Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM010906o~ co ~,~SON CO O ~ ~ ~ W '`, ti ~.,gski G~O~ N District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTE S Week of January 9, 2006 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING: County Administrator John Fischbach reported that the Department of Community Development will be moving back to their original location at Castle Hill Mall this week. Their services maybe limited during those two days. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of December 19, 2005 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: tourists drive from the Hood Canal Bridge to Sequim to find motel accommodations because the County won't permit a motel at Discovery Bay where the owner has been trying to upgrade the motel since 1986, and a new hotel in Jefferson County on Highway 101 would bring in much needed revenue. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carved by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Reinvesting in Youth (RIY); Jefferson County Juvenile and Family Court Services; Kitsap County 2. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: AIDS Omnibus; Jefferson County Public Health; Clark County Health Department 3. AGREEMENT NO. 0663-89118 re: Foster Care Passport Program; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 _(/~/~~~`~~~/~ 4 ~I.'r-'^ .~. ~, 4. AGREEMENT NO. C13035, Amendment No. 6 re: 2005-2006 Consolidated Contract; Amending Allocation Sheet and Statement of Work; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health 5. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services Subcontract; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington Initiative For Supported Employment (WISE) and C2 Associates 6. AGREEMENT, Supplement No. 3 re: Construction Inspection and Administration of the Courthouse Grounds Master Plan Project #; Jefferson County Central Services; SB & Associates 7. AGREEMENT re: Project Management and Coordination for the Upper Hoh Road Emergency Bank Protection Project No. X01689; Jefferson County Public Works; Sam Gibboney Management Services (SGMS) 8. AGREEMENT re: Appraisal Review Services for Larry Scott Trail Property Acquisitions; Jefferson County Public Works; Granger Company 9. AGREEMENT re: Appraisal Review Services for Larry Scott Trail Property Acquisitions; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington Appraisal Services 10. AGREEMENT re: Appraisal Review Services for Larry Scott Trail Property Acquisitions; Jefferson County Public Works; GPA Valuation Services 11. Advisory Board Appointments (2) and Resignations (3); Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board; Appoint Members: Jill Silver, Term Expires July 22, 2006, and Nora Caldwell, Term Expires January 9, 2010; Resigning Members: Judi Stewart, Karen Sickel and Jim Storey Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)16 Progress Report and Recommendations on Watershed Plan: Tami Pokorny, Environmental Health, introduced Phil Wiatrak, Department of Ecology, and Susan Gulick, facilitator for the WRIA 16 Planning Unit. WRIA 16 covers Jefferson County from the Dosewallips River into Mason County to the Skokomish River. Phil Wiatrak explained that Phase I of the WRIA process began with an organizational grant from the State in July 1998. The technical work in Phase II and III began in December 2001; and according to the statute, the watershed plan was due in December, 2005. The Planning Unit is acting in good faith to achieve consensus and is moving forward so the State has granted them an extension. The Plan includes recommendations regarding water resources, water quality, and habitat. There is also an instream flow component that will be addressed later. Mason County is the lead agency for the WRIA 16 Planning Unit. The lower south shore of Hood Canal is included in the WRIA 16 planning area and several issues in that area have a direct impact on the entire canal. Kitsap County's WRIA 15 Watershed Plan was vetoed and because Kitsap County also borders on Hood Canal, the watershed planning in Mason County is very important. The WRIA 16 Planning Unit has produced several technical documents: a level I technical assessment; a water quality monitoring plan; a preliminary water assessment for most of the watershed; and a Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 ~~~ hydrogeologic study of the lower Dosewallips River. The Planning Unit is in the process of finalizing the draft plan. When the final plan is available, the Jefferson County Commissioners and the Mason County Commissioners will need to hold separate public hearings. Final adoption requires a joint meeting of both Boards of County Commissioners. Susan Gulick, facilitator, reviewed the key issues in the WRIA 16 Plan. • Water quantity - There is a lot of water during most of the year, except in late summer and early fall. The recommendation is that PUDs and other large utilities investigate the feasibility of developing innovative storage. • Water quality -Septic systems were the main focus, especially on Hood Canal. One of the key recommendations is that the counties look at property tax incentives to offset the cost of septic upgrades or conversions to community systems along sensitive shorelines such as the canal. • Habitat -This is very important to the Tribe, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and other representatives on the Planning Unit. They have recommended that the counties adopt ordinances requiring or encouraging vegetative management around trees rather than cutting them down. • Hood Canal -The Planning Unit is encouraging jurisdictions on Hood Canal to look at their recommendations which include: that the State Department of Ecology consider permit conditions that require new waste water treatment plants to include a reuse or recharge component which eliminates direct discharge into Hood Canal; that DOE look at permit renewals to minimize the discharges into Hood Canal; if sewer systems are installed outside of a UGA, there should not be an increase in the current density in the Comprehensive Plan and UDC; and that the Counties and the State Department of Health consider more stringent standards to reduce nutrients and pathogens in septic systems near sensitive water bodies. • Funding -The Planning Unit has asked Mason and Jefferson Counties to consider creating a stable, on-going funding source to implement the recommendations of the plan. This could be done by forming a Surface Water District. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the section on out-of--basin transfer of water. He stated that there is a lot of seasonal rain that falls in that area. Other communities that don't get as much rainfall such as Port Townsend could use some of that water when it is available and if it makes ecological sense. Susan Gulick stated that the Planning Unit still isn't in agreement regarding this issue because the Tribe doesn't want to see water transferred far out of the region. Commissioner Rogers suggested that transferring water to places on the Olympic Peninsula and the Kitsap Peninsula would be reasonable. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the section on shoreline structures should make some allowance for eelgrass friendly docks that have been developed recently. He asked if there has been much talk about buffers in Section 2.4.5? Susan Gulick replied that the Planning Unit will have an all day retreat next week where outstanding issues such as this will be discussed. Part of the reason they scheduled the meeting with the Commissioners today is to bring up their concerns during the retreat. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 C~ HEARING re: Proposed Unified Development Code Amendments: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing on the UDC Omnibus Amendments and read the hearing procedures. Kyle Alm, Assistant Planner explained that the UDC amendment package process began in 2003. The changes in the code are due to changes in the law, the need to update definitions, revisions in the code to make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and revisions for internal consistency with zoning regulations. Substantive changes include uses for food and beverage stands, clarifying changes in the mining provisions, recent changes in the State laws, and changes resulting from Court decisions. The Planning Commission UDC Sub-committee has met for the past year to review the changes and the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The following people were introduced: Jim Hagan, Chair of the Planning Commission and member of the UDC Sub-committee and Al Scalf, Director of the Department of Community Development. Al Scalf explained that this project represents a collection of issues generated from Staff, especially from the Development Review Division, from current planning review, and from problems that they have had with the Code. During the Planning Commission UDC Sub-committee process, a number of other issues came up. The Unified Development Code is 10 chapters of development regulations that is used in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. After the Board holds the public hearing, deliberates, and makes changes, a draft ordinance will be developed that the Board will adopt. This document will be codified under Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. James Fritz, Port Townsend, stated that there was an article in a recent Peninsula Daily News about a 60- unit motel that is being built in Sequim. People drive on Highway 101 through Jefferson County to Sequim before they can find a motel. They spend their money in Clallam County. The motel owner at Discovery Bay has been trying to build a Best Western Motel there since 1986. The latest reason that it can't be built is that a 45,000 square footprint is needed and the current footprint for industriaUcommercial buildings in the UDC is 7,000 square feet. If people could stop in Discovery Bay and spend the night, the lobby could have brochures to get them to spend money in Jefferson County instead of Clallam County. A hotel would create 20 to 30 jobs and bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for the County. The Comprehensive Plan has a provision for a motel in the Discovery Bay location. It would enhance the County and make it more tourist friendly. The only growth industry right now is methamphetamine labs which drives all the dynamic young people out of the County and keeps the deadbeats here. People aren't going to want to buy a million dollar house in Jefferson County if they are afraid they will be robbed by a meth addict. We need jobs and a quality environment for our young people. We need tax revenue. We nearly lost Edensaw because they needed a bigger warehouse. We need to keep fourth, fifth, and sixth generation people here and that requires jobs. David Goldsmith, Port Townsend, noted that he also provided written comments to the Board. He met with DCD Staff last week about three issues. He has been working with several property owners and estates regarding agricultural preservation in Chimacum Valley. The criteria for boundary line adjustments (BLA) Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 ~' and the subdivision ordinance requires the creation of homesites. The density in the Valley is 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. In order for a BLA to move forward, he is required to create a 20 acre parcel that will be sold for pastureland because the soils aren't suitable for a homesite. There needs to be a way to preserve the parcel for agricultural purposes. Another example is a 20 acre parcel with a homesite that is divided by. Chimacum Creek. The owner wants to sell the seven acres on the other side of the creek to the adjacent farmer so he can graze more cattle. This creates a substandard lot that doesn't increase the density, but is not allowed. The third issue deals with the Master Plan Resort (MPR) section of the Code. When the MPR legislation was passed by the State, the developer for Port Ludlow signed a development agreement with the County. When the regulations for the MPR were included in Code, the boundaries went beyond the property that the developer owned and included Ludlow Beach Tracts subdivision. In the Code, subdivisons in the MPR cannot be further subdivided according to the development agreement, but this shouldn't apply to Ludlow Beach Tracts. Bob Reed, stated that he has been complaining about the Fred Hill Materials mining operation at Shine since 2000. There needs to be a noise abatement program. Jefferson County doesn't have a noise ordinance to address this issue, but other jurisdictions like Kitsap County, Thurston County and Seattle do. When he was doing some research, he found that Penny Creek Quarry has limited operating hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. He hears backup alarms, the conveyor belt, and the concrete crusher at 11 p.m. coming from FHM and Ace Paving. They keep expanding. When FHM knows that someone is coming to measure the noise, they quiet their operation. Orville Fisk, Center Road, stated that he has lived in Jefferson County for 27 years. They had property in a residential area where a neighbor started a car repair business at his residence and this isn't allowed in the Code. They have complained to the Department of Community Development for the past 4 years and nothing has been done. Laws need to be enforced. The man that has the car repair has said that he can't find another location for his business, but there are other commerciaUresidential locations available. Ezra Eichmeyer, Port Hadlock, stated that he has visited the Fred Hill Materials Shine pit and carried on a conversation next to the conveyor belt. He objects to people coming out to rally against the Pit to Pier project when this clarification of the language in the Code has nothing to do with the project. He encouraged the Commissioners to focus on the change in the Code and not the number of people who are commenting against Fred Hill Materials. He lives a mile from Rhody Drive and, from inside his living room, he can hear semis drive by. Nanc,~gan, Port Townsend, representing the Board of the Olympic Environmental Council, stated that the language revision in the Code regarding noise standards for mining is not merely a technical clarification. She submitted a very long email yesterday and sent another email about noise this morning. She presented two attachments to be added to the email that she sent today. The County needs to retain the language in the UDC that refers to the human experience of noise. The revision addresses how a machine experiences the sound and these are two very different things. She recommends that the Board keep both Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 y~ H- components in the Code. She asked the Board not to lose track of the human experience of the stress and psychological and physiological affects of noise. The proposed changes about noise that have to do with the conditional use should not be adopted because of the SEPA issues. It's doing SEPA without SEPA by not having a checklist that would get to a higher SEPA threshold when a conditional process would take over. This has been proposed for mining areas that are inside and outside the overlays. It isn't a good revision. She cut and pasted the excerpts about noise from the Comprehensive Plan in her second email. There is policy in the Comprehensive Plan about noise and the quality of life of the citizens of Jefferson County. This needs to be taken into consideration when implementing regulations. She doesn't feel that the UDC revisions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. W.E. Seton, Port Townsend, stated that there are State laws that deal with noise and specify the decibels that are allowed. He doesn't want to see more restrictive regulations in the County. Fred Hill Materials is a business that employs a lot of people and the County needs that employment. If the Commissioners don't allow quarries to haul gravel out of the County, it will shut down a lot of jobs. In 1998, an application was made to build a motel at Discovery Bay. That same year, when the Comprehensive Plan was passed a large portion of the grandfathered motel already at that location was downzoned from commercial to residential. Now the problem is the building footprint. Having a new motel at Discovery Bay would bring about $500,000 a year in revenue to the County. The County won't let new businesses come in. Most of the people who have lived here their whole lives are on set incomes and they can't afford to live here anymore. People that drive SR104 and Highway 101 continue to Sequim and don't bother coming into Port Townsend. A lot of revenue is being lost. Jim Todd, Port Townsend, reiterated some of Nancy Dorgan's comments. The item that needs to be reviewed again is Section 18.10.030 (n) that redefines noise and takes the human element out of the Code. It does not include adverse psychological and physiological affects of noise on humans. Noise issues are becoming more prominent in the County with the gunfire on Discovery Bay and the noise from quarry operations. It's time for the County Commissioners to look into adopting a noise ordinance. Port Townsend just recently adopted one. Noise is very pervasive and disturbing. Mike Whitaker, Quilcene, stated that backup alarms are exempt under State noise laws, and the covenants on his property say that the State is not responsible for noise attenuation to the highway because it was there before he bought the property. He is a member of the Planning Commission, although today he is speaking as a citizen. His comments are on the proposed wording in Section 18.20.240, (2c) regarding buffers and (2f) which has to do with operation and noise. He has toured the Fred Hill Materials Shine pit, but lives directly across the street from the Penny Creek Quarry and his comments relate to that pit. Chapter 2c proposes that all mineral and processing activities must to the extent possible employ best management practices for drainage, erosion, and sediment control, buffer zones and other precautionary measures. It refers the reader to 18.30 of the Jefferson County Code. There is no mention of buffer zones in 18.30, and he can't find any information on buffer zones for mineral extraction in the Code. In the Hearing Examiner's notes dated July 29, 1999 regarding ZON98-0041 on the Fred Hill Materials Shine pit, there is a reference to Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 /~;"~ '~°~ -~ .~,,. Jefferson County Code 18.35.070 (4) which states, "Buffers required -- All mineral extraction processing shall develop and maintain perimeter buffer areas consistent with the requirements of Jefferson County 18.30.040. He stated that it appears the delineation in the Code regarding buffers has eroded since 1999 and the proposed changes in the UDC would make it worse. Where there are quarries, buffers are important. RCW70.107.010 states The Legislature finds that inadequately controlled noise adversely affects the health, safety, and welfare of people, the value of the property and the quality of the environment. Anti-noise measures in the past have not adequately protected against the invasion of these interests by noise. There is a need, therefore, for an expansion of effort Statewide directed toward the abatement and control of noise considering the social and economic impact upon the community and the State. The purpose of this chapter is to provide authority for such an expansion of efforts supplementing existing programs. He noted that he will also email his comments to the Board. Rae Belkin, Port Ludlow, requested that the current more restrictive language in Section 18.20.240 (2f) be retained. The WAC that is cited in the revision says that the receiving properties (which the State labels as Class A) cannot receive noise levels of more than 45 decibels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The WACs define Class A properties as "lands where human beings reside and sleep." In Chapter 3.6 Noise of the final Environmental Impact Statement for Mats Mats Quarry done in July 2003, there is a table titled Common Sound Levels and Sources and Subjective Human Response. She gave the Board a copy of this information and asked them to note that the 45 decibel rating falls in the Sleep Interference column under Possible Affects on Humans. This seems to be in direct conflict of the WAC that states "lands where human beings reside and sleep." She read from pages 210-211 of a textbook entitled Noise Control Manual for Residential Buildings by David A. Harris, a building and acoustic design consultant. "Noise relates to an environmental situation. If background noise levels are very low as experienced in the country, an obtrusive noise at 50 decibels will become highly annoying. Unfortunately, most annoyance studies reflect an urban acoustical environment where background sounds are already near 60 decibels. If your project is located where the background noise is low, such as a retirement community next to a National Forest, the level of acoustical mitigation must be far more extensive than usual to assure peace and quiet." She requested that the acoustical mitigation employed by Jefferson County should be the retention of the current Section 18.20.240 (2f) language and the rejection of the proposed language change. Barbara Fisk, Center Road, stated that she wants to protest some of the revisions to the Code that would allow a car repair shop in rural areas. She has been complaining about a certain car repair business in a home beginning in 2003. At that time, a County employee did a site visit and wrote her a letter saying that this type of business was not allowed in that location according to Code. The County put the owner on notice and gave him 60-90 days to relocate and he said that there were no other locations available. This has gone on since November, 2003. The County is now considering a proposal to allow car repair businesses in rural residential neighborhoods and she is very much against it. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 _(/[~/~~e~~t+`t.~~r/\~/ 4r\~~~< Anne Vargo, Port Ludlow, stated that she is a taxpayer in Jefferson County and she objects to the proposal to allow a 24 hour mining operation. Today people have commented about building motels and increasing tourism in the County. She wants to see the people who live in Jefferson County stay here. The pristine environment where she lives is being deteriorated with all of the problems going on at the Shine pit. Other mining operations in Spokane County, Thurston County, and Kitsap County - where most of the gravel from the Shine pit goes -have restricted hours of operation. She can't believe that a 24/7 mining operation would be allowed. It devalues the properties in the area, not to mention the noise. Dal Lamagna, Poulsbo, stated that he is concerned about Jefferson County setting a precedent to allow 24 hour operation of businesses that create noise. A family or a business has a right to expand it's profits and value, but residents have a right to peace and to maintain the value of their property. One of the people who spoke earlier said he lived near a highway where he heard traffic noise. If you move to a residence on a road, you know there will be noise, but if you live in a place and a business comes in and starts operating and creating a nuisance the resale value of your property is affected. He lives in Kitsap County across the bay from the Shine pit where there is an enormous amount of growth. It bothers him that the noise from the pit operations maybe allowed when he is trying to sleep. He moved to~the Northwest from the East Coast because he wanted to be in a peaceful place. He lived on a harbor in New York where there was a 24 hour mining operation and they brought in gravel all night. This issue is related to the Pit to Pier project because if it happens, they will be able to operate 24 hours a day. Dan Baskins, representing Fred Hill Materials, stated that some of the people in this hearing would be classified in his psychology class as "a study in hysteria." FHM operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and they have for several years. This is especially true in the summer and sometimes in the winter. They operate at 47 decibels at the pit boundary with Pope Resources. To go a mile further and say that the noise has reached levels beyond 47 decibels is not measurable and listening from Shine Road, Southpoint Road, or Bridgehaven would attest to that. Noise is a very measurable thing and noise studies are done based on a scale weighted towards the human range of hearing. FHM has been working with federal regulators to use strobe lights when they are backing up equipment at night rather than backup alarms. The concern has been the neighbor's complaints. They will continue to work to make their operation a very clean, very quiet operation. They are proud that they have one of the best operations in the State and that they comply with all the local, State, and Federal regulations. They had nothing to do with the adoption of the Code. Whether it is changed or not won't affect their operation. The reason they operate at night is because about 50% of their business deals with public projects and they are required to work at night. Richard Varso, Port Ludlow, stated that the propaganda from Fred Hill Materials that people are against mining is false. Most people recognize the fact that mining is an industry in this area and it provides jobs. What people are against is individuals that attempt to get around the laws. A 24 hour operation isn't necessary here. Noise is an issue. He is speaking from experience because his grandfather was a miner. He thinks this issue is related to the Pit to Pier project. