4
'~rc
C. r ""-
2 Cll
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 61
August 28, 1998
CAPITAL FACILITIES
Review will be conducted according to the tenns of interlocal agreement(s) between the County
and municipalities. (Corresponding Goals: CFG 2.0, 3.0)
4.
Review of Changes to Planned Capacity of Public Facilities: Jefferson County will review each
amendment to this Capital Facilities Element in order to ensure that the schedule of capital
improvements is adequate to maintain the established Level of Service standards.
(Corresponding Goals: CFG 1.0, 2,0, 4.0).
VOL
.24 r;(:
2 C1-Z
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
12- 62
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
.
APPENDICES
August 28, 1998
.
'.'01- 24 rM,~ 2 C:13
.
.
.
Table of Contents
Title
Page
APPENDIX A: GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD CASES
Introduction... ...... """""" """"""""""""'" ""~"""'" """""""" .................,.....................,.... """" ..~..... A-I
Land Use/Rural Element................................. ...... ...................... "'" ..~...................................... ........... A-I
Natural Resources Conservation Element.................................................................""""""""""""'" A-5
Housing Element...................... ...................... """"""~"""'" """"""" """""" .... """""""""'" .......,...... A-9
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Historic Preservation Element .................................................. A-13
Economic Development Element """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'""""""""""""" A-14
Environment....... .......... ,........... """""""'" """""""""""""" """"""""""""""'" """"""""""""""'" A-15
Essential Public Facilities........ """""""""""""""""'" ......... ....... """"""""" """""""""""""""" .... A-17
ApPENDIX B: COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY
Introduction """""""""""""""""""""""""""..................................,..................................................B-l
Land Use/rural Element ....... ................. "'" """""""""" ...... """""""""""" .......... """""""" """"'" ..~.B-2
Natural Resources Element.. """""""""""""""""""""""""'" """"'..,""""""""""""" '~""""""""" ..B- 3
Housing Element """"""""""""""""""""""""""'".................................,...........~...............................B-4
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Historic Preservation Element .....................................................B-6
Economic Development Element """"""""""""""" .... .......... """""""" .... ....~."....... "'~"""""" ........... ..B- 7
Environment Element.... """""""""""""""" """"""'" ........ .................... "'" """""""'" .................. ......B- 7
Transportation Element.......,.............................~~..~,............................~.............................~............~.......B-8
Utilities Element ~"""""""""""""""""""""""""'"""""'~"~"""""""""~""""""""""'".,......................B-9
Capital Facilities Element................... ....~,... """"" '~""""""""""""""""""""""""'" ................... ..... .B-l 0
ApPENDIX C: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Introduction ..................... .... ..............,... ........... ......... .... """"""""'" ...... """"" "'" """""" ..........."... ..... C-l
Land Use/Rural Element...................... """""""""'" """'" """""""" """""" ""'" "" """"""""""'~""'" C-l
Natural Resources Element........................... ..............'" ..... """"""""""""""""'" """""'" """"""""" .C-4
Housing Element """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'~""""""'~'"...........~~~.........C-6
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Historic Preservation Element .....................................................C- 7
Economic Development Element.............. ..... """""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ........ """""""""'" C-9
Environment Element....................... """ ..................... ........~,......................... ..... """""""" ..,~........... ..C-l 0
Transportation Element... """"""""""'" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" """""""""""""'" .... C-ll
Utilities Element """""""" """"""""" """"""""" ........... .................. .............. ...... ..~.. ......................... C-12
Capital Facilities Element ...............................,.............. ........................ ........ """""""'" """""""""'" C-12
APPENDIX 0: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""'"...............................0-1
Land Use/Rural Element """"""""""""""" """"""'" """ ....... """""""" """" """""""""" """""""'" 0-1
Natural Resources Element.......................................... """""""""""""'" ......... .............. """""""""'" 0-3
Housing Element............................................ """""'" """"""""""""""""""""""" .......... ....... ...... ..... 0-4
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Historic Preservation Element .................................................... 0-5
Economic Development Element """"""'~""""""~'~""""""'~""""'"""""""""""""""""~'~""""""""" 0-6
Environment Element........ """"""""'" ""'" """" ""'" """""" "'~"""""""""'" """ ..,.. "'" .............. ........ 0-7
Essential Public Facilities Element..... ..... """"'" ............................................ ................. ............... """ 0-8
Transportation Element...............~.............................................~~..,...........~~........................................,.0-9
Utilities Element...... ................. """"""""" ..... """"""'" ........."" """""" ........................................"" 0-10
Capital Facilities Element.... """"""'" """"""""" """""""""""""""'" """""" """"" """"" ....... ....~. 0-12
VOL
24
. 2G~4
rAG~
ApPENDIX E: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Introduction """""""""""""""'..,...,................""""""',""""'..,............................................................£-1
Natural Resources Element........... """"""""""""""""""",""""""""""""""""""""""........ ........ ...." £-1
Housing Element............................. ..............,.... .... """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" £- 7
Economic Development Element ................................................................."............""""""""""""'" £-15
Environment Element...................... """"""""""""" """"""""""""""""""""""""""'" ....... ....,. ,...... £-26
ApPENDIX F: TAKINGS CHECKLIST ................................".......................................................................,. F-l
'.~QL
2,~
2 C1-S
~~c~
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
APPEND IX A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD CASES
Introd uction
This section contains brief descriptions of a selection of cases that were brought before the Growth
Management Hearings Boards (Board), primarily the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board (WWGMHB). The cases presented here are not representative of all the cases heard by the
Hearings Boards but, instead, are provided to illustrate the processes and issues that many communities
have addressed in drafting and implementing their comprehensive plans. The cases are arranged to follow
the order of Elements in the Comprehensive Plan.
LAND USEIRURAL ELEMENT
Summary of Applicable Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
The following paragraphs contain brief summaries of several issues pertaining to land use that were
brought before the Growth Management Hearings Board. Land use densities generated the most
discussion; however, more recent cases addressed issues of sprawl and permitted uses outside of Urban
Growth Areas.
City of Port Townsend, Olympic Environmental Council, 1000 Friends of Washington vs. Jefferson
County (1994)
The Hearings Board recognized that the Growth Management Act provided very little guidance on the
types of land use densities that maintain compatibility with rural character. In attempting to identify rural
densities, the Hearings Board determined that rural densities are those which are not urban.
In their discussion concerning appropriate rural densities the Hearings Board stated:
"Candidly we are not disposed to adopt a 'bright line' rule that prohibits the use of a 1: 1 density in each
and ~very case. We agree that 1:1 density can easily lead to a violation of the anti-sprawl goals and
requirements of the Act as well as cumulatively place new demands for urban government services in
violation of the Act. We would expect that very rarely, if ever, would a 1:1 density requirement in rural,
or even most urban, designations comply with the Act. It is possible that a situation involving a proper
background analysis for an area demonstrates that a 1: 1 density within a 'variety of densities' could be
within the discretion of local government officials authorized by the GMA.
In this case, Jefferson County does not have any analysis to support the use of a 1: 1 density in rural
areas. Standing alone as the sole 'rural' density requirement, a 1:1 rural density determination does not
and cannot comply with the Act. "
The Hearings Board conclusion was that a 1: 1 rural designation without information or analysis and
standing alone does not comply with the goals and requirements of the Act and cannot be used as a
standard for rural densities.
VOL
24 rA\;~
2C~t6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-I
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX A
Achen vs. Clark County (1995)
.
Clark County adopted a rural designation with a provision that all rural lands would have a minimum lot
size of five (5) acres. The rural designation applied to approximately 83,500 acres of Clark County's
roughly 500,000 acre total. The minimum lot size requirement is inconsistent with both the GMA and the
County's own policies as reflected in the Capital Facilities Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
The Hearings Board stated" While rural lands may be the leftover meatloaf in the GMA refrigerator, they
have very necessary and important functions both as a planning mechanism and as applied on the
ground. One of the most important symbiotic relationships is the one between rural and resource lands.
Properly planned rural areas provide necessary support of and bufferingfor resource lands. " and,
"A secondary aspect of proper rural area planning involves the preservation of a rural lifestyle. A "rural
sprawl" has the same devastating effects on proper land uses and efficient use of tax payer dollars as
urban sprawl. Uncoordinated development of rural areas often involves greater economic burdens than
in urban areas. Infrastructure costs for rural development are, by definition, more inefficient than for
urban. "
The Hearings Board conclusion was that a blanket designation of all rural lands with a density of one (1)
unit per five (5) acres is contrary to the goals and intent of the Growth Management Act.
Bremerton et. al. vs. Kitsap County (1995)
Kitsap County failed to designate a variety of appropriate rural densities, thereby violating the Growth
Management Act. In addition, the County used population projections which were inconsistent with the
Capital Facilities element. The Central PugetSound Growth Management Hearings Board has ruled that
one (1) to two and one-half(2.5) acre lots are considered rural sprawl and therefore cannot be allowed in
the rural areas of the County. The Board expects to see a variety of rural densities such as, one (I)
dwelling unit (DU) per ten (10) acres, one (1) dwelling unit (DU) per twenty (20) acres, one (I) dwelling
unit (OU) per forty (40) acres and one (1) dwelling unit (DU) per eighty (80) acres.
.
The Plan also permitted new residential structures at densities of one (I) dwelling unit per two and one-
half (2.5) acres or greater on lands designated as mineral resource lands, which is fundamentally
incompatible with the use of those lands for mineral resource purposes.
Vashon-Maury vs. King County (1995)
The Hearings Board invalidated portions of the King County Comprehensive Plan based on a number of
issues. A central issue involved rural density designations which constitute urban growth, threaten natural
resource lands and critical areas, or thwart the long-term flexibility of future Urban Growth Area
expansion. The Board went so far as to say that any density of more than one (1) unit per ten (10) acres
constituted sprawl and will be strictly scrutinized. The Board used this as the basis for invalidating
Vashon Island's five (5) acre density. A formula of one (1) unit per ten (10) acre density was recognized
as "ruraL"
The Board concurred with the description of "rural" that was adopted by The Central Puget Sound
Regional Council's 1994 Rural Workshop:
"Rural/ands primarily contain a mix of low-density residential development, agriculture, forests, open
space and natural areas, as well as recreational uses. Counties, small towns, cities and activity areas
provide limited public services to rural residents. Rural lands are integrally linked to and support
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-2
\'01-
t: 4 UG~
2C~l7 28
. August, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
resource lands. They buffer large resource areas and accommodate small-scale farming, forestry, and
cottage industries as well as other natural resource-based activities. "
Furthennore, the Board analyzed appropriate non-residential uses in rural areas with the premise that
"urban growth" is not pennitted in rural areas. The Board referenced RCW 36.70AO30(17) which states:
"Urban Growth refers to growth that makes intensive use of landfor the location of buildings, structures,
and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of land for the
production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources, rural
uses rural development and natural resource lands designated pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.170. A pattern of
more intensive rural development, as provided in RCW 36. 70A.O70(5)(d), is not urban growth
To paraphrase the County and the Hearings Board's Findings, the GMA does not require every non-
residential use in the rural area to also accommodate a cornfield in the backyard; however the Act does
require that such uses be compatible with the cornfields nearby.
City of Gig Harbor vs. Pierce County (1995)
The Growth Management Hearings Board stated that the County needed to collect and analyze data;
define urban and rural uses and development intensity in clear and unambiguous tenus (including lot
sizes, lot quantities and specific locations); and fully describe the methods and assumptions used to
support designations.
The Growth Management Hearings Board decision stated that five (5) acre lot sizes adjacent to UGAs
could thwart the future expansion of the UGA boundary. The Board further held that any residential
pattern often (10) -acre lots, or larger, is rural.
Any smaller rural lots will be subject to increased scrutiny by the Board to, assure that the pattern of such
lot sizes (their number, location and configuration) does not constitute urban growth; does not present an
undue threat to large scale natural resource lands and large scale critical areas; will not thwart the long
tenn flexibility to expand a UGA; and will not otherwise be inconsistent with the goals and requirements
of the Act'
Sherilyn C. Wells, et. al. vs. Whatcom County (1997)
Through the continued application of a pre-GMA code, Whatcom County continued to vest urban-type
development outside designated Urban Growth Areas. The Board ruled that this was contrary to the
provisions of the Growth Management Act which specifically states that development in rural areas may
occur only if it is not urban in nature. (RCW 36.70AII0(1)).
In 1997, several sections of Whatcom County's Comprehensive Plan were invalidated by the Hearings
Board. The invalidated sections dealt with the identification and containment of existing areas of more
intensive rural development. In delineating areas of more intensive rural development, Whatcom County
utilized recent amendments to the GMA, specifically Engrossed Senate Bill (ESB) 6094. However, the
County failed to supply an adequate background justifying the proposed boundaries, and instead, relied
primarily on existing zoning boundaries for their delineation. In their invalidation order, the Hearings
Board cited the County's insufficient background data as being problematic: "The County needs to show
much more clearly that its work to minimize and contain existing areas of more intensive rural
development has been carried out." Although the Hearings Board did not find fault with using zoning
boundaries to help delineate the boundaries, it did take issue with Whatcom County utilizing existing
zoning boundaries as the sole criterion for boundary identification.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-3
24 f-Ar,~
2G18August28,1998
. VOI~
APPENDIX A
The Hearings Board also took issue with the size of the proposed boundaries. The Hearings Board
detennined that Whatcom County had over-sized the boundaries in order to accommodate potential infill
and failed to provide adequate supporting data to justify the size of the boundaries. The Hearings Board
stated that: "there is no analysis offered that shows how the County trimmed each area to more intensive
rural development to areas necessary for 'infill of existing patterns. '"
Whidbey EnvironmentalAction Network vs. Island County (1997)
This Hearings Board decision reiterated both the Jefferson and Whatcom County decisions relative to
urban development outside designated Urban Growth Areas. The Board concluded that Island County
substantially overzoned its lands located outside designated Urban Growth Areas.
.. In 1997, the Hearings Board invalidated sections of Island County's Code (ICe). Island County's Code
pennitted several uses in its rural residential zoning districts which failed to clearly identify the.scale and
intensity of the uses. The Hearings Board raised concern over the potential of allowing urban growth
outside of urban growth areas, stating that: "Depending on the scale of the particular development, its
location on undeveloped lands outside of IUGAs may constitute urban growth." Petitioners also
questioned the County's ability to utilize the 1997 amendments to GMA (ESB 6094) to allow commercial
development located outside of urban gro~h areas; however, the Hearings Board ruled that the new
amendments to GMA do not apply to County action taken prior to 1997.
Analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board Rulings as They Apply to Land Use
While the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions have assisted counties in developing a clearer
understanding of appropriate urban and rural densities, the decisions have not drawn conclusive lines on
specific densities. As there are no specific standards for pennitted land uses in rural areas; densities, or
development regulations; ambiguity exists in the interpretation ofthe Hearings Board decisions. While it
can be deduced from these decisions that rural lots should be a variety of sizes and may need to be greater
than five (5) acres, the Hearings Board has not adopted a "bright line" rule that prohibits the use of a 1: 1
density in each and every case and has even stated that higher densities may be appropriate in limited
circumstances. Furthennore, it has been suggested that anything less than ten (10) acres is not "rural" in
nature.
The following statements summarize the key outcomes of the Hearings Board decisions described above:
.
One (1) to two and one-half (2.5) acre lots should be considered rural sprawl and therefore,
should not be allowed in the rural areas of the County;
.
Five (5) acre lot sizes adjacent to UGAs could thwart future expansion ofthe UGA boundary.
As such, it appears that ten (10) or (20) acre designation may be more appropriate in these
locations;
.
Ten (10) -acre lots, or larger, are clearly rural;
.
Lot sizes smaller than ten (10) acres will be subject to increased scrutiny by the Board;
.
Unifonn, or blanket, designations are inconsistent with GMA;
.
Densities between one (1) unit per five (5) acres and one (1) unit per ten (10) acres may
constitute sprawl and should be strictly scrutinized;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-4
,"" A
ë,LJr rAt,'
2 C~9
August28,1998
VOI-
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
.
Counties must provide a variety of appropriate rural densities, such as one (1) dwelling unit
(DU) per ten (10) acres, one (1) dwelling unit (DU) per twenty (20) acres, one (1) .dwelling
unit (DU) per forty (40) acres, and one (1) dwelling unit (DU) per eighty (80) acres;
.
Permitted rural uses should not require urban style infrastructure nor be characterized by
urban style development; and
.
Land use regulations must ensure that development is both consistent with suITounding uses
and protects environmentally sensitive areas.
The 1997 GMA amendments, specifically Engrossed Senate Bill (ESB) 6094, provide rural counties with
a greater opportunity to foster economic growth by allowing counties to recognize existing development
patterns and accommodate limited new growth. Although ESB 6094 allows limited growth outside of
urban growth areas, it is not intended allow sprawl nor violate GMA's prohibition against locating urban
development outside of urban growth areas. Because amendments under ESB 6094 were only recently
added to the GMA, few counties have utilized the recent amendments and, thus, only several cases have
gone before the Hearings Board for review. The main criticism of Hearings Board regarding these cases
that have been reviewed has been the lack of a sufficient record to justify the size of the containment
boundaries. Although ESB 6094 provides rural counties with more opportunities and leeway in
identifying and containing areas of more intensive development, the counties must provide a written
record justifying their actions.
While these decisions are the result of individual Hearings Board decisions on. specific Comprehensive
Plans, they provide guidance on what are considered appropriate land use densities, designations, and
uses. Taken together, these decisions provide Jefferson County with a general framework for developing
its land use strategy.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Summary of Applicable Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
This summary has been prepared to provide examples of the Hearings Boards' interpretations of the
Growth Management Act's goals and requirements for natural resource lands. These decisions neither
represent all the Hearings Board Decisions nor are they individually exhaustive. Rather, taken together,
they identify key issues regarding natural resource lands and resource-based industries, and provide
guidance on methods to identify, designate, and protect them.
Merrill H. English vs. Columbia County (1993)
Columbia County utilized the Soil Conservation Service classifications of "prime" agricultural soils as the
single criteria for designation of agricultural lands, which accounted for less than ten percent (10%) of the
County's land in agricultural production. Consideration was not given to lands with less-than-prime soils,
despite evidence that much of this land was more productive and higher yielding than land with prime
soils. The Eastern Hearings Board found the County to be out of compliance because the inclusion of
prime soils alone "is not sufficient if other soils classes meet the tests of growing capacity, productivity,
and soil composition." In summary, the Board ruled:
"While there is opportunity for the exercise of local judgment and it is obvious that the local community
understands its agricultural lands better than anyone else, the conclusions reached must be the product of
a valid process. "
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-S '1"'1
~! ¡.,
24 Hr:: ,.
August 28, 1998
t"'l.:-'~)O
.""'.'(Ii~
APPENDIX A
The County's interim natural resource land ordinance allowed conversion of any designated land so long
as its development did not interfere with the long-term commercial use of other agricultural or forest
resource lands. This "interference" was to be determined through reliance on other ordinances,
specifically SEP A, and the Columbia County Environmental Ordinance. The interim ordinance was
found to be out of compliance because other ordinances would "allow development that is incompatible
with the conservation of resource lands through their exemptions." The Hearings Board went on to define
'conservation of resource lands' as action that "prevents the loss or degradation of the resource" and "is
intended to maintain agricultural and forest resources~"
.
Save Our Butte Save Our Basin Society vs. Chelan County (1994)
In designating agricultural lands oflong-term commercial significance, Chelan County's Resource Lands
and Critical Areas resolution omitted over 9,000 acres of prime and unique soils from- the designation
without justification. The designation was not based on an analysis of soil types, productivity, growing
capacity, proximity to urban areas, or availability of urban or agricultural services. While the Eastern
Hearings Board did acknowledge the difficulty of classifying the diverse and complex agricultural lands
in Chelan County, the resolution was found to be out of compliance because it was not the result of a
valid process.
The resolution was found to be out of compliance because it permitted short platting, did not require a
minimum lot size, and did not require setbacks for development on adjacent lands. Because it did not
assure the conservation of agricultural lands, the resolution was also found to be out of compliance. In
making this determination, the Board provided the following guidance for preventing incompatible uses
on parcels adjacent to agricultural resource lands:
.
A conservation strategy was recommended to make small acreage rural non-resource lots
available in conjunction with larger minimum lot sizes in agricultural resource lands;
.
.
Subdivision was determined to be incompatible with continued agriculturaluse; and,
.
If setbacks are not required in the interest of reducing the burden on adjacent property owners,
"the impact of this modification on the continued use of the affected resource lands must be
addressed. "
Following this logic, the Hearings Board found the resolution to be out of compliance with the GMA
requirement to assure the conservation of forest lands because it did not provide sufficient minimum lot
sizes or require appropriate setbacks on adjacent lands. Despite significant evidence that these strategies
were essential to the continued economic viability of forestry, the County failed to consider or address the
impacts of their exclusion.
Finally, Chelan County defended its Commercial Mineral Resource Lands resolution by relying on the
existing zoning code to meet the GMA requirement to conserve and protect these lands from
encroachment by incompatible adjacent uses. However, the Hearings Board found that in this case, the
reverse was true. The purpose of the zoning code was to protect the adjacent lands from the mineral
resource lands. Therefore, the resolution was found to be out of compliance. The Board went on to
require that if a jurisdiction chooses to rely on other ordinances to meet the requirements of the GMA,
those ordinances must be specifically referenced in the resolution.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A~6
VGL '
2,4 r~(,~
2 e;Z1
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
RIDGE vs. Kittitas County (1994)
In reviewing Kittitas County's decision to exclude sixteen thousand (16,000) acres from its designation of
forest lands of long-term commercial significance, the Eastern Hearings Board established a framework
for the GMA requirement to designate certain lands. The determination of long-term commercial
significance is based on three interdependent factors that must be evaluated in relation to each other:
.
The growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition ofthe land;
.
The land's proximity to population areas and the impact of this proximity on the ability to
practically and economically manage the land; and,
.
The possibility of more intense uses of the land.
If lands meet all the criteria for their designation as being long-term commercially significant, then they
must be designated as such. However, the Hearings Board ruled that there is one limited qualification to
this requirement; jurisdictions are provided flexibility and may use discretion in situations where the
designation process would produce "anomalous results."
In making this determination, the Board recognized that the GMA planning goals may be inconsistent.
The jurisdiction's duty is to harmonize these goals. If a jurisdiction is unable to harmonize the planning
goals, the record must show that the deci~ion makers engaged in a valid process and considered the
matter.
Significantly, the Board determined that:
"...although there are procedural and substantive components of compliance with the planning goals,
there was no requirement of a 'tangible procedural demonstration.' Rather, the ultimate test of
consideration of the goals was whether the County's actions were substantively guided by the goals,
whether their actions were consistent with the planning goals. The advantage of this approach is that it
deals with the heart of the question, the substantive element, instead of a possible pro forma procedural
exercise. "
Olympic Environmental Council vs. Jefferson County (1994)
The conservation of resource lands, as envisioned by the GMA comprehensive planning process, requires
two steps: The first is the development of objective criteria for the classification of resource lands. The
second is the designation of natural resource lands based upon those objective criteria. This process must
be followed in sequence to comply with the GMA. The Hearings Board held that ". . .first establishing a
desired outcome and then developing data or criteria to support that outcome does not meet the test of a
reasoned decision based on appropriate factors."
The purpose of the designation of natural resource lands is to conserve these areas by protecting them
from conflicting uses. In order to assure the efficient fusion of these two goals, the designation process
may be used to correct minor anomalies resulting from the use of objective classification criteria. Lands
that are not currently in resource production may, therefore, be included in the designation as a means of
preserving contiguous areas of natural resource lands and minimizing exposure to potential incompatible
uses on adjacent, non-designated land.
The criteria used to classify resource lands must be meaningful within the local context and practices of
resource industries. Although the Department of Natural Resources has issued guidelines for the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-7
VOI~
24 r~L~
2 ~'--)2
t)~,
, August 28, 1998
APPENDIX A
designation of natural resource lands, a "one size fits all" approach is not appropriate due to the varied
natural conditions throughout the State. Each jurisdiction's criteria must reflect the natural resource lands
currently in commercial production. The only exceptions are in cases where these lands are within an
urban growth boundary or are shown to be needed to accommodate population growth.
.
Friends of Skagit County vs. Skagit County (1995)
Skagit County's criterion for commercial forest land designation was that these lands were ". . .only to be
comprised of land zoned by the County as Forestry prior to adoption of [the Comprehensive Plan] unless
the property owner initiates a request for reclassification." Stating that only lands previously zoned
forestry would be zoned industrial forest was found to be an "exclusionary criterion" and, therefore, out
of compliance with the Act. The Western Hearings Board defined an exclusionary criterion as follows:
"Use of this sole criterion precludes designation of lands which clearly meet the criteria in the Act. "
The Hearings Board also found that while the GMA "does not specify a minimum parcel lot size for lands
in commercial forestry designation, it does require their protection from conflicting uses." For allowing
these forest lands to be divided into twenty (20) acre lots, Skagit County was found to be out of
compliance with the Act.
In addition, Skagit County was found to be out of compliance because they failed to designate areas with
prime upland soils as agricultural land. The County justified this decision by arguing that the majority of
these lands were utilized for pasture or hay ground and were not capable of maintaining "sole support" for
a family. The Board found that because the land in question was currently in agricultural use, this
criterion was not appropriate to determine long.term commercial significance.
.
Diehl, et. al. vs. Mason County (1995)
Mason County's criteria for forest land designation included the requirement that the land be enrolled in
the Open Space Property Tax classification. This criterion was found to be out of compliance because
". . .making participation in the tax program a prerequisite for forest land designation effectively leaves
the designation decision to the land owner."
The forest land criteria also included a minimum block size of five thousand (5,000) acres, excluding
blocks of land in use and of long-term commercial significance smaller than this minimum from
designation. Due to the "exclusionary" nature of this criterion and its disregard for current forestry
practices in Mason County, it was found to be out of compliance.
Because Mason County has one of the smallest percentages of agricultural land in the State, it did not
designate agricultural lands of long-term significance in its interim ordinance. The Western Hearings
Board found that the GMA "contains no threshold below which agricultural land of long-term commercial
significance should not be designated. . . if there is commercial viability, the land must be designated and
conserved. "
Vashon~Maury vs. King County (1995)
King County did not pass interim ordinances for the protection of natural resource lands, as required by
the GMA, but instead proceeded directly to developing a Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the County did
not review the interim ordinances as part of the process of adopting its Plan, as mandated by RCW
36.70A.060(3). However, the Central Hearings Board found King County to be in compliance because
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-S" VOL
I 2,4 r~r;:
2G23
August28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
". . . the entire laborious process of developing the Plan's forest land designations and policies - ~ .
constituted such a review."