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 ~4~' Donna Nolan, Port Ludlow, stated that there needs to be a balance to industry, jobs, and the quality of life for residents. All the issues raised are valid. She asked that the Commissioners don't go down a road that is bent on adherence to laws without regard for citizens and business. It is very difficult for the County Staff to enforce these laws because they don't have the training or the instruments. She asked if someone would really come at 3 a.m. to measure the noise if there was a complaint? The FHM representative said that they have been operating 24/7 for years, but when the neighbors complain, FHM says that it is Ace Paving that is making the noise. Ken Hanson, Port Ludlow, stated that he can hear the operations at the Fred Hill pit very clearly, especially in the summer during evening hours. His residence is over 2 miles from the operation. He doesn't know if it is Ace Paving or Fred Hill but they both share the same responsibility of keeping the environment pristine. He can hear them when Highway 104 quiets down. Regardless of what the instruments are telling them, it is still noise and it bothers him and interrupts his peace and quiet. They may have been operating 24/7 for a long time, he can't tell. The weather conditions and wind direction are factors. He measures the wind direction from his home, and it usually blows from the South and, when it does, he can hear the noise from the operations at Fred Hill Materials clearly. He is against permanently extending their hours. Pat Todd, Port Ludlow, stated that she sent the Commissioners an email regarding the structure of the first sentence in Section 18.20.42 (f). It is a run-on sentence and creates confusion. It states, "All mineral extraction, processing, and related activities that take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays shall not exceed the limitations of WAC 173-60-040(2a), noise associated with mineral extraction and processing outside of this specified time period shall be reduced by 10 decibels for residential receiving properties....." She can only assume that whoever drafted this meant to put a period after 173-60-040(2a) and then begin a new sentence with "Noise associated with mineral......" It is also indicated that noise outside of this specified time period of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m....... but that same continuing sentence goes on to say "unless extended hours of operation are authorized." It was already stated that there are going to be hours of operation outside of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. How can it say that there are going to be hours of operation outside of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and there can be extended hours beyond that if emergency situations deem that necessary. It seems some clarification is needed in that sentence. Rich Holtman, Rhody Drive, stated that the Commissioners need to encourage businesses in the County. He owns and operates Highway Specialties which is located in a gray area of zoning on Rhody Drive. They have provided jobs and valuable resources to cities, counties and states. They have been asked to vacate their current location, but trying to find a place to relocate in Jefferson County isn't easy and they will probably have to leave the County to find a location. They have been operating their business at the current location for the past 4 years. There are businesses all along Rhody Drive and it is a main thoroughfare thru Jefferson County. They employ people and they aren't creating any noise issues. He appreciates the good visibility at the current location and would like to have the zoning on Rhody Drive reevaluated. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 (~ Margie Arnold, Quilcene, presented a map of the properties adjacent to Penny Creek Quarry. Her property is 200 feet from the quarry and 400 feet from their operation. She understands that the residents near Fred Hill Materials Shine pit are more than a mile away. Last fall, Greg Ballard from DCD called her and promised her a visit to discuss going forward with an impartial noise evaluation. He never contacted her again. Evidently, the noise study was done by Penny Creek Quarry and has been accepted. In addition, she understands that FHM is very involved in Penny Creek Quarry and that concerns her. The difference between the noise from traffic and a mining operation is that a huge semi is loud but it is predictable, and it comes and goes away. Sometimes motorcycle groups come by and they are very loud, but they are also predictable. She doesn't ever know when the mining operation is going to start, there is metal against metal screeching, her home shakes, her foundation is cracked which may or may not be caused by the operation, and her dog gets upset and barks. She has lived there since 1997. Lunn Nadeau, Port Townsend, stated that night is for sleeping. A person wakes up when there is noise, no matter what it might be. Too much noise is contrary to the basic human condition. If it's a rooster crowing, that's part of normal life, but if things are beeping and clanking and from out of nowhere, it affects the whole human quality of life. Common sense is that night is a time of rest. W.E. Seton, Port Townsend, stated that he doesn't agree with making small businesses leave the County because they don't conform. One construction business tried to supplement their business by renting machines and was told they couldn't. Renting machines fits with a construction business. People are trying to make a living. Kathy Holtman, stated that she and her husband own the business on Rhody Drive. It is a good business that provides safety for people and jobs for young kids. There is a lot of drug use in the County and most of the kids have to leave because of the economy. The regulations to relocate a business in the County are very difficult because most businesses are grandfathered so the same type of business has to go in at a location. There are businesses all along Rhody Drive. The counties, cities and fire departments are glad that their business is located here. Margie Arnold, added that no one has spoken today against motels or the Holtman's business. The majority of the comments have been against the noise created by the quarries. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed UDC amendments, the Chair closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. He added that written comments on the amendments will be accepted until Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 5 p.m. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he has concerns about the grandfather clause and only allowing like businesses on non-conforming properties because of the zoning change in the Comprehensive Plan. There should be performance standards where impact is involved. The County should be able to discern if the impact of a proposed business is greater than the original business. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of January 9, 2006 ~~~ ``````''' ~/f~/f _4~: Al Scalf explained that the Board heard comments about conforming uses and non-conforming uses. Non- conforming uses are not preferred by the zoning code and are to be phased out by the Code. If businesses are expanded or altered, they are subject to additional review which requires a Conditional Use permit. If a business expands or is altered and does not go through the permit process, it is a violation of Code and subject to the County's complaint process. The Board agreed to begin their deliberations on the UDC amendments at their next meeting on Tuesday, January 17. Kyle Alm mentioned that according to the Code, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle begins on February 1. Staff is recommending that the Board move the beginning of the cycle for 2006 to March 1 in order to allow time to continue work on the UDC amendments. The Board agreed to discuss this during the deliberations on the UDC amendments on the 17"' 0 ~, ~, ~.' ~, ~. ~- ~e -, •~ ;: Julie Matthes, CMC JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~` ~. P it Jo ,Chair _ ., / ` ~~ David W. an. Membe Deputy Clerk of the Board ~ ~~atrick M. Ro"Ic gers, Member ME N~I~1~~DJOURNED ,.~_ Page 11 _~ -fez ik ~~~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~~~ Y v JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Unified Develo ment Code Amendments DATE: Monda , Janua 9, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ ~~ ~ /~ ~~ l 9~ ~ c~ ~c. v ~ Y.nJ ~0 2T L UD taw ^ ^ ®, F Y ~} I q~ SCC~ritc UI Q.uJ La'~h2 I07~ ~-U~J I~ZJ ^ ^ ®- 1 I L 1 ~~~~ ST'~.N ~D I ~~I~~~~ TH ST ~T ~1i f~L vw ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I~ v V v V Esc ~1 ~r ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~>-' n ~ ~~ . JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Unified Develo ment Code Amendments DATE: Monda , Janua 9, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~s ~ ~~ ~~"~ ~~ed 6° ~ ~~ ^ ^ ~v ~'~~ ~, JGf ac~e~ Z~41 S.~.d Rd ~ q3~6 ~ ^ ^ ~ ~-~nt~Tr-~t~4rV Lo`i? 3 P(~aD •+1•rcvn ~1~3Z~' ^ ^ ~~~ -- yr•5 ~ ~~~ ~ ^ ^ NOL 0 v~~ ~ ^ ^~. ~~v t~ ~~~i 1-i`-(Jt 1~~0~ `21a • 1r2.Fn~~o~~~v~ ~r 1 ~n v~~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~:~ 4 Y ~-- v JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Unified Develo ment Code Amendments DATE: Monda , Janua 9, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ~ f=' /-~e e~ 331 w,S,,~,,~ Qa,a~ N'Aal•~k ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ^ Yn /7] ~CCtS 2~2z 8ea~rer Vatl Qor~- Ll.(d-vt~ ^ ^ l 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~~ ~ '+` .~ ~'-; JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Pro osed Unified Develo ment Code Amendments DATE: Monda , Janua 9, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE //~~~~ /~ IKtrt c., VOA Q.. / ~r ~ ^ -~ iM ~~ P. ~' ~J ^ ^ f e~ ^ ^ !~ ~r ^^~ Ul~ ~,] ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: Gabe Ornelas [nulife@mail.olympus.netj Monday, December 19, 2005 7:25 PM Loma Delaney Noise ~'~ Dear Commissioners: I just completed reading an email that was sent to you from Connie Gallant regarding, Fred Hill and the subject of noise and work hours of that company. As you all know, the Discovery Bay Alliance is in the midst of land use issues with Security Services Northwest ( SSNW which is before a Hearing Officer with a finding determined in mid-January. What is interesting is the similarity of Ms. Gallant's concerns of noise as the genesis of the Fred Hill's operation hours and to what occurred here on Discovery Bay this past year with the sound of gunfire emanating from the operations of SSNW. Since the approximately 900 residents became aware of the presence of SSNW and their Counter Assault Training due to the constant gunfire, which is well documented in the court of law, this County has expended a great amount of resources both in personnel and financial costs to challenge the legality of SSNW's operations. The DBA regardless of the outcome of the issue, believes the time has come for this County to consider the enactment of a Noise Ordinance for the well being of the residents and businesses of Jefferson County. The DBA believes 2006 should be the year that the BOCC protects the limited resources. of this county through a proactive dialogue on the subject of a Noise Ordinance for Jefferson County. We look forward to discussing this matter in the coming year. Happy Holidays! Sincerely, Gabe Ornelas DBA i Leslie Locke From: Connie gallant [c9@conniegallant.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:02 PM To: Loma Delaney Subject: Mining Hours Dear County Commissioners - Please enforce a timetable of reasonable working hours that Fred Hills Materials, and any other quarry operating in our county, must adhere to. In the interest of promoting businesses and having natural resources available, the majority of us understand the need for certain types of businesses being allowed to operate in an area that is still, compared to other cities and counties that have been ruined, relatively pristine. However, no business should have carte blanche in our county. we live here because of the surrounding beauty and peace and quiet. We do not want our area to turn into a noisy commercial and industrial complex. Two of you, David and Phil, promised the voters last year that you would never allow the pit to pier project to get out of hand. Pat told constituents in Quilcene that he was also against the pit to pier project. Here's a chance for all three of you to stand by your words. Do not allow any of the quarries operating in our county to spoil the peace of its neighbors. They. must adhere to reasonable working hours -- 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM is reasonable enough. Please adopt a language that completely restricts mining operations in Jefferson County from 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday, unless the BOCC declares an emergency situation. The voters who supported each of you expect no less. Thank you, Connie Gallant Quilcene .~ ~~ La~ 1 ~,- Cap ~, ~ ~~ -1S Leslie Locke From: Mike & Terri Naughton [a~tare@olypen.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:50 PM ~ ~ ~ 4~i To: Loma Delaney ~~ ~ ~ ~~ yti Sub'ect: Minin O erations ~ " ~~ 1 9 P The proposed changes to the county code with respect to mining operations allows night time mining and a new (and higher) noise limitation. We do not agree with either of these changes, and wish to suggest that mining be limited to daylight hours and that restrictions on noise levels be made more stringent. We do not like the deteriorating appearance of our county as approached from the Hood Canal Bridge, with the huge unsightly scar being made by Fred Hill Materials on the hillside. Please help us to retain, to the extent possible, the beauty and rural nature of Jefferson County. Leslie Locke From: Cindy B. [cascadia@olympus.net] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:43 PM ^ u z To: Lorna Delaney ~, ' ~ r Subject: Mining noise.... k ~ ' `~" „'4'~ I understand that FHM has persuaded you people to ignore the public interest and pretty much lift all bans on nighttime mining noise. I urge you not to do this. It's bad enough that you folks have caved in to FHM so many times already. Please do not make the situation even more ridiculously worse, serving no interests other than FHM's. Thank you. Cindy Brown, M.D. Port Townsend Cindy Brown cascadia@olympus.net Come to the dark side--we have cookies. 1 Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Rae Belkin [artist@olypen.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:58 PM ~ ' ~ ,~ I"~ (~, 9,~ ~ ~= To: Loma Delaney " ~ ~ ~^~ ~ j ~ '~ ~, ~ ;,;x t Subject: Quarry working hours comment If this message from Hood Canal Coalition is true, you can add the Mats Mats Community's "Pikes! What are you thinking?" comment to the list of concerns. Working from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. is totally unacceptable and unnecessary and, if allowed, could greatly affect the use of the Mats Mats Quarry and the enjoyment of the residential properties that surround it. Please do not allow Fred Hill's plans to affect other quarry's operations in Jefferson County. Sincerely, Rae Belkin Mats Mats Area Coalition Latest News The Jefferson County Commissioners are considering changes to the county code, relating to mining operations. The current language on mining has an implied restriction on night time mining with a fuzzy definition of noise disturbance that allows the county some latitude in protecting neighbors. It has not been used effectively, but with the right emphasis at the courthouse, it could be. The proposed language explicitly allows night time mining and processing with a noise level limit that the county has no means to measure nor enforce. Everything is to the advantage of the miner. FHM has its fingerprints all over this new language. It directly relates to plans for the pit to pier project, a much enlarged processing facility at the Shine Pit, and ships and barges waiting at the pier on Hood Canal. This is not a change that is in the public interest, but one that serves the special interest of one particular mining company as it hopes to vastly increase the scope of strip mining and processing. We should not allow public policy to be done in this way. Our commissioners could adopt, instead, language that completely restricts mining operations in Jefferson County to 7 AM to 7 PM unless the BOCC declares an emergency situation. (For example, if we had a major road washout or similar event that requires aggregate materials, etc.) Email your thoughts to jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Happy New Year too, HCC Steering Committee 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: jan hurd [janh@tscnet.comj l; Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:05 AM q ~ ~ ~ ~- ~~$1~pg/,i To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Mining Regulations I reside near Hood Canal and am concerned about the proposed changes to the mining regulations that would allow operations to take place at night. Sound carries across the water especially well at night when all else is quiet. We are already awakened by the noise of fishing boats during their openings and don't want more commercial noises interfering with the normally quiet Hood Canal environment. Thanks for considering my opinion. Jan Hurd 12/20/2005 ~- ' OC-D ~ ~ - ~ ~ Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: duffynight@gmail.com on behalf of Duffy Nightingale [duffy@soundsoftware.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:12 AM To: Lorna Delane '~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~,t 4 Subject: Night Mining ynoise laws ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~"~~ <:wg Dear Commissioners, We are certainly NOT in favor of changing county code to allow night time mining in Jefferson County. While we think some limited mining during the day should be allowed, we are not in favor of expanding mining operations. Also we do not want to see the pit-to-pier porject implemented as we see the benefits to the county and us citizens as zero and the risks ie environmental damage, lowered property values, materials lost, etc as not worth it. Thank you for your consideration. William & Barbara Nightingale 701 58th Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Sincerely, Duffy Nightingale www. soundso ftware. us duffvCc~soundsoftware.us Phone: 360.379.3615 Fax: 973.201.8921 The information in this a-mail, and any attachment therein, is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please return the a-mail to the sender and delete it from your computer. Although Sound Software Printing, Inc. attempts to sweep e-mail and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses. 12/20/2005 Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:56 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: nighttime mining Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 -----Original Message----- From: Forest Shomer [mailto:ziraatQolympus.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:42 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: nighttime mining Gentlemen: eia"_ u„ ~ ~ ~ 4 . ~ ,._ Years ago, Seattle's Lake Union was an industrial lake. Besides the well-known Gasworks, there was a very active gravel operation--the raw product was barged to the site--just west of the I-5 bridge over the lake. The gravel works was grandfathered onto the site while the city grew up around it. For seven years I lived about a quarter-mile up the hill from the site, and when the industrial operation fired up at 4 AM almost every day, the uproar, which could be heard all around the Lake (which sits in the valley between Capital and Queen Anne Hills), was like an alarm clock from which one could not lapse back into sleep. I learned, somewhat inconveniently, to be early-to-bed, early-to-rise, in order to get enough rest. Mercifully, the operation shut down around 1973, and the neighborhood became much more livable thereafter. I can hardly think of a better example of a Quality-of-Life issue for Jefferson County. I think that 7 AM to 7 PM are reasonable hours of operation for high-decibel industrial activity. In fact, the City of Port Townsend agrees, by having a noise ordinance on approximately that schedule. It seems to sit well with the community. So why offer anything less to the residents of unincorporated Jefferson County? 7 to 7 are essentially 'daylight' hours for the better part of the year. Daylight hours for industry make sense all around--traffic generated is safer during daylight; on-the-job safety is greater during daylight; and megawatts of energy is saved by not needing artificial lighting on the job when the work is done during daylight.. I hope you will take this testimony into consideration as you review possible changes to the County's mining regulations. Sincerely, Forest Shomer P.O. Box 639 Port Townsend 385-6114 Page 1 of 1 Loma Delaney From: BethOrling@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 21,2005 5:33 AM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M To: Lorna Delaney ~,~ `r ~ ~ , ~:. ~~ ~4 T Subject: Noise Restrictions on Mining Please maintain the peace of our area by tightening and enforcing firm restrictions on nighttime noise from mining. We continue to dread the nightmare of 24-hour gravel conveyors running a few hundred feet behind our home. We hope all will be done to restrict such a plan and to allow gravel miners to use only trucks rather than Hood Canal barges to transport their materials. Sincerely, Beth Orling Zimmermann 2722 Thomdyke Rd. Pt. Ludlow 12/22/2005 From: Becky mars [rebeccavm2002@yahoo.com] N Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:36 AM ~ ~~~ ~~~.~ ~~ ~s'~~ ~ To: Lorna Delaney Subject: noise controls To whom it may concern: We have recently moved to Seabeck from Connecticut. We loved the beautiful estuary of Long Island Sound and now we aze enjoying Puget Sound and Hood Canal. In CT, we lived next door to a pit to pier operation. It was established in the eazly 1900's and has been continuously runnning for the duration. Recently Duke energy decided to run a 24 inch gas pipeline adjacent to the railroad track. It was immediately approved by FERC. There were many of us that objected to this pipeline and called for an EIS. During the EIS it was discoverd that there was numerous toxins in the area. It was believed that the use of the pier for bazge shipping the gravel over time had polluted the azea. The gas pipeline wanted to go through this area because they stated that it wouldn't be so bad to further destroy the shellfish and fish population there because the area had taken much abuse already. So you can see by this example what happens when we allow one polluter. Oher companies want to further pollute and just call it " oh well, the pristine area is already destroyed, why not destroy it further ". You can read the company comments in their statements to FERC in the official public documents. Also inorder to put in the pipeline, they claimed that a horizontaldirectional drill would be used. That machine emits considerable noise levels beyond safe for human ears. Once a corridor is established like this, noise pollution comes too. The HDD was scheduled by Duke to run 24 hours continuously and again was approved by FERC even though the town of Branford has noise ordinances. When we asked FERC, they responded that federal law superceded local laws and that we as neighbors were just at the mercy of the energy companies. Allowing these pit to pier operations in Puget Sound is asking for a host of problems downstream. Please oppose these operations before they destroy this beautiful Hood Canal. Thank you, Becky Mazs Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 12/22/20(}5 LL. ; DC~ j ~ -a3 -05 Page 1 of 1 Lorna Delaney From: John Phillips [e.elkspringspa@verizon.net] ~ ~ ~A. Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:32 PM ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 , ~ To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Hood Canal Pit to pier Jefferson County Commissioners, My name is John Phillips. My parents bought property 45 years ago 200 feet up the beach from where the Pit to Pier is to hit Hood Canal. I have spent considerable time on the beach over the years, now my children and grand children walk the same pristine beach. Believe me, IF the Pit to Pier is allowed to go forward, it will devastate the environment in area. At night, we can hear people talk or a dog bark several miles away across the Canal, the noise created by the gravel grinding along a conveyer belt and dumping into a barge will affect not only the near neighbors, but everyone in a 5+ mile radius. 1 invite you to walk the beach in the area to see for yourselves. Do not depend on the Fred Hill "hired people's reports" to cloud your judgment, view the environment yourself and see the eagles, otter, clean beaches, etc. first hand. Visit at night and hear how far noise carries across water. Please do not allow the Pit to Pier. The permanent damage caused to the properties and the environment will be much greater than the benefit to a private company. John Phillips 18520 N.E. 184th Street Woodinville, WA 98077 12/23/2005 f ~ Page 1 of 2 Lorna Delaney From: Pat 8 Ken [patnken@olypen.com] ~ ~ ~~ ~' I , 2 05 7:16 AM ~'~ `~ ~ ~~ `~_`~`~ Sent: Fnday, December 23, 0 To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Night time noise from Fred Hill Materials pit near Shine -CORRECTION I have been notified by the Hood Canal Coalition that the 6el+~ie Jefferson County Commissioners are considering modifying or clarifying the rules concerning night time noise from the Fred Hill Materials (FHM) Shine Pit. I would like to inform you of my feelings on this matter. I live at 196 Scenic View Lane in Port Ludlow. The physical location is on the north side of highway 104 near milepost 12; above the Shine community; nearly two miles from the FHM open pit. Most evenings, when there is work activity at the Shine Pit 1 can clearly hear the rock crushers and back up alarms from vehicles working there. The intensity of this noise varies greatly, depending on atmospheric conditions but it is most bothersome when the prevailing wind is from the South. I do not like to listen to the beep-beep's nor the rock crusher when I step outside. And, at times the noise can be heard inside our house. I complained to the county commissioners and FHM in August-September of 2004 when it was brought up at one of the public meetings that no complaints had ever been filed about the noise. I did not receive an acknowledgement from the commissioners but Mr. Dan Baskins of FHM talked to me and sent me information that outlined the rules and limits they were working under. Mr. Baskin told me that the sound limit at the perimeter of their site was 60dBA and recent measurements showed that they were in compliance. Mr. Baskin also told me that the county commissioners had given them permission to work at night. I am over 60 years in age and suffer the usual hearing loss that besets men of this age but I can clearly hear the activities at FHM once the traffic on highway 104 diminishes. I know that the threshold for human hearing is 0 dBA and that mine is probably greater than this. I also know that the 60 dBA limit is equivalent to a normal conversation as far as intensity goes. My point is that even though they might be in compliance and nobody's windows are rattling as a result of their activities the noise from their activities still can be heard and at times it is very annoying. We enjoy listening to the night sounds, the coyotes and owls and FHM interferes with that. My guess is that some kind of atmospheric condition is reflecting and focusing the noise from their site so that we in Shine are getting bombarded from above and not line of sight from their equipment. It would seem to me that sound proofing their rock crusher and using flashing lights on their equipment rather than the very loud back-up horns. at night might be a good public relations act for them to try. It might be, also, that the measurement method is faulty and it should include that sound radiated upward. If these remedies are futile then I am opposed to any extension of their work hours or expansion of their activities. Sincerely, Ken Hanson 196 Scenic View Lane 12/23/2005 __ ; ~-` Port Ludlow, WA 98365 12/23/2005 Page 2 of 2 From: Jim and Barb Stark [starksreach@earthlink.net] ~ ~ #~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~_ December 30, 2005 1:43 PM ~ ~• Sent: Friday ~,~,`,~~[~,~5 ~~~~ k '~ R~ , Y~,':n To: Loma Delaney Cc: donna4fish@aol.com Subject: MINING OPS CODE WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE CONTEMPLATING A CHANGE TO THE COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW EXTENDED MINING OPERATIONS HOURS IN THE COUNTY. PLEASE DO NOT DO THAT. WE LIVE WITHING LINE-OF-SIGHT OF THE PROPOSED PIER FOR FRED HILL MATERIALS AND WITHIN EARSHOT OF PIER OPS NOISE. IF YOU ALLOW THIS PIT-TO-PIER FIASCO TO GO AHEAD [WE CANNOT BELIEVE ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE PRECARIOUS CONDITION OF THIS BEAUTIFUL HOOD FJORD WOULD INDEED ALLOW SUCH A THING] WE CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOU WILL DO ALL YOU CAN TO MINIMIZE OFF-SITE DISTURBANCES. THANKS FOR LISTENING. JIM & BARBARA STARK 12/30/2005 w ,~~ ~. `~c=7 ~ ~ ~-i~~c~ Honorable Phillip Johnson, Chair Honorable Patrick Rodgers Honorable David Sullivan Jefferson County Board of Commissioners ., ,, _ t ~~ , ,. ~~~, ~~ __ ;. ._a .. t L. ,_° JAN 0 3 200fi Mr. John Fischbach Jefferson County Administrator P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 ~.. SENT VIA EMAIL iefrboccna,co.jefferson.wa.us, ifischbach(a,co.ifferson.wa.us January 2, 2006 Dear Commissioners, FHM appreciates the concerns expressed in Mr. Ken Hanson's Dec. 23, 2005 a-mail, which was forwarded to us via your staff. Before clarifying some statements and claims asserted by Mr. Hanson, we agree that on occasion Mr. Hanson can likely hear our Shine operation. Even though the Shine Pit processing area operates well within legal noise limits, that doesn't mean that we're not open to considering further means to lower noise levels for our neighbors. For example, regarding night operations, we have recently clarifieii the federal (MISHA) requirements and are reviewing alternative warning systems. It is our hope to install strobe lights instead of audible back-up alarms on key nighttime equipment in 2006. Also on the horizon is moving our active mining to the Wahl Extraction Area, which is another 1.2 miles inland from the Shine Pit, over a ridge, and out of the public view shed. That move is awaiting the results of permit and monitoring requirements as well as infrastructure construction on our part. In the meantime, the company has moved its extraction area off of the eastern bluff to an area that is significantly blocked by Hidden Ridge, further limiting sound and visual impacts of our extraction activities on the area. Fred Hill Materials will continue to be receptive to constructive-minded suggestions. However, not everyone understands that the commercial forestlands on which we operate are designated as mineral resource lands under the state's Growth Management Act and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. A fundamental objective of the GMA is to preserve commercially viable mineral resources for use of current and future generations. The GMA specifically directs local governments to protect these resource lands from encroachment by adjacent development, not the other way around. We think that's an important context. In that spirit, we'd like to clarify some statements and claims contained in Mr. Hanson's letter: 1. That the "...sound limit at the perimeter of their site was 60 dBA... " This is incorrect. As noted within the noise report that I sent Mr. Hanson, the legal ' ~_ t receiving property sound level limit is 50 dBA (class C to class A) at night. Further, the noise report demonstrates that the actual sound level at the nearest property level is quite lower than 50 dBA, in the range of 42 to 47 dBA. 2. That the "... county commissioners have given them [Fred Hill Materials) permission to work at night. " This is incorrect. Since its inception 1959, when market demands warranted, the Shine Pit has operated up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, neither prior operators nor Fred Hill Materials, Inc. has ever asked or been given permission by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners to do so. No such "permission" is required. Like any individual or business, we have a fundamental property right to use our property (in this case, a mineral lease to mine) without undue interference or quelling by neighboring property owners or government so long as applicable standards and other legal requirements are met and observed. In our phone conversation, I specifically said that it is legal for FHM to work at night provided that we stay below the sound limits for nighttime operations as codified in Department of Ecology's regulations. I also mentioned that Ace Paving, as a condition of its Conditional Use Permit, is required to notify Jefferson County Department of Community Development and interested parties of any intent to operate at night. 3. That Mr. Hanson can hear the rock crusher operating at night. This is incorrect. Due to its complexity and required expertise to operate, the rock crusher at the Shine Pit currently does not operate at night. Due note that even if it did, the sound emitted from it and the full operations at Shine Pit stay below night time limits. The noise studies [prepared by Carl Bloom, a recognized and reputable noise technician], originally produced for your DCD and provided to Mr. Hanson, clearly demonstrate that Fred Hill Materials operates the Shine Pit well below the state legal standards for sound. This maybe validated by simply standing next to South Point road, at the nearest neighboring point to the Shine Pit, and hearing the sound level of the operation. Furthermore, even with unfavorable atmospheric and wind conditions coupled with the same elevation and line of sight of Mr. Hanson's residence has with the Shine Pit -the sound levels generated at the pit proper are not enough to carry some two miles and be above the legal limit. Again, we appreciate Mr. Hanson's thoughts and concerns and will remain open to constructive suggestions from our neighbors. I believe you have copies of the aforementioned noise studies, if not and would like a copy, we'd be happy to provide another. Cordially, Dan Baskins Project Manager for Fred Hill Materials, Inc. CC : J~7 T,c ,C~~~ Lorna Delaney Page 1 of 1 From: Carolyn Eagan [eaganc@seanet.com] A Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 12:03 PM ~~~`t ~ R To: Lorna Delane ~ p Y Subject: concerns about the proposed new Unified Development Code Dear County Officials, Please do not allow 24 hr mining operations at the Shine division of Fred Hills Materials. This does not seem reasonable to neighbors, in fact it is very aggravating to hear the noise from the pit at all hours of the day and night. Expansion of their operation times does not seem a benefit to the community, only to them. Please consider your constituency when ruling on this matter. Carolyn Eagan 360-437-9973 1/6/2006 l ~' Page 1 of 1 Lorna Delaney From: CEEKAYAKER@aol.com Sent: .Friday, January 06, 2006 1:06 PM To: Loma Delaney Subject: Concerns about the new Unified Development Code... Dear Sir, hE~~ir,~ Q~coaa As a native Washingtonian, I am writing to express my concerns about the new code that would allow 24 hour mining operations. Who would want to live or even be around a 24 hour mineral extraction operation? To say nothing about the associated noise, dust,. air pollution, et al. Please put some reasonable, workable limitations on this operation that takes into account existing neighbors concerns. Sincerely, Clark Casebolt 1/6/2006 CC ~ ~C~ i ~~ ~c-~ Lorna Delaney From: wsurf3@comcast.net Sent: Friday, January 06, 20061:38 PM ~ ~ ~~ To: Lorna Delaney '~ I ~; ~' M Subject: (UDC)18.20.240(2x~ Hi, I write in opposition of 24 hr/day mining operations in that it may distrub neighbors. Please restrict the hours of operations to 7 AM to 8 PM. Yours, Karl Hadley 2246 NW Comyn Rd Poulsbo, WA 98370 1 From: Maradel Gale [mkgale@darkwing.uoregon.edu] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:11 PM ~ ~' r D lane ~ ~~ ~, ~ , To: Lo na e y Subject: Mining Code Hello, Jefferson County Commissioners: This letter regards your proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code concerning mining in Jefferson County. The proposed language, which would allow mining operations to continue around the clock, is unjustified and damaging to the environment. That you have allowed expanded mining activities is bad enough - now you want to further disturb the lives of those people who have chosen to live in beautiful Jefferson County. There is absolutely no justification for putting the economic interests of one industry over the lives of many residents. People need to have hours of uninterrupted sleep, without the noise of machinery operating, trucks beeping, and other noise-making activities associated with heavy industry. It astonishes me that you, as residents of this county, apparently do not realize that you live in a beautiful part of the world. Why would you want to diminish any aspect of this beauty??? There may be other places in the world where gravel mining could cause less environmental impact, but this is not one of them. As a property owner on Hood Canal, I ask you to place reasonable time limits on noise-generating activities associated with this mine. At the very least, follow the lead of other counties in our region which do not allow such activities after 6 p.m. and before 7a.m. Thank you. Maradel K. Gale mkgale uoregon.edu 206/842-5133 ' 1 /6/2006 ~~ i l i ld~ Lorna Delaney Page 1 of 1 From: Gordon James [gjames@cablespeed.com] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 3:25 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: (UDC)18.20.240(2x17 Commissioners Rogers, Johnson & Sullivan: ~~ I~ Since I will be unable to attend the Janyuary 9, 2006 meeting to voice my comments, I am submitting them via a-mail for inclusion and your consideration. For years, citizens living near the Mats Mats quarry were subjected to noise from quarry operations well beyond the normal stated hours of operations. Violations by the quarry went unchecked and unenforced by Jefferson County. Mining operations in Jefferson County should be limited to regular business hours in order to minimize light, noise or other intrusions upon the lives of neighbors and other citizens of Jefferson County. I am strongly opposed to extending operations of any mining operation in Jefferson County beyond 7AM-6PM on Mondays- Saturday and prohibiting operations on Sunday. A well managed mining operation should be able to plan its production to profitably operate within normal business hours. Also, they should not be allowed to appeal for "emergency" relief of the posted hours without a true emergency and not just an opportunity for short term gain. I trust that you will take into consideration the welfare of your citizen constituents. This is not an attempt to stifle economic growth. The tax impact of shorter hours will not be significant to Jefferson County. The impact upon quality of life to its citizens will be. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Gordon James 3447 Oak Bay Road. Port Hadlock, Wa 98339 1/6/20U6 ~~ i-q-off r . : -~ Lorna Delaney From: Ddenver [ddenver@olypen.com] Sent: Friday, January ~, 2006 3:12 PM To: Loma Delaney Subject: Please Limit Mining Work Hours!!!!!! To Whom It May Concern, HEA41N~ RE(;ORD Surely this change - the omission of limiting mining hours - must be a mistake. Who in the Jefferson County's administration/legislation office would allow such activities to take place? If this was in your backyard or your neighborhood I am sure it would not be allowed! As a resident of the Coyle (Toandos) Peninsula who drives by an extremely active mining site off of Highway 104 quite regularly I would have the definite misfortune of hearing active mining at all hours. Allowing unlimited Mining Operations around the clock is a ridiculous concept making any nearby residents lives a miserable existence. Tanks, Dan Denver 512 Rhododendron Drive Quilcene, WA Original Message From: donna4fish@aol.com 1`0: donna4fish <donna4fish@aol.com> Subject: Hood Canal Coalition Date: 12/31/69 16:00 > &nbsp; > Greetings.&nbsp; Help requested.&nbsp; Don't delete yet.......:&gt;)&nbsp; > Letters and attendance at a hearing needed. > &nbsp; > Hours of operation for Gravel Mines..... > &nbsp; > Please write to Jefferson County Commissioners telling them of your > concerns about the proposed new Unified Development Code. > (UDC)&nbsp;18.20.240(2)(f) It proposes allowing 24 hr. mining operations. > email:&nbsp; jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us > &nbsp; > &nbsp; Concerns include: > *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; New wording allowing 24 hr mining is not > reasonable.&nbsp; It does not protect citizens.&nbsp; Other counties are more > restrictive than this proposal.&nbsp; > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Clark County:&nbsp; 6AM - 8PM > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Spokane County:&nbsp; 7AM - lOPM if w/i 1,000 ft. > of a residence > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Thurston County:&nbsp; 7AM - 7PM if adjacent to > residential zoning > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Kitsap County:&nbsp; 7AM - 6PM.........NOTE:&nbsp; > 90~ of the gravel from Shine Pit goes to Kitsap County. > &nbsp; 1 ,- M a > *Backup alarms are aggravating waking neighbors from sleep yet they are not > restricted by proposed decibel limits.&nbsp;&nbsp; In fact, they are > specifically EXCLUDED under state law.&nbsp; &nbsp;It doesn't seem reasonable > to&nbsp adopt this new code establishing decibel level&nbsp noise limits for > anything when such rules are not enforceable anyway, due to > County's budgetary limits.&nbsp; (manpower, measuring devices, training in usage > of such devices, etc) > &nbsp; > *&nbsp; It's more than noise.&nbsp; Lighting, dust, crushing, loading, > sorting, transporting,&nbsp; and all related activities&nbsp; do not appear to > have been considered.&nbsp; New wording strongly benefits miners at the cost of > neighbors and opens the door for the Pit to Pier Project in Hood Canal.&nbsp; > (24 hr. mining will make it economically viable for loading ships) > &nbsp; > ATTEND THIS HEARING&nbsp;if possible.&nbsp; This is the last day of public > input on the proposed changes to the UDC . > January 9, 2006 - Monday morning 10 AM, Jeff. County Courthouse, Port > Townsend. (1820 Jefferson St.)&nbsp; BOCC meets in the basement, left after you > go down the stairs. > &nbsp; > Thanks for your support. > HCC Steering Committee 2 t~ _; ~ ~~ ; ~-~~ I~~ PA Lorna Delaney Page 1 of 1 From: Nancy Dorgan [ndorgan@waypoint.com] i r~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:38 PM ~~~` ~~ ~ ~ 1`~ ~ To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comments for the Record - BOCC OMNIBUS hearing January 9, 2006 Attached are comments for the record for the January 9th BOCC OMNIBUS hearing. Thank you, Nancy Dorgan 1/9/2006 i S January 9, 2006 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Revisions to Jefferson County Code Chapter 18 -Unified Development Code HOPE (Housekeeping Omnibus for Permit Efficiency) Commissioners: On behalf of Olympic Environmental Council (OEC) and myself, I would like to request postponement of adoption of the OMNIBUS until the County is prepared to simultaneously adopt the revisions agreed to in settlement with Washington Environmental Council (WEC). Jefferson County failed to enact GMA-compliant regulations to protect critical areas when the UDC was first adopted at the end of 2000. WEC appealed that failure. When the County completed its 2004 GMA Update, which was required by State law to include Best Available Science for the protection of critical areas, the County again refused to comply. Again WEC was forced to expend its time and energy to protect the environment and quality of life of Jefferson county. This Board should give top priority to adoption of the already agreed-to resolution of the WEC appeal. If that means the development community must HOPE a few more months, then let them wait. The environmental community in Jefferson County has already waited long enough. The origins of the extensive OMNIBUS revisions before you are described in Planning Commission Minutes for 01-07-04: "Randy Kline handed out a memo from staf~ j`'that went to the BOCC on December 22, 2003, regarding Projected Items for UDC Housekeeping Omnibus for Permit Eff ciency. He stated that the charge of the BOCC was to make the UDC more efficient so that it works better. He stated that staff was going over the list item by item with the BOCC. Therefore, when the items came forward to the Planning Commission, the list would have the "blessing" of the BOCC in terms of the amendments that would be proposed. Mr. Kline stated that the BOCC was still conducting that review. He stated that sta, f~`'had also compiled a list of housekeeping items that should be addressed. Al Scalf stated that before the Planning Commission received the list, staff would develop line-in, line-out UDC language for the commission's review. He stated that the Planning Commission may have other issues to add as well. " This has been a very long process, and a challenging one'for citizens to understand and participate in. For simplicity, I put my specific comments to the proposed JCC 18 changes in table form attached as Appendix I. Appendix II contains a portion of the Revised WWGMHB Page 1 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 Digest of Decisions - 2005 regarding previous vs. Jefferson County case. On behalf of Irondale Community Action Neighbors (IC underscore several BOCC questions/comments. made to OMNIBUS workshop regazding the inconsistency of the contains invalidated urban regulations for the Irondale/f inconsistency is true of the County's Comprehensive Pl, County's website.) I don't yet know the text or process Staff told ypu Janu "disclaimer" to the code, informing code-users 'that onl and not the urban ones aze actually in effect. Only the that hasn't happened yet because the County hasn't pra Inappropriately, while the County finishes its required development is wanted is allowed to develop under "re development regulations. That's not the best way to er development necessary to fund a sewer and other requi Because the County might someday use the O1~IINIBUS lifted, we would like to state now again for the record tY consistent with the County's land use analysis (includin the "Special Study" for UGA designation. In several ru scope of our azgument. It was not just that there were it the HB said were too late to challenge), but that the Coi consistent. with its conclusions, however they were arri~ Appendix III relevant excerpts from prior ICAN/Dorga~ exhibits that were attached to those briefs. Thank you very much for your consideration of my Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan 2137 Washington St. #7 Port Townsend WA 98368 appeals, one of which was a 1994 OEC 4N) and myself, I would like to staff at your January 3, 2006 current online Code, which still adlock Urban Growth Area. (The same n available for sale at DCD and on the y 3rd they would use to add an invalidity rural land use districts and standards [earings Board can lift invalidity, and erly changed its regulations. ban planning, the azea where urban stated", lower-intensity rural ure sufficient future urban-level ~ urban infrastructure. when asking that invalidity be it the County's UGA zoning is not the Trottier Report) that was done in mgs the Hearings Boazd misunderstood correct assumptions in the study (which ity's legislative actions were still not ;d at. I am therefore submitting in briefing and reference as well the Page'. 2 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US January 9, 2006 } Appendix I CODE SECTION -REVISION I COMMENT Chapter 18.05 INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS p.l 18.05.080 Hearing examiner aid-appellate h (Also proposed for deletion in: Chapter 18.40 PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES/SEPA IMPLEMENTATION i Q nn ion n r~e~~.,~e ~,e.,..;,,,. o .,,.