City of Gig Harbor vs. Pierce County (1995)
Pierce County established a residential density for agricultural lands of one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10)
acres. The Central Hearings Board found this policy to be in compliance with the GMA, although they
did acknowledge that a larger minimum lot size requirement would reduce the risk of conflicts between
agricultural uses and residences. Moreover, the Board refused to establish a threshold or "bright line" of
one (1) dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres for agricultural lands because "many farm operations are
operating on land that has been subdivided into lots smaller than twenty (20) acres.
Analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board Rulings
The Hearings Board cases illustrate that, because there is no definitive standard for the designation or
protection of natural resource lands, ambiguity exists in interpreting the Hearings Board Decisions. The
decisions do not delineate the appropriate criteria for the designation of natural resource land or the
appropriate land use controls for their protection. The Hearings Boards have declined to issue "bright
line" standards for designation criteria, minimum lot sizes, residential densities, clustering, setbacks, or
buffers for resource lands.
However, the number of Hearings Board cases. involving natural resource lands is indicative of the high
priority that the Growth Management Act places on their conservation. Infact, for jurisdictions planning
under the provisions of the Act, the first step in the planning process is the interim designation and
regulation of natural resource lands and critical areas. It is significant to note that the GMA requires
cities and counties to identify and protect resource lands and critical areas before the date that Interim
Urban Growth Areas have been adopted.
The Hearings Board decisions summarized above delineate a sequential process that allows consideration
of the GMA goals to conserve resource lands and maintain and enhance resource industries. Clearly, the
goal of resource land conservation is to provide the stability necessary to maintain these lands in
commercial production. However, as part of the Comprehensive Planning process, resource land
conservation strategies must be substantively guided by all Growth Management planning goals to assure
internal consistency.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Summary of Applicable Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
This summary has been prepared to provide examples of the Hearings Board's interpretations of the
Growth Management Act goals and requirements for housing. These decisions neither represent all the
Hearings Board decisions nor are they individually exhaustive. Rather, taken together, they identify key
issues regarding housing planning and provide guidance on methods to maintain and enhance -
neighborhood character and affordability.
Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood v. Snohom;sh County (1993)
The Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood challenged Snohomish County's Planning Policies pertaining to
housing on the grounds that they violated land use powers which were properly the responsibility of
municipalities. Under the provisions of the Growth Management Act, cities are the primary providers of
urban services, while counties are to be regional policy makers and rural service providers.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-9
VOI-
24 fAU
2 G2'\ugust 28,1998
APPENDIX A
The housing policies established a fair share process for allocating low-income and special needs
populations among the jurisdictions in Snohomish County. The Central Puget Sound Hearings Board
ruled that the County may allocate these households to municipalities as an extension of the process of
allocating population and employment. The long-tenD purpose of this allocation process is to direct urban
development to urban areas and to reduce sprawl.
The Board went on to rule that County-wide Planning Policy may recommend methods and strategies to
cities for the purpose of accommodating population growth. However, although the recommended
methods may be the preferred means for encouraging affordable housing, cities must be free to achieve
the affordable housing goals in whatever manner they choose.
A city's duty to address the affordable housing goals established by the County-wide Planning Policy is
not lessened by the fact that a county cannot dictate the actual mechanisms that are used. The County-
wide Planning Policy may also establish monitoring programs to evaluate the progress made toward
achieving housing goals on a County-wide and jurisdictional level.
Kitsap Citizens/or Rural Preservation v. Kitsap County (1994)
When Kitsap County designated Interim Urban Growth Areas, it utilized its existing Zoning Ordinance as
the GMA required implementing regulations. Therefore, when the County adopted a Conservation
Easement Ordinance (CEO) as part of its Zoning Ordinance, it was subject to the requirements of the
GMA.
The CEO allowed the internal transfer of density on parcels of property. The purpose of the CEO was for
the preservation of rural and resource uses, open space, and critical areas on a portion of the property
while allowing all or a portion of the pennitted density to be transferred to the remaining portion of the
property. Once approved, the conservation easement would become a binding agreement controlling the
use and density of the property.
Kitsap County argued that the CEO would have no cumulative effect on the consequences of growth and
development in the rural area because the gross density would remain the same if both the receiving and
sending properties were used to make the density calculation.
The Hearings Board ruled that the consequences to the rural area should be assessed based only upon the
receiving property where the CEO-enabled development would occur.
"The true test of whether the CEO results in urban growth is to ask the question -- what does the CEO
permit to be physically constructed on the ground, in the real world, and how does that potential outcome
square with the Act's definition of urban growth? "
Additionally, the CEO did not define parameters regarding the configuration, servicing, or location of
development or establish an upper limit on the acreage or unit count pennitted to occur in rural areas.
Therefore, it could result in thousands of dwelling units being aggregated in a single development.
The Hearings Board found that because of this lack of defined limits' and locations, the CEO did not
comply with the requirements of the GMA to direct urban development to urban areas.
"As the size of a rural development project increases, the demand for urban governmental services
inevitably increases, as do the ojfsite impacts on both natural systems and abutting properties, While no
clear breakpoint is evident... it is only logical that, at some point along the continuum of potential project
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
, A-IO VOL
24
' ~ r ¡:-
r,..<c.
2 C25
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
size and intensity, the quantitative dimension of clustered development in a rural area must have
qualitative urban growth consequences, "
While the goal of the CEO to preserve the sending properties as open space benefited the public good and
achieved objectives of the GMA, it was not in compliance with the entire Act because of its potential
consequences of urban growth in the rural area.
However, the Hearings Board did not preclude similar techniques being utilized at a greatly reduced scale
and in specific locations in rural areas.
'The Board can conceive of a well designed compact rural development containing a small number of
homes that would not look rural in character, not require urban governmental services, nor have undue
growth-inducing or adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties. "
Aagaard v. City of Bothell (1994)
The City of Bothell's Comprehensive Plan contained a provision that allowed high-density senior housing
throughout the City, subject to restrictions related to land uses on properties adjacent to a proposed site.
This provision was challenged on the grounds that it did not comply with the GMA requirements for the
mandatory housing, capital facilities, and transportation elements.
Although the City was not required to plan for senior housing as a separate subcategory, it chose to do so
in the housing element of its Comprehensive Plan. The senior housing provision was found to be out of
compliance with the GMA housing requirements because the City failed to undertake the necessary
inventory and analysis of "existing and projected housing needs" and the identification of sufficient lands
for these housing needs. The Hearings Board ruled that if a jurisdiction chooses to create a separate
subcategory in its housing element, it must also conduct an inventory and analysis of that subcategory.
The Children's Alliance v. Bellevue (1995)
As part of the implementation of its Comprehensive Plan, the City of Bellevue adopted the Group Homes
Amendment Ordinance. The ordinance established conditions under which group homes, group care
facilities, and other shared living arrangements designed to serve persons with identifiable or diagnosable
special needs could be located in the City.
The ordinance was challenged on the grounds that it violated: (1) the housing goals of the GMA by
imposing discriminatory requirements and restrictions on group homes; (2) the GMA requirements for
siting essential public facilities; and, (3) Bellevue's Comprehensive Plan policies for group homes. This
was the first case before the Hearings Board which challenged the validity of a development regulation
within the purview of the residential land use and housing requirements of the GMA.
The Hearings Board found that the ordinance did not comply with the housing requirements of the Act
because it placed numerous restrictions and requirements on residential structures used for group homes
that it did not place on similar residential structures occupied by related or unrelated individuals. These
restrictions included:
.
Creating exemptions from the ordinance for specific types of group homes by including them in the
City's definition of "family," but excluding group care facilities for children from the definition;
.
Excluding group care facilities for children from being located in residential districts;
(. 4: r,~r:r
2C26
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-II VOL.
APPENDIX A
.
Imposing occupancy limits and conditional use permit requirements on group care facilities; and,
.
.
Requiring owners and operators of group care facilities to register with the City.
The Hearings Board also found that the ordinance violated the GMA because it precluded the siting of
essential public facilities. Because of their role in treating individuals with mental and physical
handicaps, group homes are essential public facilities. By forcing group care providers to locate their
facilities in non-residential areas, the ordinance made the siting of group homes in Bellevue impractical.
This would deny the group home residents the therapeutic benefits of living in a residential community
and thwart the purpose of group care.
Under GMA, a jurisdiction retains the discretion to decide exactly how to implement its Comprehensive
Plan through development regulations, but this discretion has legal and practical limits. Because the
Group Homes Amendment Ordinance failed to implement and was inconsistent with its Comprehensive
Plan Goals and Policies for special needs housing, the Board found that it exceeded this discretion.
In conclusion, the Board stated that "the GMA requires local governments both to manage change and
change to manage." Therefore, residential land use regulations must cease to be exclusionary and instead
must reflect that our population has changed with regard to age, ethnicity, culture, economic, physical,
and mental circumstances, household size and makeup.
Analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board Rulings
Although the Growth Management Hearings Boards' conclusions represent individual decisions on
specific comprehensive plans and ordinances, they provide valuable guidance and a clearer understanding
of an appropriate approach to housing issues under the goals and requirements of the Act. The following
points summarize the key findings of the Hearings Boards regarding housing:
.
.
Under the provisions of the Growth Management Act, cities are the primary providers of urban
services, while counties are to be regional policy makers and rural service providers. Therefore,
because affordable and special needs housing are more feasible within UGAs, counties may allocate a
fair share of these housing types to cities.
.
Compact rural development is allowed under the Act. In order to comply with the GMA, this
development would have to conform to established parameters for size, scale and location, as well as
be compatible with rural character and resource lands.
.
The Hearings Board ruled that if development rights are transferred within or between properties, the
consequences of higher intensity residential uses to the rural area should be assessed based only upon
the receiving area of the property where the development would occur.
.
If a jurisdiction chooses to create a separate subcategory in its housing element, it must also conduct
an inventory and analysis ofthat subcategory.
.
Residential land use regulations must cease to be exclusionary and instead must reflect that our
population has changed with regard to age, ethnicity, culture, economic, physical, and mental
circumstances, household size and makeup.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-12
VOI-
2. 4. , 1(: ~
J...,,-
2C27
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION, HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
Summary of Applicable Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
This summary has been prepared to provide examples of the Hearings Boards' interpretations of the
Growth Management Act goals and requirements for open space, parks, recreation and historic
preservation. These decisions neither represent all the Hearings Board Decisions nor are they
individually exhaustive. Rather, taken together, they identify key issues regarding these resources and
provide guidance on methods to maintain and enhance them.
Gig Harbor vs. Pierce County (1994)
Pierce County failed to identify and include greenbelt and open space areas in its Interim Urban Growth
Areas. Additionally, the County did not map existing or planned parks, trails and critical areas and did
not reference regulations requiring the provision of open space in development applications or other
similar mechanisms. Therefore, the Hearing Board concluded that the County failed to comply with the
requirements ofRCW 36.70A.
Achen VS. Clark County (1995)
Goal thirteen of the GMA requires jurisdictions planning under the Act to preserve lands, sites, and
structures with historical.and archaeological significance. The City of Camas took no action of any kind
regarding this planning goal. Even though the GMA does not require a specific historical and
archaeological preservation element in comprehensive plans, the Hearings Board determined that the total
inaction by Camas was not in compliance with the GMA. The Order required the City of Camas to .
consider and address the archaeological and historic preservation goal of the GMA.
Clark County included archaeological and historic preservation as an element of its comprehensive plan.
The Element contained an updated and comprehensive inventory of cultural and historic resources and
provided for regulatory action. However, the Hearings Board determined that the County had not "taken
any further action" in this respect. The Hearings Board stated that "if it is in the plan, it must be
implemented." Clark County was found to be out of compliance with the GMA because of its failure to
take any steps beyond merely placing the historic and preservation element in its comprehensive plan.
Analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board Rulings
Although the Growth Management Hearings Boards' conclusions represent individual decisions on
specific comprehensive plans and ordinances, they provide valuable guidance and a clearer understanding
of an appropriate approach to open space issues under the goals and requirements of the Act. The
following points summarize the key findings of the Hearings Board in relation to open space, parks and
recreation issues:
.
"Open space" and "greenbelt" must be identified by local jurisdictions;
.
All comprehensive planning documents must identify and protect greenbelts, parks or open space
areas;
.
A map delineating open space, greenbelt areas and parks must be included;
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-13
\'01-
2 4 r~r,~
2 """"'8
lJ,<: August 28, 1998
APPENDIX A
.
All comprehensive planning documents must consider recreation facilities as an integral part of
public facilities;
.
Criteria and a strategy to identify and protect archeological and historic resources must be
developed and implemented.
ECONONUCDEVELOPMENT
Summary of Applicable Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
This summary has been prepared to provide examples of the Hearings Boards' interpretation of the
Growth Management Act goals and requirements for economic development. These decisions neither
represent all the Hearings Board Decisions nor are they individually exhaustive. Rather, taken together
they identify key issues regarding economic development strategies and provide guidance on methods to
maintain and enhance the local economy while maintaining the rural lifestyle valued in Jefferson County.
Whidbey EnvironmentalAction Network v. Island County (1995)
The Hearings Board found Island County's continued reliance on the pre-GMA Island County Code,
Chapter 17.02, to guide land use decisions to be contrary to the GMA. The Hearings Board found that
Island County's continued application of this pre-GMA code has resulted in urban-type development
being approved and vested outside of IUGAs. The Board stated that the continued vesting of new urban
development outside of IUGAs "substantially threatens the fulfillment of several GMA goals".
The Hearings Board went on to state "[0 ]ur past decisions are consistent with the 1995 amendments to the
GMA and CPS decisions. We have said that no new urban commercial or new urban industrial
development can occur outside of IUGAs. We have not precluded the placement of natural resource-
based industries or rural commercial development outside of IUGAs~ The Act allows appropriate non-
urban uses outside IUGAs.... The record in this case clearly supports the petitioner's contentions. We
find that ICC 17.02.100 allows new urban commercial and new urban industrial development outside
IUGAs and substantially interferes with the fulfillment ofthe goals of the GMA."
Vashon-Maury vs. King County (1995)
In Vashon-Maury, where the Hearings Board was reviewing the King County Comprehensive Plan, the
Board acknowledged that a literal and solitary application of the definition of "urban growth" as the test
of what is not permitted in a rural area would achieve an absurd result because it could exclude certain
rural-dependent uses. Therefore, the Board established a rule for determining when non-residential uses
in the rural areas are permitted:
"The Board holds that, as a general rule, proposed uses that meet the definition of urban growth will be
prohibited in a rural area unless: (1) the use, by its very nature, is dependent upon being in a rural area
and is compatible with the functional and visual character of rural uses in the immediate vicinity; OR (2)
the use is an essential public facility. "
The Board emphasized that this holding is not a repudiation of prior Board holdings or the language from
RCW 36.70A~110(l) that urban growth is prohibited beyond a UGA. Instead, it is simply a recognition
that certain rural-dependent uses will intensively use land (thereby meeting the literal definition of "urban
growth"). Industrial and commercial development is typically urban in nature and thus inappropriate in
rural areas unless it depends on its location for viability (i.e., silvacultural or recreational activities), and is
compatible with the function and visual character of uses in the immediate vicinity.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-14 . VOL
2 4 r~r,:
2 (,29 August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.8
8
8
APPENDIX A
Analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board Rulings
There are few Hearings Boards decisions or rulings which specifically apply to the issue of economic
development. Most challenges brought before the Boards have related to GMA issues other than
economic development. Those rulings that do apply to some degree relate to the issue of whether it is
appropriate to allow "urban" development to occur outside of IUGAs. Clearly the Hearings Boards have
detennined this type of action to be out of compliance with the Act, except in a few narrowly construed
instances.
For example, rural industrial development may be appropriate in rural areas when the activity requires a
rural or resource land location, or the nature of the activity is incompatible with urban development due to
its potential threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and/or there is a demonstrable need for a
parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within the IUGA.
If industrial development is to occur outside of a UGA there is legislation that provides detailed guidance
on how and when this can happen. RCW 36.70A.365 (ESB 5019) states that counties, in consultation
with cities, may establish a process for authorizing the siting of major industrial development outside of
UGAs. The siting process must be consistent with the County-wide Planning Policy and certain criteria,
which are outlined in more detail in the Goals and Policies section of the Economic Development
element, must be met
ENVIRONMENT
Summary of Applicable Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
This summary has been prepared to provide examples of the Hearings Boards' interpretations of the
Growth Management Act goals and requirements for environmental protection. These decisions neither
represent all the Hearings Board decisions nor are they individually exhaustive. Rather, taken together,
they identify key issues regarding critical areas and provide guidance on methods to identify, designate,
and protect them.
Woodmansee and Concerned Friends of Ferry County vs. Ferry County (1995)
The Hearings Board concluded that Ferry County's Comprehensive Plan failed to meet the requirements
of RCW 36.70A.170(1)(d) for the designation of wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat and aquifer recharge
areas. The Plan contained "valid" definitions of critical areas and the intent to "locate the critical areas by
way of its future land use map," but since it did not provide designations of these critical areas, it
provided "...almost no guidance or usefulness to a landowner or policy-maker for decision making."
Whatcom Environmental Council vs. Whatcom County (1995)
The Board found sections of What com County's Critical Areas Ordinance invalid. It was deteJ111ined that
the adopted ordinance violated the Act for the following reasons:
.
Type 4 and 5 waters were excluded from regulation, and the buffers for Type 2 and 3 waters were
significantly below the levels necessary to protect these critical areas;
Category III and IV wetlands under one acre were exempted from regulation, significantly reducing
critical area protection;
Protection of shellfish habitat was not addressed; and
Mitigation measures were not provided to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.
.
.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-I5 VOlp
24 fX~
.. 2 G30 August 28, 1998
APPENDIX A
The Board stated that critical areas ordinances are neither temporary nor interim measures and that severe
and irreparable damage to the environment, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat continue as a result
of the inadequacies of the protection afforded by Whatcom County over the past four years. The Board
also ordered the County to bring the ordinance into compliance with the GMA and SEP A public
participation requirements since it was proved that the County failed to conduct a public participation
process which involved consideration of substantive comments by the public, County staff, and State
resource agencies.
.
Moore vs. Whitman County (1995)
The Board determined thatwiIdlife habitat issues had not been addressed by the County's Code Chapter
9.03 on wetland protection. The Hearings Board ruled that Chapter 9.03 failed to comply with RCW
36. 70AI70(2) by failing to consider minimum guidelines in designated wildlife habitat areas and ordered
the County to bring this component of the critical areas ordinance into compliance with the GMA
Confederated Tribes vs. Kittitas County (1994)
The Board remanded the Critical Areas Ordinance to Kittitas County for modification to comply with the
requirements of the Growth Management Act. The following environmental protections were not
addressed by the ordinance:
.
The protection of Category IV wetlands;
The provision of adequate vegetative buffers for Type 4 waters; and,
The establishment of appropriate building or structural setback requirements.
.
.
.
Save Our Butte vs. Chelan County (1994)
Chelan County was found to be in noncompliance with the Growth Management Act with regard to
conservation of natural resource lands as well as critical area designation and protection. The Board
found that the sections of Chelan County's plan dealing with riparian and wetland buffer, set-backs,
subdivisions, and lot size reductions were invalid.
Me"ill H. English vs. Columbia County (1993)
Columbia County was instructed by the Board to substitute an objective standard that protects critical
areas in place of their current standard which "minimized impacts" in order to reach compliance with the
Act. The Board concluded that the required standard of critical areas protection should be to "prevent
adverse impacts" or at the very minimum "mitigate adverse impacts" rather than "minimize impacts."
Moreover, there must be a specific, objective standard for review in the Ordinance that will protect
designated critical areas with reasonable certainty, in accordance with RCW 36.70A060(1).
Diehl vs. Mason County (1995)
Aquifer recharge areas in Mason County were designated in the County's Interim Resources Ordinance
(IRO) but their protection, according to the record, was permissive. Moreover, no specific requirements
were present in the ordinance to ensure meeting identified goals. The Board ruled that the aquifer
recharge and floodplains sections were inadequate to protect these areas over the twenty year planning
horizon, and, therefore, the IRO was not in compliance with the goals and requirements of the Act.
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-16
VOL
2 4 rM,~
2 ,i."" .~1August 28, 1998
. 'tÞ..).A:
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
Analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board Rulings
Although the Growth Management Hearings Board's rulings represent decisions on specific
comprehensive plans and/or ordinances, they provide valuable guidance and a clearer understanding of an
appropriate approach to environmental protection under the goals and requirements of the Act.
Considered together, these decisions provide Jefferson County with a general framework for an
environmental protection strategy.
The following points summarize the key findings of the Hearings Board in relation to environmental
protection:
.
Adequate public participation is required in preparing environmental regulations;
.
All environmental regulations should be established in strict compliance with the requirements of
SEP A review;
.
Valid definitions, designations, and specific and objective protection standards are required by the
Act; and,
.
Adopted planning policies and regulations should adequately address all of the important
environmental issues of the planning area.
The cases presented in this section, and their accompanying analyses, provide insight to the types of
issues that many communities planning under GMA, including Jefferson County has had to address. The --
Hearings Board interpretations are included to provide the legislative background which will aid in the
understanding of the processes the County used in addressing a number of issues contained in the
Comprehensive Plan.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
Summary of Applicable Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
The following represents a summary of Hearings Board decisions regarding both the siting and expansion
of essential public facilities. The cases are presented to offer greater clarification regarding the treatment
of essential public facilities as interpreted by the Growth Management Hearings Boards.
Port of Seattle vs. City of Des Moines (1997)
The City of Des Moines included in its Comprehensive Plan provisions that would effectively preclude
the expansion of an essential public facility, in this case, the third runway at Sea- Tac International Airport
(STIA). The Hearings Board utilized the provisions contained in RCW 36~70A.200 and detennined that
the statute identified two duties: a duty to adopt in its Plan a process to site essential public facilities
(EPFs), and a duty not to preclude the siting or expansion of essential public facilities.
Des Moines Comprehensive Pian contained policies that limited and opposed activities that would
increase the level of adverse impacts to the city which will result with the expansion of the third runway
at STIA. The Hearings Board dletennined that the City's action effectively precluded the expansion of
STIA. As detennined in Children's Alliance v. City of Bellevue (see below), the tenn preclude was
defined by the Hearings Board as "render impossible or impracticaL" The Hearing's Board final ruling
held that "the expansion of an existing EPF, including necessary support activities associated with that
expansion, is protected by RCW 36.70A.200.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-I?
~IOI-
24 d~r
- 2 C3~gust 28, 1998
APPENDIX A
Vashon-Maury vs. King County (1995)
.
In 1995, the Hearings Board addressed the issue of permitting EPFs; some of which may be considered
urban uses in rural areas. The Board ruled that any use specifically named RCW 36.70A.200 or on the
EPF list maintained by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) is permitted in the rural area.
However, the Board also determined that the mere presence of an essential public facility in a rural area
does not provide a rationale for authority to place non-rural uses adjacent or nearby.
Hapsmith vs. City of Auburn (1995)
The Hearings Board found Auburn out of compliance for failing to have a process in place for siting
Essential Public Facilities. Auburn's Comprehensive Plan contained policies which called for the
.establishment of a process to site EPFs. The Board ruled that GMA requires that the Plan contain an
. actual process for identifying and siting EPFs not, as with Auburn "a process to establish a process."
Children's Alliance vs. City of Bellevue (1995)
Bellevue, in 1994, adopted an ordinance that identified areas for the siting of group homes and other
special needs housing units. Group homes are identified in RCW 36.70A.200 as Essential Public
Facilities, the siting of which can not be precluded by comprehensive plans. or development regulations.
The Hearings Board determined that Bellevue's ordinance did in fact preclude group care facilities in
residential areas by directing them instead to commercial areas. Children's Alliance contended that the
City's provision to prohibit group care facilities in residential areas and restrict them to commercial areas
effectively precluded-defined by the Hearing's Board as "to make impossible or impractical by prior
action"-them from locating in Bellevue where commercial land prices make the siting of group homes
financially infeasible. The Hearings Board found that the preclusion of siting group homes by the City of
Bellevue violated RCW 36.70A.200.
.
Analysis of Growth Management Hearings Board Rulings
The Hearings Board conclusions offer guidance and direction for the identification and siting of Essential
Public Facilities. The Hearings Board's decisions emphasize several key points:
.
As discussed in Vashon-Mauryv. King County, essential public facilities, some of which may
require urban services, may locate in rural areas but may not serve as the rationale for locating other
non-rural uses adjacent or nearby.
.
Comprehensive Plans must have a process for siting essential public facilities
.
No Comprehensive Plan or development regulations may preclude the siting or expansion of
essential public facilities.
.
VOL
2 4 r~(,~
2e33
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
A-IS
August28,1998
APPENDIX B
.
APPENDIX B
COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY
Introduction
In December of 1992, the Jefferson County Commissioners adopted the County-wide Planning Policy, in
collaboration with the City of Port Townsend, the only incorporated city within Jefferson County. The
County-wide Planning Policy establishes a policy framework to guide the development of the
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations while ensuring the coordination and consistency of the
plans with each other and the Growth Management Act.
The County-wide Planning Policy recognized the need for counties, cities, special purpose districts and
those agencies and jurisdictions involved in the delivery of public services to coordinate the independent
development of local comprehensive plans. The implementing legislation to the Growth Management
Act requires that counties and cities agree upon policy statements in eight subject areas, including:
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
The designation of Urban Growth Areas;
The promotion of contiguous and orderly development and the provision of urban services to
such development;
Joint county and city planning within Urban Growth Areas;
The siting of essential public facilities of county- or state-wide significance;
:The need to develop county-wide transportation facilities and strategies;
The need for affordable housing for all economic segments of the population;
County-wide development and employment; and
The requirements to analyze fiscal impacts associated with the impacts of growth.
In addition, the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County agreed to include policies pertaining to:
.
Rural Areas; and
The context within which the County-wide Planning Policy is to be used.
.
The County-wide Planning Policy was developed through a collaborative process between County and
City service providers, utilities, and community organizations. The Joint Growth Management Steering
Committee has oversight for this process and provides a forum for policy discussion and decisions.
The County-wide Planning Policy represents a composite framework, not a series of individual, stand-
alone concepts. The intent of the CWPP is to create an overall direction for the development of
individual comprehensive plans, while ensuring coordination and consistency of plans with each other
and with the Growth Management Act. In addition, the County-wide Planning Policy provides a
mechanism to coordinate the provision of public facilities and services throughout the community.
In the following sections, County-wide Planning Policies are discussed with reference to individual
elements.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
VOL
24 í-~C~
-2C34
B-1
August 28,1998
APPENDIX B
LAND USEIRURAL ELEMENT
.
The following table summarizes the land use issues identified and addressed by the County-wide
Planning Policy and their analysis in relation to the land use and rural strategy of the Plan:
County-wide Planning Policy
# I
UGAs shall be separated by
designated rural or resource lands,
open space corridors, or unique
topographic features.
Analysis
Natural areas, open spaces, agricultural lands, low-density
rural residential areas and features such as streams or
ravines help to define the County's existing and future
urban areas~ The plan shall establish criteria for land use
designations as well as a provision for the separation of
principal land uses. This approach shall be reflected in the
land use map.
The Plan shall encourage new population growth within
UGAs while providing opportunities for appropriate rural
residential development of the designated rural areas. The
land use strategy shall address the needs of the County's
diverse population and provide opportunities for single-
family and multi-family housing as well as options for
affordable housing.
. Policies and specific recommendations on types of uses
and perfonnance standards for commercial develop-
ment located within Rural Village Centers and UGAs
shall be included in the Plan.
. Policies and specific recommendations on the
designation criteria and perfonnance standards for
commercial development shall be included in the Plan.
Commercial development shall be located within Rural
Village Centers and UGAs as designated in this plan
The need to provide for a diverse population as well as to
accommodate certain topographical and environmental
features of the County shall be addressed by land use goals
and policies.
Rural level of service standards shall be established by the
Plan and the County's Rural Village Centers shall be
designated according to the level of services they provide.
Need-based criteria shall be developed and specific policies
shall designate the location and scale of development
within proposed Rural Village Centers.
.
#6
Land will be designated to
accommodate a wide range of
housing types, densities and
mixtures.
.
#7
A UGA shall provide regional
service, while Rural Village
Centers shall focus on local
community retail and service
needs, and transient
accommodations.
. \'01-
24 HG~
2 G35
#8
Rural areas shall maintain a
variety of acreage parcels.
#8
Rural Village Centers shall be
delineated and recognized in the
Comprehensive Plan consistent
with the level of service standards
they provide.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
B-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX B
The following table summarizes the rural issues identified and addressed by the County-wide Planning
Policy and their analysis in relation to the strategy for preservation of rural character:
County-wide Planning Policy Analysis
# 1 UGAs will be separatedl by Natural areas, open spaces, agricultural lands, low-density
designated rural or resource rural residential areas and other similar features such as
lands, open space corridors, or streams or ravines help to define the County's existing and
unique topographic features. future urban areas. Rural areas outside of the UGAs shall be
designated by the Plan. Goals and policies aiming at
preservation of the County's rural character shall be included
in the Plan.
#8 Land Use and Rural Element A working definition of rural character, policies on the
of the Plan shall recognize and preservation and enhancement of rural character, and rural
maintain rural character level of services shall be included in the Rural Element of this
without degrading the Plan. These policies shall be in accordance with environmental
environment or creating the policies proposed in this Plan. policies to ensure and sustain
need for urban level of rural level of services in the County's rural areas shall be
services. developed.
#8 Land Use and Rural Element Appropriate industrial uses contribute to the established rural
shall establish a framework for lifestyle and economic vitality of the County's rural areas.
the siting of industries which Therefore, a siting criteria for industrial development in rural
would be better sited in rural areas shall be established by this plan and corresponding
areas (for example, resource- policies and strategies.
based).
NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
The following table summarizes the resource lands issues identified and addressed by the County-wide
Planning Policy and their analysis in relation to resource lands strategy of the plan:
County-wide Planning Policy Analysis
# 1 UGAs to be separated by Resource lands together with other types of the County's open
designated rural or resource space help in defining the County's existing and future urban
lands, open space corridors, or areas. The plan shall establish criteria for resource land use
unique topographic features. designations as well as propose goals and policies aiming at
maintaining viable resource industries while protecting
environmental values.
'/01-
C":¡.iI
¡" 14 'Ir:::-
--' ~ r"k
2C36
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
B-3
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX B
HOUSING ELEMENT
The following table summarizes the housing issues identified and addressed by the County-wide Planning
Policy and their relationship to the overall strategy of the Plan.
.
County-wide Planning Policy
1.1
The City of Port Townsend and
Jefferson County will jointly
prepare a regional population
forecast for growth management
planning purposes.
6.1
"Affordable housing" means
residential housing that is rented or
owned by a person or household
whose monthly housing costs,
including utilities other than
telephone, do not exceed thirty
percent ofthe household's monthly
mcome.
The provision of affordable
housing is acknowledged as a
general public need and will be
addressed in Jefferson County
through private sector programs
and projects.
The housing element of the Plan
will include an assessment of land
available and the process of siting
special purpose housing~
6.2
6.3
6.4
A sufficient quantity of land will
be zoned and designated to
accommodate a wide range of
housing types, densities and
mixtures.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Pl¡m
Analysis
Jefferson County adopted a joint County and City of Port
Townsend population projection resolution, County
Resolution No. 17-96, in February 1996, based on data
prepared by the Watterson West Group. These population
projections are used as the basis for projecting the number
of jobs that will be needed to support the projected 20 year
population growth.
This policy indicates that affordable housing should not
exceed 30% of the gross income.
The role of local government in Jefferson County is to
encourage and promote the provision of affordable
housing through appropriate regulations, programs and
technical assistance. Direct ownership and administration
of affordable housing should be assumed by private, non-
profit, or quasi-public organizations.
Siting special purpose housing often results in NIMBYism
(Not In My Back Yard), where property owners object to
the introduction of new housing that differs from existing
housing in type or value. Developing a predictable siting
process for this type of housing creates a level playing
field, avoids excessive delays in penn it review, and
reduces costs.
The housing strategy addresses the diverse needs of the
County's population and provides opportunities for a
variety of residential densities and housing types, as well
as alternatives for affordable housing.
.
.
VOI-
2 4: r,~(,~
2C37
B-4
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX B
.
6.5
.
.
An affordable housing strategy will
be developed as part of the housing
element of the Plan.
6.6
Each UGA shall accommodate its
fair share of housing affordable to
low- and moderate-income house-
holds.
The Housing Strategy is based upon a careful analysis of
the available opportunities and resources to meet
identified needs to provide safe, affordable housing for all
Jefferson County residents. The strategy utilizes a
cooperative approach between the County and the City of
Port Townsend and the County and the Master Planned
Resort of Port Ludlow to develop and achieve quantitative
housing targets. For the unincorporated areas of the
County, a variety of innovative techniques are used to
encourage affordable housing within a compact rural
development pattern.
The Plan encourag«s population growth within UGAs
while providing opportunities for appropriate rural
residential development of the designated Rural Village
Centers and Port Ludlow which already has the
infrastructure, but currently does not have its fair share of
affordable housing.
Criteria should be developed to determine if surplus public
land IS suitable for affordable housing development.
Appropriate land could be made available to private, non-
profit, or quasi-public organizations for development of
affordable housing through long-term leases.
Higher density residential areas require urban levels of
service that are most efficiently provided within UGAs.
Therefore, this type of development will not be located in
the unincorporated areas of the County. The Master
Planned Resort of Port Ludlow, although not incorporated,
does have an urban level of service which already
accommodates higher density residential areas. A
percentage of Port Ludlow's undeveloped land presently
zoned for future multi-family residential could
accommodate higher density, affordable housing and
housing to accommodate special needs.
Cluster development and density transfers permit the
creation of smaller individual lots located in closer
proximity than typically found in low density, large parcel
residential development provided that the overall cluster
density does not exceed the underlying rural density zone.
Rural Village Centers are historic, unincorporated
communities that offer some urban services, such as
limited commercial uses. They are generally small,
compact rural community centers that primarily exist to
provide housing, convenience goods and services to
residents in and around the area. It is intended that these
areas continue to be a mixture of land uses, particularly
residential and limited neighborhood businesses, with new
development limited to infill within designated Rural
Village Center zones. Jefferson County has three
designated unincorporated Rural Village Centers: Port
Hadlock, Quilcene and Brinnon.
VOL
2 4 rM;~
2C38
6.7
Undeveloped land owned by public
entities will be inventoried and
considered for development of
low-income housing.
6.8
The Housing Element will include
criteria for locating higher density
residential areas near public
facilities and services, commercial
services, adequate roads or within
walking distance of jobs or transit.
8.2
Clustering or density transfer can
be a positive tool in maintaining
the character of rural areas.
8.5
Land uses within the three Rural
Village Centers could include
residential development, including
small-lot single family and multi-
family and mixed-use
developments, consistent with .
level of service standards such as
an adequate community water
system, community sewer system,
and adequate roadways and public
transit~:-to a~,commodate the
increàsed density.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
B-5
August 28. 1998
APPENDIX B
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
The following table summarizes the rural issues identified and addressed by the County-wide Planning
Policy and their analysis in relation to the overarching rural strategy of the plan~
.
County-wide Planning Policy Analysis
# 1 UGAs to be separated by Open spaces help to define the County's existing and future
designated rural or resource urban areas and constitute an essential quality of its rural
lands, open space corridors, or character. The Plan shall define, identify, propose and
unique topographic features. designate open space and propose planning goals and policies
designed to preserve the County's open space.
#8 Clustering and density transfer Cluster development and density transfer permit the creation of
shall be used as tools to smaller individual lots located m closer proximity than
preserve rural character. typically found in low density residential development and
therefore preserve open space areas. Preservation of open
space areas is pivotal in the conservation and enhancement 'of
the County's rural character. The open space element of the
Plan shall include recommendations to use clustering and
density transfer as tools in preserving open space areas, as well
as corresponding policies.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
The table which follows summarizes the economic development issues identified and addressed by the
County-wide Planning Policy and their relationship to the overall strategy of the Plan.
.
County-wide Planning Policy
1.3
The size and delineation of boundaries of
UGAs will be detennined by the
following criteria:
. adequate amount of developable land
to accommodate forecasted growth for the
next 20 years based on the joint
population forecast.
. sufficient developable land for
residential, commercial and industrial
uses to sustain a healthy local and
regional economy.
Analysis
Jefferson County adopted a joint County and City of Port
Townsend population projection resolution, County
Resolution No. 17.96, in Febru'fY 1996, based on data
prepared by the Watterson West Group. These
population projections are used as the basis for
projecting the number of jobs that will be needed to
support the projected 20-year population growth.
The economic development strategy supports a
sustainable economy which fosters a stable and diverse
economy supporting family-wage jobs. At the same
time, economic development must be accomplished in a
manner that does not negatively impact the natural
environment.
.
7.1
The private sector is primarily responsible
for the creation of economic opportunities
'in Jefferson County. The responsibility of
the public sector is to assure that these
activities are carried out consistent with
defined community and environmental
values.
, VOL
~,4 f-~Œ
2C39
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
B-6
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX B
7.2
An economic development element
should identify and designate adequate
areas for commercial, retail, and industrial
growth necessary to sustain future
population and employment forecasts.
7.3
Each UGA and Rural Village Center is
considered the commercial and business
"hub" in their respective areas of the
County. UGAs should be viewed as
regional service and retail centers, while
the Rural Village Center focus is on local
community retail and service needs.
7.4
Certain industries due to their size or type
of operation or due to their dependence on
the local resource base should not be
located within UGA boundaries. When
locating rural-based industries, the
County should assure these activities are
self-supporting and do not promote urban
growth.
7.5
The Port of Port Townsend's legislative
authority should be utilized as a tool to
implement industry and trade strategies.
E~ONMENTELEMENT
The County and City of Port Townsend will fund a
commercial and industrial land base study to determine
future commercial and industrial land use needs. This
study will guide decision-makers when planning to
improve or add infrastructure in support of economic
development activities.
The majority of new economic activity will occur within
the Port Townsend UGA. The possibility of Glen Cove
receiving economic development activity awaits the
completion of a commercial and industrial land base
study. Limited economic activity which is locally
oriented may be appropriate in Rural Village Centers if
public infrastructure is adequate and available. Home-
based businesses are encouraged throughout the
County's rural areas but are not considered commercial
uses.
Rural industrial land uses may be appropriate in rural
areas if they are resource-based; the nature of the activity
is incompatible with urban development due to its
potential threat to the public health, safety, and welfare;
and/or there is a demonstrated need for a parcel of land
so large that no suitable parcels are available within the
UGA.
The Port's legislative authority is a valuable tool to
implement industry and trade strategies and should be
used to the fullest extent to promote employment
opportunities and the development of infrastructure
necessary to meet the needs of industry consistent
with the goals and policies of this Comprehensive
Plan.
The following table summarizes the environmental issues identified and addressed by the County-wide
Planning Policy and their analysis in relation to the environmental strategy of the Comprehensive Plan:
County-wide Planning Policy Analysis
#8 Land Use and Rural Element Policies contained in the Land Use and Rural Element of the
of the Plan shall recognize and Plan shall be in accord with environmental policies proposed
maintain rural character by the Plan. Environmental policies shall aim at preserving
without degrading the environmental quality of the County's lands.
environment or creating the
need for urban level of
servIces.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
",,'
tUI-
2 4 ~Ar,~
2C10
B-1
August28,1998
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORT A TION ELEMENT
The goal of the policies in this document is to ensure that local planning efforts will be consistent with
one another and consistent with regional growth management planning.
County-wide
Planning Policy
#5
Analysis
1.
The Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO)
will develop a regional transportation plan for the Eastern Olympic and
Kitsap Peninsula area. The City and County will each develop a
transportation element to the comprehensive plan that emphasizes local
transportation needs. In developing these transportation elements, specific
linkages with the regional plan will be undertaken to assure consistency
between the two documents.
Service standards for highways, arterial, and transit routes will be
coordinated and adopted at a county-wide level. These standards may vary
depending on the type of development pattern anticipated (i.e. urban vs.
rural) or by the specific growth management objectives being considered.
When a variance to level of service standards is established, it will be
clearly delineated in the transportation and land use element of the
comprehensive plan.
In developing the County's six year road program, the priority of focus
should be:
. first, to maintain or expand capacity within the UGAs.
. second, to maintain or expand capacity for transportation to and from
UGAs and regional centers.
The land use and transportation elements ofthe comprehensive plan will be
used by Jefferson Transit as a guide in the development of its service
delivery strategy. The thrust of this strategy is to increase ridership and
expand transportation options within UGAs, between UGAs, and between
the county and region at large.
Jefferson International Airport will remain the public link to the larger air
transportation system. The Port of Port Townsend will have the lead
responsibility to develop a service delivery strategy for this mode of
transportation consistent with the transportation and land use elements of
the County comprehensive plan.
The development or expanSIOn of any air-based or water-based
transportation system will require specific linkage with the ground
transportation system and compatibility with the land use element of the
comprehensive plans.
In establishing the land use element of the comprehensive plans and the
level of service standards for transportation systems within UGAs, the City
and County will insure that development densities, design elements and
policies are supportive and make accommodation for public transit and non-
motorized forms of transportation.
The transportation element of the comprehensive plans will be designed
around the following principles:
. seek to increase efficiency of the existing transportation system.
. emphasize the movement of people and goods first, and vehicles second.
. encourage and integrate non-motorized modes and high occupancy
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
. \,t(ì\
24 r~í;"
2 (>-11
B-8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX B
.
.
9.
vehicles in transportation system design.
. encourage employers to implement Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques. This is particularly true in review of
new employment generators at a fixed location.
. seek to assure that the proportionate share of costs of new or upgraded
transportation facilities are borne by those who create the need for the
facility, as well as those who benefit from it.
The Transportation Plan element will provide a summary and analysis of
planning information including:
. land use assumptions upon which the transportation element is based
including: population, employment by type, recreation, comprehensive
land use designations, and the density of current and projected
development including the ration of single and multi-family units to
total housing units within UGAs.
. level of service standards for arterials and collectors.
. an analysis and forecast of future transportation needs.
. evaluate the operation and maintenance of transportation facilities in a
manner which considers present and future operation and maintenance
costs.
. incorporate pedestrian and bicycle travel as part of the transportation
element within a coordinated and regional basis. The bicycle and
pedestrian component shall be a part of the funding component of the
capital improvement program for transportation improvements.
The adopted level of service standards will be used in evaluating
concurrency for long range transportation planning, development review
and programming of transportation improvements.
10.
UTILITIES ELEMENT
The Utilities Element is consistent with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with County-
wide Planning Policies (CWPP) and Growth Management Planning Goals as adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
The goals, policies, and strategies identified in the Utilities Element meet GMA planning goals, including
those associated with urban growth, reduction of sprawl, open space and recreation, and public facilities
and services. Although the CWPP does not address utilities as a separate category, as defined in the
Utilities Element, utilities are addressed within a number of CWPP sections. Specifically, the policies
that require shared use of corridors for utilities, trails, and transportation rights-of-way-
The CWPP calls for the City of Port Townsend to develop plans, in cooperation with existing water
purveyors, and other public entities providing water or sewer services, affording urban-level water and
services within the one designated Urban Growth Areas (City of Port Townsend). The interlocal
agreements specified in the policies must address reasonable criteria for annexation and ensure adequate
services, including water and sewer utilities.
The CWPP prohibits the City of Port Townsend from extending water and sewer utilities without an
. adopted program for annexation, and if such services are extended, those extensions must be consistent
with the service area boundaries and other provisions of the Jefferson County's Coordinated Water
System Plan. The CWPP prohibit extension of water service to serve urban uses outside of the Urban
.
Vûl-
24 rM,~
- 2 (; 12
.B-9
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
APPENDIX B
Growth Areas (UGAs); in addition, availability of pipeline capacity to meet local supply needs shall not
be considered in conversions of agricultural land, forestry, or rural lands. These and other water quantity
and quality issues covered in the CWPP are addressed directly and are supported in the goals, policies,
and strategies of the Utilities Element.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
.
The following table summarizes the capital facilities issues identified and addressed by the County-wide
Planning Policy and their analysis in relation to the capital facility strategy of the plan:
County-wide Planning Policy
# I
Implement RCW 36.70A.ll 0
Urban Growth Areas (UGAs)
#2
Promotion of contiguous and
orderly development and
provision of urban services
#3
Joint County and City
planning within Urban
Growth Areas
#4
Siting essential public
facilities of County or State-
wide significance
County-wide transportation
facilities and strategies
#5
#7
County-wide economic
development and employment
Rural Areas
#8
#9
Fiscal impact analysis
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Analysis
Population forecasts will be used to prepare capital facilities
plans. Designation and expansion of UGAs should be based
on the capacity to provide public capital facilities at adopted
Levels of Service,
The capital facilities element will define the Levels of Service
for public facilities within UGAs. New development will meet
the LOS as a condition of approval and will contribute its
proportionate share towards provision of those facilities.
Urban public facilities will not be extended beyond UGA
boundaries.
The County and incorporated UGAs will coordinate plans for
provision of County-wide capital facilities for public safety,
transportation, solid waste, stonn water management, and
utilities.
Essential public facilities sited outside of UGAs should not
require the extension of urban public facilities.
.
Guides development of the County's Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan. Requires development of Level of Service
standards. Although not specifically stated in the policy, these
issues need to be coordinated with the Capital Facilities
Element.
The Economic Development Plan shall be coordinated with
the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Land use within Rural Village Centers will include public
facilities necessary to support the center.
A fiscal impact analysis will be conducted to ensure that the
projected cost of public capital facilities can be reasonably
supported.
.
VOL
24 rAC;~
2C'13
B-IO
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
APPEND IX C
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Introduction
Acknowledging the need for continued community involvement during the development of the individual
plan elements, the County encouraged the creation of community planning groups. These "citizen
planners" developed draft "community plans" which provided guidance for the establishment ofthe Land
Use and Rural Element. The residents of Jefferson County have actively participated in developing the
Draft Comprehensive Plan during more than five years of public debate, interim ordinance development,
and legal rulings. In addition, the Draft Comprehensive Plan was reviewed in a series of over thirty-five
(35) public meetings by the Jefferson County Planning Commission while the Board of County
Commissioners held six (6) public hearings and conducted thirty (30) public workshops in its review of
the plan. Revisions of the Draft Plan were based on thorough Planning Commission and Board of
Comm~ssioners discussion and extensive public comment.
LAND USE/RURAL ELEMENT
The citizens of Jefferson County have participated in the development of the Land Use and Rural Element
in many significant ways. Early in the planning process, "community forums" brought together residents
with varied backgrounds and interests to discuss growth management and its application in Jefferson
County. The key suggestions for the Land Use and Rural Element as envisioned in the community
planning process are summarized in the following table:
General Land Use
Pennit only land uses which are compatible with the rural character of the
County.
Natural open spaces, forestry, and residential development should be the
primary use of the land.
Residential development and commercial activities shall not be approved
unless capital facilities improvements (roads, schools, fire, police, etc.) are
identified and funded.
Rural Village Centers should continue to provide a mixture of housing types,
commercial activities, and recreation and open space.
Natural open spaces, agriculture, aquaculture, timber production,
recreational, and residential development should be the primary use of the
land adjoining shorelines,
Development shall be directed away from those areas containing significant
fish and wildlife habitat, particularly those areas currently undeveloped or
primarily dominated by low intensity types ofland uses, such as forestry.
Provide a program of transferable development rights.
Innovative residential development with respect to architectural and
structural design, utility systems, and site layout.
Innovative site planning techniques are encouraged for all residential
developments whenever possible, provided the gross density is maintained
and natural values including open space, aquifer recharge, greenbelts, habitat
and vistas are preserved and hazards avoided.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Residential Use
.
.
VOL
'24
- L~:n:
r..-'".;-
2C,44
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-l
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX C
. Access for residential and commercial lots onto major roads should be
limited.
. Provide areas for the development of low-income/senior housing.
Commercial Use . Commercial development should be located at the intersection of major roads
or in planned commercial developments.
. Commercial development shall be in a block-like fashion. Strip development
shall not be allowed.
. Existing commercial uses outside commercial zones are "grandfathered" but
not allowed to expand.
. Commercial development should provide sufficient off-street parking,
adequate screening or buffering from adjoining uses, and should not create a
situation which would adversely affect the use, value or enjoyment of
adjacent areas or properties.
. Commercial activities shall not be. approved until needed capital facilities
improvements (road, schools, fire, police, etc.) are identified and funded.
Industrial Use . Adequate infrastructure and land should be made available to industries
whose characteristics are compatible with goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
. Existing industrial zones shall not be expanded.
Resource Lands . Encourage densities and lot sizes in rural zones that allow for, and are
compatible with, commercial timber growing.
. Aquaculture farming operations should be encouraged.
Rural Character . Enhance the rural atmosphere through appropriate construction of businesses,
residences, and associated structures.
. Traditional aquaculture activities are consistent with the rural character.
. The size and scope of commercial developments should be consistent with the
small town, rural and agricultural character.
. Development shall be directed away from the areas containing significant fish
and wildlife habitat areas, especially areas which are currently undeveloped or
are primarily dominated by low intensity types of land uses, such as forestry.
. Landscaping and buffering of all types of new development shall be
encouraged.
Rural Residential . Keep residential densities low.
Development . Housing opportunities may include single family detached, duplex, and/or up
to a fourplex dwelling unit, as supported by open space benefits.
. Innovative site planning techniques or grouping of housing units is
encouraged for all residential developments whenever possible, as long as the
gross density is maintained.
Home businesses . A home-based businesses shall not adversely affect the use, value, or
enjoyment of adjacent properties.
Rural Commercial . Intensive general activities other than liMa and Pa" type general stores, home-
Development based businesses and cottage industries, personal services, and enterprises
coincidental with timber, agriculture or aquaculture production should not be
considered compatible with the rural character of the land.
Rural Industrial . Industrial activities, other than those required for local resource production,
Development are considered as urban land use and should not be considered compatible
with the rural character of land.
Resource Based . Promote resource-based activities, including agriculture, forestry, mineral, and
Activities mariculture or aquaculture.
. VOL
2 A 'Ir::
'f: r,ì,,-
2 Co' ~
(..f'-I:;:)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
Rural Character: Community Perceptions
Prior to the 1997 GMA amendments defining rural character, Jefferson County adopted a working
definition based on the integrated relationship between three elements: environmental qualities,
appropriate land uses, and rural aesthetics. Public testimony taken during the visioning component of the
comprehensive planning process indicates that many community members view rural character as being
dependent on one isolated element. In other cases, two elements have been linked as the key components
of rural character. While components of these positions were integrated, it should be stressed that the
extreme positions do not represent the County's final approach and are not incorporated into the Plan in
their isolated forms. These positions, and a discussion of their applicability, are summarized in the
following table under three categories that incorporate different aspects of the amended GMA definition
of rural character:
Elements
Environ-
mental
Qualities
Only
Rural
Aesthetics
Only
Appropriate
Land Uses
Only
Isolated Element of Rural Character
.
Rural character is solely dependent on .
the preservation of undisturbed natural
areas. The highest value should be
placed on keeping and/or returning
rural lands to a pristine, natural
condition.
Discussion
Although open spaces and undisturbed
land is a key component of rural
character, rural areas are not wholly
undisturbed. Much of Jefferson
County's rural area was once forested,
but has been cleared long ago for use
as crop or grazing land. The retention
of undisturbed tracts of land
contributes to the rural character just
as much as appropriate land uses.
Clearly, the preservation of critical
areas is a key to the maintenance of
rural character.
While it is appropriate to preserve areas of
scenic beauty, many visual attributes of
accepted rural uses (working farms with
visible equipment, log dumps, gravel pits,
trailers, logged areas, satellite dishes,
exposed storage, etc.) are of low aesthetic
value; Buffering may not be appropriate
for many of the above uses, as they clearly
are part of the existing rural environment.
This pattern of visual contrast is part of the
rural environment controlled by the
parameter of appropriate uses.
Consistent with GMA, rural areas will
continue to grow. Development should be
permitted to occur, although the type,
quantity, and location of development
activities should be clearly defined.
';01-
24 'If':
("lO..
2C16
. Critical areas are of significant value.
to the community and must be
preserved.
Preserving views of natural beauty is key
to maintaining rural character.
Development activities should at the least
be buffered from view to provide visual
relief.