~;,,., p. l l 18.05.090 Establishment of land use districts. Table 1-1. Comprehensive Plan Land Use District Designations Land Use District Zoning District (See Chapter 18.18 JCC) Urban Growth Areas Current use of the Appellate Hearings Examiner should be retained. The recent Appellate HE ruling regarding "vesting" for proposed over-development at Port Ludlow underscores the need to retain this venue for citizens seeking redress of staff errors in an process. Going to Superior Court is a daunting, expensive prospect for most people that effectively rules out that option for most. In- this era of opening government to greater public participation, regulations that already provide greater access should be retained, not discarded. The terms "land use district" vs. "zoning district are used inconsistently in the JCC. They are not synonyms. (See also 18.45.090). The distinction originated in UGA amendments to create UGA zones that could be amended aspermit-level rezones (e.g. trailer park into "big box") without a regular Comprehensive Plan amendment. These UGA zoning regulations were invalidated yet they persist in the Code unamended. Chapter 18.10 DEFINITIONS Page 3 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION -REVISION COMMENT p. 20 "Intensification of nonconforming use" means Nonconforming structures and uses should any increase or expansion in the be a cepted as is, but not intentionally and quality or quantity of products, goods, services , sub tantially intensified and expanded long structures or adverse impacts upon pazcels within aft planning policies, goals, etc. have the vicinity of the nonconforming use produced', ch ged. generated, served, created or performed at the site of the legal nonconforming use by the owner or I particulazly concerned about occupant of that legal nonconforming use. inte ification of "adverse impacts" from noise. p. 25 "Noise" means Thi ~ significant definition change is the first unde rpinning for further code changes in. oth sections. The deleted language should be r tained. Co ty residents should not have to live .the intensity, wi disturbing noise of any kind 24 hours a duration and chazacter of sounds from any and all day. Noise should be regulated by hours of sources. ~ the c lay in addition to decibel-related State "Noise disturbance" means noise in excess of the stant iazds for noise noise. Port Townsend's limitations as defined by WAC nois y code regulates industrial activities in 173-60 Maximum Environmental Noise Levels.. the ort by the clock and decibel level. Noi e-producing activities such as mining exc vation and processing should be res 'cted so that rural residents are spared this d of noise between 7pm and lam. This crucial quality of life protection from mini ing impacts does not mean that Jefferson Cou nty is keeping its gravel "under its own tree' , as alleged by David Alvazez, Deputy Pros cuting Attorney, at the BOCC's Jan. 3'~ ibus workshop. Obviously, gravel has and will continue to be exported •bey nd the county line in great quantities. p.27 "Overlay District" This section (see next page) wrongly deletes ... Exc t as otherwise rovided, the rovisions the " rtant riori of critical azea Page 4 of 58 Dorgan Comments -0r January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION -REVISION of an overlay district shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of this code for the duration of the overlay district, subject to RCW Title 36. te-~S-sedgy p. 35 "Rural village center" means 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. In Jefferson County these centers include: P'e~l~adlesl~, Quilcene and Brinnon. [Ord. 06-04 § 2; Ord. 11- 00 § 2.3] p. 35 > > COMMENT overlays. Protection of critical azeas, as required by GMA, does not allow other types of overlays (e.g.mining, Airport, Brinnon) to automatically take precedence over critical areas when code provisions conflict. The land speaks first, as Hearings Board said. Do not delete this tent. Protect critical areas. Adopt other WEC Settlement Agreement Revisions. This revision would delete Port Hadlock here. and in other RVC regulations. However, those aze the very regulations that the BOCC "reinstated" June 6, 2005, an action not yet reflected in the JCC 18 or listed in the JCC Ordinance Table of amending legislation. This particulaz section is an example of the pervasive problem in the code -the County's attempt to simultaneously retain both invalidated urban and "reinstated" rural for the same areas. This is a useful definition that should be retained, particularly as the County begins to address the environmental impacts of faulty septic tanks polluting ground and surface water. Why would Staff want you to delete the definition? Chapter 18.15 LAND USE DISTRICTS ~ (b) ...Glen Cove Light IndustriaUCommercial ~ Remove remnant CP-inconsistent reference ~ Page 5 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNNIBUS January 9, 2006 :' CODE SECTION -REVISION (LUC). the potential final urban growth area ~- - - -- -i ----a-----~--- r- ~ -- i p. l l ', Outright uses are land uses or activities which ire exempt from the provisions of this Unified Development Code. p. 23 include a condition of approval affixed to the land use or project permit approval issued by Jefferson County. This condition is intended to disclose to applicants their proximity to resource lands and potential discomforts which are associated with resource. land activities. p.35 (2) Disclosure. The disclosure statement in subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be used under the following circumstances and in the following manner: (a) Approval of any land division, land use, building, or development of lands adjacent to or within 500 feet of lands designated as mineral resource land (MRL) shall be conditioned on the execution by the applicant of a statement of acknowledgment containing the disclosure statement on forms provided by the department of community development. However, if a disclosure conforming to the provisions of this section hash been provided for a prior permit, subsequent disclosures shall not be required. to COMMENT outright "yes" uses such as mineral .sing accessory to extraction ions (w/MItL overlay) in Forest rce Lands should not be exempt from notice provisions of the UDC, ally since the County does not use to title to inform property ovrners of ale impacts to them of adjacent ce lands zoning. As we know, there is ~1 processing and then there is mineral ;sing for the same previously adopted notice provisions of JCC 18 do not my with RCW 36.70A.060: (b) bounties and cities shall require that all plats, short plats, development permits, and building permits issued for development acti 'ties on, or within five hundred feet of, Ian s designated as agricultural lands, forest Ian s, or mineral resource lands, contain a noti a that the subject property is within or ne designated agricultural lands, forest lands, or mineral resource lands on which a vari ty of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential dev lopment for certain periods of limited dur tion. The notice for mineral resource Ian s shall also inform that an application mi t be made for mining-related activities, inchding mining, extraction, washing, cruslhing, stockpiling." Page 6 of 58 Dorgan Commtnts -Or January 9, 2006 ' t i CODE SECTION -REVISION COMMENT p. 35 This section states that mining noise 18.15.180 Nuisance and disclosure provisions. between 7:OOpm and 7:OOam and weekends (1) Nuisance. The following shall not be is considered a nuisance. That is an considered a nuisance: mineral resource understatement. extraction and processing activities, operations (except between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and on Port Townsend has amultiple-approach to weekends), facilities or appurtenances thereof, regulating industrial noise within the city conducted or maintained for commercial mineral limits to protect quality of life for its resource extraction and processing purposes on residents. It uses restricted hours of land designated as mineral resource land (MRL), operation as well as required compliance regardless of past or future changes in the with decibel levels in WAC 173-60. surrounding area land use or land use designation. Maximum permissible noise levels shall be This should also be the County's approach governed accordin tg o th provisions of the WAC rather than relying solely on basically 173-60, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels. unenforceable decibel standards. We need code regulation that prohibits mining at night and on weekends. p. 4141 Outdated reference to DOE stormwater (2 .... Puget Sound Basin, manual needs to be corrected. p. 81 This is a terrible amendment! Planned Rural Residential Developments (PRRDs) The small insertion of the words "or the (a) The dimensions and area of each proposed lot previously platted density" is a significant , tract or parcel (including any change to the already problematic clustering reserve tract(s)) to accurately show that the provisions of the UDC. This revision would property proposed for the PRRD contains now allow "clustered" subdivisions using sufficient area to allow the number of lots, tracts excessive pre-GMA underlying densities. or parcels proposed without exceeding the average density allowed in the underlying zoning It wouldn't take very many of these district; provided, that where a density bonus is "clusters" to change the rural character of requested under JCC 18.15.520, the average Jefferson County. density allowed in the underlying district or the previously platted density maybe exceeded by up Please refer to Appendix II for rulings on to ....... what is and what is not allowed under GMA re ardin "clusterin " Page 7 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION -REVISION Item 11 in a December 22, 2003 memo from Al Scalf possible OMNIBUS changes contained a very dubious i that allowing PRRD "re plats" of non-PRRD viested pre i allowing approval of revised plats with revised PRRD d the number of lots allowed at the time of vesting, pre-G ' , The current DCD-proposed fix " or the previously platt~ ~_ variation on what they think vesting means: "Codify that Planned Rural Residential Develop ent (PRRD) applications for areas under preliminary plat approval from a previous pplication are considered under the densities from the previous application. Adoptio of this proposal would encourage rather than discourage existing preliminary plats (o be reformulated under a PRRD, thereby taking advantage of potential mutual ben fits to developers/landowners and to the public interest that are possible throwgh a P ,including the maintenance of larger tracts of open space that can act as wildlife corn ors and provide other ecological and visual functions. At this time, the code does not learly inform the user that the development densities (i.e. residential uits per a re) approved in a preliminary plat continue to be effective under a PRRD re-plat. P rospective PRRD applicants have .expressed concern that a PRRD-style re}plat cou d result in losing the "vested" rights of the preliminary plat and that the densities are est blished in the Comprehensive Plan, which are sparser (i.e, a greater number Hof acres equired to allow for the same number of units), would prevail." Chapter 18.18 IRONDALE AND PORT LOCK UGA DEVELOPMENT REGULATION PLEMENTATION 18.18.100 Signs. Ch ter 18.18 has been invalidated and is Please refer to Jef~`erson Couny Code 18.30.154 not ow allowed in the JCC. This revision for applicable is ' appropriate. r~ulations. Page', 8 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US January 9, 2006 ti CODE SECTION-REVISION COMMENT Chapter 18.20 PERFOP:MANCE AND USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS p. 31 18.20.190 Golf courses. (1) One would hope. ... The design plan shall also demonstrate that an adequate water supply shall be provided without diminishing the level of service for system users or others dependent upon the resource. 18.20.240 , and~e~l~atien Mineral extraction and processing. (a) (b) The alteration, intensification, and expansion of existing gravel pits and surface mining operations outside of MRL designations is allowed subject to reasonable performance standards to ensure that alteration, intensification, and expansion of such uses have minimal adverse impacts on surrounding areas and uses, and; provided, that: (i) If increased off-site impacts (noise, vibration, dust, traffic) would result in a determination of si~?nificance (DS) from expansion, intensification, or modification, a Type III conditional use permit shall be required. The September 2005 Public Notice said that revisions to this section were intended to "clarify". That word has been overused and misused during this OMNIBUS to in fact radically revise existing regulations, such as the elimination of a conditional use permit in (a), opposite. I am strongly opposed to this deletion. This feeble replacement of a conditional use permit for alteration, intensification and expansion of existing operations and areas in mine locations without an overlay should not be adopted. Such changed areas and operations should always be subject to Type III review. No exceptions. This proposal does not even require an application or SEPA checklist for_chan~ed areas and intensities of operations. Page 9 of 58 Dorgan Comments -ONINIBUS January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION -REVISION (c) Mineral extraction and all associated activities shall occur at least 10 feet above the seasonal hi¢h groundwater level. If more than one aquifer is present, the hi est aquifer elevation shall be used. 18.20.240 (f) All mineral extraction, processing, and ~es6a~atie~ related activities that sFeate-a take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays shall not exceed the limitations of WAC 173-60-040(2)(a) (ii) If increased~off--site impacts (noise, vibration,- dust, traffic) would result in a determination of significance (DS) from expansion, intensification, or modification, a ~e III conditional use permit shall be required. (iii) Mineral extraction and all associated activities shall occur at least 10 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level. If more than one aquifer is present, the hi est aquifer elevation shall be used. i COMMENT 10 . is inadequate aquifer protection. Twice that isn't enough given the serimusness of maintaining groundwater quahtity and quality as required by the Comprehensive Plan. Thi$ section regulates mining noise during the day. JCC 18.15.180 considers mining noisle a nuisance between the hours of 7pm and ham and on weekends. As the City of Port Townsend does for Port industrial activity, it is legitimate for the Coujnty to prohibit hours of mining operation in the service of public health, safe~y, and welfaze. Sim~laz feeble standards aze being proposed for operations outside a mining overlay, but sine these areas aze so much greater, so aze my objections. Such increased impacts should automatically require a Type III application with) a SEPA checklist, and not just the proposed informal staff assessment beyond the reach of public process. Whd thought of this idiocy - a process withjout a Checklist????? i Dittm. A huge open pit a mere 10 feet above an aquifer is inadequate protection. I . I Page 10 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMI~IIBUS January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION -REVISION 18.20.260 Nonconforming Uses and structures. (c) A nonconforming use maybe expanded beyond 10% through the approval of a Type II C(d) discretionary conditional use permit COMMENT Nonconforming uses and structures are serious enough to warrant a full conditional use permit process, not an administrative discretionary one. process ~d) A nonconforming use of land maybe changed to another nonconforming use, provided that the proposed use is equally or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use Nonconforming uses should be phased out over time, not allowed to switch to another nonconforming use! ! ! Chapter 18.30 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 18.20.320(Mini) storage facilities All street frontages, other property lines and outdoor storage azeas shall be landscaped or screened in accordance with JCC 18.30.130 for such uses in rural districts, and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.18 JCC (Irondale and Port Hadlock UGA Implementing Regulations) in urban districts, except as otherwise provided for in this chanter: Ordinance OS-0621-OS imposed amini- storage moratorium that conflicts with this section. I am also curious about the whereabouts in JCC of the Adult Business Moratorium adopted by ordinance on 3-14-05. p.3 18.30.050 Density, dimension, and open space standazds. (4) Density Exemptions. (iv) The property may be divided into a number of lots equal to the number of legally permitted and installed septic systems. In rural residential zones Thethe property shall be divided in a manner that creates lots of a size which are as equal as possible or as close to conforming with the minimum lot size or mapped density requirements of this code, whichever is the more restrictive. Lots divided under this section in The JCC does not restrict the number of septic fields on a pazcel, but multiple fields should not be the basis for subdivision. The County should adopt regulations that specifically forbid this type of lot creation other than for houses that were built prior to July 1, 1990 when GMA became law. Using multiple houses rather than houses/ septic fields is important for several reasons: One, because a septic field could have been built for a garage or other purpose than habitation. Page 11 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION-REVISION resource zones shall not be larger than 1 acre unless additional area is needed for the septic tank and drainfield 18.30.050 Density, dimension, and open space standards (cont'd.) none onforming subdivision. Us' g the date of the adoption of the • ~ Je on County Comprehensive Plan - `98 is n it sufficient because of the County's int tional lengthy delays in coming into G compliance. That behavior is not now to b rewarded by using the later date for thes subdivision "exceptions". The outcome of the revisions to this section has een in the planning "works" long eno gh for hopeful property owners to have anti , 'paled its adoption and obtained 'ts for and/or constructed additional sep c fields on their parcels. The current pro osed language would now fulfill the pro hecy and use those extra fields as the very justification for additional par elization. Additional legal lots of r d should not be created in such a-way. A g compromise for bona fide circ stances would be to only subdivision of cels that have multi le existin re- Page X12 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US January 9, 2006 1 CODE SECTION -REVISION p.8 18.30.060 Grading and excavation standards. (4) Environmentally Sensitive Areas. All clearing and grading activities that will ess~i~-e~ adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas shall be subject to the regulations of Article VI-D et seq. of Chapter 18.15 JCC, and JCC 18.30.070, without limitation to thresholds found herein: p.8 18.30.060 Grading and excavation standards. (1) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the definitions at I-2.3 of the SMM shall apply: p.12 (g) The department of public works may require si$ier~ development applicants to submit a traffic analysis. prepared by a licensed engineer in order to determine the potential off-site impacts to public and private transportation facilities from proposed subdivisions. p.13 All required construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities shall be inspected and approved by the department of public works prior to final plat development approval. ~-i - ---- -- ------- r---- rr-., . __, .,.__ .,...,..._ ...,_~__ GMA houses. COMMENT Grading that occurs in critical areas should be highly regulated. Any disturbance is an upfront concern that should receive full application of 18.15. This small revision violates GMA requirements to protect critical areas. Staff has told me that the County is now using the 2005 edition of the DOE Stormwater Manual. I hope that Staff has cross-checked these definitions and other JCC stormwater requirements for This is too lax. A plat request for a new subdivision should study the traffic impacts. of the proposal at an early stage. It is important up-front information that should not wait until building permits are applied for. If there is going to be a problem let it be known early. As above. The extent of relaxation of lawful standards for plat approvals is significant. Is this the permit "efficiency" and "HOPE" that has driven this UDC rewrite? This is just more easy breezy parcelization without commitment. It's not knowing where we are going..... Page 13 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION-REVISION p.23 18.30.150 Signs. p.24 18.30.150 Signs Uses located in any gal-commercial or industmal land use districts shall have no more than.... CHAPTER LAND DIVI: p•4 The outstanding problem with this section is Article II. Boundary Line Adjustments wi the initial creation of a nevP larger lot 18.35.060 Purpose, scope and limitations. that! ~ can be then upzoned into smaller (also) con orming lots that meet underlying ', den ity requirements. The, net result of this UDC amendment is to alto ~ the creation of additional pazcels in a two step process. This will change the par elization pattern and rural character of the unty, one pazcel at a time. 18.35.060 Purpose, scope and limitations. The five-year limitation for additional (5) Lot Consolidations BL 's for lot consolidations should not be del ed. This isn't about "efficiency". It's abo t development manipulation without con equences. To be considered complete, applications for Thi Staff proposed deletion regarding boundazy line adjustments shall fu a use of the adjusted lots illustrates how include the following: plan lning for future consequences can be avo' ed by both DCD and developer. See ( ) ' b e c , a o . Page i4 of 58~ Dorgan Comments -0 US January 9, 2006 ', ~ COMMENT This section should not be deleted. It contains important controls of the ~ subdivision process. Removing them is ly-fey et out ared-car rollin p ~shal} p . g ef~ Likewise deletes an important monitoring tool for the actual construction of approved subdivisions. The same Type III process (notice & hearing) that is required for plat approval should be used for all plat alterations, not ~1 > An apphcahon for a plat amendment shall be just those where someone has requested a processed accordin tg o the hearing. procedures for Type II land use decisions established. in Chapter 18.40 JCC and the The consequences for replatting an existing criteria listed in RCW 58.17.215; platted but undeveloped area could be (2) Notice shall be given to the affected parties, a dramatic. With a notice and hearing, more public hearing maybe requested by than just neighbors and interested parties are a person receiving notice within 14 days of aware of the proposal. receipt of notice. When a public hearing is requested the application shall be processed That is what this language is trying to avoid accordin tg_ o the procedures for Tyke III in the name of permit "efficiency". decisions established in Chapter 18.40 JCC and the criteria listed in RCW 58.17.215; Chapter 18.40 PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES/ SEPA IMPLEMENTATION p. 21 18.40.290 Appellate hearing examiner action It is crucial to public participation that the (appeals of Type III decisions). venue of permit appeals include the Section deleted. A ellate hearin s examiner rocess, which Page 15 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 CODE SECTION -REVISION COMMENT is a cessible and affordable compared to udi~ cial action. 18.40.130 Scope of project review. I nk this section should retain the deletion (1) Fundamental ,land use planning choices made of " eterminations" , i.e. SEPA-exemptions in the Jefferson County bec use this section is all about Comprehensive Plan, subarea plans, this Unified "F damental land use planning choices Development Code and any other ma a in Jefferson County." applicable development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a .proposed project's consistency with this Unified Development Code under JCC 18.40.140, other applicable development regulations, or in the absence of applicable regulations, the adopted Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or subarea plan(s), shall incorporate the a~ta collected under this section. Article VI. Unified Development Code Interpretation p.26 The use of "abusive" in the new text is itself 18.40.3360 Submission requirements. abu ive and could apply to any (2) The Administrator may reject as abusive of "h thetical" question asked of DCD by a this section any request for interpretation that non applicant. seeks interpretation of more than four UDC sections, is onerous or asks hynothetical Onl the last sentence is acceptable. questions. The Administrator may ask that the reiected request be broken down into smaller recauests. p.37 An proposed 12,000 sq. ft. office with 40 18.40.759750 Categorically exempt actions - Use par 'ng spaces is a big deal in Jefferson of existing documents and analyses. Co ty. Citizens should be informed about suc ~ applications and given an opportunity (1) Categorically Exempt Levels. to c mment, especially neighbors in resi ential zones abutting commercial (c) Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(c)(ii), the zon s. With the proposed raising of the maximum exempt level for the SEP ' threshold of review, there is no public construction of ....... noti a for projects below the threshold. This is n t goad public policy. Citizens often hav valuable information that can improve a r sed ro'ect. Page 16 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US January 9, 2006 j ,~ CODE SECTION -REVISION COMMENT Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS 18.45.040 Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment. (iii) Proposed amendatory language, preferably shown in a "bill" format (i.e., new language underlined; language proposed for deletion in strikeouts); p.8 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations. (1) Initiation. The text of the county's adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations also referred to within this code as "development regulations") and zoning district map amendments maybe amended at any time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and land use map. This shortcoming of this existing text is that it only says `preferably" instead of requiring a submitted amendment to be in line in/out format. This is the loophole that has allowed DCD to put "place-holder" amendments on the docket that consist of nothing but a name. This is a violation of GMA's requirement for early and continuous public participation, and this section of the UDC needs to be amended accordingly To date, zoning district maps only exist for the invalidated UGA zoning. These maps were adopted as part of the UDC, but they don't seem to be in JCC 18 anymore. Is that correct? What this revision does is allowing significant permit-level rezones to occur without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. That is a new process that Staff has been quietly putting in place. We should just amend the land use map is the same way we have been doing - as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 18.50 ENFORCEMENT The proposed deletion erases a handy compact history of changes to the County Code, just as useful history was cleansed out of the Comprehensive Plan last yeaz Page 17 of 58 Dorgan Comments --0MNIBUS January 9, 2006 ~ . CODE SECTION -REVISION COMMENT d ng the GMA update. I h n't noticed this code feature before, and it ta ught me several important facts that I wou ld not otherwise have known. It shows, for { example, which ordinances adopted whij ch sections of the code and which ord ances have been repealed, which have bee "codified", or "not codified". It states, for xample that the 3-14-OS Adult Business Mo atorium Ordinance is the most recent am ding ordinance but that it is non theless "not codified" -- whatever that m s.. C ously, the online Table of Ordinances list oes not include this BOCC's 6-21-OS Ord nance regarding the No Protest Sewer Agr ement and the mini-storage • ~ morj atorium The; lined-out Table of Ordinances at the end of 18.50 is even more out of date, with the ast entry being for the 11 /22/04 timber h est excise tax. Page X8 of58 Dorgan Comments -OA January 9, 2006 Appendix 2 Revised WWGMHB Digest of Decisions - 2005 CLUSTERING The clustering provisions allow clustering of up to 24 dwelling units. Given the large tracts of forest lands designated in Lewis County, the potential for such large clusters of residences is very real. The concomitant potential for impacts on forestry and increased demands for services are also very real. Limitations on clustering are needed to ensure that residential subdivisions will not interfere with forestry activities. Butler, et al. v. Lewis County, 99-2-0027c (Order Finding Noncompliance and Imposing Invalidity, 2-13-04); Panesko, et al. v. Lewis County, 00-2-0031c (Order Finding Noncompliance and Imposing Invalidity, 2-13-04) A clustering ordinance which prohibits urban service standards, involves very limited numbers in sizing of clusters, requires affordable housing and applies only to limited areas outside of UGAs complies with the Act. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) authorizes a county to permit rural development through clustering to accommodate appropriate rural densities. The provisions of .070(5)(c) for containment, visual compatibility and reduction oflow-density sprawl applies to such clusters. Durland v. San Juan County 00-2-0062c (Final Decision and Order, 5-7-01) The clustering provisions of the ordinance in this case do not minimize and contain rural development nor do they reduce low-density sprawl. Additionally, they substantially interfere with Goals 1, 2, and 10 of, the Act. Panesko v. Lewis County 00-2-0031c (Final Decision and Order, 3-5-01) An urban reserve designation of a remainder area from a cluster development that is implemented throughout the county and at the owner's discretion does not comply with the Act. Evergreen v. Skagit County 00-2-0046c (Final Decision and Order, 2-6-01) The allowance of unlimited clustering does not comply with the Act when its purpose is to assure greater densities in rural and resource areas and not to conserve RLs and open space. When allowable clustering results in urban, and not rural, growth it substantially interferes with the goals of the Act. Butler v. Lewis County 99-2-0027c (Final Decision and Order, 6-30-00) LAMIRDs must be identified in the CP and must provide logical outer boundaries delineated by the built environment as it existed on July 1, 1990. Nothing in the GMA allows clustering to be used to the degree that would create new LAMIItDs. Smith v. Lewis County 98-2-0011 (Final Decision and Order, 4-5-99) The GMA requires that a county preclude sets of clusters of such magnitude that they will demand urban services. Smith v. Lewis County 98-2-0011 (Final Decision and Order, 4-5-99) The use of bonus densities along with a failure to limit the number of clustering lots allows non-rural densities in rural areas at a magnitude that demands urban services. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (Compliance Order, 1-14-99) Page 19 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 The Legislature has recently clarified the allowance of clust development in agricultural lands. As long as the long-term viability of agriculture lands is not threaten by conflicting uses, clustering is an allowable option. Abenroth v. Skagit County 97-2-0060 (Fins Decision and Order, 1-23-98) RCW 36.70A.177 is a new section of the GMA and directs th t in agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance innovative zoning techniques, inclu ' g cluster zoning, are appropriate. Hudson v. Clallam County 96-2-0031 (Compliance Order, 12-11-97) Compact new development in agricultural zones than allows a ropriate conservation of agricultural lands is now specifically authorized by the GMA. Hudson v. Clalla~re County 96-2-0031 (Compliance Order, 12-11-97) A failure to provide minimum lot sizes and maximum numbe of lots per site in clustering provisions of a DR, which continued to allow urban growth outside' of proper y established UGAs did not comply with the GMA. WEC v. Whatcom County 94-2-0009 (MCD 7-25-97 & C. U.S.T.E.R v. Whatcom County 96-2- 0008 (MO 7-25-97) An agricultural cluster provision which permits urban growth bin designated RL areas, does not severely limit the total number of dwelling units and densities and allo ' s a significant percentage of the agricultural land to be converted into residential use did not c mply with the GMA. Hudson v. Clallam County 96-2-0031 (Final Decision and Order, 4-15-97) An ordinance that simply refers to a PUD process to cluster d nsity away from a CA, complies with the GMA. FOSC v. Skagit County 96-2-0025 (Final Decision and Order, 1-3-97) Planned residential developments or other clustering schemes, properly designed and limited in scope may protect sensitive areas, riparian trails and green space in 1 areas. If properly used, they can constitute a tool for preservation of sensitive lands and opens ace. The GMA encourages such use. WEAN v. Island County 95-2-0063 (Compliance Order, 4-10-~6) A local government's decision to not include any clustering in RLs, given the history of the past 15 years of clustering having the effect of reducing RLs, did not violat RCW 36.70A.020(6}. Aehen v. Clark County 95-2-0067 (Final Decision and Order, 9-20-95) The absence of a cap on PUD clusters in addition to a relaxation of aggregation standards to allow 8,400 square foot minimum lot sizes outside of an IUGA did not co~ply with the GMA. FOSC v. Skagit County 95-2-0065 (Final Decision and Order, 8-30-95) 'The allowance of a transfer of development rights from comm rcial forest to rural forest, with no density limit or cap for a cluster development, did not comply with th GMA. OEC v. Jefferson County 94-2- 0017 (Compliance Order, 8-17-95) A clustering scheme, which allowed 40% of the designated comply with the GMA. OEC v. Je, f, j`erson County 94-2-0017 area for conflicting uses did not nce Order, 8-17-95) Page 20 of 58 Dorgan Comments -Ob January 9, 2006 Appendix III BRIEFING -Cases 03-2-0010 and 04-2-0022 (Unformatted text varies from original) ICAN OPENING BRIEF -May 8, 2003 BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD IRONDALE COMMUNITY ACTION NEIGHBORS, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent. NO. 03-2-0010 ICAN OPENING BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION Jefferson County has debated the merits of establishing a new non-municipal urban growth area south of Port Townsend for many years. There are some people who want to build big box retail stores on commercial land on the highways south of Port Townsend and there are others who think that type of development would destroy the character that they love in Jefferson County. Any new urban growth area south of Port Townsend will have to be planned with substantial public involvement and with a special effort to protect and enhance desirable aspects of community character. In December of 2002, Jefferson County adopted a GMA enactment that sought to, and at least for the did, establish a new non-municipal urban growth area south of Port Townsend. This action was very premature. Given the substantial amount of urban residential and commerciaUindustrial land already designated in the County, the County will have to wait many more years before a valid land capacity analysis will justify a new non-municipal urban growth area near Port Townsend. In addition, before a valid non-municipal urban growth area can be permanently established, the County must do much more .careful urban planning. It must set valid urban service levels. It must establish a reasoned boundary. And then it must do full capital facilities planning and fiscal analysis to ensure it can provide efficient urban services. Finally, at the same time it establishes an urban growth area, it must implement a full set of development standards strongly supported by the residents of the community so that the Page 21 of 58 Dorgan Comments --0MNIBUS January 9, 2006 i ' desirable aspects of the community will be enhanced w and urban services are provided. Special consideration housing stock affordable. ICAN brings this appeal to this Board because t doing the necessary homework and the necessary plane that no additional urban growth area can be justiified at of this UGA, residents have no reason to believe that w can be provided in an efficient manner or that ci~mmun of existing housing, will be protected. ICAN requests t find that the non-municipal urban growth area i~ not in Management Act and invalid. urban style development is allowed st be given to keeping the existing County has designated a UGA without ;. A valid land capacity analysis shows s time. With the premature designation n services will be provided or that they character, including the affordability this Board consider its petition and npliance with the Growth II. STATEMENT OF FACTS The communities of Port Hadlock and Irondale a located in Jefferson County on Port Townsend Bay about 3.5 miles south of Port Townsend., On December 13, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Jefferson County (County) adopted Ordinance No. 19-1213- 02 (Ex. 13-1 (Ordinance)) to establish an Urban GrowthArea (UGA) at Port Hadlock and Irondale. Ex. 13-1. The Ordinance adopted a future land use map based on three different maps in the record. Id. at 6. The base map that was adopted i$ the November 6, 2002 Tri-Area UGA map, Exhibit E from the November 25 2002 Final Suppleemental Environmental Impact Statement (2002 FSEIS - Ex. 3-21). Ex. 13-1 at 6. A co~Ilor copy of this base map is supplied as Attachment 1 to this brief. Two additions were made to the base map by thel Ordinance. The first was a 45-acre "UGA Expansion" on the east side of the UGA which is I shown on an August 13, 2002 Tri-Area UGA map, Appendix Item 15 from the August 21, 2002Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (2002 DSEIS - Ex. 3-11). Ex. 13-1 at 6. A color copy of this map is supplied as Attachment 2 to this brief. This 45-acre area wraps ound a small bay on the east side of the UGA. The second addition is six parcels immediately e t of the first addition. Ex. 13-1 at 6. Four of these six parcels are identified on a map in Exhi it 11-3. A copy of this map is supplied as Attachment 3 to this brief. In addition to adopting a future land use map for he new non-municipal UGA, the Ordinance also adopted Comprehensive Plan (CP) text endments for the UGA from the 2002 DSEIS (Ex. 3-11) and the 2002 FSEIS (Ex. 3-2'1). Ex. 13-1 at 6. The Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA is referred to as the Tri-Area UGA because it is inside the Tri-Area Planning Area (Planning Area #4) that incl des the communities of Port Hadlock, Irondale, and Chimacum. The Tri-Area Planning Area Tanning Area #4) is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. CP (Ex. 17-1) at 3-55 (a black an white version of this map from the County website is provided as Attachment 4 to this brie A blow-up of the Tri-Area Planning Area from Ex. 7-12 is supplied as Attachment 6 to this 'ef. The Tri-Area Planning Area has 7,833 acres. Ex. 20-21 (~ at 7. All of the land area shown on Attachment 5 is in the Tri-Area Planning Area (Planning Area #4). CP at 3-55. The County's CP, although adop ed in 1998, is designed to accommodate population growth from 1996 to 2016. See CP ~~(Ex. 17- ) at 3-3 to 3-4. In 1996, the reported Page'i22 of 58 Dorgan Commjents -0 US Januaijy 9, 2006 existing population for the Tri-Area Planning Area was 4,324 and the projected population after 20 years was 5,489. CP at 3-4. This results in a twenty-year population growth allocation of 1,165. Id. This is the growth allocation for the whole Tri-Area Planning Area. This growth allocation was not changed by the Ordinance when the Tri-Area UGA was established. Ex. 13-1. III. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ANON-MUNICIPAL UGA This Board closely scrutinizes the establishment ofnon-municipal UGAs. Abenroth v. Skagit County, WWGMHB No. 97-2-0060c (Final Decision and Order, January 23, 1998) at 19- 20 (page citations to Board cases are to the decisions found on the Boards' website). When Jefferson County attempted to create an interim UGA in the Tri-Area in 1994, this Board ruled that this Tri-Area interim UGA did not comply with the Growth Management Act, stating: [A] proper analysis of land capacity, existing and future capital facilities impacts, and existing and future fiscal analysis must be made before an area outside the municipal boundaries of a city or cities can be established as either an interim or a comprehensive plan urban growth area. City of Port Townsend v. Jefferson County (Port Townsend), WWGPHB No. 94-2-0006, (Final Order, August 10, 1994) at 12. This Board continued: We agree with the Central Puget Sound Board's statement in Tacoma v. Pierce County that UGAs and IUGAs are to initially be drawn at municipal boundaries and then expanded only when appropriate information and analysis balanced with the county-wide planning policies and the goals and requirements of the Act are met. Port Townsend at 22. Because Port Townsend addresses many of the issues raised by the instant case, I request that this Board review that Final Decision and Order. In Tacoma v. Pierce County, the Central Puget Sound Board stated: The Act intends that growth will be centered on cities. Thus the boundaries of a UGA and the city limits of existing municipalities will be identical, assuming the cities can accommodate all the projected growth. Cities of Tacoma, Milton, Puyuallup and Sumner v. Pierce County, CPSGPHB No. 94-3-0001 (Final Decision and Order, July 5, 1994) at 12. In order to do a credible capital facility and fiscal analysis, the County must first establish a proposed boundary for a UGA based on a proper land use analysis with a proper allocation of population. Establishment of specific Urban Growth Areas with finite boundaries and quantifiable allocation of population must first be made before any credible capital facilities analysis can be made. It is impossible to analyze future facilities needs and costs if it is uncertain as to where population will be located and how far flung it will be. The capital facilities element of the CP does not comply with the Act. Page 23 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMI~iIBUS January 9, 2006 Dawes, et al v. Mason County, WWGMHB No. 96-2-0( 5, 1996) at 11. After establishing a proposed UGA bow of population and proper land use analysis, a County mi for providing urban services to the UGA. Supra, this br. [A] county must perform a proper planning analysis of i future availability of adequate public facilities and servi~ planning for the cost of providing such. public facilities Loomis v. Jefferson County, WWGMHB No. 9~-2-0066 6, 1995) at 13. The County's County-wide Planning Po~icies (C] services at adopted level of service standards bei provider flow and including sanitary and storm water systems. E~ following in the full range of urban services: strtret clean services, public transit services, and other urban, services provided in cities. 3 (Final Decision and Order, December ary consistent with a proper allocation do capital facility and fiscal analysis. ' at 5. growth needs and the present and s to meet those needs, as well as a 3 services. (Final Decision and Order, September ?s) require that a full range of urban within UGAs including water with fire 15-1, CPP 2.1. The GMA includes the ig services, fire and police protection ~t an intensity historically and typically The County is responsible for providing'a region~l analysis of all capital facility costs to serve the proposed UGA at urban levels of service. ~ [I]t is the county's responsibility to be the one to make a regional analysis of all CFP needs, locations, and costs so that the public has an accurate assrrssment of what and where tax dollars are being spent regardless of whether they go to the state; county, or special districts. Achen et al. v. Clark County, WWGMHB No. 95-2-006 17, 1997) at 5-6. If there is a significant funding shortfa find additional funding, lower service levels, change the eliminate this funding shortfall. If, as here, the analysis shows a significant shortfall, they use and related elements so that the CP is internally and (Second Compliance Order, December it is the County's responsibility to oundary or change land uses to it is a county's duty to reassess its land xternally consistent. Id. at 6; RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (6)(a)(iv). However, t~ actually designate a UGA, there must be a full range of urban services provided. CPP. 2.1 in IV. ARGUMENT A. Legal Issue 1 -The Amendment Application This Board should find that the County Bailed to regarding -.070(preamble) for not meeting -.140! schedu Tri-Area UGA. RCW 36.70A.140 requires the County 1 procedures for amending its Comprehensive Play (CP). CP at 2-6 (Ex 17-1). The CP at 2-6 required 20m2 CP a~ 31, 2002. The County docketed its proposed Tri-Area C 1 (see index for filing date). This does not comply with CP. 15-1. has Not Timely Filed imply with RCW 36.70A.130(l~b} and procedures when it adopted the have and follow public participation he County has such procedures in its ;ndments to be docketed by January amendment on Apri130, 2002. Ex. 1- ~e January 31, 2002 deadline set by the Page 24 of 58 Dorgan Comments --0M1~fIBUS January 9, 2006 On its face, the County did not comply with RCW 36.70A.140 when it processed its Tri- Area CP amendments in the 2002 amendment cycle instead of the 2003 cycle. The County should be found not in compliance with Prehearing Order Issue 1 because it processed the Tri- Area CP amendments in Ordinance No. 19-1213-02 (Ex. 13-1) in 2002 in violation of RCW 36.70A.130(1)(b) regarding 36.70A.070(preamble) (CP "shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36.70A.140"). By processing the Tri-Area CP amendments in 2002 rather than in 2003 after failing to meet the CP's January 31, 2002 mandatory filing deadline, the County did not comply with the GMA. While RCW 36.70A.140 provides an exception from a finding of invalidity unless the petitioner demonstrates that the spirit of the procedures and schedules is not observed, this exception does not apply to a finding of noncompliance. Prehearing Issue 1 is about noncompliance. This Board should find that the County failed to comply with RCW 36.70A.130(1)(b) regarding -.070(preamble) for not meeting the -.140 schedules and procedures for the Tri-Area CP amendment. B. Legal Issues 2, 3, 4, and 16 -The County Failed To Comply With The GMA When It Designated The Tri-Area UGA Because The Land CapacityAnalysis Is Flawed Non-municipal UGAs are given close scrutiny by this Board. Supra, this brief at 4. Neither the residential nor the commercial/industrial component of the Tri-Area UGA can withstand close scrutiny. • 1. Residential land capacity analysis The CP allocates population growth to the different Planning Areas of the County. In Table 3-1, the CP allocates a growth of 5510 people to the City of Port Townsend and a growth of 1165 people to the whole Tri-Area Planning Area. CP at 3-4. With the creation of a new Tri- Area UGA, the County erred when it failed to explicitly allocate a portion of the 1,165 person growth to the Tri-Area UGA and a portion to the remaining Tri-Area Planning Area. The final adopted UGA is shown on Attachment 6 to this brief, and covers only about 1/6 of the Tri-Area Planning Area. Attachment 6 is an illustrative exhibit comparing information provided in Attachments 1-5 of this brief. The County erred when it adopted the 2002 DSEIS language into the CP that states that the Tri-Area Planning Area is "encompassed by the UGA." Ex. 13-1 at 6 adopting language from the 2002 DSEIS (Ex. 3-11) at 2-79 and 2-83. For purposes of analysis, ICAN assumes that 1/3 of the residential growth would be allocated to the UGA. In Table 3-2, the CP reports a 20-year lot demand in the Tri-Area of 507 lots. CP at 3-7. If we assume 1/3 of the Tri-Area population growth is in the UGA, then the UGA would need capacity for (507)/(3) = 168 dwelling units. Table 3-2 shows that Port Townsend has, existing capacity of 5,910 more vacant lots than it needs for its 20-year population growth allocation. Id. Attachment 1. to this brief shows hundreds of acres of unplatted residential lands in the proposed Tri-Area UGA, particularly in the southern portion of the UGA. These lands are not characterized by urban growth. Another 45 acres, shown on Attachment 2, is mostly unplatted residential lands that were added to the east side of the UGA. This Board has interpreted the Page 25 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 GMA to require urban growth to go into cities and azeas going into azeas not characterized by urban growth. We have previously stated that we will closely scrutinize directs that growth will first be channeled to municipaliti by urban growth before assigning new urban population chazacte;rized by urban growth. Abenroth v. Skagit County, WWGMHB No. 971-2-0060c 1998) at 17; see also Cities of Tacoma, Milton, iPuyuallu CPSGPHB No. 94-3-0001 (Final Decision and order, Ju and the city limits. of existing municipalities will be iden accommodate all, the projected growth"). This is not a si exists and where little residential growth would'result frc Achen et al. v. Clark County, WWGMHB No. 95-2-006' 17, 1997) at 2. Another problem with the land use analysis, is th respect to residential development. The County calculate population growth capacity of 1,377 people from 2000 tc (Table 3-10) (adopted into the CP by the Ordinance). Tl allocation for the whole Tri-Area Planning Area from 19 have calculated growth capacity for 1996 to 2016 insteac CP compares apples to oranges. Second, the County sho allocation of the Tri-Area Planning Area growth to the T Assuming 1/3 of the Planning Area #4 growth is calculate a population allocation of (1,165)/(3) = 388, an oversizing ratio of (100 percent)(1,377)/(388) _.355 pe;r< compliance with RCW 36.70A.110(2). See Bremerton, ~ 95-3-0039 (Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995) County, WWGMHB No. 95-2-0067 (Compliance Order 1996) at 5-6. characterized by urban growth before nonmunicipal UGAs. The GMA es and those azeas akeady characterized to unincorporated azeas not already (Final Decision and Order, January 23, ~ and Sumner v. Pierce County, y 5, 1994) at 12 ("boundazies of a UGA ical, assuming the cities can uation where sewer and water akeady m creating this Tri-Area UGA. See (Second Compliance Order, December oversizing of the Tri-Area UGA with s that the Tri-Area UGA will have a 2016. 