Growth must be allowed to continue. In
many cases a significant economic
investment has been made in land based
on a reasonable expectation that it can be
developed. The marketplace should
determine where development should
occur.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-3
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX C
Environ-
mental
Qualities!
Rural
Aesthetics
Only
.
Undisturbed land offers the highest.
visual amenity. A pristine natural
environment, free from all land use
activities except extremely limited
resource-based uses, recreational
opportunities, and very low density
residential development will maintain
rural character.
.
Existing commercial land uses are .
inconsistent with the maintenance of
rural character, and should be strictly
limited. In many cases these uses
should be considered non-conforming,
and be prohibited from expanding
and/or rebuilding.
Equating undisturbed land with
providing the highest rural aesthetic
value significantly reduces the validity
of appropriate land uses as being a key
part of rural character. If appropriate
land uses are identified as being barely
tolerated, invasive activities that do
not contribute to rural character, it
follows that existing rural patterns of
development are inappropriate, and
will require remediation. This position
is unrealistic given the need for local
goods and s~rvices and the existence
of many uses.
Although inappropriately scaled
development has occulTed, many of
the existing commercial uses are
intrinsic to the economic health of the
rural areas, and as such contribute to
the maintenance of rural character.
While expansion of these contributing
uses may not be appropriate, non-
confonning status would be a
disincentive for existing businesses to
continue to provide needed goods and
services to the rural population.
As previously discussed, it is only through the integration of all elements of rural character that the full
measure of rural character can be described. An understanding of the interdependence of all the elements
is needed for an overarching rural strategy and inclusive policies and regulations which support the
preservation of rural character. Isolated positions such as those in the table above have value insofar as
they are integrated with other viewpoints. The public processes for development of this Plan have been
largely focused on finding a balance for these isolated positions that meets the needs of the majority of
residents, within GMA guidelines.
The goals and policies of the Land Use and Rural Element integrate the land use designations and uses
described in the Land Use and Rural Element into a framework that includes specific criteria to support
the GMA definition of rural character. Other elements of this Plan include goals and policies that build
on this framework and are consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act.
NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
The success of the community forums provided the foundation for public participation in the development
of the interim natural resource lands ordinances.
The key issues of natural resource lands conservation as envisioned in the Jefferson County's Community
Plans are summarized in the following table:
VOL
?4 '.\r;:-
>-- ¡ MÜ-
2C1'7
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-4
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
Natural Resource Industries
Agriculture Lands
Aquaculture Lands
Forest Lands
Mineral Lands
.
Natural resource industries that comply with best management
practices should not be considered public nuisances and should be
protected by right-to-practice provisions.
Large resource conversion activities should be considered industrial
and be consistent with the goals and policies of industrial land uses.
Resource industries should follow best management practices
concerning air and water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and
shoreline and critical areas.
Property owners should be encouraged to participate in the
Washington State Open Space/Agricultural/Timberland tax
program,
The utilization of natural resource lands should be done in a manner
which does not cause undue adverse impacts to neighboring
properties or public facilities.
Reclamation should be done in stages as the extraction of resources
proceeds.
The retention of land in fanning use should be encouraged through
tax incentives, purchase of development rights, and regulation of
land subdivision.
Encourage the use of use of farm conservation plans that use best
management practices to avoid or reduce impacts on water quality
and other environmental values.
Retention of large parcels of land should be encouraged to preserve
the commercial viability of agriculture.
Aquaculture operations should hannonize insofar as possible with
the local shoreline environment.
Offshore fish and shellfish harvesting should not cause any adverse
impacts to shoreline areas.
Encourage conservation of all forest lands to enhance air and water
quality and fish and wildlife habitat.
Retention of large parcels of land should be encouraged to preserve
the commercial viability of forestry.
Prime forest lands should not be converted to residential uses as
long as less productive land remains available.
Timber harvesting lands should provide buffers to protect forestry
practice from incompatible adjacent uses.
Potential mineral lands should be identified and assessed to assure
the best sites are used considering quality, quantity, distance from
markets, and impact on adjacent lands.
Plans should be prepared for post-project use of properties from
which non-renewable resources will be extracted. The subsequent
use of these sites should be compatible with the surrounding area.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VûL
24 (~r,'
2Cl8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
C-5
APPENDIX C
HOUSING ELEMENT
.
The key components of the Housing Element as envisioned in the community planning process are
summarized in the following table:
Siting of Affordable Housing
Design
Regulatory Framework
Environmental Protection
.
Encourage construction of affordable housing throughout
Jefferson County.
Provide areas for development of a variety of low-income and
elderly housing, including single family residences, multi-family
residences and mobile homes.
Higher density housing, including multi-family residences, should
be located within the UGA of Port Townsend or within those
Rural Centers which have adequate infrastructure to accommodate
such higher density. Port Ludlow is one such Rural Center.
Innovative residential development with respect to architectural
and structural design, utility systems, and site layout shall be
encouraged.
Encourage upgrading and renovation of existing deteriorating
housing units.
Maintain rural community character through the use of open
space, setbacks, and retention of natural vegetation.
Utilize cluster development, community drainfields, and
community water systems to preserve resource lands and promote
affordable housing.
Codes and standards should contain sufficient flexibility to permit
innovation and experimentation.
Manufactured. and mobile homes should be regulated as
conventional housing and meet the same standards with respect to
density, water supply, and sewage disposal.
Residential development should be sensitive to areas of natural
limitations. Siting of homes should be appropriate with respect to
natural features and hazard areas.
Residential development should be designed to minimize the
obstruction of natural site values and their availability to existing
and future development on adjacent sites.
Encourage the use of the best soils for septic drainfields through
the use of septic easements and community drainfields.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VOL
24 rA['~
2 ()'19
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
C-6
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION, AND mSTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
The key components of open space protection, parks and recreation enhancement, and historic
preservation as envisioned in the community plans is summarized in the following table:
1. Open space
. The retention of private and public lands in their natural state
should be encouraged.
. Open space should connect to other open space, thereby fonning
a continuous corridor.
. Wildlife habitat and greenbelts should be preserved.
. Property owners are encouraged to sepatate areas of
development with greenbelts or open space areas and provide
trails to link into a system.
. Property owners should be encouraged to take advantage of the
Open Space/Agriculture/Timberland tax program of Washington
State.
. Property owners are encouraged to use restrictive covenants or
easements which provide for open space when developing their
property.
. Jefferson County should make available pre-pem1Ït educational
materials and development guidelines which explain the
importance of preserving natural systems and open space, and
how to accomplish this.
. Natural open spaces and recreational development should be one
of the primary uses of the land adjoining shorelines.
. Prevent further loss of public access to and enjoyment of the
shorelines by including areas for recreation in the open space
system, such as trails and pocket parks for viewing Protection
Island, Discovery Bay and the Straits of Juan de Fuca~
. Utilize waterways and wetlands buffers (setbacks) to connect
open spaces as a way to maintain the interconnectedness of
wetlands and habitat.
Support entities such as Jefferson Land Trust to preserve open space
and wildlife corridors.
VOL
2 4 r.~[:
2 c"~o
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-7
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX C
2. Parks, Trail Systems and
Recreation
3. Historic Preservation
.
Park and recreational facilities should be located, designed, and
constructed to be compatible with natural features and resources.
Acquisition and development of park and recreational facilities
should be in response to current and anticipated needs of area
residents.
Citizen participation should be an integral part in the planning
and improvement of parks and recreational areas.
Specific community parks and recreational facilities that provide
for active and passive recreation should be included in the
Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Plan.
Residential subdivisions should include provisions for
community use such as open space and recreational areas.
Recreational facilities along shorelines should be consistent with
the goals, policies and performance standards of the Jefferson
County Shoreline Management Master Program.
Parks and recreational facilities should be located, designed, and
constructed to be compatible with natural features such as soils,
geology, topography, and shoreline resources.
Integrated and coordinated County-wide trail systems (both
public and private) for walking, hiking, cycling and riding
horses should be developed.
Self-guided nature trails and plcmc facilities should be
established.
The preservation of lands, sites and structures that have
historical or archaeological significance is encouraged.
A cultural center and park with its focus on the American Indian
burial grounds and our Indian heritage should be developed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1995 Parks Comprehensive Plan Community Involvement
Adopted in June 1995, the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan reflects the values and wishes of
Jefferson County residents. Opportunities for citizen participation and input to the planning process were
provided through the following methods of public involvement:
1989 County-wide Park and Recreation Survey;
1989-1990 Special Committee;
1990 Public Workshops;
1990 Public Hearings;
1995 Five-year Update of the 1990 Parks Comprehensive Plan;
1995 Environmental Review; and,
1995 Public Hearing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The 1989 survey asked specific questions related to the use and support of existing facilities and activities
and the preference for proposed projects and recreational offerings. The comments section of the survey
allowed respondents to express concerns, criticism and praise about current operations and proposed or
desired projects and facilities. .
VOL
24 rM;~
.2CSl
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
C-8
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
The survey documented a high level of citizen concern with park and recreation issues. The results of the
survey indicated that County residents are willing to support various activities and facilities, and that open
space, "pocket parks" and greenbelts were very important for recreational activities. The survey supplied
important information about the specific needs and concerns of the residents of different planning areas.
The Plan was developed by the Jefferson County Parks Advisory Board. The meetings of the Board were
open to the public and the meeting minutes were published in the local weekly newspaper, The Port
Townsend/Jefferson County Leader. Five public workshops were held during the preparation of public
involvement of the 1990 Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan. The County Planning
Commission held a workshop, plan review and a final hearing in May 1990.
In 1993, the community-based planning groups described above were formed to produce community
plans including goals and policies that reflected the character of their area. Many of the resulting
community plans address the issues of parks, recreation and open space with a local community focus.
In 1995, the 1990 Parks Comprehensive Plan was updated to assure consistency with the CUITent County
policies and plans. A public meeting to solicit public input on the revised Jefferson County Parks
Comprehensive Plan was held on June 7, 1995. Following the public meeting, the Board adopted the
Plan by Resolution No. 50:-95.
ECONONUCDEVELOPMENTELEMENT
The following table summarizes the key components of the Economic Development Element as
envisioned in the community planning process.
Land Use
Ensure that there is a sufficient supply of zoned land with adequate
infrastructure to accommodate economic growth and development
projections.
Industrial development should be located in the Glen Cove Industrial
Park. Resource-based industries are appropriate outside ofUGAs.
Commercial strip development should be avoided throughout the County.
A variety of commercial uses serving the immediate rural area should be
allowed within existing Rural Village Centers.
Existing, legally established commercial or industrial uses outside of the
Rural Village Center or rural crossroads zone should be defined as legal
conforming uses, not non-conforming uses.
Commercial land uses in Rural Village Centers should serve the local
population and traveling public.
Home-based businesses are encouraged and allowed throughout the
County's rural areas, but are not considered commercial activities.
Survey existing infrastructure to identify strengths, weaknesses, issues
and responsibilities.
Inventory existing water resources for Jefferson County; identify and seek
funding solutions to water supply and availability issues.
Encourage coordination between permitting and regulatory agencies, and
a uniform interpretation of policies and regulations among agencies and
staff.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Infrastructure
.
.
Regulatory
Framework
.
VOI-
~4 rM,::
2C32
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-9
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX C
Tourism
Workforce
ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Develop and provide an easy-to-follow road map of necessary regulations
to ensure that applicants will be aware of the time frame and not
subjected to "surprises" throughout the process.
Identify and implement measures to streamline the permitting process.
(i.e., elimination of unnecessary permit requirements).
Support a coordinated approach to marketing Jefferson County and Port
Townsend as tourist destinations. Encourage visitors to use Jefferson
County as "home base" while visiting the region's attractions.
Support the variety of arts programs and festivals which attract visitors to
Jefferson County while providing employment, recreational and cultural
opportunities to residents.
Identify and promote off-season marketing opportunities to attract visitors
to Jefferson County throughout the year.
Promote programs and services which provide vocational and
professional training opportunities for Jefferson County residents,
creating a skilled labor force for existing and future employers in
Jefferson County
Support training programs which enhance the skills of employees
working in industries with identified or emerging competitive advantages
The community involvement process in which the citizens of Jefferson County participated in the
development of the Comprehensive Plan is described in the Introduction to this plan. A community
preference summary for environmental issues based on the community forums held early in the process is
provided in the table below. These goals provided both a starting point and prioritization for the
Environmental Element goals, policies, and strategies for Jefferson County.
The following table summarizes the key components of the Environment Element as envisioned in the
community planning process. .
Water Resources
.
The cumulative impacts to the quantity and quality of water
resources should be considered and evaluated before development
occurs.
Ground water resources, aquifer recharge areas, surface waters, and
shorelines should be protected from residential wastes, non-point
source pollution, erosion, and storm water run-off.
The maximum residential density should depend upon the amount
of land needed to protect an on-site well and to dispose of waste
water.
Adequate buffer zones should be established around water resource
areas to protect their natural functions,
Development should minimize the impact of roads, infrastructure,
buildings, and landscaping on aquifer recharge areas.
The County should provide incentives and promote regulatory
reform that will reduce domestic water use.
.
.
.
.
.
. VOL
24 rA['~
2 f~,53
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28,1998
C-lO
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
.
Development and Land Use.
Standards
Critical Areas
Natural Hazard Areas
.
Shorelines
Fish and Wildlife habitat
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
.
Development should be compatible with the physical features of the
site. Diversity and originality in site, building, and infrastructure
design should be encouraged to achieve the best possible
relationship between development and the land.
Flexible development standards should be used to maximize open
space and minimize the removal of vegetation.
On-site drainage controls should be required to reduce erosion, and
prevent run-off onto adjacent properties.
Development activities and land uses should not adversely affect
nearby properties with traffic, noise, odors, or air and water quality
degradation.
Environmental concerns should be addressed with scientific
evidence when dividing large parcels of land.
Pre-penn it educational materials and development guidelines that
explain the importance of preserving natural systems should be
made available.
Development in environmentally sensitive areas should only be
allowed if adverse impacts are adequately mitigated.
County guidelines for the restoration, creation, or enhancement of
wetlands and their buffers should be strictly enforced.
Development within the floodplain of rivers and streams should be
designed and maintained so as not to present a hazard to its
occupants or downstream properties.
In no case may construction take place in floodways.
Development may occur on geologically unstable areas or steep
slopes if adequately and appropriately designed to minimize
adverse impacts to the development, adjacent properties, and public
resources.
Recreational facilities and provisions for public access to shoreline
areas should be increased.
Development along shorelines should follow the appropriate
policies and perfonnance standards contained in the Shoreline
Management Master Program.
Marine waters should be protected from septic tank effluent, non-
point source pollution, erosion, and stonn water run-off.
Property owners should be encouraged to create and maintain
continuous wildlife corridors with native vegetation to connect
wooded areas across property lines.
Development within the floodplain of rivers and streams should not
have a detrimental effect on streamside habitats.
Encourage the implementation of new methods of restoring fish
runs to rivers and stream beds.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Transportation Element was developed over a four year period that included participation by many
Jefferson County residents, community and interest groups, and local, state and regional government
representatives and elected òfficials.Meetings were held throughout the County in the various
VCI-
2 4 r~~:
2 GD~i4
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28, 1998
C-ll
APPENDIX C
community planning areas. County residents voiced their concerns about transportation issues and
offered recommendations for improvements which have been incorporated into the Transportation
Element.
.
UTILITIES ELEMENT
The Utilities Element relies on data and infonnation shared by the utility providers. Within Jefferson
County, both public (e.g., City of Port Townsend and special purpose districts) and private purveyors
provide electricity, water service and sanitary sewer disposal and treatment. Telecommunications
services, including cable television service, are provided by private companies. The City of Port
Townsend provides sanitary sewer service for residents within the City. Jefferson County government
oversees solid waste collection and disposal for unincorporated areas and the City of Port Townsend.
The collection of infonnation in support of the Utilities Element began in 1993 by gathering
representation from all providers of public service who owned or operated public facilities in Jefferson
County. A series of workshop sessions were conducted to provide infonnation on the requirements of
GMA. In September of 1994, each representative was given a series of fonDS that included sheets
addressing the following categories:
.
Existing Inventory
Project Costs And Revenue
Operating Budget Impact Of Capital Projects
Land Development Impact Of Capital Projects
Future Proposed Facilities
Regulatory/Compliance Issues
Environmental Issues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Each representative was also requested to provide a copy. of the current County land use map marked
with the location of each facility by type. This infonnation was collected and combined to produce
summary infonnation from which the Utilities Element was developed.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
Beginning in 1993, Jefferson County began the process of preparing a Capital Facilities Element by
conducting a series of workshop sessions to provide infonnation on the requirements of GMA to
representatives of all the entities which own or operate public facilities in Jefferson County. In September
of 1994 each entity was requested to provide the following:
.
Existing inventory
New projects for the existing population
New projects for growth through the year 2002
Major repair, renovation or replacement of existing facilities
Project costs and revenue
Operating budget impact of capital projects
Land development impact of capital projects
.
.
.
.
.
.
Each entity also provided a copy of a current County land use map showing the location of each type of
facility. ",
.
VOI-
24. r' Irç
" l,-
2C,55
C-I2
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
The information received was used to produce summary costs from which the Capital Facilities Element
was developed. The provider representatives presented financing proposals and proposed Levels of
Service for each project and area. Through a collaborative process, methods for determining Level of
Service standards were selected. This information was summarized and the options for financing and
Level of Service standards were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their final
decisions on the alternatives identified. The plan forwarded by the Planning Commission is based upon
these selections.
\/",
1LJI-
? 4 '~c:~
'-' - (,,--
2C,56
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-13
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX C
, VOL
24 ur;~
2C57
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
C-14
August 28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
APPEND IX D
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
In order to identify recommendations to guide development of rural lands, it is necessary to provide a
framework for decision-making. This appendix provides a review of the Growth Management Act
requirements, and includes the legal requirements in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the
more specific Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for each Comprehensive Plan element.
LAND USEIRURAL ELEMENT
Revised Code of Washington
The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) was adopted by the Washington State Legislature in March
of 1990. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.070 states that each Comprehensive Plan shall
include a land use element which addresses the following:
"...the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land, where
appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces,
public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses. The land use element shall include population
densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. "
The Growth Management Act did not specifically identify appropriate densities for urban or rural areas.
Chapter 36.70A.IIO(1) RCW stated the following:
"Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.O40 shall designate an urban
growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can
occur only ifit is not urban in nature. "
In 1997, the State Legislature amended the GMA to provide definitions of "rural development," "rural
character," and "rural governmental services." Rural development "...can consist of a variety of uses and
residential densities, including clustered residential development, at levels that are consistent with the
preservation of rural character...." RCW 36.70A.030(15) The definition of rural character explains this
further:
"Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development....
a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment;
b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and
work in rural areas;
b) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
c) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife andfor fish and wildlife habitat;
d) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development;
e) That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
j) That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface
water recharge and discharge areas, " RCW 36. 70A.O30(14)
24 rAG~
VOL
2 C,58
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-l
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX D
Jefferson County has developed the Land Use and Rural Element in order to establish land use and
development patterns which preserve the County's rural character consistent with all of the components
listed in the definition of rural character.
.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) did not specifically define rural areas in the original Growth
Management Act (GMA). In 1997, an amendment to the GMA enacted in Engrossed Substitute Bill
6094 provided the following definition of "rural development:"
"....development outside the urban growth area and outside agricultural, forest, and mineral resource
lands designated pursuant to RCW 36. 70A. J 70. Rural Development can consist of a variety of uses and
residential densities, including clustered residential development, at levels that are consistent with the
preservation of rural character and the requirements of the rural element. Rural development does not
refer to agriculture or forestry activities that may be conducted in rural areas, "RCW 36.70A030(l5)
The 1997 amendment also included a definition of "rural governmental services" which provides further
guidance regarding the services appropriate to rural development:
"... . rural services include those public services and public facilities historically and typically delivered at
an intensity usually found in rural areas, and may include domestic water systems, fire and police
protection services, transportation and public transit services, and other public utilities associated with
rural development and normally not associated with urban areas, Rural services do not include storm or
sanitary sewers, except as otherwise authorized by RCW 36. lOAJ 10(4). "
Washington Administrative Code
Section 365-195 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provides guidance on the
implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA), and requires Land Use Elements to contain the
following features:
.
1. Designation of the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land,
where appropriate, for agriculture, timber production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open
spaces, public utilities, public facilities, and other land uses.
2. Population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth.
3. Provisions for environmental quality protection.
4. Provisions for ground water and public water supply quality protection.
5. A review of drainage, flooding and stonn water runoff in the area covered by the plan and nearby
jurisdictions.
6. Guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the
State, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound.
Working together, these goals serve to guide Jefferson County in the preparation of a Land Use and Rural
Element which meets the needs of the citizens of Jefferson County while complying with the intent and
requirements of the Growth Management Act. This Comprehensive Plan includes an Environmental
Element which provides water resource protection goals, policies, and regulations which, when applied
individually or collectively, serve to protect the waters of the State. Therefore, Jefferson County will
specifically address required environmental issues in the Environment Element of this Comprehensive
Plan.
Section 365.195 also contains requirements for the preservation of rural character and the provision of a
variety of rural densities. Counties planning under GMA are directed to prepare a Rural Element which
contains the following: (2 4 r' ~[,~ 2 C,59
VOL
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-2
August 28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
"The [Rural Element) shall include lands that are not designated for urban growth, agricultureJorest, or
mineral resources. The rural element shall permit land uses that are compatible with the rural character
of such lands and provide for a variety of rural densities. "
To meet these requirements, guidance on achieving the following goals is provided in the Rural Element:
.
The preservation of rural character;
The pennitting of appropriate land uses that are compatible with the rural character of non-urban
or non-resource lands;
The provision of a variety of rural densities;
The prevention of sprawl; and,
The direction of population growth to urban areas.
.
.
.
.
NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
Revised Code of Washington
All jurisdictions planning under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA) are required to
designate Agricultural, Forest and Mineral Lands of Long-Tenn Commercial Significance and to adopt
development regulations to assure the conservation of these natural resource lands by September 1, 1991.
The purpose of these "interim" designations and regulations was to conserve the resource land base of
each jurisdiction until such time as this was accomplished for the 20-year planning period by the adoption
of a Comprehensive Plan.
The Growth Management Act adopted a series of goals to guide the development of comprehensive plans
and development regulations. As stated in Chapter 36.70A.O20 (8), the planning goals for natural
resource industries are as follows:
"Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and
fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive agricultural lands, and discourage
incompatible uses. "
As part of the process of achieving this goal, Chapter 36.70A.170 states that each jurisdiction shall
develop criteria and designate the following natural resource lands in its comprehensive plan:
.
Agricultural lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term
significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products;
.
Forest lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term
significance for the commercial production of timber; and,
.
Mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-
term significance for the extraction ofminerals,
In order to meet the requirements ofthe GMA, the Comprehensive Plan must develop a strategy to assure
the conservation of these agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands. The RCW s do not spell out how
this strategy must function. Rather, the Act establishes parameters that must be adhered to. For example,
Chapter 36.7~A.O60 states:
, ,VOL
24f,A[~
2CGO
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-3
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX D
"... the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the
continued use, in the accustomed manner and in accordance with the best management practices, of these
designated lands for the production of food, agricultural products, or timber, or for the extraction of
minerals. "
.
Washington Administrative Code
Specifically, Chapter 365-195-400 directs jurisdictions planning under GMA to prepare a comprehensive
plan that meets the following requirements:
"Prior to the development of comprehensive plans, cities and counties ought to have designated natural
resource lands of long-term commercial significance and adopted development regulations to assure
their conservation. The previous designations and development regulations shall be reviewed in
connection with the comprehensive plan adoption process and where necessary be altered to ensure
consistency."
To meet this requirement, the comprehensive plan must provide direction on achieving the following
goals:
.
The identification of natural resource land classification criteria, consistent with the guidelines
issued by the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development;
The designation of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands;
The encouragement of productive and sustainable management of natural resource lands; and,
The prevention of uses on and adjacent to natural resource lands that are incompatible with their
conservation.
.
.
.
.
Working together, these goals serve to guide Jefferson County in the preparation of a Natural Resource
Lands Element which meets the needs ofthe citizens of Jefferson County while complying with the intent,
and requirements of the Growth Management Act.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Revised Code of Washington
Jurisdictions planning under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA) are required to adopt
a Comprehensive Plan that includes a Housing Element. The GMA established the following housing
planning goals:
.
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population;
Promote a variety of residential densities and housing types; and
Encourage the preservation of the existing housing stock.
.
.
Because housing is an issue of regional scale and importance, the Growth Management Act requires
inter jurisdictional coordination and development of County-wide policies to address these housing
planning goals. These policies must allow a "fair share" process for the distribution and accommodation
of the full range of housing types and income groups throughout the region.
.
VOL
2 4 rAG~
2C61
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-4
August.28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
Washington Administrative Code
The Housing Element is a mandatory component of a jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan.
WAC 365-195-310 requires each county planning under the provisions of the GMA to include the
following features:
.
An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs;
A statement of the goals, policies, and objectives for the improvement, preservation, and
development of housing;
Identification of sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government assisted
housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multi-family housing, and
group homes and foster care facilities; and,
Adequate provision for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.
.
.
.
These procedural criteria provide the legislative framework for the preparation of the Jefferson County
Housing Element.
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
Revised Code of Washington
The Growth Management Act established the following planning goals for open space protection:
.
Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish
and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks;
.
Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality,
and the availability of water;
Maintain and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and
fisheries industries; and,
Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and
discourage incompatible use.
.
.
RCW 36.70AO20 defines recreation as an integral part of public services: "Public Services include fire
protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental
protection, and other government services."
Another provision is contained in RCW 36.70AI50: "Each county...shall identify lands useful for
public purposes such as ... recreation". RCW 36.70AO80 states that recreation may constitute an optional
element in a comprehensive plan: "A comprehensive plan may include additional elements, .... including
... recreation."
The foundation of planning for archaeological and historic preservation under the Act is found in RCW
36.70AO20(l3). This goal involves the identification of, and encouragement for, preservation of "lands,
sites, and structures," with historical or archaeological significance. While RCW 36.70AO70 does not
require the inclusion of an archaeological or historic preservation element, it may be included at the
discretion of the planning jurisdiction.
VOL,
24 rAC:
2 GG2
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-5
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX D
Washington State Open Space Act
The Washington State Open Space Act (RCW 84.34.020) defines open space as any land area, the
preservation of which, in its present use, would:
.
.
Conserve or enhance natural, cultural or scenic resources;
Protect streams, stream corridors, wetlands, natural shorelines and aquifers;
Protect soil resources and unique or critical wildlife and native plant habitat;
Promote conservation principles by example or by offering educational opportunities;
Enhance the value of parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations and other open spaces;
Enhance recreational opportunities; or,
Preserve historic and/or archaeological sites.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Washington Administrative Code
Although a Parks, Open Space and Recreation Element is not a mandatory component of a jurisdiction's
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 365~ 195-345( c) recommends that consideration be given to including such
an element in the Plan.
WAC 365~195~420 requires each county planning under the act to identify open space corridors within
and between Urban Growth Areas: "They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails,
and connection of critical areas...."
ECONONUCDEVELOPMENTELEMENT
.
Revised Code of Washington
Jurisdictions planning under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA) are required to use
State~wide goals for the purpose of guiding the development of the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent
Development Regulations. One of these State-wide goals is to "[e]ncourage economic development
throughout the State that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity
for all citizens of this State, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage[s]
growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the State's natural
resources, public services, and public facilities."
While the GMA does not require a jurisdiction planning under the GMA to develop a "stand alone"
economic development element, Jefferson County has prepared an economic development element for
inclusion in its Comprehensive Plan to foster economic development activities that meet the intent of the
State~wide economic development goal.
Washington Administrative Code
While economic development is not a required element of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, WAC
365~ 195-060(2) states:
"[tJhe Act lists economic development as one of the overall goals, but does not mandate an economic
development element within comprehensive plans. This should not be read as a downgrading of the
importance of economic development as a feature of the growth management planning and
implementation process. Planning under the Act in connection with all mandatory elements should be
24 ¡~~Œ 2 G'Ô3
.
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-6
August 28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
undertaken with the goal of economic development in mind Whether the jurisdiction elects to develop a
separate economic development element or not, desired levels of job growth, and of commercial and
industrial expansion should be identified and supporting strategies should be integrated with the land
use, housing, utilities, transportation and other features of the comprehensive plan."
E~ONMENTELEMENT
Revised Code of Washington
The Growth Management Act adopted a series of goals to guide the development of comprehensive plans
and development regulations. As stated in Chapter 36.70A020 (10), the planning goals for the
environment are as follows:
"Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and
the availability of water. "
As part of the process of achieving this goal, Chapter 36.70A170 states that each jurisdiction shall
develop criteria and designate the following critical areas in its comprehensive plan:
.
Wetlands;
Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water;
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
Frequently flooded areas; and,
Geologically hazardous areas.
.
.
.
.
In order to meet the requirements of the GMA, the Comprehensive Plan must develop a strategy to protect
these critical areas.
Washington Administrative Code
While an environmental chapter is not a mandatory element of a jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 369-195-345 recommends that "strong consideration be given" to including an element on
"environmental protection, including critical areas."
More specifically, Chapter 365-195-410 directs jurisdictions planning under GMA to prepare a
comprehensive plan that meets the following requirements:
"Prior to the development of comprehensive plans, cities and counties ought to have designated critical
areas and adopted development regulations protective of them. The previous designations and
development regulations shall be reviewed in the comprehensive plan process to ensure consistency."
To meet this requirement for critical areas, the Comprehensive Plan must provide direction on achieving
the following goals:
.
Identification of classification criteria for critical areas, consistent with the guidelines issued by
the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development; ,
Designation of critical areas wherever the applicable natural conditions exist; and,
Development of the policies and processes, including regulation and other means, that will be
used to make decisions regarding the protection of critical areas.
.
.
VOI-
2 4 rA[;~
2(;34
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-7
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX D
Additional parameters for environmental protection of water resources are provided in the requirements
for the mandatory Land Use Element (WAC 365-195-305):
.
.
Review of drainage, flooding and storm water runoff in the area covered by the Plan and nearby
jurisdictions;
Guidelines for corrective actions that mitigate or cleanse those discharges;
Creation of a strategy to protect ground water quality and quantity; and,
Development of a cooperative, integrated, watershed based approach to identified pollution
problems.
.
.
.
The Washington State Legislature acted on its commitment to watershed planning and management in
1998 by passing HSB 2514, providing for local governments to develop watershed planning units based
on collaborative, stakeholder representation. In addition, the state is responding to 1998 proposed listings
of a number of salmon species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Governor's Office of
Salmon Policy has been established and funded through ESHB 2496 and passed by the legislature in
1998. In order to address salmon recovery, policies recommend that land use activities in many areas will
be regulated according to watershed-based salmon recovery plans which are approved by the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan provides goals, policies, and strategies
to integrate the watershed approach with a goal of salmon recovery.
The Environmental Element reflects the GMA requirements for environmental protection. Four strategies
are developed: one for a watershed approach, a second for a consolidated regulatory process, a third for
critical areas, and a fourth for public education and involvement. This approach ensures that each
strategy fully addresses the recommendations contained in the Growth Management Act and the
Washington Administrative Code.
.
Working together, these strategies serve to guide Jefferson County in the preparation of an Environmental
Element that meets the needs of the citizens of Jefferson County while complying with the intent and
requirements of the Growth Management Act and other state and federal environmental laws.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACll..ITIES ELEMENT
Revised Code of Washington
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.200 requires each jurisdictions' Comprehensive Plan to
include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. This section defines "Essential
public facilities" as:
"those facilities typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional
transportation facilities, state or local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities and in-
patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group homes. "
RCW 36.70A.200 (2) states that:
"The Office of Financial Management (OFM) shall maintain a list of those essential state public facilities
that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. The Office of Financial Management may
at any time add facilities to the list. No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may
preclude the siting of essential public facilities. "
.VOL
2 A , ~c~
L:f:: (",I
2 ........-..,-
LJo~
.
. .
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-8
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
In addition to the list maintained by OFM, Jefferson County and its cities and towns may identify other
additional public facilities that are essential to providing services to residents and without which
development cannot occur.
Washington Administrative Code
Section 365-195 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC requires each comprehensive plan to
include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. Section 365-195-840 requires each
jurisdiction to list those types of facilities determined locally to be essential, pursuant to the definition and
criteria established in the jurisdictions comprehensive plan. This is in addition to the list maintained by
OFM.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Each comprehensive plan developed under GMA is required to contain a transportation element which
meets several criteria. These criteria are outlined in the following sections:
Revised Code of Washington
Under RCW 36.70A.70, a comprehensive plan must contain a Transportation Element:
/I... that implements, and is consistent with, the land use element. The transportation element
shall contain the following sub-elements:
(a) Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;
(b) Facilities and services needs, including:
(i) An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit
alignments, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for juture planning.
(ii) Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge
performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated,
(iii) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that
are below an established level of service standard;
(iv) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide
information in the location, timing, and capacity needs of juture growth;
(v) Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to
meet current andjuture demands;
(c) Finance, including:
(i) An analysis of junding capability to judge needs against probable junding resources;
(ii) A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the
appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit
program required by RCW 35.77,010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW
35.58.2795 for public transportation systems;
(iii) If probable junding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional
funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of
service standards will be met;
(d) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the
transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions;
(e) Demand management strategies. .
YO 1-
2 4 rAG~
2 ."""""'6
. LJo
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-9
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX D
After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under
RCW 36.70A040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development
approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the
standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the
development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing
programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies. For the
purposes of this subsection (6) "concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or
strategies are in place at the time of development or that a financial commitment is in place to complete
the improvements or strategies within six years.
The transportation element described in this subsection, and the six year plans required by RCW
35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58,2795 for public transportation
systems, must be consistent. [1990 Istex.s. §17( 7]
Washington Administrative Code
Section 365-195 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provides guidance for the
implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Specifically, Chapter 365-195-325 directs
jurisdictions planning under GMA to prepare a comprehensive plan which includes a Transportation
Element containing at least the subelements described above (under Revised Code of Washmgton).
WAC Chapter 365-195-325 recommends these be followed in the preparation of the transportation
element:
.
Development of local and regional transportation goals and policies for the full spectrum of
transportation modes.
Discussion of the relationship and consistency between the transportation element and the land
use element and between the transportation element and the regional transportation plan.
Inventories of existing transportation facilities, systems, and demands.
Definition of the level of service (LOS) to be adopted for the transportation system.
Inclusion of consideration for repair, replacement or enhancement, and/or expansion in discussion
of system expansion needs.
Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
implementation measures, including provisions for evaluation of strategy effectiveness and
identification of funding sources.
Intergovernmental Coordination.
.
.
.
.
.
.
UTILITIES ELEMENT
The framework for Comprehensive Plan decision-making for utilities planning includes six key
components: (1) the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), (2) the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC), (3) County-wide Planning Policy (CWPP) adopted jointly by the City of Port Townsend and
Jefferson County, (4) utility-specific comprehensive plans including those prepared by entities other than
Jefferson County including the City of Port Townsend, Public Utility District No.1 and other special
service districts, (5) the decisions of the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Boards which
are summarized in the legal appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, and (6) Public Service Utility providers
input.
'. \'Ol
24 f~Œ
2CS7
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-IO
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
General Statutory Requirements .
The Utilities Element was developed in accordance with Section 36.70A.070 of the Washington Growth
Management Act (GMA) to address utility facilities and services within Jefferson County during the next
20 years (1998-2018). The Utilities Element must be consistent with other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as with County-wide Planning Policies (CWPP) and Growth Management
Planning Goals as adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners.
Utilities, as defined in this element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, include all lines and
facilities used to distribute, collect, transmit, or control electric power, water, sanitary sewer, stonn water
management systems, solid waste, and telecommunications.
Most Jefferson County utilities are operated by special purpose districts and private companies, or are
provided by the City of Port Townsend. County responsibility for utilities provided by other agencies
varies from regulating use ofland to managing activities in public rights-of-way.
Electrical and telecommunications systems are regionally-based services, and are regulated directly and
indirectly at several levels, including the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC),
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC),
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Utilities under the jurisdiction of the WUTC must
provide suitable facilities to supply service on demand. State law regulates the rates and charges,
services, facilities, and operations of most utility services. Proposed changes in policy, particularly
changes in customer charges or the provision of services, usually require Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC) review and approval.
Changing regulations at every level affect the way in which utilities within the County will be managed in
the 20-year planning period. Changes in the competitive marketplace, in new and varying electrical and
telecommunications needs, and in the transmission of power and provision of telecommunications
services among different purveyors will most likely affect the way in which electric power and
telecommunications services are marketed, transmitted, and used.
Revised Code of Washington
The Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A070 (4) identifies the following for mandatory inclusion in
a Comprehensive Plan:
"A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and
proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas'
lines. "
In confonnance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element
identifies planning objectives, principles, and standards to guide development of utility facilities and
services within Jefferson County, for the next 20 years (1998-2018). Utilities, defined as an element of
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, include the following systems: water, sanitary sewer, solid
waste, telecommunications, electrical, and surface/stonn water utility systems. The goals, policies, and
strategies identified in the Utilities Element meet GMA planning goals, including those associated with
urban growth, reduction of sprawl, open space and recreation, and public facilities and services.
vat
<')4
t.... f ~.~~
.2G68
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-ll
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX D
Washington Administrative Code
Section 365-195-320 of the Washington Administrative Code provides recommendations for meeting the
requirements for the Utilities Element and implementation of the Growth Management Act. WAC 365-
195-320 (2) recommends the following in preparing the Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element:
.
.
Ensure integration of general location and capacity of existing and proposed utility facilities with
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element.
Analysis of utility capacity to seIVe the growth anticipated in the County including consideration
of comprehensive utility plans, least-cost plans, load forecasts, and other planning activities.
General locations of utility lines and facilities required to serve the growth anticipated in the
County, including evaluation of utilities which may potentially be defined as essential public
facilities.
Development of local utility siting criteria
Coordination among adjacent planning jurisdictions to ensure the consistency of each
jurisdiction's utilities element and regional utility plans, and development of a coordinated
process for siting regional utility facilities in a timely manner.
.
.
.
.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
Revised Code of Washington
The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) was adopted by the Washington State Legislature in March
of 1990. The Act adopted a series of goals to guide the development of comprehensive plans and
development regulations. As stated in Chapter 36.70A.020 (12), the planning goal for public facilities and
seIVices is as follows:
.
"Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to
serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current service levels below locally established minimum standards. "
In order to achieve this goal, Chapter 36.70A.070(3) requires that each jurisdiction shall include a capital
facilities element in its comprehensive plan consisting of:
(a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and
capacities of the capital facilities;
(b) A forecast of future needs for such capitalfacilities;
(c) The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
(d) At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projectedfunding capacities and
clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and
(e) A requirement to reassess the land use plan element ifprobable fundingfalls short of meeting existing
needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within
the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent.
VOL
24 fW:
2 "":C'9
tJ'L"
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-12
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX D
The terms "public facilities" and "public services" are defined as follows in RCW 36.70A.O30:
(12) Public facilities include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic
signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and
schools.
(13) Public services include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education,
recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services.
As noted above, the Growth Management Act requires the County to
"Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to
serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current service levels below locally established minimum standards, "
In the case of most public facilities this can be achieved by the "requirement to reassess the land use plan
element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs ". RCW 36.70A.O70(3)(e). Denial of
development approvals is not required by the Act. However, in the case of transportation facilities, the
Act specifically requires that:
"... local governments must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the
development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards
adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or
strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development ... For
the purposes of this subsection, "concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or
strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete
the improvements or strategies within six years." (RCW 36.70A.O70(6)(e)
Washington Administrative Code
Section 365-195 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provides guidance on the
implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Specifically, Chapter 365-195-315 Capital
facilities element states that "The capital facilities element should serve as a check on the practicality of
achieving the other elements of the plan. "
Chapter 365-195-315 WAC recommends the following steps in preparing the capital facilities element:
(a) Inventory of existing capital facilities showing locations and capacities, including inventory of the
extent to which existing facilities possess presently unused capacity. Capital facilities involved should
include water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection facilities.
(b) The selection of levels of service or planning assumptions for the various facilities to apply during the
planning period (twenty years or more) and which reflect community goals.
(c) A forecast for future needs for such capital facilities based on the levels of service or planning
assumptions selected and consistent with the growth, densities, and distribution of growth anticipated in
the land use element.
(d) The creation of a six-year capital facilities plan for financing capital facilities needed within that time
frame. projected funding capacities are to be evaluated followed by the identification of sources of public
or private funds for which there is reasonable assurance of availability. The six-year plan should be
'.,'Ot
,) "
.t... 4 r' ~ r c
~l;-
2 ---"'jO
- ~ : {
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-13
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX D
updated at least biennially so that the financing plan remains sufficiently ahead of the present for
concurrency to be evaluated
(e) The needs for capital facilities should be dictated by the phasing schedule set forth in the land use
element.
(f) Provision should be made to reassess the land use element and other elements of the plan periodically
in light of the evolving capital facilities plan. If the probable funding for capital facilities at any time is
insufficient to meet existing needs, the land use element must be reassessed At the same time funding
possibilities and levels of service might also be reassessed. The plan should require that as a result of
such reassessment appropriate action must be taken to ensure the internal consistency of the land use and
capital facilities portions of the plan, The plan should set forth how, if at all, pending applications for
development will be affected while such reassessment is being undertaken.
VOL
24 rAG~
2 C~,f1
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
D-14
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Introduction
Among the first steps in the planning process is to analyze existing conditions in order to identify
deficiencies or surpluses, and to determine current levels of services. The background data are then used
to calculate future level of service projections and identify future needs.
During the planning process and throughout the preparation of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan,
large amounts of data were collected and analyzed. This technical appendix includes background data
upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based, and which were included in the elements of previous draft
versions of Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan. In response to public comment, the information has
been relocated to this appendix in order to retain the information while providing elements that are more
clearly understood by the public.
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Interim Natural Resource Lands Ordinances
The Growth Management Act required all jurisdictions planning under its provisions to adopt designation
criteria and development regulations that conserved Agricultural, Forest, and Mineral Lands of Long
Term Commercial Significance. The purpose of these "interim" regulations was to conserve the resource
land base of each jurisdiction until such time as this was accomplished for the 20-year planning period by
the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. Guidance on the identification and designation of these lands was
provided to local governments by the "Minimum Guidelines" of the Department of Community
Development.
The Local Process
Jefferson County began the process of identifying and conserving Agricultural, Forest, and Mineral Lands
of Long-Term Commercial Significance in May, 1991. County Planning staff began public discussion of
alternative approaches by issuing a 'Model Forest Lands Protection Policy Statement' on May 7, followed
by a public forum on forest lands one week later. After the results of this forum were publicized, citizen
workgroups were formed in late September to produce specific policy recommendations. The Resource
Lands Workgroup, composed of interested citizens, representatives of affected property owners, and
Planning Commissioners, released a report on forest and agricultural lands in December, 1991.
In early 1992, the Planning Commission recommended revisions to the Workgroup proposal and
fOIwarded these to the Board of County Commissioners. Planning staff then built upon these
recommendations by holding a series of workshops with the County Commissioners to clarify unresolved
policy issues. These Board workshops allowed staff to produce draft Forest and Mineral Land
Ordinances that were released for the review of the Planning Commission in April and May.
Additionally, the Board of Commissioners provisionally concluded that no Agricultural Lands of Long-
Term Commercial Significance existed in Jefferson County.
\/'"
1U'-
24 f,~~~
2 ., """~':Þ
. ~.J ( ""
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-1
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
.
The draft Mineral Land Ordinance was approved by the Planning Commission with only minor revisions.
However, the draft Forest Land Ordinance was found to be inadequate by the Planning Commission. The
formation of an Ad-Hoc Forest Lands Committee was approved to develop an alternative method for
forest land designation.
On July 22, 1992, the Committee submitted a report on forest land designation to the Planning
Commission. Although a consensus could not be obtained from all participants, the report's
recommendations formed the basis of future discussions of the Forest Land issue. After several months
of revision, the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendations to the Board of Commissioners
in October.
Little progress was made on the designation of natural resource lands until October, 1993, when a Board
of Commissioners workshop was held. The workshop resulted in the reformation of the Ad-Hoc Forest
Lands Committee to evaluate the final Planning Commission recommendations. The Ad-Hoc Committee
met periodically until January, 1994, when two divergent proposals for the designation of Forest Lands
emerged. These alternative designation and conservation plans were reviewed by the Board of
Commissioners and were taken to public hearing in March, 1994.
With two polarized proposals and no indication of movement toward compromise, planning staff issued a
"middle ground" designation proposal for Forest Lands, together with a draft ordinance for the
designation of Mineral Lands. The Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on both these
ordinances in April and directed staff to make necessary changes to these proposed ordinances at review
workshops held in June. The "middle ground" Forest Lands ordinance and the Mineral Lands ordinance
were adopted in July,
.
Also during this time, planning staff produced a draft resolution addressing Agricultural Lands.
Resolution 67-94, adopted in June, built upon the 1992 discussions of the previous County
Commissioners. It concluded that no Agricultural Lands of Long- Term Commercial Significance existed
in Jefferson County as a result of a combination of economic, locational and physical factors.
Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Appeals
These interim ordinances and the Agricultural Lands resolution did not remain in effect without
challenge. In September, 8 and 9, 1994, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(W.W.G.M.H.B.) received petitions for review of the interim mineral and forest land ordinances, together
with Resolution 67-94 addressing agricultural lands, from the Olympic Environmental Council, the
Washington Environmental Council, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
In October, 1994, the County passed an emergency ordinance that committed the County to adopting new'
interim resource land ordinances by November 30, 1994. This reopened the public process for interim
designation of resource lands and allowed the County to accept testimony and hold workshops to consider
the proper criteria for designation. This deadline was later extended, first to December 14, 1994, and later
to February 15, 1995.
A public hearing was held on January 11, 1995, by the W.W.G.M.H.B. on the merits ofthe appeals of the
County's interim natural resource lands ordinances. On February 16, the Hearings Board issued its final
decision and order on the appeals (Case No. 94-2-0017).
.VOL
24 rAr;Ç
2C'73
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
The W.W.G.M.H.B. found Resolution 67-94 out of compliance with the Growth Management Act
because it did not comply with the requirements for the interim designation and protection of agricultural
lands. Specifically, the Board found that there was no evidence in the record to support the County's non-
designation of agricultural lands. Additionally, the language in the resolution that postponed the
designation of agricultural lands was in direct conflict with the requirements of the GMA.
Jefferson County's interim mineral lands ordinance was also found to be out of compliance with the
requirements of the GMA on the grounds that it did not contain regulations addressing the presence of
incompatible land uses on property adjacent to designated mineral resource lands.
The "middle ground" designation scheme of the interim forest lands ordinance was found to violate the
requirements of the GMA. Most significantly, the Board ruled that the designation criteria were not the
result of a reasoned deliberation and decision-making process. Additionally, several of the criteria were
found to be inappropriate factors for the conservation of forest lands, including exemption of forest lands
based upon proximity to a road and restriction of the designation of forest lands to DNR Land Grades 1
through 3. This scheme was found to omit tens of thousands of acres that was devoted to the commercial
production of timber and was not subject to development pressure.
The County was directed by the Hearings Board to adopt interim agriculture, mineral, and forest land
ordinances that designated and protected natural resource lands within 60 days of the issuance ofthe final
decision.
Working Toward Compliance
In response to this decision, the County began drafting ordinances intended to designate and protect
natural resource lands of long-tenD commercial significance. Because the majority of available staff
resources were devoted to producing a new interim forest land ordinance within the mandated deadlines,
the opportunity for a full public participation process to develop the interim agricultural and mineral land
ordinances was limited.
In order to produce an agricultural land designation and conservation system, a thorough review of earlier
public testimony, the Department of Community Development Minimum Guidelines, and U.S.
Department of Commerce statistics was conducted. Through this process, a strategy was designed to
retain land that is both prime agricultural soil and in agricultural use, while providing the landowner with
the flexibility to supplement their agricultural income by providing appropriately scaled development and
use options.
Following review of written testimony received in November 1994, the County began to write a draft
ordinance intended to designate and conserve mineral resource lands of long-tenD commercial
significance. However, review of the draft interim forest lands ordinance suggested that it provided the
necessary framework for assisting in the conservation of potential mineral extraction sites. The size of
the parcels required for the practice of long-tenD forestry and the high degree of overlap between land
devoted to timber growing and land potentially containing commercial mineral deposits offered an
alternative strategy for protection of mineral lands. By including mineral extraction and primary
processing as pennitted uses on designated forest land, Jefferson County's mineral resource land base is
protected, while preserving the possibility of its future utilization.
Interim Agricultural, Mineral, and Forest Lands Ordinances that implemented these strategies were
adopted on May 25, 1995.
VOL
24 r~r;:
2 -~ 1--j II
. tJ' .'".
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-3
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
Through reference to a previously released iteration of the forest lands ordinance and the earlier
deliberations of the Planning Commission, a new draft forest lands ordinance was produced, The
Planning Commission reviewed this draft ordinance and detennined that it did not fully implement the
forest land designation scheme they had developed at earlier workshops. The Planning Commission
requested staff to produce OJ.S. maps that displayed their preferred designation options and declined to
consider the issue any further until this was accomplished.
Based upon the maps of the preferred designation options, the Planning Commission held a workshop to
consider forest land strategies. From this workshop, a two-tier designation and conservation approach
emerged as a consensus. After further analysis and consideration, the Planning Commission completed
their deliberations and produced a forest land designation system that identified two classes of forest
resource land, Commercial Forest Lands ofLong-Tenn Commercial Significance and Rural Forest Lands.
The differences in the two classes were detennined by the size of the parcel and the average net yield per
acre of the land.
A public hearing on the sixth draft of a forest land ordinance was held by the County Commissioners on
May 1, 1995. Following two workshops to review testimony received at the public hearing, an Interim
Forest Lands Ordinance (Number 07-0524-95) was adopted on May 24, 1995. This ordinance became
effective on June 5, 1995.
A compliance hearing on the Forest Lands Ordinance was held by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board on July 18, 1995. The Agricultural Lands Ordinance and the Mineral Lands
Ordinance were not challenged, so they remained in effect without modification. At the compliance
hearing, the following provisions of the Forest Lands Ordinance were found to be out of compliance with
the GMA:
.
The ordinance contained a minimum net yield criterion that excluded lands from Commercial
Forest Land designation that did not produce twenty five-thousand (25,000) board feet of timber
per acre over a fifty (50) year growing cycle. The net yield chosen would exclude all Department
of Revenue Private Forest Land Grade 4 and some Grade 3 land, which is commercially viable in
Jefferson County. The Hearings Board found that this criterion did not adequately protect the land
being commercially forested in Jefferson County.
.
The ordinance contained an "opt-out provision" that would allow landowners to remove lands
from Commercial Forest Land designation if the minimum net yield criterion was not met. The
Hearings Board ruled that this could prove as a disincentive to good and intensive forest land
management. By poorly managing the resource and reducing productivity, landowners could
have the designation removed from their land and convert to non-forest use. This does not
provide the long-tenD predictability necessary to conserve forest land and manage conversions.
.
The ordinance allowed transfer of development rights, cluster development, and subdivision in
the Rural Forest Land zone. The Hearings Board found these regulations would allow densities
and patterns of residential development that were incompatible with commercial forest
management. The ordinance also failed to implement enforcement mechanisms necessary to
protect the forest lands trom the allowed development.
Based upon these findings, the Hearings Board invalidated both the minimum net yield criterion and the
opt-out provision of the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance on August 17, 1995.
'v'ûl
'lIA '~r~
GY:. r,,\1':
2C75
£-4
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Jefferson County declined to accept the Hearings Board finding of non-compliance and appealed the
decision to the Washington State Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals agreed to hear Jefferson
County's appeal of the Hearings Board decision.
However, as the appeal proceeded, the County continued negotiations with the Olympic Environmental
Council and the Washington Environmental Council to bring the Forest Lands Ordinance into compliance
with the Growth Management Act. This process was being mediated by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources.
Achieving Compliance
On December 2, 1996, the parties named in the initial appeal of the County's Interim Forest Lands
Ordinance (Number 07-0524-95) successfully concluded the mediated settlement process. The parties
involved in the settlement process reached a compromise that eliminated the need for further litigation
over the designation and conservation of forest land and dismissed the appeal before the Court of
Appeals.