2002 DSEIS (Ex. 3-11) at 2-84 s is then compared to the population ~6 to 2016. First, the County should of from 2000 to 2016. Otherwise, the ild have developed a reasonable i-Area UGA. llocated to the UGA, the County would a population capacity of 1,377 for an mt. This should be found not in t al., v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB No. 41-42; see also Achen v. Clazk nd Order of Invalidity, October 1, Another problem with the residential land use an lysis is that it makes unrealistic assumptions. It under-reports the number of dwelling its that could be build on existing vacant lots inside the UGA. Much of the residential acreage in e Tri-Area UGA is fully platted. Attachment 1. Existing lot size averages 7,500 ~squaze f et (or 6 units per net acre) in the Tri- Area. Ex. 7-12 at 2. A visual examination of the existin platting pattern on Attachment 1 shows that net acres in the platted areas aze at bast 2/3 o the gross acres. So applying this 2/3 factor, 100 gross acres produces 67 net acres. ~I,t 6 units per acre for the existing plats, 67 net acres produce (6)(67) = 407 potential new dwelling unit .Using the flawed County analysis in Ex. 3-11 at 2-84 (Table 3-10), the County claims 100 gr ss acres produce only 188 potential new dwelling units. The western most "Existing Rural Commercial 'strict" on Attachment 1 to this brief is the Port Hadlock Rural Village Center. This azea is pro sed for mixed-use residential and Page 26 of 58 Dorgan Comments -011 January 9, 2006 i commercial. Ex. 3-11 at 285. However, there is no accounting for the residential capacity of this zone in the County's land use analysis. In summary, the Port Townsend municipal UGA has more than sufficient capacity to accommodate all of the planned urban residential growth allocation. None of the urban residential growth allocation should be allowed to be given to the non-municipal Tri-Area UGA. The general rule for urban residential growth is that UGAs will be set at city limits if cities can accommodate the projected growth. Supra, this brief at 5. This rule should be applied in this case and there should be no new urban residential growth allowed in a Tri-Area UGA at this time. Alternatively, if an urban residential growth allocation is appropriate for the Tri-Area UGA, then the County has failed to make a valid suballocation of the total Tri-Area Planning Area growth to the UGA. With the existing vacant platted lots in the rural portion of the Tri- Area Planning Area, the County should not be allowed to give this area a zero growth allocation. See Ex. 17-12. The adopted UGA has large areas of both platted and unplatted residential lands and the development potential of these lands has been underestimated by the County. Giving the Tri-Area UGA only a reasonable portion of what's left of the total 20-year (1,165 person) allocation for the Tri-Area Planning Area and recognizing that in an urban growth area existing vacant lots that average 7,500 square feet will be utilized as they are, and will not be combined to make larger lots, leads to the conclusion that the residential areas in the new Tri-Area UGA have substantially more growth capacity than their rightful allocation, by perhaps a factor of 5. The designation of this non-municipal UGA should be found not in compliance with the GMA because the residential urban growth analysis is fatally flawed. 2. CommerciaUIndustrial land capacity analysis The County began a Special Study in 1998 to meet the GMA requirement that it "show its work" before it designated a Tri-Area UGA. See Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, CPSGPHB No. 93-3-0010 (Final Decision and Order, June 3, 1994) at 35. The components of this Special Study are generally described in the 2002 DSEIS. Ex. 3-11 at 2-72. The first two tasks were aimed at providing evidence that would support the County's desire to designate more CommerciaUIndustrial (C/I) land in non-municipal UGAs. The first task produced a Land Use Inventory Report. Ex. 20-21 (I). In this report the County did a reasonable tally of vacant and redevelopable C/I designated lands in the unincorporated County. Ex. 20-21 (I) Tables 2 and 3. The locations of the C/I areas analyzed are shown on Map 1 in the report. Ex. 20-21 (I) Map 1. The Land Use Inventory Report concludes that in 1999 the County had designated 573.4 acres of undeveloped C/I lands outside UGAs. In the 2002 CP amendments, the County enlarged the undeveloped C/I lands outside UGAs by adding about 90 industrial acres to Glen Cove, Eastview, and Brinnon, and also by adding about 75 commercial acres another locations. See 2002 DSEIS (Ex. 3-11) at 1-14. Virtually all of the added C/I land is vacant. These 2002 additions increase the amount of undeveloped C/I lands outside UGAs by about (100 percent)(90 + 75)/(573.4) = 28 percent. The data from the Land Use Inventory Report was used in the second task of the Special Study (referred to as the "Trottier Report") to calculate how much new employment growth would be supported by the existing vacant C/I acreage outside the Port Townsend UGA. Ex. 20- 21 (II) at 29. The Trottier Report divides the C/I acreage outside the UGA into high and low Page 27 of 58 Dorgan Comments -0MNIBUS January 9, 2006 intensity azeas and concludes that this 573 vacant acres as a capacity to produce only 2,488 new jobs or an average of just over 4 jobs per gross rural C/I cre. Ex. 20.21 (II) Appendix at 4. To reach this conclusion, Trottier converts the 573 gross acrles into 289 net acres and then assumes only one 5000 squaze foot building per 1.25 net acres in the high intensity areas and one 5000 squaze foot building per 2.5 net acres in the low intensity] areas. See Ex. 20.21 (II) at 31. There aze several assumptions in the Trottier anallysis that are particulazly disturbing. First, is his assumption that the gross azea should be red ced by a factor of two to get net area. This is primazily the result of two forms of double coon g. Trottier proposes four factors which he sums to get his total deduction. Ex. 20-21 (II) ppendix at 3. There is a 7.5 percent public lands factor, a 10 percent right-of--way factor, a 1 percent market factor and a 17 percent critical areas factor. Id. Trottier makes a math error wh he simply sums these four factors to get a 49.5 percent reduction. He then takes the 49.5 per nt reduction and applies it in the formula (573)(1-.495) to convert 573 gross acrea to 289 et acres. When one combines the four factors to be used t get a single reduction factor, the correct formula is: combined reduction factor ~ (1 - (1 - 0.075)(1 - 0.10)(1- 0.15)(1- 0.17)). Using this correct method of combining factors,, the com fined reduction factor would be 41.3 percent instead of 49.5 percent. Correcting this'math err r increases the net acreage by (100 percent)((1 - 0.413)1(1 - 0.495) - 1) = 16.2 percent. This attempt at double counting is more obvious if one uses the example of combining two facto that aze each 50%. Consider that you have four dimes and you give half your dimes to one chi d and half of the remaining dimes to the other child. In this case you would have one dime left. sing Trottier math, you would add the two 50% factors and calculate your money left as (4 dim~s)(1 - (0.50 + 0.50)) _ (4}(0) = 0. Using the correct formula, you would calculate the comb ned reduction factor to be (1 - (1- 0.5)( 1 - 0.5)) = 0.75 or 75 percent. Then you would calculatelyour money left as (4 dimes)(1 - 0.75) = 1 dime as you would expect. The second form of double counting is the conc 't that one should take a 17% critical azea deduction from their gross acreage when they only i tend to develop about 1 /4 acre of a 1.25 to 2.5 acre pazcel. With a single building of 5000 s uaze feet per parcel one has plenty of room to site their building away from the critical azeas. emoving this 17 percent critical area deduction increases the net acreage by (100 per~ent)(1 /(1 - 0.17) - 1) = 20.5 percent. Another disturbing assumption is that a person w old only put a 5000 square foot building on a 1.25 or 2.5 acre commerciaUindustrial pazc 1. The maximum building coverage allowed on a parcel in the rural C/I zones is SS percent i pervious surface to 60 percent building coverage. Ordinance No. 21-1220-02 (Ex. 13-3~, Table -1. Even if one. designed their site plan for a building that was only 40 percent of an allowed 55 ercent impervious surface for a total building coverage of 22 percent, the building side on a 1. 5 acre lot would be (43,560)(1.25)(0.40}(0.55) = 12,000 squaze feet This w old allow another 18,000 squaze feet for paved pazking and right-of--way, and there still would be over 24,000 squaze feet left on a 1.25-acre pazcel for critical azeas, septic systems stormw ter facilities, landscaping, and future expansion. Assuming this moxe reasonable building cov age of 12,000 square feet on a 1.25 or 2.5 acre pazcel, or equivalently, a 5,000 square foot boil ' g on a half-acre pazcel, the added jobs for the rural C/I acreage will be increased by a factor of ( 12,000)/(5,00x100 percent) = 240 percent. i, Page 28 of 58 Dorgan Comments -0MI~fIBUS January 9, 2006 i We have identified four corrections to the Trottier analysis that will more reasonably and more correctly calculate the added jobs that will be supported by the rural C/I acreage. First, there is a 28 percent increase (factor 1.28) in added job capacity in the rural area for the additional vacant rural C/I acreage designated in 2002. Supra, this brief at 13. Second, there is a 16.2 percent increase (factor 1.162) for correcting the Trottier math error in combining factors. Supra, this brief at 14. Third, there is a 20.5 percent increase (factor 1.205) for eliminating the critical area deduction because there is room on the parcel for both the development and the critical area. Supra, this brief at 15. Fourth, there is a 240% increase (factor 2.40) for assuming buildings will either average 12,000 square feet on a 1.25-acre parcel or 5,000 square feet on a half-acre parcel. Supra, this brief at 15. When all of these corrections are applied to the 2,488 added jobs that Trottier calculated for the vacant rural C/I acreage, the corrected estimate for added jobs is (2,488)(1.28)(1.162)(1.205)(2.4) =10,702 added jobs on about 738 vacant rural C/I acres. This corresponds to a more reasonable 14.5 jobs per gross rural C/I acre. The Trottier Report states that the Port Townsend UGA has vacant land that will provide 4,190 added jobs. Ex. 20-21 (II), Appendix at 5. When the Port Townsend added jobs are combined with the corrected rural C/I added jobs, the total added job capacity in the eastern part of the County is (4,190) + (10,702) = 14, 892 added jobs. To complete his analysis, Trottier calculates how many added jobs will be needed over a twenty year planning period. Trottier reasonably concludes: "[d]emand for commercial and manufacturing land correlates highly with nonagricultural employment." Ex. 20-21 (II) at 32. He also reasonably recognizes that: "[a]s counties grow larger the rate of growth as a percent, tends to decline gradually." Id. at 18. He correctly states: In forecasting Jefferson County's growth over the next twenty years, .... we might therefore expect the growth rate to be slightly lower than the historic rate, while the number of jobs per year would be higher than historically. Id. Trottier gives the Jefferson County non-agricultural employment for 1980 and for 1997 and for several intervening years. Id. at 17. Employment growth rates vary substantially over short periods. Ex. 16-20 shows total employment growth rates for Jefferson County (including agricultural employees) for each year from 1981 to 2001. These same statistics are also presented in the Trottier Report for selected years. Ex. 20-21 (II) at 18 under the subtitle "Employment." This growth rate is shown to vary each year with the low year (1991) producing a 4.4 percent job loss and the high year (1983) producing a 13.5 percent job gain. Ex. 16-20. Because the growth rate varies substantially over short periods, the most reliable historic rate fora 20-year forecast would be the rate for the previous 20 years. While that data is not in the record, we can calculate the historic rate for non-agricultural employment between 1980 (4,080 non-ag jobs) and 1997 (7,270 non-ag jobs). See Ex.-20-21 (II) at 17. This calculation gives an annual non-ag job growth rate of ((7,270)/(4,080))(1/17) = 1.0346 for a annual growth percentage of 3.46 percent. Applying Trottier's logic that the forecast rate should be slightly less than the historic rate (Ex. 20-21 (II) at 18) gives support to Trottier's forecasts using a 3.1 percent or 3.2 percent rate. See id. at 24. The 3.6 percent and 4.0 percent rates also analyzed by Trottier should be rejected as not being slightly less than the long term historic rates. See id. Page 29 of 58 Dorgan Comments -0MNIBUS January 9, 2006 Trottier has made one obvious mistake in using ~~ calculate job growth over the planning period vyhen he i needed in yeaz 2018 instead of in yeaz 2016. Icy. The p] to 2018. CP (Ex. 17-1) at 3-3 to 3-4. For the 3'~2 percer forecast of 14,067 total non-ag employrne;nt. Ex. 20-21 total non-ag employment to be 13,208 or 8591ess jobs. jobs reported for year 2018 for the 3.2 percent forecast i 5,948 new jobs actually needed for yeaz 2016. See id. a percent forecast in Tables 13 and 14, the 9,284 added jo (16,544 - 15,296) = 1,248 to calculate added jobs neede~ Trottier makes one more adjustment to obtain hi Table 18. Id., Table 18. He reasonably concludes that < jobs will need C/I lands. Id., Table 18, Note 1. To calc~ 2018 forecast using 3.2 percent employment growth, he 473 jobs shown for the 3.2 percent forecast in Table 13 final result in Table 18 for 3.2 percent growth of (6,807 needed. This estimate is reasonable for year 2018 but rr in the previous paragraph to calculate the needed jobs ir. 5, 522 for the 3.2 percent forecast. Similarily, the 8,696 jobs needed by 20D8 that is forecast has reasonably reduced the 9,284 jobs reported construction/miningfobs reported for that forecast in Ta Again this estimate is reasonable for yeaz 2018 but must above to calculate the needed jobs in yeaz 2016 which ~ percent forecast. In summary, the corrected added job capacity frc County is 14, 892 added jobs. Supra, this brief,at 16. T 5,522 added jobs for a forecast to year 2016 using the re growth rate (adjusting the 6,381 employment forecast re yeaz 2016). Supra, this brief at 18. The corrected Coun for a forecast to yeaz 2016 using the unreasonable 4 per (adjusting the 8,696 employment forecast reported in T~ Supra, this brief at 19. Because the 14,892 added job ca substantially more than the 5,522 or 7, 448 needed jobs additional urban or rural C/I land in Jefferson County. This conclusion is supported by looking's at the ra zoning in the Town of Port Townsend. Proposed Exhit Port Townsend Planning Commission (PT Asserssment) year 1996 Port Townsend had a total of 99.4 vacant acre (one quarter of the way into the .common Town .and CoL this urban C/I land had been needed for development. Z amount of existing vacant C/I land currently designated One more issue that must be addressed is the sle: when he appears to have azbitrarily reduced the'~,added jc Page $0 of 58 Dorgan Commdnts -011 January 9, 2006 ie reasonable 3.2 percent rate to sed this rate to forecast and report jobs uuung period is 1996 to 2016 not 1998 r forecast, Trottier reports a year 2018 II) at 24. For yeaz 2016, he forecasts [d. at 35. This reduces the 6,807 new ~ Tables 13 and 14 to (b,807 - 859) _ 24-25, Tables 13 and 14. For the 4 ~s reported for yeaz 2018 is reduced by in year 2016. See id. Tables 13 and 20. final forecast of added jobs needed in my 10 percent of construction/mining late jobs needed in Table 18 for his -easonably substracts 90 percent of the or construction/mining. He reaches his (0.90)(473)) = 6,381 added jobs ast be reduced by the 859 jobs discussed yeaz 2016 which will be (6,381 - 859) _ ported in Table 18 for the 4 percent Table 13 by 90 percent of the 653 ;13: (9,284 -(0.90}(653)) = 8,696. reduced by the 1,248 jobs discussed be (8,696 - 1,248) = 7,448 for the 4 existing C/I lands in eastern Jefferson corrected County-wide job demand is enable 3.2 percent annual employment rted in Table 18 for year 2018 back to wide job demand is 7,448 added jobs t annual employment growth rate 18 for yeaz 2018 back to yeaz 2016). pity of the existing C/I lands is year 2016, there is no unmet need for of consumption of existing urban C/I 11-113 is the annual assessment of the ~r yeaz 2002. This exhibit shows that in of urban C/I land and that by year 2001 ty planning period) only 7.6 acres of is is a reflection of the substantial n the County. ht-of--hand calculation done by Trottier capacity of existing C/I zoning in . , order to predict a higher need for new C/I zoning. See Ex. 20-21 (II) at 32. In Trottier's analysis, he reports that all rural C/I lands in year 1999 could support 2,488 added jobs. Supra, this brief at 13. He further reports that all urban C/I lands in year 1999 could support 4,190 added jobs. Supra, this brief at 16. He sums these numbers and reports a total existing employment capacity of 6,678 added jobs. Ex.20-21 (II), Appendix at 5. He transfers this number to his worksheet on page 32 of his report and uses this number as the land capacity for his "1996 Forecast." Ex. 20-21 (II) at 32. He later rejects this 1996 Forecast because it was based on a 1.9 percent employment growth rate predicted by the Washington Department of Employment Security which he felt was too low. See Ex. 20-21 (II) at 20 and 24. Nevertheless, when he reports the existing land capacity for his forecasts using employment growth rates of 3.1 to 4 percent, he mysteriously reduces the existing land capacity from 6,678 added jobs to 4,238 added jobs for all forecasts. See Ex. 20-21 (II) at 32. This is the primary reason that he reports deficit land capacity in Table 18 for the 3.2 percent growth rate. Trottier puts a inexplicible explanation of this unreasonable reduction in Note 2 of Table 18 of his report. Ex. 20-21 (II) at 32, Note 2. This is an unreasonable reduction in existing job capacity. The designation of the UGA should be found not in compliance with the GMA because a reasoned analysis shows no need for additional C/I lands to be designated during the 20 year planning period. Perhaps in ten or twenty years, there will be sufficient need for additional urban C/I lands to justify creation of a Tri-Area UGA. 3. T'he Tri-Area CP amendment should be found invalid Port Townsend is only 3.5 miles away from the Tri-Area. The designation of a Tri-Area UGA substantially interferes with Goal 1 of the Act which requires the County to encourage • development in urban areas where adequate public facilities exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. When anon-municipal urban area is designated near a municipal UGA despite a land use analysis demonstrating that the designation is not justified, there is substantial interference with the fulfillment of Goal 1 and the complete Tri-Area CP amendment should be found invalid. C. Legal Issues 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 16 -The County Has Failed To Establish Urban Levels of Service And Provide Urban Services In The Tri-Area UGA Prior to the adoption of the Tri-Area UGA, there was no urban land in the unincorporated County and no need to establish meaningful urban service levels in the unincorporated County. Prior to the 2002 CP amendments, all public facilities were classified as Category A, B, or C and all level of service standards were incorporated in CFP 1.1. CP at 12-49 to 12-51. The County does have urban service levels defined for roads. See CP at 12-49 to 12-50. With the creation of the Tri-Area UGA, the County is required to provide a full range of urban services specifically including piped fire flow, storm water systems, and sanitary sewer. CPP 2.1 (Ex. 15-1). To violate this Countywide Planning Policy is a violation of RCW 36.70A.210(1) which requires CPs to be consistent with CPPs. The County established a new level of service standard for sewer in the Tri-Area UGA. Ex. 3-11 at 12-49. But the County has not implemented sewer service at the adopted level of service standard anywhere in the Tri-Area UGA. At the time of adoption of the UGA, the County did not even know what agency would Page 31 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 provide sewer service to this proposed urban azea or whE what they would cost. See 2002 DSEIS (Ex. 3-11) at 2-! With the creation of the Tri-Area UGA through reexamine its level of service standards for public faciliti must reassess its development regulations to implement ~ UGA. This is necessary to comply with RCW ~6.70A.1: 1. Road level of service It appears that the County has failed to pct by not regulation as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). With the County must have a concunency ordinance for this a 36.70A.070(6xb) and prohibits new development if )eve 2. Water level of service The GMA explicitly sets sepazate levels Hof servic water systems. Rural water level of service is tq be set ". areas." RCW 36.70A.030(16). Urban water level of ser historically and typically provided in cities." RCW 36.7 generally prohibits water at urban service levels from bei explicitly identifies piped fire flow as an important aspec The County has created the Tri-Area UCiA witho~ standards for urban water service that aze consistent with "historically and typically provided in cities"). The Cow provision of piped fire flow in its urban water standazd a: `should include standazds for looping and valuing urban v shut off in one azea, there will still be adequate supply to -e any facilities would be located or 1 to 2-82. P amendment, the County must ;s and services for this new UGA and roan level of service standards in this 0(1)(b) and -.040(4). yet adopting a road concurrency the adoption of the new Tri-Area UGA, 'ea that meets the requirements of RCW of service standards are not met. for urban water systems and rural ~t an intensity usually found in rural ice is to be set "at an intensity -A.030(19). RCW 36.70A.110(4) lg extended into rural azeas. CPP 2.1 of urban water service. Ex. 15-1. ~t establishing proper level of service RCW 36.70A.030(19) (level ty has not explicitly addressed adequate required by Ex. 15-1, CPP 2.1. This ater systems to assure that if water is adjacent azeas that aze served by the same system. 3. Police, fire, and EMS level of s ce Police, fire, and EMS services aze historically an typically provided in cities at a level of service that is significantly higher than the level of servi usually found in rural azeas. The County has failed to set an improved level of service st azd for police, fire, and EMS services in the Tri-Area UGA. In fact, the County has failed to se any meaningful level of service standazd at all for police or sheriff service countywide. 4. Storm sewers in the UGA The GMA establishes that storm sewer Systems e an urban service that is historically and typically delivered in urban azeas. Compaz~ RCW 3 .70A.030(16) with -(19). There is no level of service standard specifically for storm sewers fo the Tri-Area UGA. 5. Solid waste and recycling collecti In urban areas there is typically mandatory solid aste and recycling collection. In rural azeas, such collection is optional. The County has not set a level of service standard for solid waste and recycling collection in the Tri-Area UGA. Th only County standazd for solid waste relates to weight generated per day per person bwt does n t relate to collection from houses and businesses. CP at 12-50. 6. Transit Service Page 32 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US January) 9, 2006 i The County has not established a meaningful level of service standard for transit routes in the Tri-Area UGA that is sufficient to judge the performance of the system as it relates to the Tri- Area UGA. Compaze CP at 12-5 l with RCW 36.70A.070(6}(a)(iii)(B). 7. The Tri-azea UGA must have urban service standards The County has proposed to establish a Tri-Area UGA without evaluating and establishing appropriate urban level of service standards for many urban services. The County cannot properly do required fiscal analysis for the new UGA without first establishing adequate urban service levels. The County cannot avoid extending urban services into rural azeas as prohibited by RCW 36.70A.110(4) if urban service levels remain the same as rural service levels. 8. Invalidity GMA Goal 12 requires the County to ensure that urban services will be provided at at urban standazds set by the County. When the County fails to set urban service standards, it substantially interferes with the fulfillment of this Goal. Because the County has failed to adequately set urban level of service standazds for the Tri-Area UGA, all parts of the UGA CP amendment should be found invalid under RCW 36.70A.302(1)(b). D. Legal Issues 2, 3, 5, 10, and 16 -The County Has Failed To Provide Adequate Capital Facility Planning And Fiscal Analysis For The Tri- Area UGA It is the county's responsibility to perform a regional analysis of all Capital Facility Project (CFP) needs, locations, and costs. Achen et al. v. Clazk County, WWGMHB Nos 95-2- 0067 (Second Compliance Order, December 17, 1997) at 5-6. The GMA requires both a six year analysis and a twenty year analysis of capital facility needs. RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (6)(a)(iii)(F) and (iv). Petitioner is correct with regard to the deficiency in the CFE of its forecast for future needs and proposed locations and capacities of new capital facilities. The CFE only addresses those issues on a 6-year projection. The GMA cleazly requires that such a forecast be done on a 20-year cycle. Cotton Corporation, Inc. v. Jefferson County, WWGMHB No. 98-2-0017 (Final Decision and Order, April 5, 1999) at 8. When doing capital facility planning and fiscal analysis for a new UGA it is important that analysis be provided for the actual boundary proposed for the UGA. Supra, this brief at 5-6, citing to Dawes, et al v. Mason County, WWGMHB No. 96-2-0023 (Final Decision and Order, December 5, 1996) at 11. In adopting the Tri-Area UGA the County failed to do any capital facility planning and fiscal analysis for the actual boundary of the UGA. The County in lazge part failed to include or incorporate any of the required capital facility planning and fiscal analysis for the new UGA in its CP. Further, the County failed to do accurate land capacity analysis and failed to set appropriate urban service levels for the new UGA prior to doing its capital facility planning and fiscal analysis for the new UGA. Supra, this brief at 8-25. 1. The County failed to do any capital facility planning and fiscal analysis for the actual boundary of the Tri-Area UGA Page 33 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 Over the years, there have been a wide range of undaries considered for a potential Tri- Area UGA. Attachment 6 to this brief is an illustrative xhibit that shows the adopted Tri-Area UGA sketched on a copy of Tri-Area Planning Area tha appears in Attachment 5. Also shown on this map is a dotted boundary that was studied in 19 as a proposed Tri-Area UGA. Detail from a land capacity analysis for another 1995 boundary] is provided in Ex. 7-12. This latter 1995 land capacity analysis studied five subareas. Ex. 712 (LJGA Sub-Areas Map). The adopted UGA includes virtually all of the Port Hadloc ondale subarea, all but the east 20 percent of the Ness' Corner subarea, and about 33 perc t of the South Oak Bay Road subarea. Compare Ex. 7-12 (LJGA Sub-Areas Map) with Attac ent 6. The adopted UGA also includes land to the south and west outside the boundaryt of the 1 d use analysis done in 1995. Id. The adopted UGA does not include any of the Kala !Point or rospect Avenue Plateau subareas analyzed in 1995. After the County finished Tasks I and Il of its S cial Study, it released a 1999 DSEIS (Ex. 20-21 (III)) and a 1999 FSEIS (Ex. 20-21 (IV) whi h were considered Tasks III and IV of the Special Study. See Ex. 3-11 at 2-76. Virtually all o the capital facility and cost analysis for the Tri-Area UGA was included in the 1999 DSEIS and 1999 FSEIS. The study area was divided into analysis subareas as shown in the x999 DS IS (Ex. 20-21 (III)) on page 3-13 and into three sub-units as shown on page 3-14. Thee capital acility and cost analysis when reported was typically reported for all three sub-units as !a single hole (called the Tri-Area UGA in the 1999 DSEIS) and separately for sub-unit 1 (called the T '-Area Sub Unit 1 UGA). See Ex. 20-21 (III) at 1-15. T'he taxpayer share of infrastructure cost estimated for several senarios. Id. - In reviewing the analysis in the 1999 DSEIS and 1999 FSEIS, it is first observed that analysis is only presented for sanitary sewer, water, sto water, and roads. There is no analysis in the record for facilities and costs for other important ban service facilities and equipment associated with waste collection and recycling collectio , or with police, fire, and EMS, or with street sweeping, or with public transit. Ex. 20-~ 1 (III) at 1-15. Second, its is observed that none of the areas stu ied have a boundary similar to the final adopted UGA. Attachment 7 to this brief shows the bo dary for the Tri-Area UGA from the 1999 DSEIS (Ex. 20-21 (III) page 3-13) sketched on a c py of Attachment 5 as an illustrative exhibit. Attachment 7 can be compared with the adopt boundary on Attachment 6 to see that these boundaries are substantially different. Of the sub- 'ts analyzed in the 1999 DSEIS, the closest match to the final adopted UGA is Sub-Unit 1. x. 20-21 (IIn at 3-14. Attachment 8 to this brief shows the boundary for the Tri-Area dub Unit UGA from the 1999 DSEIS (page 3- 13) sketched on a copy of Attachment 5 as an illustrativ exhibit. All of Sub Unit 1 was included in the final adopted Tri-Area UGA. Attachment 9 to this brief adds to the informatio on Attachment 8 by blacking out areas south and west of the Tri-Area Sub Unit 1 that were also included. in the final adopted Tri-Area UGA. It is seen that the added areas make the $nal ado ted Tri-Area UGA about 1/3 larger than Sub Unit 1 which was analyzed in the 1999 DSEIS. No a of the cost or capital facility analysis in the 1999 DSEIS can reasonably be used to determine a cost and capital facilities needed for the adopted Tri-Area UGA because of the major differe 'ces in the boundaries analyzed in the 1999 DSEIS and the final boundary for the adopted Tri- ea UGA. This Board requires that capital facility and fiscal analysis for a new UGA must provided for the actual boundary Page ~i4 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US January 9, 2006 proposed for the UGA. Supra, this brief at 5-6. In the instant case, the County never made available and never adopted capital facility and fiscal analysis for the boundary of the final adopted UGA. The next proposed Tri-Area UGA boundary was published on June 11, 2001 as a Final Decision Document of the BOCC. Ex. 20-21 (Tri-Area Provisional Urban Growth Area (PUGA) Map). There has been no publicly released land capacity, capital facility, or fiscal analysis released for this Provisional UGA. In Task V of the Special Study, the authors recognize the PUGA boundary but do not use this azea as an area for capital facility and cost analysis. Ex. 20- 21 (V) at 9. In the 2002 DSEIS a new Tri-Area UGA boundary was introduced. Ex. 3-11, Appendix Item 15 (this is Attachment 2 to this brief). Attachment 10 to this brief adds to the information on Attachment 8 by blacking out azeas east, south, and west of the Tri-Area Sub Unit 1 that were included in the 2002 DSEIS boundary. It is seen that the added azeas make the proposed 2002 DSEIS boundary substantially different from both the Sub Unit 1 boundary and the final adopted Tri-Area UGA boundary. The County did not do any additional capital facility or cost analysis for the new boundary in the 2002 DSEIS but relied upon the capital facility and cost analysis in the 1999 DSEIS and 1999 FSEIS for the Tri-Area UGA and Sub Unit 1. See Ex. 3-11 at 12-2. In summary, the capital facility planning and fiscal analysis for the final adopted Tri-Area UGA that is most applicable to that UGA is the analysis done on Sub Unit 1 as defined in the 1999 DSEIS. Attachment 9 to this brief compares the boundary for Sub Unit 1 with the boundary of the final adopted UGA. It shows that the final adopted UGA is about one third larger than Sub Unit 1. The County should be found not to comply with the GMA the requirements of RCW 36.70A.130(1)(b) and RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (6) for failing to provide capital facility and fiscal analysis applicable to the final adopted UGA boundary. 2. The County failed to properly update its 6-year and 20-yeaz capital facility and fiscal analysis when it adopted the new UGA When the County adopted the Tri-Area UGA, it also adopted text amendments to its CP. Ex. 13-1 at 6. The text amendments were contained in the 2002 DSEIS (Ex. 3-11) and in the 2002 FSEIS (Ex. 3-21). Ex. 13-1 at 6. All of the text amendments aze attached to this brief in Ex. 3-11 and 3-21. Nowhere in these documents is there any update to the County's 20 year capital facility plan. For all capital facilities except roads, the County is required to have an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, show the locations and capacities of these facilities, forecast the future needs for such facilities for the life of the plan, and show the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new- capital facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(3). The County has created a new UGA but it has not put the required capital facilities planning into its CP. In addition to the missing items above, the County has not provided an updated six-yeaz plan for the next six years that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and cleazly identifying sources of public money for such purposes.. RCW 36.70A.070(3). The GMA requires a revision to a CP land use plan to meet all of the requirements of the GMA. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(b). When amending a CP to add a UGA, the County must provide asix-yeaz funding plan for all capital facilities needed and the six years must begin when the amendment is adopted. This is required by RCW 36.70A.070(3). Page 35 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 The County errs when it seeks to meet this 6-ye planning requirement of RCW 36.70A.070(3) by simply amending its current adopted 1998-2003 plan to add a sewer facility planning study for year 2003 with no financing iplan fro years 2004 to 2009. Ex. 3-11 at 12-9. The Act should be interpreted to require a financing pl for the six years beginning when a CP amendment is adopted when there will be new capital fa ility expenditures in those next six years. Further, because the County cannot allocate its re enues in a 6-year plan without considering all capital facility costs, the County should a required to provide a fully updated County-wide 6-year plan for the upcoming six years wh ever it adopts a CP amendment that will alter capital facility costs in the following six years. The same arguments presented above for all capi al facilities also require the County to prepare an updated Transportation Plan under RCW 36. OA.070(6) to be consistent with and implement the plan fora new UGA. Exhibit 2021 at 13 indicates that road improvements will be necessary on SR 116 as early as 2003 if a UGA is fo ed. 3. The County has not done enough alysis of sanitary sewer to size a UGA The County recognizes that it has only begun the process to see if sewer service is financially viable for a Tri-Area UGA. The County iden ifies in its CP that it has not yet found a purveyor for urban sanitary sewer services for the Tri- a UGA or determined the fiscal impact of such a system on residents.Ex. 3-11 at 2-81 to 2-82. I further identifies that it needs to set urban service levels, and it needs to do meaningful pl 'ng for sizing and designing a sanitary sewer system to serve its new UGA, including sizing the sewer district. Id. at 2-82. It also identifies that it still needs to do capital facilities plannin and financing and address the transformance of governance issue. Id. These are all wo y tasks. They not only must be done for sanitary sewer, but they also must be done for other facilities related to providing an urban level water system including fire flow, a system of storm~uvater sewers, and those facilities related to providing an urban level of police, fire, EMS, garbage and recycling collection, street sweeping, and urban transit service. Ex. 15-1, CPP 2.1. but most importantly, the County must adequately address these issues prior to setting boundaries for a UGA not after. Both RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (6)(a)(iv)(C) require such analysis be~ore adopting a UGA so any UGA amendment will meet the requirements of the Act. 4. The County UGA amendment should be found invalid for failing to provide adequate capital facility and fiscal analysis GMA Goal 12 requires the County to ensure that ~irban services will be provided at at urban standards set by the County. When the C©unty ad pts a UGA but fails to do capital facility and fiscal analysis to ensure provision of urban s 'ce, it substantially interferes with the fulfillment of this Goal. Because the County has failed t provide adequate capital facility and fiscal analysis for the Tri-Area UGA, all parts of the UG CP amendment should be found invalid under RCW 36.70A.302(lxb). E. Legal Issues 2, 3, 8, and 16 -Thee.. County bias Failed To Encourage Urban Growth Inside the Tri-Area UGA The GMA intends that urban growth be ~ncourag inside a UGA. RCW 36.70A.110(1). An urban growth area must permit a range of urban densi ies and uses. RCW 36.70A.110(2). The County has established a new UGA which not only 'ls to encourage urban growth but it Page 316 of 58 Dorgan Commejnts -0r Januarys 9, 2006 also prohibits urban growth and instead retains all existing rural standards. This does not comply with the Act and the UGA amendment should be found invalid for substantial interference with fulfillment of Goals 1, 2, and 12. F. Legal Issues 2, 3, 14, and 15 -The County Has Failed To Adopt Development Regulation To Implement The Tri-Area UGA RCW 36.70A.130(lxb) and -.040 require the County to have development regulations that "are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan." A UGA needs to allow urban development and require urban services and this must be implemented in development regulations that allow urban development and require urban services. The County should be found not in compliance with the Act on this issue. V. CONCLUSION Jefferson County has adopted aTri-Area UGA without complying with the designation process required by the GMA. First, it processed the UGA amendment in the 2002 cycle when its Comprehensive Plan required it to process the amendment no earlier than the 2003 cycle. But more substantively, the County did not use a reasoned process to establish this new UGA. The ICAN reasoned analysis demonstrates that the County has adequate urban residential capacity inside the Port Townsend municipal UGA and so no non-municipal residential UGA should be allowed outside the municipal UGA. Also a reasoned analysis by ICAN demonstrates that there is sufficient commerciaUindustrial land in the Port Townsend UGA and in the remainder of the County to more than meet the County's commerciaUindustrial needs during the planning period. VWhile the Tri-Area may support a UGA in the future when it-would otherwise be necessary to expand the municipal boundaries of Port Townsend, the County must do much more careful capital facilities planning and cost analysis to ensure that urban services can be provided and provided in an efficient manner. As part of this analysis, the County should compare the costs of providing a full range of urban services in the Tri-Area UGA with the cost of providing these services in an expanded Port Townsend UGA. The County must establish valid urban service levels for anon-municipal UGA. The County should not adopt a UGA until it has completed its planning to efficiently provide a full range of urban services. It should adopt development regulations at the same time it adopts a UGA to be able to encourage urban growth inside the UGA and to require urban services to serve that growth. ICAN appreciates that it is difficult to meet all of these requirements to be able to establish anon-municipal UGA. for commerciaVindustrial and residential growth. ICAN recommends that the County develop a stronger public participation process working with the local residents to shape and mold any future UGA to not only comply with the GMA, but also enhance a sense of community that can facilitate future incorporation and satisfy the GMA requirement for transformance of governance. At this time, however, ICAN requests that this Boazd find the full UGA amendment not in compliance with the GMA and invalid. Dated this 8th day of May, 2003. Respectfully submitted, By: Gerald Steel, PE, WSBA #31084 Page 37 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 ICANSa8.03 ICAN REPLY BRIEI BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD IRONDALE COMMUNITY ACTION NEIGHBOR Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent. NO. 03-2-0010 ICAN REPLY BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION ~ In the ICAN Opening Brief, we demonstrated that the designation of a Tri-Area UGA was very premature. There aze no convincing azgument~ in the County Response Brief to support the designation of a Tri-Area UGA at this time.. IAs requested in the Opening Brief, the designation of the Tri-Area UGA should be found not to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA or Act) and should be found invalid; i II. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTY A. The County's Creative Planning Does Noit Comply With The GMA The County argues that the Tri-Area is a "de facto urban azea in a rural district that needs a creative planning solution." Any "creative planning sdlution" adopted by the County must comply with the GMA. It was demonstrated in the Ope~ing Brief, that the particular "creative planning solution" implemented by the County in adopting the Tri-Area UGA does not comply with the GMA. Creating a UGA in violation of GMA goals and requirements, as was done by the County, is not a viable "creative planning solution." B. The Issues Briefed By ICAN Are As Stated In The Opening Brief In its introduction, the County restates the issues ~riefed by ICAN. Co. Br. at 2. The subsection headings in Section IV of the Opening Brief fore accurately provide a listing of the issues briefed by ICAN. C. Much Of The Tri-Area UGA Is Not Chaz cterized By Urban Growth The County in seeking to justify the Tri-Area U A states: For the most part, it includes lands within the Tri-Area hick aze already chazacterized by urban densities and lands platted for urban densities. Page $8 of 58 Dorgan Comments --0r January 9, 2006 C Co. Br. 2. But in the Opening Brief, ICAN points out that there were hundreds of acres of unplatted residential lands in the proposed Tri-Area UGA. Op. Br. at 9. There is also substantial vacant commercial area proposed for the UGA. In Table 2 of Ex. 20-21(1 }attached to the Opening Brief, the County provides 1999 analysis that shows (25.82 +(0.25)(1.41) + (0.50x0.92) +(0.75)(11.81)) = 35.49 acres vacant in Port Hadlock and (4.33 +(0.25)(0.98) + (0.33)(0.76) +(0.50)(9.31) +(0.75)(9.72)) = 16.77 acres vacant in the Tri-Area. The new Tri- Area UGA includes this ((35.40) + (16.77)) = 52.26 acres of vacant commercial plus many more vacant acres first designated commercial when the Tri-Area UGA was adopted. Compare Ex. 20-21(1), Map 1 with Attachment 1 to the Op. Br. (both attached to the Opening Brief). D. A Nonmunicipal UGA Is Not Justified Just Because The Area Has Urban Growth As pointed out in the Opening Brief at 10, this is not a situation similar to that approved by this Board in Achen where sewer and water already exists and where very little urban growth would result from creating a UGA that was not supported by adequate analysis. UGAs are sized to "include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth projected to occur in the county or city" during the 20-year life of the CP. RCW 36.70A.110(1). Just because an area outside a UGA has urban growth does not require the area to designated as an urban growth area. Whidbey Environmental Action Network v. Island County, WWGMHB No. 95-2-0063 (Second Compliance Hearing Order and Finding of Invalidity, April 10, 1996) at 2-3 ("As the CPS Board noted at p. 11 of Tacoma v. Pierce County, the consequence of existing urbanized areas outside cities not being included in an IUGA is simply that new urban development will•not be permitted"). E. There Is Inadequate Analysis Regarding Provision Of Urban Services 1) Sewer In the Opening Brief, we established that there was inadequate analysis regarding provision of urban services. Op. Br. at 21-31. The County admits that not only does sewer not exist in the Tri-Area UGA, but the County has not even determined the "methods and locations" that it might use to provide for sewer. Co. Br. at 24. 2) Water The County generally relies on the analysis in Exhibit 20-21, Tasks III and V for its analysis of the Tri-Area urban water supply. Co. Br. at 22-23. But the County admits it has not yet developed Level of Service standards for water (or roads or other urban services) in the Tri- Area UGA. Co. Br. at 18. The County cannot reasonably do analysis of the Tri-Area urban water supply (or roads or other urban services) until it establishes its Level of Service standard. The County cites to Exhibit 20-21, Task III, p. 8-3, for the proposition that a thorough analysis was performed of water needs in the Tri-Area UGA and there are no critical water problems and water availability is adequate for current needs. Co. Br. at 22. The actual statement made in the reference cited is that County-wide there are "no reported critical problems with any [public water system] and water availability appears adequate for current needs." Exhibit 20-21, Task III, at 8-3 (attached to Co. Br.). This cursory analysis based on "reported" incidents and the "appearance" of adequacy is not sufficient analysis to show that even current users in the Tri-Area UGA can be supplied with an urban level of water service. We will show that there are critical problems with water in the Tri-Area. Page 39 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 The County relies on Exhibit 20-21, Task III, p es 8-16 and 9-5, (attached to Co. Br.) for the proposition that costs to meet future wader needs or the Tri-Area UGA would be approximately $2.6 million. Co. Br. at 22. A review o said pages 8-16 and 9-5 shows the $2.6 million cost is for Sub-Unit 1. But the actual Tri-Area GA adopted was 1/3 lazger than Sub Unit 1. Op. Br. at 27. The County points to noj water an ysis (or analysis for any urban service) for the actual UGA boundary. The County relied on Exh bit 20-21, Task III, p. 8-15, for the proposition that "there is considerable standby Storage t meet future needs." Go. Br. at 22. Again the County must be relying on analysis q'f Sub-U 't 1, but the Exhibit shows a need in Sub-Unit 1 for additional storage of 462,500 gallons (p. -15) with cost of $463,000 not including the 35 percent for engineering and contingenc (p. 8-16). The County should have said there is considerable additional storage needed. The County refers to Exhibit 20-21, Task V, Tab es 8-3 and 8-5 (attached to the Co. Br.) for the estimated water supply and demand. Co. Br. at 2 . Again, the analysis is not for the actual UGA boundary, but instead is for Sub-Unit 1. Th numbers show the existing demand in the Tri-Area is 1.32 million gallons per day (mgd) for th Average Daily Demand (ADD). Ex. 20-21, Task V, Table 8.3. The numbers show the existi g supply in the Tri-Area is only 1.14 mgd which shows an existing supply shortfall for curren users of 0.18 mgd. Id. Table 8-5, Note 2. The numbers show an additional ADD demand forth projected growth (an additional 1,068 connections) of 0.48 mgd. Id. Table 8-3. When the add' 'onal connections aze made, the ADD supply shortfall is projected to increase from the current alue of 0.18 mgd to 0.66 mgd for Sub- Unit 1. Id. Table 8-5. This analysis of water supply and demand for Sub-Unit 1 shows that there is an existing "critical water problem" in Sub-Unit 1 because current daily demand exceeds current daily supply by (100%)(0.18)/(1.14) _ ~ 16 percen}. With the projected growth in Sub- Unit 1 the daily demand will exceed the daily supply by ~ 100%)(0.66)/(1.14) = 58 percent. There is no analysis for the actual UGA area. The County does not use the same value of peoplee per household in all of its Tri-Area analysis. The County reports that the Final SEIS used 2.a7 people per residential unit. Ex. 20- 21, Task V at 10. The water demand analysis is based o~p 2.40 people per residential unit. See Ex. 20-21, Task V, Table 8-3 ((2,563 added people)/(1,0 8 connections) = 2.40 people per connection). The Boazd should direct the County to use~the same ratio of people per residential unit for all capital facility analysis on remand. The County cites to a revised cost estimate of ap roximately $2.4 million for correcting deficiencies and providing future water service to Sub-U it 1. Co. Br. at 23. This is not adequate analysis. First, it does not reflect that the actual, UGA ad pted is 1/3 larger than analyzed Sub- unit 1. Op. Br. at 27; see also Op. Br. at 5-6. Second, it does not address the availability or cost of water rights to provide the needed additional supply. ' d, there is no analysis for urban. service levels including fire flow as required. See Op. B . at 6. Fourth, there is no assessment of funding and funding shortfall as required by the, Act. Se Op. Br. at 7. Fifth, the County has not inventoried existing water facilities, shown the location d capacity of these facilities, or shown the proposed locations and capacities of the proposed ne facilities. See Op. Br. at 29.. Sixth, the County has not presented any updated six y~az plan r yeazs 2003-09 that will finance any Tri-Area urban water facilities (or any other capital facil' ies) that will clearly identify sources of public money. See OP. Br. at 29-30. 3} Roads Page 40 of 58 Dorgan Comments -0h January 9, 2006 As described in the Opening Brief, the County has not done proper analysis for urban road improvements in the Tri-Area UGA. Op. Br. at 21-31. The County road analysis was based on Sub-Unit 1 which is substantially smaller than the adopted UGA. Op. Br. at 27. The County did not establish an urban level of service for roads in the UGA and did not implement a concurrency ordinance for the UGA. Id.; Co. Br. at 18. Without an urban level of service for roads, any capital facility and fiscal analysis will be inadequate. The County six-year plans for all capital facilities including roads are for the first six years of its plan from 1997 to 2003. Op. Br. at 29-30. The designation of a UGA requires a116 year planning to be updated to cover the subsequent six years and not, as is the case here, for the last five years and then just for the next 12 months. 4) Other urban services including police, fire, storm sewer, street sweeping, etc. The County admits that it has not set urban service levels for other urban services. Co. Br. at 18. The County has not done any analysis for the actual boundary of the Tri-Area UGA. Supra. The County cannot do any credible capital facility and fiscal analysis until it sets urban service levels. 