The settlement process was concluded by agreeing to a Memorandum of Understanding, which included
among its provisions a proposed ordinance for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The
Memorandum of Understanding also stipulated that the parties involved in the settlement process would
recommend a finding of compliance for Jefferson County at the compliance hearing before the Western
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
The Board held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on December 16, 1996, and it was adopted
into law on January 21, 1997 as Ordinance Number 01-0121-97. In addition to bringing the County into
compliance with the applicable regulations of the Growth Management Act, adoption of the Interim
Forest Lands Ordinance will have the beneficial effect of insuring the interim designation of productive
and profitable forest lands that can be successfully and sustainably managed for commercial forestry.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Forest Lands
Jefferson County's forest lands provide local, regional and national benefits that are basic to our quality
oflife. In addition to supplying a variety of wood, fiber, and other products, forest lands produce oxygen
and supply pure water, control flooding and soil erosion, enhance ground water recharge, provide habitat
for innumerable plant and animal species, and offer scenic vistas and recreational opportunities. The
County's forests provide employment in wood, paper, recreation, tourism, and fishing industries.
Properly managed forests are fundamental to a healthy, diverse economy and environment.
Traditionally, forest land use has been seen as a lower economic value compared to agriculture, rural,
suburban, urban, commercial; or industrial uses. As a result, some forest landowners have held forest
land in reserve at low cost through forestry and open space tax programs while waiting for the growth of
more intense land uses in proximity to their property. Many landowners in Jefferson County have taken
advantage of the current use tax valuations to make forest management on their land more economical.
These programs also benefit community interests by maintaining land in open space and forestry use~
The growth in human population has resulted in the loss of forest lands through conversion to non-forest
uses. Premature conversion of those productive forest lands to other land uses which are incompatible
with the management of forest resources is recognized as a significant threat to the forest industry. These
conversions include changing the use of forest land from commercial timber production to residential,
. '/Ot 24 f-,~r;f 2G76
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-5
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses. Once forest land has been converted and roads, utilities, and
other infrastructure have been constructed, the land is not as useful for long-term commercial forest
production. Additionally, the encroachment of incompatible land uses into areas devoted to forest
production can create conflicts.
.
There is a genuine need to promote conservation of productive forest land through regulatory protection
as mandated by the Growth Management Act. However, this must also be balanced by providing
incentives to maintain lands in long-term commercial timber production. Increasing demands are being
placed upon the remaining forest land base to provide goods, recreational opportunities, and ecological
functions. It is Washington State and Jefferson County policy to provide forest landowners with long-
term land use predictability, for both productive forest lands and adjacent non-forestry use lands.
Mineral Lands
As a result of major glacial activity in the geologic past, significant deposits of sand and gravel are
located in Jefferson County, This geological heritage provides the raw material for several sand and
gravel operations distributed evenly throughout eastern Jefferson County. Mining and processing these
deposits is an important part of the County's economy, providing jobs and producing materials used
locally and regionally. In 1994, there were seventeen (17) permitted surface mines in Jefferson County,
covering approximately 150 acres.
While urbanization creates demand for sand and gravel resources, it may also encroach upon or build over
those same resources, rendering them inaccessible. Community opposition to mining near residential,
agricultural, or sensitive environmental areas may also limit the opportunities for mineral extraction.
Potential conflicts with other land uses may include noise, dust, visual impacts, and increased traffic.
Citizens may be unaware of the County zoning of sutTounding property and allowed mining uses, which
contributes to the conflicts between the aggregate industry and property owners.
.
Environmental issues associated with surface mining include groundwater impacts and disruption of fish
and wildlife habitat. It is not uncommon in Jefferson County to have mineral deposits located above an
aquifer recharge area. Because mineral extraction reduces the soil batTier, mining in these areas can make
the area more susceptible to groundwater contamination from turbidity, industrial spills, or agricultural
products. Excavation through a clay batTier or sidehill can tap the groundwater and drain an aquifer.
However, as mineral deposits are depleted, reclamation to lakes or wetlands can have a positive effect on
water quality and mitigate the displacement of wildlife.
Jefferson County recognizes the needs of existing residents while responding to the requirements of the
Growth Management Act to protect mineral deposits of long-term commercial significance. The
County's policies regarding mineral resource lands form the basis for allowing mining activities to occur
and prevent residential and other incompatible uses from locating adjacent to these deposits. However,
the policies also provide that mining activity should not encroach upon existing residential uses or
adversely impact the environment.
Aquacultural Resources
Prior to Non-Indian settlement in the Northwest, the utilization of the fisheries resource was the primary
means of sustenance and maintenance of a rich cultural tradition for the Indian tribes residing in the
region. The fishery resources were used for food and to trade among themselves and later with non-
Indians for things that were unavailable in their particular areas. Indians had long been settled in villages
along the marine waters, the lengths of the major rivers, the tributaries of the Hood Canal, and the
24 r~E 2G77
.
VOL
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-6
August 28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Washington coast in what is now Jefferson County. The Skokomish, S'Klallam, Quileute, Hoh, and
Quinault Tribes all fished in marine waters and heavily relied on salmon caught in their respective rivers.
The fisheries resource remains a central part of the Jefferson County economy. A thriving commercial
shellfish industry is located in Qui1cene and Dabob Bays, and includes the world's largest shellfish
hatchery. The presence of two large shellfish hatcheries within this area is an indication of the purity of
the water, as shellfish larvae require exceptionally clean water to be reared successfully. A 1994 study
estimated that the value of oyster seed, shellfish larvae, and other commercial shellfish products had an
annual value of over six million dollars ($6,000,000).
Nearly all marine shorelines in Jefferson County are productive areas for recreational shellfish harvesting,
which contributes to the unique character of the area and is a popular tourist attraction. The spillover
economic activity generated by the tourism industry as a result of this aquacultural resource is significant.
In addition to these marine based aquacultural operations, several land based fish hatcheries are located in
Jefferson County. These operations rely on the plentiful and pure water from shallow aquifers to raise
fin-fish, often pumping millions of gallons per day.
The wild and hatchery salmon harvest in rivers and marine estuaries also represents a significant
economic resource to Jefferson County. A 1996 study estimated that the economic value of the tribal and
commercial salmon harvest from the Queets and Hoh Rivers and Hood Canal exceeded $3.4 million
dollars. The study estimated that an additional $1 million is generated by recreational steelhead fishing
on the Hoh and Clearwater Rivers.
However, Jefferson County is experiencing significant residential growth and expansion of tourism,
which in many instances have significant cumulative adverse impacts to the marine resource that is the
foundation of the aquacultural resource.
Presently in Washington State, nearly 40% of productive shellfish tidelands are decertified or have
restricted harvests. This downgrade is due mostly to non-point source pollution in the more densely
populated areas. Efforts are being made to recover these areas, but it is very difficult and expensive to
reverse these trends. Some restricted areas may never be recovered.
Salmon runs have been decreasing in Jefferson County since 1976, when accurate records began to be
kept. These decreases are due to loss of fresh- and salt-water fish habitat, increased public demand for
food consumption, and overfishing by recreational, commercial and tribal fisheries.
Jefferson County can maintain its relatively waters and fish and shellfish habitat areas if conservation,
protection, and recovery measures are implemented before significant and potentially irreversible
downgrades are experienced.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Introduction
The standard structure of housing planning analysis is: "needs minus resources equals gaps." This means
that the first step in assessing the present and future housing requirements of Jefferson County is to
analyze the characteristics of its existing and projected population, including age, household size, income,
location and special needs. These characteristics of the population provide an indication of the nature of
the demand for housing over the 20-year planning period.
\101-
'2 4 r~U:
'2 '~'>--j 8
i^,U'
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-7
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
.
The second step in assessing the housing requirements of County residents is to analyze the
characteristics of the existing and expected housing supply, including location, size, cost, and condition.
These characteristics of the housing stock provide an excellent indication of what fonus the supply of
housing will take over the 20-year planning period.
Data Sources
The demographic and housing data and infoonation contained in this element were derived from the
following sources:
.
1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing; .
1991 Jefferson County Housing Needs Assessment Summary Report;
1994 Washington State Comprehensive Affordability Strategy; and,
Population Forecast for Jefferson County and Port Townsend: Final Report (December 1994),
prepared for the County and the City by the Watterson West Group.
.
.
.
Demographics
Population and Household Growth
Jefferson County is one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Washington. A significant amount
of this County growth is occulTing in the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow. Once the Port Ludlow
community is "built out" during the next 20-year phased development program, rate-of-growth
projections will be significantly lower, and Jefferson County could become one of the slower growing
counties in the State of Washington. Table E-l provides historic infoonation on the population of
Jefferson County and Port Townsend. Over the past twenty years, most of the household growth has
occurred in unincorporated areas, specifically the Master Planned Resort of Port Ludlow, the Quimper
Peninsula and the Tri-Area. During the period from 1973 to 1993, the percentage of the County
population living in Port Townsend decreased from 49.1 % to 32.9%.
.
Table E-l
Population in Jefferson County, 1973-1993
Jurisdiction 1973 1983 % Change 1993 1997 % Change
1973-1983 1983-1997
Total Jefferson County 10,600 16,800 58.5% 23,500 26,300 56.5%
Unincorporated 5,400 10,600 96.3 15,760 17,970 69.5%
Port Townsend 5,200 6,200 19.2 7,740 8,330 34.4%
Table E-2 provides data on the number of residential building permits issued for new residential
structures during the 20-year period between 1975 to 1995. The largest number of new residences
(almost 20%) was issued within the city limits of Port Townsend. Building activity within the City was
closely followed by construction of new residences within the Tri-Area (17.3%) and the Quimper
Peninsula community (17.0%). The Poq Ludlow Master Planned Resort generated 10.5% of all new
housing penn its in the County within this same 20-year period.
YOI-
2 4 rM,~
2C?9
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-8
August 28, 1998
8
8
APPENDIX E
Table E-2
Single Family Residential Construction and New Mobile Homes a
During the Past 20 Years,1974-1996
Building Permit Percent of
Location Totals Building
1974~1996 Permits
Incorporated Areas:
Port Townsend 1400 19.6%
Unincorporated Areas:
Quimper Peninsula (including Glen Cove) 1216 17.0%
MarTowstone Island 313 4.4%
Tri-Area (Kala Point, Ironda1e, Port 1239 17.3%
Hadlock, and Chimacum Crossroads)
Discovery Bay (including Gardiner) 169 2.4%
S. Chimacum / Inland Valleys / Center 333 4.7%
Port Ludlow Planned Community 749 10.5%
North Port Ludlow 322 4.5%
Paradise Bay / Shine / Thorndyke 351 4.9%
Toandos Peninsula (including Coyle) 147 2.1%
Quilcene (including Lake Leland Valley) 375 5.2%
Brinnon 508 7.1%
West End 33 0.5%
Jefferson County Total 7155 100.0%
Note:
aData includes "stick built" construction and mobile homes, but does not include
multi-family units.
Figure E-l illustrates the annual issuance of building permits for both stick built and manufactured homes
County-wide between 1975 and 1996.
Figure E-1
Annual Building Permits for Single Family Residences & Mobile Homes
Source: Jefferson County Permit Center
350
300
-+-Single Family
--ð- Mobile Homes
250
200
150
100
50
80
~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ þ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan'"
£-9 VOL
24 r~~:
2 caD AugustZ8,1998
APPENDIX E
As can be seen in Table £-3, the age distribution of Jefferson County residents shows that those over sixty
years of age make up over one-quarter (27.2%) ofthe population.
.
As Jefferson County realizes an increase in senior households, demand for a variety of services and
programs will also increase. For example, demand for assisted housing will increase as will the demand
for subsidized home repair and weatherization services for seniors. Assisted housing provides an
intermediate step between independent living and nursing home care. Many seniors benefit from this
intermediate level of care which provides a "graduated" level of support through the provision of meals,
nursing care and chore services. Providing some variation of these types of services helps many elderly
retain a higher degree of independence and quality of life than is afforded in a traditional nursing home.
Opportunities to access subsidized home repair and weatherization programs is also important to helping
seniors maintain their quality of life. Often on fixed incomes and with limited physical capacity, the
elderly need assistance helping keep up their homes. The importance of this type of program to the senior
population is illustrated in neighboring Clallam County where almost 80 percent of the Housing
Rehabilitation Program participants are seniors.
Table EMJ
Age Distribution
Age Group Population Percent of Total
0-19 4,892 24.3%
20-39 4,809 23.9
40-59 4,958 24.6
60+ 5,487 27.2
Total 20,146 100.0%
.
. VOL
24 r~f,~
2G81
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-10
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
.
Household Income
The distribution of income among households is an essential component of housing affordability. Figure
E-2 presents the income distribution for the residents of Jefferson County as compiled for the 1990
Census.
Figure E-2
Household Income*
2000
1800
1600
... 1400
~ 1200
~ 1000
i 800
= 600
400
200
0
00
00
00
m
00
00
00
0
~
00
00
00
uf
~
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 C:. (:) (:) g g+
Ld Ld 00 Ld
Q {.\ JA !Ã 00
~ ~ ~
Income Bracket
y
.
* The household income data presented in Figure E-2 is based on the 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
Therefore, incomes are in 1989 dollars.
Despite inherent shortcomings in collecting income data, this information is important because it can be
used to calculate median household income. Median income is defined as the mid-point of all of the
reported incomes. That is, ifthe reported incomes were sorted by amount, half the number of households
had higher incomes and half had lower incomes than the median. Median household income is used
because the median is less susceptible to being influenced by a small number of very high or very low
incomes than average income.
In 1990, the median income in Jefferson County was $25,197.
Management estimated the median income to be $31,136.
In 1996, the Office of Financial
The definitions of very low, low, and moderate income households are established by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These income levels are based on fixed
percentages of the area's median income for a household of four. These categories are used to evaluate
and prioritize the relative housing needs of income groups that may require housing assistance. For
example, the 1994 Washington State Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy specifies that the
State will give priority assistance to households earning fifty percent (50%) of the median income or less.
.
VOi-
24 a~~
,2C82
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-11
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
Table E-4
Households by Income Group
.
Income Group Definition 1996 Income Number of Percentage of
Level Households Households
Extremely Low Less than 30% of $0-9,341 898 10.4%
Income Median
Very Low Income 31% to 50% of $9,342-15,568 1007 11.7%
Median
Low Income 51% to 80% of $15,569-24,909 796 9.2%
Median
Moderate Income 81% to 95% of $24,910-29,579 431 5.0%
Median
Middle Income 96% to 120% of $29,560-37,363 1294 15.0%
Median
Upper Income Greater than 121% Greater than 4201 48.7%
of Median $37,364
The distribution of households in these income categories is an important consideration in determining
affordabilitytargets as part of Jefferson County's housing policies. As discussed above, the County-wide
Planning Policy establishes a housing cost threshold of thirty percent of household income.
Housing Tenure
£-5 shows housing units by tenure, or type of occupancy (owner occupied, renter occupied, or vacant).
.
Table E-S
Housing Units by Tenure
Housing Occupancy Type Number of Units Percent of County Total
Occupied
By Owner 6,376 57.9%
By Renter 2,251 20.4
Total Occupied Units 8,627 78.3
Vacant
For Rent 97 0.9
For Sale Only 120 1.2
Seasonal 1,730 15.7
Other 440 4.0
Total Vacant Units 2,387 21.7
Total 11,014 100.0%
Housing Costs
Figure E-3 presents the distribution of housing values as reported in the 1990 Census. The Census arrives
at these figures from questionnaires that ask the respondents' opinion of what their house and/or property
would sell for if it were currently for sale. Given the distribution of reported values for owner-occupied
housing, the median housing value was $88,700 in 1989.
VOL
24 r~\': 2 C83
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-12
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
1200
1 (XX)
\/I
... 8))
....
C
='
~ 6XJ
c
....
\/I
::I 400
0
:c
200
0
0
0
0
Lð"
~
y
Figure E-3
Housing Value Distribution*
0
0
0
ö
~
0
0
0
Lð"
~
0
0
0
ö
0
~
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
~ Ii ~
~ ~ ~
Housing Value Range
0
0
0
Ii
~
0
0
0
Ii+
~
0
0
0
ö
0
~
* The housing value data presented in Figure E-3 is based on the 1990 Census of Population and Housing.
Therefore, values are in 1989 dollars.
There has been a steady increase in the price of used single family homes and a steady series of
fluctuations in the price of new single family homes. New home prices are driven by a number of factors
for which used home prices are not affected. This includes, but is not limited to, labor and materials
costs, pennitting costs, land costs and costs of meeting regulatory requirements.
Over the five year period between 1989 and 1993, the average price for a used single family home, on
five or fewer acres, rose from $85,734 to $135,132, or a 58 percent increase. For these homes located on
more than five acres, the average sales price rose from $72,728 to $170,227, a 134 percent increase. This
suggests that a primary component in the increasing sale prices of existing single-family residences is the
land cost.
Figure E-4 presents the distribution of rents in Jefferson County as reported in the 1990 Census. Given
the distribution of reported values for renter-occupied housing, the median gross rent was $384 in 1989.
",,'
1 1)!-
24 rH,é
2C84
£-13
August 28, 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
APPENDIX E
Figure E-4
Rent Distribution *
.
iii
..
'po
.::
=
IIJI
c:
.po
iii
;I
0
=
9))
OCO
700
fIX)
&x:>
400
:m
200
100
0
0
0
~
...
0
0
.fÃ
0
0
m
fa
~
0
0
q
~
"t-
o
0
q
~
Rent Range
* The contract rent data presented in Figure £-4 is based on the 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Therefore,
values are in 1989 dollars.
Rising housing costs are also true for the rental market. The 1991 Jefferson County Housing Needs
Assessment Summary Report provides a detailed description of housing costs in sub-areas within the
County. Table E-6 compares the 1991 typical monthly rents within the County based on the results of a
1994 rental-cost survey by the ERA Real Estate Company.
.
Table E-6
1991-1994 Rental Rate Comparison
1991 1994
Number of Port Townsend! Quilcene Brinnon Unincorporated
Bedrooms Port Hadlock Jefferson County
One $300 $250 $225 $375 to $450
Two $500 $350 $300 $425 to $600
Three $600 $500 $350 $600 to $700
Mobile Pad $100 $75 $75 $135 to $150
Although rents for all sizes of rentals increased during this period, increased demand for one bedroom
rentals resulted in significant inflation in rents for this type of unit. It is instructive to observe that rents
decrease as one moves away from Port Townsend. Rents in Quilcene tend to run $50 to $75 less than the
average for unincorporated areas of the County. Similarly, rental costs in Brinnon are also $75 to $100
less than the average.
VOL
24 rMj~
2 .~.., 8 r-
-l;' ~
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-14
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Housing Condition
There is no comprehensive infonnation available on the condition of rental housing throughout Jefferson
County. The 1990 Census indicates that over four percent (4.5%) of the County's housing units lacked
complete plumbing facilities. Over two percent (2.5%) of housing units lacked complete kitchen facilities.
The Census does not collect data on other substandard housing characteristics or assesses housing
condition.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Census infonnation understates the number of substandard
housing units and the number of households living in substandard conditions. Further evaluation of
housing conditions in Jefferson County should be conducted in order to develop appropriate policies to
address these issues.
Affordability
A good indicator of affordability is provided by the Housing Affordability Index, which is calculated for
each county in the state by the Washington State Center for Real Estate Research at Washington State
University. The Housing Affordability Index (HAl) measures the ability of a median income household
to carry the mortgage payments on a median price home.
The index is produced quarterly and is based upon housing market activity during the previous period.
The prevailing interest rate during the quarter in that county is used to calculate housing costs. All loans
are assumed to be thirty year, fully amortizing mortgages. The buyer index assumes a twenty percent
(20%) down payment, with twenty five percent (25%) of income used for principal and interest payments.
A separate HAl is calculated for first time homebuyers. This index assumes the household has seventy
percent (70%) of the median income. The first time buyer HAl assumes the house being purchased is
eighty-five percent (85%) of the area's median price, with a ten percent (10%) down payment.
The baseline for the index is a value of 100, which indicates there is a balance between the family's
ability to pay and the cost of the housing. Index values greater than 100 indicate housing is more
affordable. That is, the ability to pay exceeds the cost of the housing. Index values less than 100 indicate
housing is less affordable. That is, the median income household cannot afford the median priced home.
The HAls for 1996 indicate that home ownership is becoming beyond the reach of the median income
household in Jefferson County. The 1996 HAl for the County was 85.7, which indicates that the median
priced home was almost fifteen percent (14.3%) more expensive than the cost that the median income
household could afford.
First time homebuyers were confronted with a more difficult challenge to purchase an affordable home.
The 1996 First Time Buyers HAl for Jefferson County was 51.4, meaning that the median priced starter
home was nearly twice (48.6%) as expensive than could be afforded by a first time homebuyer.
ECONONUCDEVELOPMENTELEMENT
The Role of Economic Development
Economic Development has evolved from an activity which emphasized "industrial" development to one
that is more akin to a planning process encompassing a larger and more diverse set of community
concerns. Over the past couple of decades, economic development has refocused its efforts from one
~h'1:
2 4 f~;,~
2C86
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-15
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
concemed with developing real estate to one emphasizing the need to develop a community's capacity to
receive economic growth. Today, economic development is seen as an integral part of community
development. The economic base of Jefferson County is presently in a state of transition. Historically,
Jefferson County's economic base was closely tied to resource-based "extractive" activities such as
fishing and timber. For a variety of reasons, Jefferson County's economic base is facing a major
restructuring, and there is a need for a strategy to provide guidance. It is the intent of the Economic
Development element to provide the needed guidance and strategy.
Jefferson County has always attracted people because of its natural endowments which greatly contribute
to its livability and quality of life. However, the economic opportunities historically provided by the
County's natural environment are no longer as abundant and/or profitable. The County's economic
development strategy should help the County move away from dependence on traditional resource-based
economic activities and begin to seek alternative economic opportunities for all of Jefferson County's
residents. To develop a new jobs-based economy, Jefferson County must begin to develop capacity for
economic growth that is compatible with the vision of the County as a high quality of life place to live
and work. To do this the County must develop a balanced approach to economic development which
encompasses new business start-ups, recruitment of industry, retention and strengthening of existing
businesses, and expansion of growing businesses. By developing a strategy to support and aid in the
development, expansion and diversification of commerce, Jefferson County will provide incentives for
businesses to create new employment opportunities, and thereby, help to create and maintain a healthy
standard of living for all Jefferson County residents.
Economic development is an integral component of several elements in the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan. For example, economic development can create opportunities for recreation,
housing, and public facilities and services. Furthennore, the economic health of the County community
will help foster an environment where historic preservation and environmental protection are valued. The
importance of a viable economic development strategy is key to ensuring that the residents of Jefferson
County are provided with a diversified job base to both maintain and improve the quality of life so valued
by the residents of Jefferson County.
JEFFERSON COUNTY'S ECONOMY
In Jefferson County, timber and fishing have historically dominated the regional economic base.
Industries related to fishing, logging, primary manufacturing, and pulp and paper have all felt the effects
of recent reductions in the available resource. A reduction of available jobs in these industries has been a
direct result of these changes.
Employment in lumber and wood products, historically the mainstay of Jefferson County's economy, has
declined significantly between 1983 and 1993. According to the Washington State Employment Security
Department employment has declined from over 250 jobs to 60 jobs in this sector. Wages have also
fallen significantly in this sector over this same time period.
While the County has lost family-wage paying jobs in the resource-based sector of the economy, new job
opportunities have been created in the service, wholesale and retail industries. Unfortunately, these new
jobs do not pay wages comparable with the resource industries. '
During the past two decades, Jefferson County's economy has become more oriented towards the service
sector. Because of the County's proximity to the Puget Sound region, the County has been able to
develop a strong economy based on trade, tourism and service sector industries. Developing in concert
with this new segment of the local economy is an expanding elderly or retiree population that places new
demands on the local economy. Jefferson County is achieving a reputation as an ideal retirement
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-16
24 rM,'
2 C87 August 28, 1998
, VOl"
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
destination, and retirement-related industries such as health care are rapidly growing sectors of the
economy. As these segments ofthe economy continue to develop, more businesses will "start up" to take
advantage of the economic benefits accruing from those seeking recreational and leisure opportunities and
the needs associated with the local population becoming characterized by an increasing proportion of
seniors.
As the local economy begins to adjust to accommodate new opportunities, the County needs to develop
programs to ensure the availability of adequate labor pools, infrastructure, housing, education and other
factors that provide prospective finns some relative advantage in their market. According to the
Washington State Department of Employment Security, labor is probably the most important factor for
local efforts targeting the expansion and diversification of the local economy. Recent demographic trends
in Jefferson County illustrate the shrinking of the age 24-and-under labor pool, which could very likely
lead to a tightening of local labor supply. While some of this shrinkage may be offset by in-migration,
the trends suggest that in-migration will continue to "age" the population.
Recently there have been signs suggesting the decline in the resource-based industries is tapering off.
After several years of economic distress resulting from low market prices for paper products, some of the
region's pulp and paper employers are starting to see some relief. The Port Townsend Paper Mill, the
County's major employer, has recently made major capital investments in the Port Townsend plant to
accommodate recycling operations.
Clearly the regional economy has not completed a transition to a new structure, but continued efforts to
streamline operations, maximize the limited opportunities, and look for niche markets are all contributing
to continued economic activities related to the region's historical economic base.
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
Jefferson County features a diverse economy, with pulp and paper, marine trades, government, tourism
and wood products industries all playing important roles. Traditionally dependent on natural resources,
the economic base has expanded over the past twenty years to include an internationally recognized
marine trades industry, diversified manufacturing, and a multi-season tourism sector. Combined with the
stability of the government sector, the local economy has not been as heavily impacted by the severe
downturns that have devastated other rural resource-based communities. As with the rest of the country,
small business development and the growing number of self-employed are becoming increasingly
important to Jefferson County's economy by contributing to its increasing diversity.
As illustrated in Table E- 7 and Figure E-5, over the past two decades there has been a dramatic shift in
the County's employment base. In 1970, manufacturing jobs comprised 35 percent of all jobs in the
County. By 1990 this sector's share of total jobs fell to 13.9 percent. Concurrently, service and trade
jobs have increased from 11.3 and 14.8 percent of the total, respectively, to 18.8 and 25.2 percent of the
total.
'/['d-
2 4 r~r,'
2,.-, ':-'IS
~Jð
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-17
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
Table E- 7
Employment Trends for Jefferson County by Industry
.
Employment by Industry
1970 1980 1990 2005 2014
%of %of %of %of %of
Industry Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Const. & 100 3.9% 220 5.4% 660 11.1% 678 8.3% 841 8.7%
Mining
Manufact. 900 35.0 880 21.6 820 13.9 722 8.9 675 7.0
T &PU* 110 4.3 90 2.2 110 1.9 129 1.6 143 1.5
Trade 380 14.8 1,050 25.7 1,490 25.2 2,296 28.2 2,794 28.8
FIRE * * 50 1.9 120 2.9 200 3.3 272 3.3 330 3.4
Services 290 11.3 550 13.5 1,110 18.8 1,818 22.3 2,241 23.1
Govt. 740 28.8 1,170 28.7 1,530 25.8 2,222 27.3 2,669 27.5
Total 2,570 100.0% 4,080 100.0 5,920 100.0% 8,137 100.0% 9,692 100.0%
%
* T &PU stands for transportation and public utilities.
** FIRE is the acronym for finance, insurance and real estate.
3,000
,"":j",:,\:i"::':',',"C,',',;,r~,'!;j,:"':¡':,'¡:'i'i!;,:,¡:'",':::,:;;','¡i,;;,'J::'i;."",":'i:::'!;,,:':,;'',;: ,',
:' ~const.&M~n'i', ',\:,,',:i;,!,::: ""',,, "",:!,:,"".:.::!:',:.:"" """""":{;:"i;,):',,.:¡:r~,",~,.,,",,",,:
2,500 -"-- -Manufacturing"':'" i;"~':;}::',,',,,,; 'i,:,"" ",,'" "',':: '" '"',,
::i,'m T&PU::: ,::', ,!~;'"T'\j;:"';':,/"":i:::""":"::i: ,i.:'",:"':::::' "~,,,',ml::,:","I'Jj
l ===;~~~ r':;';"::"':',.,,,:: ",:';:1':,:' ,':~';,~::.::
!,\' -services,:.i,::,,"','i '1:::;":::,::/:::",,..:. ~.':"f;I'::::~'" ~~~ ,':"::i::I,,:: "t'
,i ----Govt. ,"': ", "",~, I /',\;,:'" ,~,,':'i,::"':":" ,,:,:11::,,) ,
,:~~:.,."",;;::""i"'::,"\:';:':",:::.","!::':.-::"'::'~ ".:"::::';";;:",':i,::",:;t.~ ~,:.':'¡;::~15:~" ",,::;:,;,..}::~:::::;,.,.:"'i "!'::':::":::';;;'\,... ""',', ""i:',,:.,i' "',:::I:i"
¡':',,""':::,,;.:,"'::' ;";,NX'~:,"'- ~;:1:',i:: "" ","""~, " "'" :' :¡
Ii',,:,.... ~""~:" .~t~::'::'~",:¡;"::..:i.""ii::::i:,',::'.':;I':::',,!:',1:,,:'
""""",""",,"-"" "'," > ,,':',,":',': 1,-:-
'ð::' ""i:::""',/i,"'" ."", :"",'i"", 'm,-.':
500'~ ::71'1 ~,.;c:,;<: ~ ... ~ -,:::':\!"i,::",::
~' -"',;X¡r' ""':;',,',: j:..¡' !i.,',':,"""":' ,," ...,'...,,¡:
~ ':::/":,.,'"i ~::";;.""1, "",,:..:t 'm ',i'- :":':,,1"';,":]:,
~:" IHI'""""""""""":':-',¡-,..m:',',:,,>:,i,,"',,:',i""'.i',,".)""'" ",L::':""i':,,:,,;!::::,i"',".1
.. ..,
"Ø 2,000
CI)
>.
0
1i
E 1,500
w
~
..... 1,000
Figure 12-1
Trends in Employment for Jefferson County by Industry
(1970-2014)
.
0
0 «") co 0) N It) <XI ..- ;jI; ,.... 0 «") co 0) N
r-.. ,.... r-.. r-- (0 co co 0) 0) 0 0 a 0 ..-
m 0) 0) m 0) m 0) 0> 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0
..- ..... ..- ...... ".. ..- ...... ..- ".. ..- N N N N N
Year
'VOL
24 fAG:
.
2C89
E-18
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
August 28. 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
The changing nature of the local economy influences wage rates and household income. As the local job
base changes to one dominated by service-oriented employment the County's average wage rate and
household income declines. Residents have less disposable income for basic goods and services and
housing costs become harder to meet. Changes in the regions average annual wage rate and household
income are discussed in more detail below.
Characteristics of the County's industrial base are shown in Table E-8 below. This table reveals that at
least 53% of the local industrial base is concentrated in sectors which are declining, seasonal, or highly
susceptible to economic fluctuations.
Table E-8
Characteristics of Jefferson County's Industrial Base
Characteristic Percentage ofIndustrial Base Example
Seasonal 18.3% Food Processing
Structurally Mature 14.2% Logging .
Cyclical 20.6% Pulp & Paper
Source: Boucher, Willis Ratcliff, Port of Port Townsend Target Industries Analvsis.
U nderem ployment
One of the problems associated with the local economy is "surplus labor." The impact of surplus labor
can be observed in the low wage rates and underemployment in our area. In essence a two tier work force
has emerged. On one tier are those who hold decent jobs. On the other tier are the underemployed,
poorly paid, often part time workers.
The two tier workforce is a national trend. Recent studies have shown that male blue collar wages have
continued to decline during the 1990s as have white collar male worker wages, although not as
drastically. While most wages fell during the past decade, salaries of individual with college and post
graduate degrees have increased. Examples of underemployment in Jefferson County can be seen in the
seasonal marine trades and in retail sales dependent upon summer visitors. However, it is possible that a
significant, yet undocumented portion of Jefferson County's underemployed may be due to personal
choice--individuals choosing lifestyle over wage earning potential.
Personal IncomelLevel of Poverty
Real wages in the Jefferson County have been falling over the past two decades. Table E-9 shows
historic and projected nominal and real wages for the County.
Table E-9
Annual Wage Rate for Jefferson County
Annual Average Covered Wages
Nominal Wage Real Wage (1992)
Year Wage % Change Wage % Change
1969 $ 7,175 $24,933
1979 13,475 88% 23,368 (6%)
1989 16,733 24% 18,036 (23%)
2005 24,915 49% 13,995 (22%)
2014 29,466 18% 11,178 (20%)
':nr-
24 f~r,ç
2C90
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-19
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
These dramatic declines in average County-wide wages may be symptomatic of the trends shown above
in employment. Table E-I0 provides historical evidence of the small increases in real per capita income,
as well as projected income based on historical trends. The trends show a continued, yet slight, increase
in real per capita income. Based on simple trend regressions, between 1990 and 2014, real per capita
income is projected to increase by 31 percent or 1.14 percent annually.
Table E-10
Historical and Projected Per Capita Income in Jefferson County
Per Capita Income
Nominal Real (1993$)
Year Income % Change Income % Change
1970 $3,697 $13,182
1980 9,675 162% 17,121 30%
1990 17,372 80% 19,222 12%
2005 27,724 60% 23,011 20%
2014 34,154 23% 25,258 10%
There is another side to the income story, however. Although real per capita income is rising, this may be
due to the large number of in-migrating retirement-age residents. With the in-migration of retirement
aged people, the number of persons per household has declined. This decline is expected to continue.
The modest increase in real per capita income and a declining number of persons per household have
resulted in a declining per household income statistic. This has a negative effect on housing affordability
in the County.
Figures supporting this decline are provided in Table E-II. Per household income is calculated for 1970
through 1990. For the projected years 2005 and 2014, a high, medium and low case are provided, These
cases are predicated on two series of data, the per capita income in Table E-II and a low, medium and
high case for the average household size, The low household size assumes a continuation of the
downward trends in household size over the past 20 years, but at half the rate of change. The high case
assumes that changes occur at the same rate, but in the opposite direction of the low case. The medium
case assumes no change in the average household size after 1990. Household size is multiplied by per
capita income to estimate household income.
VûL
¡)4 ~
C f~,k
2G91
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-20
August28,1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Table E-ll
Per Household Income for Jefferson County
Household Income
Nominal Income Real Income
Year Income % Change* Income % Change*
1970 $10,389 $37,041
1980 27,961 169% 49,480 34%
1990 40,129 44% 44,403 (10%)
2005
Low Case 54,139 35% 44,935 1%
Medium Case 64,044 60% 53,155 20%
High Case 73,460 83% 60,971 37%
2014
Low Case 60,300 50% 44,593 0%
Medium Case 78,897 97% 58,346 31%
High Case 98,260 145% 72,666 64%
* Percent Change for 2014 based on change between 1990 and cases for 2014.
As seen in the table above, in the low case, real household incomes are projected to rise only slightly in
the next 20 years. The medium and high cases show a more optimistic projection of incomes. Based on
more recent trends, between 1980 and 1990, the low case may be closer to what can be expected in terms
of income trends, at least for the short term.
Poverty Levels
Statistics on Jefferson County residents living below the poverty line are mixed. For families living
within Jefferson County, the most recent data is encouraging. Between 1969 and 1979, the percentage of
families living below the poverty line grew from 9.2 to 9.9 percent. A decade later the percentage dropped
to 9.0 percent\ If the long-term trend holds, poverty among families living within the County will
decline, albeit at a slow rate. If the short-term trends hold, poverty will continue to fall at a more rapid
rate for the County's families.
The picture is slightly different for individuals living within the County. Between 1969 and 1979 the
percentage of individuals living below the poverty line and within Jefferson County increased from 11.7
to 12.9 percent. This percentage grew to 13.5 by 1989.2 Both the long and short term trends suggest
increases in the number of individuals within the County living below poverty levels of income.
When comparing these County figures with the State averages, the overall magnitudes of the numbers can
be put into perspective. Individuals living within the State and below the poverty line comprised 10.9
percent of the population in 1989, while 7.8 percent of the State's families were below this line.3 These
statistics are 2.6 and 1.2 percentage points lower than the average for Jefferson County.
\ U.S. Census
2Ibid.
3 Ibid.
C)' ,-4
(.JL~: :,\r~
n --9"""
_/~.~ ~
,,""~ -,,-"
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-21
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
Education and Job Skills
.
As another comparison, these figures were compared with the State averages within the particular
categories. In 1980, the State average for the percentage of residents attaining at least a diploma or GED
was 77.6 percent, or 0.7 percent higher than the Jefferson County statistic. In 1990, the gap widened to
1.1 percent. For residents acquiring at least a bachelor's degree, the State average was 1.4 percent higher
than the County average in 1980. In 1990, the gap narrowed to 1.1 percent. Therefore, this appears to
suggest a divergence in the workforce between the low end of the educational spectrum and the higher
end.
Local Government Revenues
Financial resources of local governments also play an important role in local economic development
efforts. Public sector investment in infrastructure and public facilities greatly affects an area's quality of
life. A number of road projects have recently been initiated to improve access throughout the County for
all residents. In addition to improving access, a recent major road realignment project in the County's
West End is accomplishing one of the projects goals unrelated to transportation and traffic -- fish
enhancement. With insight and careful planning, capital projects can be designed to provide more
benefits than thought in the past.
Tax rates also affect economic development. The business community is continually comparing tax. rates
as a cost of doing business in one area versus another. Current taxing district levies are illustrated in the
following table.
Table E-12
1992 Taxing District Levies -- Jefferson County
.
District Assessed Value (1996) Levy Rate Tax Amount 1996
1996
County General 1,933,132,810 1.72215 $3,329,145
County Road 1,451,289,400 1.25364 $1,819,394
City of Port 481,843,410 2.11189 $1,017,600
Townsend
Totals: $6,166,139 I
A temporal view of sales tax distribution are illustrated in the following Table.
Table E~13
Jefferson County Sales Tax Distributions
Jurisdiction 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Jefferson $1,023,970 $1,332,663 $1,105,885 $1,187,992 $1,254,050 $1,300,869
County
City of Port $793,939 $749,609 $818,710 $894,725 $904,574 $1,014,673
Townsend
Combined $1,817,909 $2,082,272 $1,924,595 $2,082,717 $2,158,624 $2,315,542
.
YOI-
2 4 r~¡)'
2G93
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
"
£-22
August 28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Jefferson County's property tax rates4 have been at or below the State average for a number of years, and
are comparable to rates in similar counties.
A significant portion of local government/taxing district revenue is obtained through property taxes. In
1996, the total tax collection amount of $22,427,422 spread among a County-wide assessed value (a.v.) of
1,933,132,810 resulted in a composite average levy rate of 11.60 dollars/$I,OOO a.v. The 1985 County-
wide a.v. was 900,044,601 or 47% of the 1995 a.v. The City of Port Townsend's portion of the County-
wide a.v. in 1985 was 227,929,437 (47% of the City's 1995 a.v.) which shows that property values in
both the City of Port Townsend and the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County have more than doubled
since 1985.
Employment Sectors (1995)
Marine Trades
Jefferson County's history has always been closely linked to the marine trades. In 1890, Port Townsend
shipped the most tonnage of any U.S. port, outside New York City. In more recent times, the region has
earned the reputation as a high quality, full-service marine trades center.
The majority of marine trades are located on property managed by the Port of Port Townsend. The Port
continues to support this sector of the economy by making capital investments necessary to support this
expanding industry. Recent announcements by the Port continue to be encouraging as it proceeds with a
major investment to develop a heavy haulout facility.
While it is a mainstay of the local economy, the marine trades industry is subject to the boom and bust
cycles of the economy. Fortunately, Jefferson County's marine trades industry is somewhat insulated
from the effects of these cycles by the breadth and depth of the businesses represented. Admiral Marine
Works, Inc., specializes in custom yacht construction and has launched some of the world's largest
composite motor yachts. Unfortunately, Admiral Marine has relocated much of its operation to the Port
Angeles Harbor and may soon leave the Port Townsend waterfront altogether, taking with it 400-plus
good paying jobs. Other boat builders focus on fiberglass, wood and aluminum boat construction
techniques and cater to both recreational and commercial boating markets. Port Townsend Boat Work
focuses on commercial fishing vessel repair and construction; the company has recently expanded into
manufacturing proprietary refrigeration systems. The Baird Boat Company and Port Townsend
Shipwrights' Cooperative, both employee-owned businesses, specialize in commercial vessel repair and
construction. The Northwest School of Wooden Boatbuilding is a local trade school whose graduates are
often employed by the local marine trades industry. The marine trades industry also includes canvas
companies, sail makers, boat and kayak kit manufacturers, machine shops, and dozens of other types of
support businesses.
Manufacturing
D&A Instruments and Thermionics Northwest manufacture customized scientific instruments for
worldwide markets. Thermionics relocated to the area from California. Coyote Found Candles molds
custom dipped wax tapers for clients throughout the U.S, and Canada. The company has grown rapidly
during the last several years and employs over 20 people during peak seasons. Another growing
company, Enclume Design Products located in Hadlock, produces iron kitchen racks for a national market
with 40 employees. These companies depend on small package freight services to distribute their
products to distant markets.
4 Economic Development Council of Jefferson County; Jefferson County Assessors Office
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-23
VOI-
2 4 r~r,ç
2C9~ugUst28, 1998
APPENQIX E
The relatively low overhead costs and access to skilled and stable labor support many small custom
software and fabrication firms serving a variety of industries, from aerospace to financial services. An
example is Six Sigma Case that develops CASE software tools. Seven Seas Software's products aid in
mathematics visualization. J&S Fabrication serves the marine'trades and aerospace industries. American
Machine and Tool Company performs research and development machining, and Foresight Science and
Technology focuses on research and development activities, including artificial intelligence and
manufacturing networks.
.
Forest Products
The largest employer in Jefferson County, the Port Townsend Paper Corporation, anchors the County's
forest products industry. Employing 400 people, the company operates a fully integrated mill in Port
Townsend, producing Kraft pulp, paper and specialty products including paper bags. Since 1990, the
company has invested over 40 million dollars in a new paper machine and advanced technology to ensure
their competitive position in international pulp and paper markets. The company is planning to invest an
additional $20 million in a corrugated cardboard recycling facility, allowing for the production of a
recycled pulp to meet market demands for recycled content, as well as to provide a secondary source of
pulp when the wood chip market is tight.
Located in western Jefferson County, Allen Logging relies on the Olympic Peninsula's vast timber stands
to produce dimensional lumber, chips and other products for a world-wide market. The County has a
growing number of specialty value-added manufacturers including Maizefield Mantles, focused on
architectural woodworking, and Washington Cabinet Door, supplying cabinet-makers throughout Puget
Sound. These manufacturers are supported by Edensaw Woods, which continues to rapidly expand its
regional and export wholesale operations. This company focuses on specialty and exotic woods.
Jefferson County is also home to Timbercraft, Inc. which designs and builds custom timber frame homes
and structures; Timbercraft designs and structures include the new visitors' center in the Mt. Saint
Helen's National Park. Its homes have even been exported to Japan.
.
Fisheries and Aquaculture
The pure marine waters of Jefferson County have made the County not only a major producer of clams,
oysters and other shellfish, but also a center of shellfish technology. The world's largest oyster hatchery
is operated by Coast Oyster Company in Quilcene Bay. Taylor United operates a similar facility adjacent
to Dabob Bay. New Day Fisheries in Port Townsend employs 20 people in fish processing and
packaging. These facilities were sited because these waters are the only location in the U.S. that support
natural propagation of Pacific Oysters. These companies are also supported by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife's Point Whitney Shellfish Lab on Quilcene Bay. This combination of
clean water, technology and scientific expertise supports a part of the growing industry that has made
Washington #1 in the nation in oyster production.
Shellfish species also contribute in a positive way to the economy of the County's West End. In the West
End, on Kala10ch Beach, over 1 million harvestable clams were identified by the Washington State
Department ofFish and Wildlife, of which 125,000 were allocated for harvest in 1995. While they are ail
important commercial resource, shellfish, especially clams, are an important part of the County's growing
tourism industry. It has been estimated that opportunities for recreational clam harvesting on Kalaloch
Beach generates over 10,000 recreational trips annually to the beach providing many economic spin-offs
throughout the local economy.
, VOL
2A 'H~
If r ",,'
') ,;-' ~ ..-...
(....¡ '\.J..~ ~
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-24
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Sports fishing, especially for salmon, has been a major recreational industry within Jefferson County.
Salmon harvest in tenninal rivers and marine estuaries represents a significant economic resource to the
County. The economic impact of freshwater steelhead fishing in the West End of the County cannot be
overstated. It has been estimated that steelhead fishing on the Hoh and Clearwater Rivers alone
contribute about $1 million dollars in economic benefit to the County. While recent salmon harvest
restrictions have reduced the economic benefits associated with this industry, recent salmon propagation
and habitat restoration programs are helping to rebuild this valuable resource.
Tourism
The natural beauty of the Olympic Peninsula and Victorian Port Townsend attract over 500,000
destination tourists each year contributing over $18 million to the local economy. Over one million
people visit Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest, both of which offer a wide range of
experiences to the visitor, from wilderness beaches to walks in the only temperate rain forest in the U.S.
The Kalaloch Lodge, located in the coastal region of the National Park, is a year-round tourist destination.
The lodge is managed by Aramack Corporation and, with over 80 employees, is one of the County's
major employers. Twenty-seven holes of world class golf are available at the Port Ludlow Golf and
Meeting Retreat that has convention and meeting facilities for groups of up to 120. Fort Worden State
Park in Port Townsend is a converted military base that accommodates small retreats and major
conventions in its restored military structures.
Victorian architecture hailing back to Port Townsend's maritime roots in the late 1800's is the base of the
City's thriving tourism industry. Port Townsend has the largest collection of Victorian homes north of
San Francisco. Visitors from all over the world support numerous hotels, motels and inns, including over
20 bed and breakfasts, while perusing the numerous stores and attractions of the restored waterfront and
uptown commercial districts. The Jefferson County Museum, Fort Worden Marine Science Center and
Point Hudson Marina are other popular attractions.
Tourism has become a major contributor to the Jefferson County economy. Annual hotel and motel tax
receipts in Jefferson County and Port Townsend have risen from well under $100,000 in 1986 and 1987
to over $194,000 in 1994. The County's share of receipts has nearly doubled during that same period to
$82,000 in 1994.5
Public Sector
Public sector employment has been a relatively low growth sector of the economy, but still provides a
large number and variety of employment opportunities. In Jefferson County over 28 percent of
employment and 33 percent of wages is derived from this sector, and government employees are among
the better-paid workers in the area.
Military
The military presence in the area has influenced the local economy over the years. The earliest military
presence in the County was in 1856 when Fort Townsend was established in response to Indian uprisings
around Puget Sound. In 1896, the U.S. Congress appropriated funds for two Jefferson County forts -- Fort
Worden at Point Wilson and Fort Flagler at Point Marrowstone. The military presence is not as
noticeable as it once was, but the U.S, Navy base on Indian Island currently has 65 personnel.
5 Local Tax Distributions, Washington State Department of Revenue, November-December 1994.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-25
VOL
24 r~[;'
2 C96August2S, 1998
APPENDIX E
Services
.
Nationally, service industries are the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy. Between 1970 and
1980, employment increased by more than 65 percent and is cuITently expanding at a rate above 6
percent.
Wholesale and retail trade accounts for approximately 26 percent of Jefferson County's employment.
Area wholesalers deal primarily with the County's natural resource-based products. Major retail
businesses include building and garden supply stores, automotive supply stores, furniture stores, general
merchandise and department stores, grocery stores, restaurants and taverns, and transient
accommodations. (Source: Jefferson County Economic Development Council).
The County's only hospital, Jefferson General, is located in Port Townsend and employs 240 people. The
facility was enlarged in 1996 to accommodate more patients. Jefferson General provides a full range of
health care and medical services including emergency services, surgery, physical therapy, health
promotion, cardiac rehabilitation, home health care, and hospice.
Table E~14
Driving Distance from County Rural Residential Areas to "Regional" Economic Centers
DES TINA nON
FROM TO PORT TOWNSEND TO KITSAP MALL
(adjacent Kitsap County in Silverdale)
Port Hadlock 10 min. (8 miles) 42 min. (31112 miles)
Nordland 20 min. (15 miles) 52 min. (37112 miles)
Discovery Bay 20 min. (12112 miles) 20 min. (17112 miles) to Sequim
Port Ludlow 22 min. (17 miles) 28 min. (22 miles)
Paradise Bay 27 min. (20 miles) 23 min. (18112 miles)
Shine 32 min. (21 miles) 20 min. (17 miles)
Quilcene 28 min. (23 miles) 38 min. (33 miles)
Brinnon 43 min. (34112 miles) 53 min. (44112 miles)
.
The above table illustrates that most rural County residents are within convenient commuting distance of
the "regional" economic centers for Jefferson County. Sustainable economic development will only
occur in Jefferson County through the purposeful undertaking of public and private actions that create
family-wage jobs, supporting a healthy and diverse economy and enhancing the quality of life.
E~ONMENTELEMŒNT
Critical Areas Ordinance ~ The Local Process
In October of 1991, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners organized a citizen work group for the
purpose of generating policy recommendations to guide the pr~paration of interim critical areas
regulations. Policy recommendations of the critical areas work group were forwarded to the Board in
December of 1991, and the Jefferson County Planning Commission submitted recommended revisions to
the work group policy recommendations in January, 1992.
, VOL
2 4: rA~Ç
:2C97
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-26
August28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Following review and revision of the critical areas work group policy recommendations, the Board
directed Planning Department staff to begin drafting ordinance language for incremental review by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission began incremental review of draft critical areas
ordinance sections in March. The draft sections were designed to be incorporated outside of, and in
addition to, the County's existing regulatory framework and procedures.
In June, the Board directed Planning Department staff to follow an alternative approach that would
incorporate interim critical areas protection measures into the County's existing regulatory framework
and procedures.
In September, Planning Department staff completed a draft amendment to the County's State
Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance that addressed GMA requirements for critical areas.
Pursuant to Chapter 36.70.640 RCW, this "SEPA Draft" was forwarded to the Planning Commission for
review and report in October. In turn, the Planning Commission forwarded its report to the Board later
that month.
In November, two new County Commissioners were elected. The Board continued to hold workshops
with Planning Department staff for the purpose of reviewing both the "SEP A Draft" and modifications
recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. At this time, final revisions were directed prior to
public hearing.
On December 7, 1992, the Board conducted a public hearing on the "SEPA Draft" in order to receive
public testimony on the proposal, and to meet the procedural requirements of Chapter 36.70 RCW.
Approximately four hundred (400) members of the public were present for this public hearing. The
hearing concentrated on the complexity and substance of the "SEPA Draft". However, a significant
amount of public testimony also voiced opposition to the Board taking action on the "SEP A Draft" prior
to the newly elected Board members assuming office. On December 31, 1992, Commissioners Dennison
and Brown left office without the Board having taken further action on the "SEP A Draft".
In January, 1993, the Board, comprised of Chairman Richard Wojt and newly elected Commissioners
Robert Hinton and Glen Huntingford, held workshops with Planning Department staff in order to review
options and determine an appropriate course of action regarding development of interim critical areas
protection measures.
On February 4, the Board adopted a motion to set aside the "SEPA Draft" and to produce a "Stand Alone"
ordinance. On February 8, the Board clarified and expanded its original motion and directed that..."to the
maximum feasible extent the new draft ordinance should be limited in coverage to those minimum
designations and minimum protection standards permissible under the GMA."
On March 19, Planning Department staff forwarded a "Stand Alone" draft interim critical areas ordinance
to the Board for review and revision. On April 5, the Board held a workshop with Planning Department
staff for the purpose of reviewing the "Stand Alone" draft and identifying further revisions necessary
prior to public workshops. Final revisions to the "Stand Alone" ordinance draft were directed by
Commissioners Hinton and Huntingford, individually, during informal meetings with staff on April 8 and
April 9, 1993.
During the period of April 28 through May 4, the Board and Planning Department staff held public
workshops on the "Stand Alone" ordinance draft in Clearwater, Chimacum and Quilcene for the purpose
of explaining the operation and effect of the ordinance, and to receive informal public comment on the
proposal. '101- 24 uu 2 G98
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-27
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
On May 28, 1993, the Board forwarded the "Stand Alone" ordinance draft to the Planning Commission
for review and report pursuant to Chapter 36.70.640 RCW. The Planning Commission submitted its
report to the Board on July 1. On July 12, the Board held a workshop with Planning Department staff for
the purpose of reviewing both the "Stand Alone" ordinance draft and the modifications recommended by
the Planning Commission and staff. At this time, the Board directed final revisions prior to public
hearing.
.
On November 21 and 22, the Board conducted a public hearing on the "Stand Alone" ordinance Draft #6
to receive public testimony on the proposal, and to meet the procedural requirements of Chapter 36.70
RCW.
On December 22, 1993, and January 4, 14, and 20, 1994, the Board held public workshops with Planning
Department staff for the purpose of reviewing testimony received from the November, 1993 public
hearing. Based upon this testimony and separately provided legal review, the Board directed revisions to
the draft ordinance.
On March 29, 1994, the Board conducted a public hearing on the "Stand Alone" Draft #7 to receive
public testimony on the proposal, and to meet the procedural requirements of Chapter 36.70 RCW.
The draft ordinance determined that critical areas which require t;egulation by Jefferson County are:
wetlands; areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas; frequently flooded areas; and geologically hazardous areas. The draft
ordinance was adopted on May 9, 1994.
Ordinance No. 05-0509-94 Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance
.
The purpose of the Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance is to protect regulated critical areas
against development proposals that pose adverse environmental impacts which threaten public health,
safety and welfare. "Protect" or "protection" is defined by the Ordinance as: "...Conserv(ation) (oj) a
particular area and the naturally occurring processes directly associated with it. "
The following ecological features are designated and regulated as critical areas by the Ordinance:
.
Wetlands;
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas;
Frequently Flooded Areas;
Geologically Hazardous Areas; and,
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas.
.
.
.
.
The first step in the regulatory framework established by the Ordinance is to determine if critical areas are
present on a property that is proposed for development. If regulated critical areas are present, the
approach to development is always based on determining the least invasive intervention. Levels of
intervention can be characterized as a range beginning with Avoidance (the least invasive) and ending
with Replacement or Compensation (the most invasive):
.
Avoidance: Avoid development in the identified critical area and its associated buffer. While
this is the simplest approach to site planning, It is not always feasible to avoid critical areas if the
site is constrained by other physical limitations, such as topography or poor soils for
development.
. VOL
24 r~[,~
2C99
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-28
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
.
Minimization: Minimize the amount of development that must occur in the critical area or its
associated buffer. This can be achieved through revising the site plan to consider the location and
extent of critical area. Techniques such as buffer averaging may aid in the minimization of
impacts to critical areas.
.
Replacement or Compensation: If no other options exist for development of the subject parcel
than to place development in an identified critical area, on or off-site replacement of the critical
area to an amount specified by percentage or rate is assigned.
Regulatory Program Overview
The table on the following pages provides infonnation regarding some of the primary agencies involved
in regulation of the environment. While there are other agencies and pennits that may apply to a project,
the ones listed are those that most commonly apply to projects.
"'"
r i"-
24 fY~
? ~,,::no
,-,I ~ ,j
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-29
August 28, 1998
t11
,
UJ
0
<-
= ~~
.-
N
~.
Agency/Jurisdiction OrdinancelPermit! Approval ResourcelDevelopment Regulated Comments
U.S. Army Corps of Section 10/404 Permit Required if any dredge or fill materials are SEP A and/or NEP A requirements
Engineers discharged into the waters of the United may apply.
United States States.
U.S. Coast Guard Section 9 Bridge Permit Construction of any bridge across navigable SEP A and/or NEP A requirements
United States waters of the United States. must be fulfilled.
Department of Archaeological Excavation Excavation that will alter or remove Native Mitigation measures can be
Community Permit Indian grave site or archaeological resources. attached to any permit.
Development
Washington State
Department of Ecology Underground Storage Tank Installation of an underground storage tank. Complies with both State and
Washington State Notification Requirement federal regulations.
Department of Ecology Animal Feeding Operations- Any animal feeding operation which results Complies with both State and
Washington State NPDES and Statewide in the disposal of wastes into waters. federal regulations.
Discharge Permits
Department of Ecology Dangerous Waste Permit Required for the treatment, storage, and Public hearings are required.
Washington State disposal of dangerous waste.
Department of Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Regulates point source discharge into surface Industrial projects and construction
Washington State Elimination System Permit and waters and storm water from industrial ~ projects of greater than five acres.
Baseline General Permit activities and construction sites.
(NPDES)
Department of Ecology New Source Construction New source construction and/or additions or Examples of projects could include
Washington State Approval modifications to existing sources releasing various industrial uses.
contaminants into the ambient air.
Department of Ecology Temporary Modification of Construction activity that will violate State May be required before a Water.
Washington State Water Quality Criteria water quality criteria on a short term basis. Quality Certification can be issued.
Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification Construction activity that may result in any Only required if applicant needs a
Washington State (401) discharge into surface waters. federal license or permit.
Department of Natural Aquatic Lease Any proposed uses or actions involving Examples of projects could include
Resources construction, filling, dredging, drilling, piers, docks, bridges, etc.
Washington State mining, utility installation, or other activities
within the beds or shorelines of certain
waters.
~,
Þ-
C'
,n
j
N
.~
«.. ~~
r"~ì
"--
~
.
.
.
tTJ
I
UJ
-
.
.
.
<"-
=
Department of Natural Forest Practice Approval Any forest practice including harvesting, Purpose is to protect stream
Resources reforestation, road construction,or chemical crossings, drainage, wildlife
Washington State application. habitat, riparian production, and
water bodies.
Department of Natural Surface Mine Penn it ~. Regulates surface mining activities. Ensures that surface mining areas
Resources are reclaimed to conditions
Washington State appropriate to subsequent use.
Department of Hydraulic Project Approval Any form of work that uses, diverts, Examples of projects could include
Wi Id I ifelF isheries (HPA) obstructs, or changes the natural flow or bed piers, docks, bridges, etc. A SEP A
Washington State of any fresh or saltwater of the State. checklist, assessment or impact
statement is required.
Health Department On-Site Sewage Disposal Controls the placement of on-site sewage Evaluates soils, groundwater,
Jefferson County Systems Ordinance systems. topography, and site drainage
characteristics.
Planning and Building Building Code Ordinance All development within unincorporated A building pennit cannot be issued
Department Jefferson County requires a building pennit. unless all other permits have been
Jefferson County obtained.
Planning and Building Camper Club Ordinance Regulates the development of Camper Clubs Must also comply with SEPA
Department within unincorporated Jefferson County. regulations, if deemed necessary.
Jefferson County
Planning and Building Floodplain Management Controls and manages all development within Projects must be consistent with the
Department Ordinance designated Flood Hazard Areas. Comprehensive Plan and
Jefferson County community development plans as
well as the Shoreline Management
Master Program.
Planning and Building Critical Areas Ordinance Protects critical areas against development Complies with the Growth
Department proposals that pose adverse impacts. Management Act.
Jefferson County
Public Works Storm Water Management Regulates and manages storm water and Provides for consistency with
Department Ordinance erosion and sediment control for development Puget Sound Water Quality
Jefferson County projects. Management Plan.
Planning and Building Zoning Ordinance Ensures that development will be encouraged Aims to reduce the inappropriate
Department In urban areas, where adequate public conversion of undeveloped land
Jefferson County facilities and services exist or can be into sprawling, low density
provided in an efficient manner. development.
,-
r~
~
-m
~~
<1
f'V
<>, "
. ~..L
r~' ~
~'
tV
tTJ
t.#J
N
<-
=
,-
N
~
Planning and Building SEPA Implementing Ordinance All development projects, except exempt SEP A provides an overlay for most
Department projects, must complete a SEPA checklist. development in order to protect
Jefferson County elements of the natural and built
- environments.
Planning and Building Shoreline Management Master Controls and manages all development within A SEPA checklist must be
Department Program shoreline areas. submitted with an application.
Jefferson County
Planning and Building Subdivision Ordinance Regulates all subdivision activity within Must also comply with SEPA
Department unincorporated Jefferson County. Includes regulations, if deemed necessary.
Jefferson County water and septic regulations.
Planning and Building Resolution No. 67-85: Establishes maximum nOIse levels for Land use designations confonn
Department "Establishment of designated land uses. with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County Environmental Designation for Complies with State regulations.
Noise Abatement Areas for
Jefferson County" ~
Planning and Building Open Space Tax Program Provides tax incentives for the preservation Land remains within its designated
Departm en tiC ou n ty of open space, agricultural, and timber lands. class for a minimum often years.
'Assessor's Office
Jefferson County
....c
~
;'~1
N
. -\
--l.-
e;:)
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Water Resources
Surface and Ground Water
Much of the East County lies in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, which is responsible for
chronic low summer flows in many streams. Because of low summer flows resulting in high water
temperatures and depleted oxygen levels, salmon habitat in these streams is highly susceptible to
degradation resulting from poor land use practices. Low flows also affect ground water recharge areas
and water supply for residents. In the Quilcene River area, and other parts of both the East and West
County, flooding causes many problems such as erosion, loss of habitat, and possible ground water
contamination.
The County's largest single surface water diversion is the City of Port Townsend's supply from the Big
Quilcene River, which is transported to Port Townsend by way of the Olympic Gravity Water System.
The capacity of the Olympic Gravity Water System is 19.4 Million Gallons per Day (MGD), about 14
MGD of which is supplied to the Port Townsend Paper Mill. The City also has a surface water right to
the Little Quilcene River for about 6 MGD. Surface water is also used for agriculture and for fish
hatchery supplies.
The quality and quantity of surface waters of Jefferson County have been affected by development,
. agriculture, industry, and timber harvesting. In Eastern Jefferson County the Big Quilcene River is listed
by the Department of Ecology as water quality impaired for instream flows and fish habitat under Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Additional water quality listings include Chimacum Creek for fecal
coliform and temperature, Tarboo Creek for temperature, Jackson Creek for fish habitat, and the marine
waters of Dabob and Quilcene Bays for fecal coliform. Port Townsend Bay is listed based on elevated
PCB levels in fish tissue samples. In Western Jefferson County, a number of tributaries of the Bogachiel,
Hoh, and Quinault Rivers as well as several independent drainages are listed as water quality impaired for
temperature and dissolved oxygen. Joe Creek, an independent drainage, is listed for fecal coliform
elevations. By developing watershed management plans that address the sources of pollution, the County
will work with Ecology to remove these streams from the 303(d) list.
Approximately 65 percent of the population in Eastern Jefferson County are served by the City of Port
Townsend water system. The remainder relies primarily on ground water for their water supply. Over
the years, population growth has increased the demand for small community systems. Of the more than
160 public water systems currently in the County, almost all rely on ground water as their source. Recent
analysis indicates that up to 30% of the County residents rely on ground water for their water supply.
Ground water quality concerns in Eastern Jefferson County include seawater intrusion on Marrowstone
Island and in other shoreline areas, elevated levels of iron and manganese in some areas, and vulnerability
to hazardous materials. There is concern that nitrate contamination may occur in areas subject to septic
system, fertilizer, and feedlot inputs, although no public systems have reported significant levels of nitrate
to date. Because of the scarcity of data, there is no opportunity to determine any geographical pattern to
water quality parameters.
Recent concerns in Eastern Jefferson County have focused on the ability of surface and ground water
sources to meet demand. The demands today include not only public supply, but also include those for
habitat, recreation, and aesthetics. For the Big Quilcene River, the effects of withdrawals on these other
demands was the subject of a two year public planning effort resulting in 1994 in the Dungeness -
Quilcene (DQ) Water Resources Management Plan. In addition, the public supply has been a source of
VOI-
24 f¥'
2 :;"04
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-33
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
discussion over the last four years as the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) has been updated.
Through both ofthese processes, it has been clear that more data and understanding of Jefferson County's
hydrogeologic conditions and water resources is needed.
.
It has also been clear that, given CUITent public policy (city, county and state), ground water will continue
to be the major new supply for the future. The magnitude of the effects of these increased withdrawals
will be a primary public policy issue and, as such, will require additional analysis and data to ensure that
public policy is established in the context of good technical infonnation.
Watershed Planning
Watershed planning, or the development of Watershed Action Plans, is the method of non-point source
pollution control recommended by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA). Under the
PSWQA rules, counties rank watersheds for development of "action plans." Characterization reports are
sometimes done in preparation of actual planning.
Development of the plans generally involve local committees and considerable local, state, and federal
agency involvement. In Jefferson County, the QuilcenelDabob Bay Watershed Action Plan (June 1991),
the Ludlow Watershed Action Plan (November 1993), and the Discovery Bay Watershed Management
Plan (March 1995) have been developed.
The most comprehensive watershed planning effort to date is the Dungeness-Quilcene Planning Process,
funded in 1990 by the State as a pilot planning effort under the Chelan Agreement. Representatives of
state, local and tribal governments, and agricultural, business, environmental, fisheries, and recreational
interests participated through caucuses to gather and evaluate infonnation which led to the final DQ Plan,
dated June 30, 1994.
.
The DQ Plan provided regional strategies and recommendations to address water use, management,
conservation, and related habitat issues for both the Dungeness and the Quilcene watersheds. A special
recommendation for the region was to conduct a comprehensive hydrogeologic investigation of the
quantity and quality of surface and ground water. A work plan for a five-year study was developed by the
United States Geological Survey for the DQ project. An accompanying recommendation included
continuing water quality and quantity data monitoring and management which is recognized as essential
for ongoing water resource and land use planning efforts.
Recommendations of the DQ Plan specific to Eastern Jefferson County included limiting new 'surface
water rights or penn its until such time as in stream flows for each stream are adopted by rule by the
Department of Ecology. Ground water, habitat, fish management, education, and conservation strategies
were also developed. It was recommended that a Watershed Council representative of all interests be
fonned to focus and coordinate habitat restoration effort, to investigate the resources, to design and
implement projects, and to work with Ecology on instream flow and water rights issues.
The Jefferson County Water Resources Council was fonned in January, 1995 in order to implement the
DQ and other watershed plans. The County did not sign the charter, but did send representatives to
Council meetings and participated in projects. Because of a decrease in the budget of the Department of
Ecology on the state level, there was a lack of implementation funding for the plan. The Water Resources
Council has been funded through an MOU between the Jefferson County P.U.D. and the City of Port
Townsend.
VOL
2 4 r~L~
2."H-~1'""
,v;:J
.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-34
August28,1998
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
In October 1997, the County signed the Water Resources Council charter, which is being revised to
address County concerns regarding decision-making and representation. The Council has been designated
as the watershed planning and management unit for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA 17) under state funding for watershed planning. The DQ Plan will serve as the basis for the next
level of watershed planning, technical studies, and policy development.
Other watersheds in Jefferson County have not had the benefit of pilot planning efforts, and will require
coordination with other counties. Jefferson County watersheds in WRIA 16 along Hood Canal, including
the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers, will be planned under a cooperative process with Mason County
serving as lead agency. Jefferson County will participate in this process as an initiating government. The
County will work cooperatively with Clallam and Grays Harbor Counties to develop watershed planning
units for the western portion of the County, where WRIA 20 (Soleduck-Hoh) and WRIA 21 (Queets-
Quinault) will be addressed. The watershed planning process will require new coordination and
organizational efforts across both watershed and jurisdictional boundaries. Jefferson County is in the
process of laying the foundation for these efforts as this Comprehensive Plan is being completed.
Endangered Species Act Issues
In February, 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed the Puget Sound Chinook and the
Hood Canal/Straits of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum for listing as "threatened" under the Endangered
Species Act. In June, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed as "threatened" the bull trout,
also a fish species native to Jefferson County. Within the next several years the federal government will
review local, state, and tribal actions to protect habitat and address other factors such as hydropower
facilities, harvest, and hatcheries for their impacts on the decline of fish species. Other species are in
depressed or critical condition.
The proposed listing of fish species native to Jefferson County streams highlights the need to integrate
watershed and fish habitat recovery plans. The County expects to work with local, state and federal
agencies to develop land use regulations based on these plans that protect the water resources of the
County for use by future residents and for the salmon species that are threatened with extinction. Habitat
recovery planning will be coordinated for Eastern Jefferson County through the Hood Canal Coordinating
Council (HCCC), an organization that includes Mason, Jefferson, and Kitsap Counties, the Skokomish
Indian Tribe, and the Port Gamble S , Klallam Tribe. The HCCC will coordinate the development of
recovery plans, land use regulation recommendations, restoration projects, public education, and other
recovery tools. The Council will also coordinate with watershed planning units to ensure consistency and
communication on these integrated issues.
Critical Areas
The identification and characterization of Jefferson County critical areas is an ongoing process. The data
available on the various critical areas is not comprehensive, and in all areas there is a need for additional
information based on the best available science. Critical areas maps will be updated with new
information as funding of inventory studies allows. The goals, policies, and strategies for critical areas
include both protection of the environment and protection of development from environmental hazards.
Geologic Hazard Areas
In Jefferson County natural conditions that favor landslides, erosion, and mudslides include unconsolidated
glacial sediments that overlie bedrock geologic materials, steep topography, and high amounts of winter
rainfall. Slope failures can damage public and private property and pose a risk to public safety.
Approximately half of the land profile in East Jefferson County contains slopes of 15 percent or greater.
VOL
')A 'Hc
L,'f r""
2 :;"J6
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-35
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX E
Growth pressures have resulted in development in areas where views and water access are maximized,
and these are often areas where risk from geologic hazard is also maximized. New development on slopes
and shoreline bluffs has in many areas exacerbated the natural processes, with adverse impacts on existing
development and on fish and wildlife habitat, Critical areas review standards and regulations should
protect new development, existing development, and the environment. Avoidance of high-risk areas, use
of setbacks and engineering techniques, and storm water management are measures that are applied on a
site-specific basis. Public education and outreach can be effective in infonning residents of activities that
may decrease risk.
The Puget Sound region is also a seismically active area. Seismic risk is higher where the soils are
unconsolidated, such as along some shorelines, the deltas and flood plains of rivers, areas of fine-grained
bay and tide flat sediments, and poorly compacted artificial fill. Ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction
of soils, and subsidence are higher risks in these areas. Low lying shoreline areas may be at risk from
tsunami effects. Sudden downslope movement on unstable slopes and bluffs is more likely to occur
during an earthquake. Soil liquefaction occurs when noncohesive sils with high moisture content lose
strength and bearing capacity during an earthquake. Standards for design and decisions for siting of
essential public facilities can address these concerns. Development that occurs in seismic risk areas can
minimize damage by using special engineering and construction methods.
Flood Hazard Areas
Jefferson County is subject to flood events that cause damage and threaten public safety. Frequently
flooded areas along streams, in estuaries, and along low-lying shorelines are flood hazard areas. The
most probable areas of flood hazards occur in the flood plains of Snow Creek, Leland Creek, the
Dosewallips, the Duckabush, Chimacum Creek and the Big Quilcene Rivers. Portions of the Hoh,
Queets, Quinault, and Clearwater Rivers in the Western County are also subject to seasonal flooding.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program provides the
most complete infonnation available about frequently flooded areas of Jefferson County. FEMA requires
that development in the flood plain include "floodproofing" measures to reduce risk. Goals and policies
also promote the protection of natural flood plain, channel and habitat functions.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The diverse ecosystems of the Olympic Peninsula provide habitats for approximately 60 different species
of mammals, 82 species of resident birds, and 220 migratory birds. Wildlife habitats include marine
shorelines, rivers, streams, wetlands, lake riparian vegetation zones, forest land, and known nesting sites.
Wildlife species, which once thrived in many areas of the lowland of the Peninsula, are diminishing in
numbers, especially in the areas where growth has occurred. Most native wildlife species cannot exist in
urban areas. Rural land uses result in a mix of field and pasture habitat that can support a wide variety of
native wildlife. However, the presence of humans, even in low densities, may drive off many native
forest species such as black bear and cougar. Deer, coyote, and many other native northwest animals
have adapted to exist in rural areas despite the presence of humans and fragmented habitat. Others, such
as the Blue Heron, are very sensitive to human activity and can abandon nest sites if disturbed. Land use
and regulatory standards that maintain interconnected wildlife corridors are addressed in Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies, not only under critical areas, but also under the Open Space, Parks and Recreation
Element. Goals and policies for critical areas review, such as protection of adequate buffers and riparian
habitat, will be addressed in the adoption and implementation of a penn anent critical areas ordinance.
VOL
24 r~(J~
2~'.-':'""~....,
¡Vi
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-36
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
Shellfish habitat is important as a local source of employment and food. Commercial growing areas are
concentrated in Discovery Bay, along the southwest shoreline of Marrowstone Island, and in Dabob and
Quilcene Bays. North Quilcene Bay, Brinnon, Port Ludlow Bay, and portions of the Tri-Area shoreline
are classified as restricted from commercial growing due to various environmental hazards. Other areas
of County shorelines are utilized for recreational harvesting. A 1995 report by the Hood Canal
Coordinating Council6 identified several environmental factors contributing to these problems, including
failing septic tank systems, untreated stonn water runoff, inappropriate handling of solid and hazardous
household wastes, and poor farm and forestry practices,
The anticipated federal listings of salmon species as endangered or threatened is expected to raise
protection of habitat critical areas to a high priority in land use decisions. Protection and restoration of
wild runs of the Hood Canal summer chum, the Puget Sound chinook, and the Dolly VardenlBull trout on
the Pacific Coast, all of which are proposed for listing, will become important criteria for all land use
decisions. Many other species are depressed or critical, and may be proposed for listing in the future if
measures are not taken to promote their recovery. Salmon recovery plans based on comprehensive
watershed planning will be required for species proposed for listing; the plans will help to protect and
restore other species of fish and wildlife, as well. The effort to save the salmon will require cooperation
of multiple agencies, governments, organizations, jurisdictions, and elements of the community.
Aquifer Recharge Areas
Recharge is the process by which groundwater is replenished. An aquifer recharge area identifies where
water from precipitation is transmitted downward to an aquifer. Areas that transmit the most precipitation
as a result of relatively permeable soil and geologic conditions are referred to as "high" or "critical"
recharge areas. Based on existing infonnation, hydrogeologically susceptible areas include much of the
Quimper Peninsula, Tri-Area, Snow Creek, Quilcene River Basin, North Dabob Bay, Toandos Peninsula,
and the Chimacum Valley. All of Marrowstone Island and the majority of shoreline in the East County
areas are susceptible to seawater intrusion.
Jefferson County aquifer recharge susceptible areas have been mapped based on the permeability of soils.
Vulnerability of ground water aquifers to contamination from land uses is a critical public health issue,
and regulation of these areas occurs through wellhead protection overlay zones, and on-site sewage
system and stonn water best management practices. As funding becomes available, geohydrologic studies
will identify additional areas which are important for the seasonal recharge of aquifer volumes. Removal
of vegetation, compaction of soils, creation of impervious surfaces, filling of wetlands, and alteration of
surface water drainage to inhibit infiltration can accompany development and impair aquifer recharge.
Measures to protect, enhance or replace the functional infiltration of precipitation to aquifers will be
incorporated into storm water management requirements. Protection of these critical areas is crucial to
the health and welfare of residents, due to the reliance of a large number of residents on ground water
supplies and the need to protect ground water supplies needed for future growth.
Wetlands
Wetlands protected under critical areas perform a variety of important ecological functions, including fish
and wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, excess storage of fJood waters, floodwater conveyance,
sediment control, storm water attenuation, low-flow contribution, plant diversity, recreation, and cultural
values. Major wetlands have been identified in the Snow Creek area of Discovery Bay, the Quimper
Peninsula, Chimacum Valley and Chimacum Creek, north end of Dabob Bay, the Quilcene River basin,
6 Shellfish and Finfish Resources at Risk in the Hood Canal Watershed, Hood Canal Technical Work Group, Hood
Canal Coordinating Co~ncil, June, 1995, 149 pages plus maps.
VOL 2 4 r~r,; 2 1;"J8
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
£-37
August28,1998
APPENDIX E
and the Dosewallips River basin. Approximately 116 square miles, or about 6.4 percent, of Jefferson
County have been designated as wetlands.
Because of funding limitations, wetlands critical areas maps for the County are not comprehensive,
particularly in forested areas where vegetative cover may obscure wetland identification in air photos.
Long-tenn studies for comprehensive watershed management will contribute to the inventory and
understanding of wetland hydrologic functions. Buffers for protection of hydrologic and wildlife
functions will be evaluated, with increasing emphasis on consistency with salmon recovery and watershed
management plans.
VOL
24 r'~G~
2~~'J9
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
E-38
August 28, 1998
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPENDIX F
APPEND IX F
"TAKINGS" CLAIMS CHECKLIST
In 1995, the Washington State Attorney General's Office issued a memorandum which outlined
a process for jurisdictions to use to evaluate regulatory action with regards to legal claims based
on "takings." The memorandum included a checklist to help jurisdictions determine whether a
regulatory action may raise questions of constitutionality and may require review from legal
counsel.
An affirmative answer to any of the questions in the following checklist does not automatically
mean that a takings has occuned, but rather it indicates that there could be constitutional issues
which may warrant consult with legal counsel.
1. Does the regulation or action result in a permanent physical occupation of private
property?
A regulation or action that results in the permanent physical occupation of all or a portion of
private property will generally constitute a taking.
2. Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion of
property or to grant an easement?
Regulations requiring the dedication of property or granting an easement should be carefully
reviewed. The dedication of property must be reasonable and proportional, specifically
designed to prevent or compensate for adverse impacts of the proposed development.
3. Does the regulation or action deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the
property?
A regulation or action that prohibits all economically viable or beneficial uses of the land
will likely constitute a taking. Regulations or actions that require all of a particular parcel of
land be left substantially in its natural state warrant careful review. However, a jurisdiction
may be able to avoid liability for just compensation only if it can demonstrate that the
proposed uses are prohibited by nuisance laws or other pre-existing limitations on the use of
the property.
It is also important to analyze the regulation's impact on the property as a whole, not just a
portion of the property, and assess whether there is any profitable use of the remaining
property available. The remaining use does not necessarily have to be the owner's planned
use, a prior use, or the highest and best use of the property. The assessment should take into
consideration the extent of interference with a property owner's reasonable investment-
backed development expectations.
. \JlL
24 PAGE
,,~_.,., 0
L-°--L
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
F-l
August 28, 1998
APPENDIX F
4. Does the regulatory action have a severe impact on the landowner's economic interest?
In determining if a taking has occurred, courts will often compare the value of a property
before and after the impact of the challenged regulatory action. Although a reduction in
property value alone may not constitute a taking, a severe reduction in property value often
indicates a reduction or elimination of reasonably profitable uses.
5. Does the regulation or action deny a fundamental attribute of ownership?
Regulations such as the right to possess, exclude others and dispose of all or a portion of the
property, or other actions or regulations which deny a landowner a fundamental right of
ownership are potential takings.
- VOL
2 4 r'~,G~
2 ';~11
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
F-2
August 28, 1998
.
.
.