5) Summary The County cannot justify the designation of a nonmunicipal UGA without doing the capital facility and fiscal analysis required by the Act. F) The Land Capacity Analysis Does Not Justify A UGA In the Opening Brief, ICAN demonstrates that the land capacity analysis done by the County does not justify a Tri-Area UGA. Op. Br. at 8-22. The County admits that the Port Townsend UGA is sufficient to accommodate urban residential growth. Co. Br. at 16. But the County argues that it would, be difficult to meet the "CPP. goal of channeling 60% of new population into UGA's" without the Tri-Area UGA. Co. Br. at 16-17. The County does not provide a citation to a CPP goal for channeling 60% of new population into UGAs and I found no such goal in the County-wide Planning Policies. But even if this were a desire of the County, there are many ways to encourage growth in the Port Townsend UGA other than creating a nonmunicipal UGA outside the Port Townsend UGA when it is not supported by adequate land use capacity analysis or adequate capital facility analysis or adequate fiscal analysis. The County currently requires lot aggregation for public health reasons. Co. Br. at 4. It could also institute lot aggregation to meet any goal it desired to channel growth into the existing UGA. The County suggests that 20% of the new growth is likely to go into the Tri-Area UGA. Co. Br. at 17. The projected growth for the whole Tri-Area planning area is 1,165 over twenty years. Op. Br. at 4. The total growth projected for Jefferson County from 1996 to 2016 is 13,643 people. Ex. 17-1 (attached to Op. Br.) Table 3-1. If all of the allocated growth for the whole Tri-Area Planning Area was to go into the Tri-Area UGA (very unlikely), the Tri-Area UGA could only accommodate (100%)(1,165)/(13,643) = 8.5 percent of the new growth which is far from the 20% suggested by the County. The second County argument suggests that ICAN misunderstands the County's rationale for designating the Tri-Area UGA. Co. Br. at 17. The County argues that non-municipal urban growth areas may be designated if they include areas characterized by urban growth. Id. ICAN does not disagree with this statement, but this requirement must be added to the requirements for Page 41 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 adequate land use capacity analysis and adequate capital facility analysis and adequate fiscal analysis and not substituted for these requirements. j ICAN found one error in its Opening Brief in its alysis that the job capacity was 14,892 added jobs available on all existing designated C/I lands without the Tri-Area UGA. See Op. Br. at 19. The error resulted from finding that the Land Use Inventory Report identified 573.4 gross acres of available C/I lands outside the Port To~pvnsend GA. Op. Br. at 13. The County states that this Report identifies 464 gross acres of available C lands. Co. Br. at 16. A carefiil review of the Report shows that the it actually identified 359.5 a es of available C/I lands outside UGAs. Ex. 20-21 (I) Tables 2 and 3 (attached tp Op. Br ). When the analysis presented in the Opening Brief is corrected, the 28 percent correction fac or reported in the Opening Brief at 13 is increased to (100 percent)(90 + 75)/(395.5) = 45.9 perc t. Also, the correction factor of 240 percent reported in the Opening Brief at 15 is decreased ~o (100 percent)(9,600)/(5,000) = 192 percent assuming a reasonable 9,600 square foot buildin~ footprint on a one-acre high intensity or on a two-acre low intensity parcel. All of the remaining analysis presented in the Wing Brief is unchanged but the change in these two correction factors reduces the job opacity s pply on the existing designated C/I lands without the Tri-Area UGA from 14,892 added job to 13,949 added jobs. This supply is to be compared to the 5,522 job demand for the reasonable .2 percent annual employment growth rate and the 7,448 job demand for the unreasonable 4.0 cent annual employment growth rate as reported in the Opening Brief at 19. The coniclusion i the same. The existing designated C/I lands in the County can accommodate all needed emplo ent growth without designation of a Tri-Area UGA. G) ~ The County Has Failed To Adopt Tri-Area UGA ICAN requested that the County be found not in not adopt development regulations consistent with and t amendment. Op. Br. at 32. The County has noU denied regulations. Co. Br. III. CONCLUSION As stated in the Opening Brief, ICAN requests t] amendment not in compliance with the GMA arld invali Dated this 6th day of June, 2003. ICAN6a6.03 By: Page 42 of 58 Dorgan Comments -011 January 9, 2006 Regulations To Implement The with the Act because it did implement its Tri-Area UGA gat it failed to adopt implementing this Board find the full UGA submitted, Steel, PE, WSBA #31084 Attorney for ICAN ICAN OPENING BRIEF -March 8, 2005 BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD IRONDALE COMMUNITY ACTION NEIGHBORS and NANCY DORGAN, Petitioners, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent, and IRONDALE COMMUNITY ACTION NEIGHBORS, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent. N0.04-2-0022 ICAN'S OPENING BRIEF N0.03-2-0010 ICAN'S OPENING BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION Irondale Community Action Neighbors and Nancy Dorgan (collectively, "ICAN") continues its challenge of the Hadlock/Irondale UGA. Jefferson County adopted Ordinance 10- 0823-04 (Ordinance) in response to ICAN v. Jefferson County, WWGMHB No. 03-2-0010 (Final Decision and Order, August 22, 2003) (FDO). A copy of this Ordinance was supplied to the Board as Exhibit 13-22 with Jefferson County's Compliance Report dated December 17, 2004 (Compliance Report). Generally, in the remainder of this brief, Exhibits referenced will be found attached to the Compliance Report unless otherwise noted. ICAN challenged the most egregious action of the County in ICAN's Motion for Noncompliance and Invalidity on the UGA Urban Development Regulations (January 31, 2005) and in ICAN's Reply Regarding Noncompliance and Invalidity on the UGA Urban Development Regulations (February 18, 2005}. These briefs and their included evidence is incorporated herein by reference. This Motion briefing argues that the implementation of urban development regulations throughout the Hadlock/Irondale UGA was egregiously premature because of incomplete and inadequate sewer planning. ICAN requests that this Board find the UGA Urban Development Regulations invalid for the reasons presented in the incorporated Motion and Reply. Page 43 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 The County has done no sewer planning for mos no sewer planning includes all of the land in the UGA e: Core, and Old Alcohol Plant azeas as seen on E;x. 2-1 an sewer planning currently has no existing sewer (facilities 36.70A.070(3) because there is no forecast of future nee aze no proposed locations and capacities of future facilit no 6-yeaz financing plan for any facilities which violate: taken action to ensure that all of the land within the UGA facilities planning to receive sewer in the next 20 years ~ For the Rhody Drive, Hadlock Core, and Old Al 2-3 in Exhibit 24-70, the County has only just begun the the County has a study that identifies four sewex system facilities at different locations. Ex. 24-70 at 4-~ to 4-12. estimates. Ex. 24-70 at 4-14. The study discusses finar 70 at 5-1 to 5-8. But this is as far as the County has gott There is no agreed costs or funding sources. There is ac sewer even to this azea. This azea also has no existing sewer facilities. T 36.70A.070(3) because there is no actual forecaist of nee violates subsection (b); there is no BOCC decision regaz of future facilities which violates subsection (c); there is facilities which violates subsection (d); and the County 1 the land within this azea has appropriate capital facilities next 20 yeazs which violates subsection (e). Despite the fact that there is no sewer planning a and incomplete sewer planning for the rest of the UGA, already implemented urban development regulaitions in t 22 at 14 (Section Three).. Now, urban development is al failure to ensure that sewer. will be available at time of o required by RCW 36.70A.020(12), and despite the Coun ever be available in this UGA. This is egregious and th~ should be found invalid until the County completes its s~ ICAN has found many GMA violations in the Cc regulation amendments adopted by the Ordinance. Moss under Legal Issue 2 in the Februazy 14, 2005 Corrected aze also more specifically raised in another Legal Issue. Legal Issue 2, ICAN will identify other relevant legal is: these violations ICAN will address the errors in each adc document and then by document page number where the of the land in the UGA. This land with cept for the Rhody Drive, Hadlock l 2-3 in Exhibit 24-70. This azea of no There is not compliance with RCW is which violates subsection (b); there es which violates subsection (c); there is subsection (d); and the County has not designation has appropriate capital rhich violates subsection (e). :ohol Plant azeas as seen on Ex. 2-1 and sewer planning process. For this azea,. alternatives with alternative capital. The study does concept level cost sing options in general terms. Ex. 24- +n. There is no selected alternative. ually no commitment to ever provide sere is not compliance with RCW is during the next twenty years which ling proposed locations and capacities no 6-yeaz financing plan for any as not taken action to ensure that all of planning to provide sewer during the all for most of the UGA and inadequate he County has jumped forwazd and ie UGA. Ex. 13-32 adopted by Ex. 13- ~wed in the UGA despite the County's ~cupancy for any new development as y's failure to ensure that sewer will UGA urban development regulations wer planning homework. mprehensive Plan and development of these violations can be addressed revised Prehearing Order, even if they When a violation is outside the scope of yes. To assist the Boazd in reviewing pted document in sequence first by error is referenced. II. ARGUMENT A. Urban Growth Element The Urban Growth Element adopted by ;the Ordi ance is Exhibit 13-37. See Ex. 13-22 at 14 (Section One). 1. Noncompliance with CWfiPP 1.3 d 1.5 Page !t4 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US Januazy 9, 2006 CWPP 1.3 and 1.5 are described in Exhibit 13-37 at 2-2. The CWPPs aze the framework for the Comprehensive Plan. RCW 36.70A.210(1). CWPP 1.3 provides that land included in a nonmunicipal UGA is either to be served by sewer or planned for sewer in the next twenty yeazs. CWPP 1.3, Ex. 15-1 hereto. If this land is planned for sewer, the sewer planning must be in the capital facilities plan. Id. In the instant case, there are no sewer facilities and there are no amendments to the capital facilities plan to show required sewer planning. See Ex. 13-22 at 14. For this reason the UGA is in continued noncompliance with RCW 36.70A.210(1) and CWPP 1.3. CWPP 1.5 requires capital facility plans within each UGA be designed to accommodate the projected population. CWPP 1.5, Ex. 15-1 hereto. CWPP 1.5 calls for two tiers. Id. The first tier must have a six year capital facilities plan that will "provide urban infrastructure." Id. The second tier must have capital facilities planning "to receive the full range of urban services within twenty (20) yeazs." Id. The "full range of urban services" includes sanitary sewer. CWPP 2.1, Ex. 15-1 hereto. The Hadlock/Irondale UGA does not have a six yeaz capital facilities plan that will provide sewer to the first tier and there is no twenty-year capital facilities planning for sewer for the second tier. For this reason the UGA is in continued noncompliance with RCW 36.70A.210(1) and CWPP 1.5. 2. Noncompliance for designing a UGA to not have sewer In pages 2-4 to 2-5 of the Urban Growth Area Element, the County describes its plan to not provide sewer to most of the UGA during the twenty-year life of the plan. It states that "in areas where no sanitary sewer service is provided for in the six-year Capital Facilities Plan" that it will not implement the four-unit per acre density called for by its Urban Low Density Residential (ULDR) designation but instead in these non-sewered azeas it will limit maximum density to suburban 3.5-units per acre by using the Health Code. Ex. 13-37 at 2-4. New subdivisions to 3.5- units per acre, if allowed at all by the GMA, may only be allowed in a nonmunicipal UGA if sewer is provided. CWPP 1.3 and 1.5; RCW 36.70A.030(19); RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (12). This Boazd closely scrutinizes nonmunicipal UGAs. Abenroth v. Skagit County, WWGMHB No. 97-2-0060c (Final Decision and Order, January 23, 1998) at 21. Residential and commercial growth in UGAs must be timed and phased so it can efficiently be provided with urban services. RCW 36.70A.110(3); Abenroth v. Skagit County, WWGMHB No. 97-2-0060c (Final Decision and Order, January 23, 1998) at 26-29. The County does not comply with the GMA by allowing new suburban subdivisions to 3.5-units per acre in the UGA without providing sewer and other urban services to these subdivisions. If the County does not intend to provide sewer to parts of the UGA in its 20-year plan, then these azeas should be eliminated from the UGA. If sewer is not to be provided initially to a part of the UGA but is to be provided later during the 20-year life of the plan, then the County needs a phasing plan that prevents development that would impede future urban growth in the this part of the UGA when sewer becomes available. 3. Comprehensive Plan fails to show densities and intensities in the UGA RCW 36.70A.070(1) requires the land use element of the comprehensive plan to "include population densities [and] building intensities." The Future Land Use Map of the UGA only shows only four categories: residential, commercial, industrial and public. Ex. 13-22 at 2-29. Page 45 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 The County describes three zones to implement residen al. Id. at 2-10. These zones have densities of 46, 7-14, and 14-24 units per acre.' Ex. 13- 1. But the County states that it doesn't take a comprehensive plan amendment to change betty these residential zones. Ex. 13-22 at 2-9. This means that the Comprehensive Plan allows ne densities from 4-24 units per acre everywhere in the residential designation of the UGA. 's Boazd should rule that RCW 36.70A.070(1) requires the County to have meajningful ensity ranges (and allowed dwelling types as building intensities) actually in the Coimprehe 've Plan and not just in the zoning ordinance. Similazly, the adopted urban growth element doe not have building intensities defined for commercial, industrial, or public development. See x. 13-37. While there aze some limits on building intensity in the zoning code, RCW 36.70A.0~10(1) requires allowed.building intensities in these designations to be addressed at the prehensive plan level. Again, in the County scheme, building intensities are only addressed ' the zoning code and changes to these zoning regulations can now be done without a aompreh sive plan amendment. Ex. 13-37 at 2- 9. 4. County used wrong mazldet factor ' the UGA The County is justified to use a 25 percent mazk factor for residential and commercial growth. Achen v. Clark County, WWGMHB ~To. 95-2 0067 (Compliance Order and Order of Invalidity, October 1, 1996) at 7; Dawes et al. v. Mason ounty, WWGMHB No. 96-2-0023 (Order Finding Invalidity, Partial Compliance, Continu Noncompliance, and Continued Invalidity, January 14, 1999) at 1. But the 25% mazket ctor is to be applied to the population "growth." The County has applied its allowed 25% maz et factor to the "existing [and] projected growth" to get a maximum population of 6,133 persons i the UGA. Ex. 13-37• at 2-8. Deducting the 2,553 existing population from the 6,133 Maximum, the UGA is designed to accommodate a growth of (6,133 -_2,553) or 3,580 peoplje. -See Ex. 13-37 at 2-8. This number, 3,580 people, represents a mazket factor of 52% above t e projected growth which is 2,353 people. Id. The UGA should be reduced to accommod to just the 25% mazket factor correctly applied. 5. Reference to wrong map The Urban Growth Element (Ex. 13-37)at 2-9 re ers to UGA Zoning Map (Figure 2-2) but there is no appropriate map labeled Figure ~-2. The mprehensive plan is not internally consistent in violation of RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) required by RCW 36.70A.130(1)(b). 6. Internal inconsistency regazding z Wing map The Urban Growth Element (Ex. 13-37) at 2-9 st tee that "the UGA Zoning Map [is] adopted as a pazt of this element." If it is part of this ele~ent, then it would take a comprehensive plan amendment to change the UGA Zon~ng Map which is inconsistent with the statement at the bottom of the page that "amendments to the adopted Zoning Map aze subject to the requirements of UDC Section 9.9" which does not r uire a comprehensive plan amendment. This is internally inconsistent in violation of RCW 36.70 .070(preamble). The same internal inconsistency appeazs in Ex. 13-37 at 2-23 in UGA-P 1. which should also be found not in compliance with the Act. 7. Internal inconsistency re~azding alysis yeazs The Urban Growth Element (Ex. 13-37) iat 2-8 in icates that the 20-yeaz planning period for the analysis in this element was 2004 to 202. But i Ex. 13-33 at 3-4, 3-7, 5-4 and Page 46 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US January 9, 2006 elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan, the 20-year planning period is shown to be 1996 to 2016. This planning period and numbers corresponding to this planning period are not used consistently throughout the analysis in the comprehensive plan. For example, Ex. 13-37 at 2-6 (and Ex. 13-36 at 3-1) states that the existing population in the UGA was 2,553 in year 2000. But the County has also accepted the 2,553 existing population as the existing population in year 2004. Ex. 13-37 at 2-8. The analysis needs to use consistent population numbers throughout. The growth between year 2000 and year 2004 needs to be considered. 8. Now that the County has anon-municipal UGA it needs to establish different LOS standards in rural and urban areas. The Urban Growth Element (Ex. 13-37) at 2-12 to 2-13 states that many utilities and capital facilities provided in the UGA bynon-County providers are currently being provided at urban standards. The County has a responsibility under the GMA to implement both rural and urban LOS standards now that it has an urban area under its land use jurisdiction. See RCW 36.70A.030(16) and (19). The County is to forbid the extension of urban services outside the UGA except for special circumstances. RCW 36.70A.110(4). The County has failed to comply with these statutes. 9. The UGA should not have areas not planned for sewer in the 20-year capital facility plan The Urban Growth Element (Ex. 13-37) at 2-14 states that there will be sewered areas, areas where sewer is optional, and unsewered areas. As previously discussed, urban development needs to' be phased so that sewer will be available at time of occupancy: RCW 36.70A.020(12). If an area is not to be sewered for the 20-year life of the plan, it should not be inside the UGA. If an area is not yet sewered it should not be able to development in a manner that precludes future urban development. To allow densities up to 3.5 units per acre in new residential subdivisions promotes suburban growth which is not allowed by the GMA. See RCW 36.70A.020(1). To allow suburban commercial and industrial development before sewer is available precludes real urban development in the future in violation of the Act. This Board should find that the County must provide sewer to allow urban development anywhere in the UGA and this Board should find that the County must preclude suburban development that is now allowed by Comprehensive Plan and Zoning regulations. 10. The County violates public participation requirements by adopting documents "as amended" as part of the Comprehensive Plan (Legal Issue 1) On page 2-16 of the Urban Growth Element (Ex. 13-37), the County adopts the PUD Water System Plan "as maybe amended" as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This violates the public participation requirements listed in Legal Issue 1 because future water plans will be able to amend the comprehensive plan without any opportunity for public comment. 11. The County fails to have a 6-year funding plan for stormwater management in the UGA Page 47 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O~BUS January 9, 2006 The County references the UGA Storm~bvater M agement Plan in the Urban Growth Element (Ex. 13-37) at 2-17. But the County fails to pr 'ect the six yeaz funding plan required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d). 12. UGA-P 1.5 sets requirements that are not met UGA-P 1.5 in Ex. 13-37 at 2-23 requires devel~ and intensities of use, bulk and dimensional, and other element" but this policy is internally inconsiste#tt in vii and -.130(1)(b) because there are no densities and inter standard in the Urban Growth Element even thqugh su 36.70A.070(1).. 13. UGA-P 1.6 allow commercial re Issue 3) and without consistency UGA-P 1:6 allows parcels with Urban Residenti Commercial on the UGA Future Land Use Map. This ~ of need to designate more land as Commercial bn the U of vacant land that is allowed commercial development policy seeks to avoid. This policy should be found to v 36.70A.110(2) to size UGA commercial and residential needs. Further, this policy authorizes lands to have urb commercial land use designations without requiring cor, designation. It appears to allow commercial developme parcel has residential zoning. The GMA requires intern Plan and with the implementing zoning regulations. RC .130(1)(b). This Boazd should find that the zoning and c parceLmust be consistent and find UPA-P 1.6 does not ~ 14. UGA-P 2.6(a) is not an urban LO UGA-P 2.6(a) seeks to establish on-site septic sy Hadlock/Irondale UGA. Ex. 13-37 at 2-24. Pursuant to CWPP 1.5 and 2.1, sewer is required for urban developr. be found not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.210(1) aJ allow rural on-site septic systems to be considered an ur 15. UGA-P 2.6(d) fails to set LOS sta UGA-P 2.6(d) sets a transportation LOST, in the U inadequate because it fails to explicitly apply thje standau in urban areas is because of failing intersections and not County should be required to establish LOS stati7dazds fc the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(6)(B) and (C). B. Transportation Comprehensive Plan Ame neat to "be consistent with the densities velopment standazds found within this. lion of RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) pies of use, and bulk and dimensional standards are required by RCW ion without needs analysis (Legal zoning to be designated Urban icy does not require a future showing ~ Future Land Use Map. The amount subject to needs analysis that this ate the GMA requirement in RCW eas in the UGA to meet projected ~ residential zoning and urban stency between the zoning and land use with the land use designation when the consistency in the Comprehensive ~ 36.70A.070(preamble) and - nprehensive plan designation on a reply with the GMA. standard ms as a urban service in the ~W 36.70A.030(16) and (19) and it in the UGA. UGA-P 2.6(a) should RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (12) for i service. for intersections ~A. Ex. 13-37 at 2-25. This standard is to road intersections. Most congestion ecause of failing road segments. The intersections for all arterials to meet Page ~8 of 58 Dorgan Comments -O US Januar j~ 9, 2006 The Comprehensive Plan was amended for the UGA by adoption of Ex. 13-35 as Appendix J of the Comprehensive Plan and by the adoption the Transportation Strategy in Ex. 13-38. See Ex. 13-22 at 14 (Section One). 1. Error in traffic analysis on SR-19 from Irondale Road to Four-Corners The County violates the requirement of RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii) when it fails to accurately report that existing traffic on SR-19 from Irondale Road to Four-Corners does not meet the current LOS standard. The County failed to include in Ex. 13-35 as attached to the Compliance Report, pages 2-19 to 2-23 of original Ex. 13-35. Black and white copies of these additional pages are attached hereto as Ex. 13-35. On page 2-22 (Figure 2) of Ex13-35 (hereto), the County shows the Existing ADT in the UGA north of Irondale Road north to be 14,000 ADT. Based on this ADT the County reports the LOS for this road segment to be LOS D. Ex. 13-35 (hereto) on page 2-23 (Figure 3). But as the text describes, the segment of SR-19 from Irondale Road to Four-Comers Road actually has Existing ADT of 16,898 ADT. Ex. 13-35 (Compliance Report) at 2-2. Comparing this 16,898 ADT to the 16,681 ADT for SR-19 middle section (year 2010 ADT) on Ex. 13-35 (hereto) at 2- 22 (Figure 2) and 2-23 (Figure 3), it is seen that the existing 16,898 ADT on SR-19 between Irondale Road and Four Corners Road is at LOS E. The LOS standard in Jefferson County for urban roads is LOS D and for rural roads is LOS C. Ex. 13-35 (Compliance Report) at 2-3. Therefore the County has erred in reporting existing traffic in the UGA on SR-19 north of Irondale Road as being 14,000 ADT with LOS D when the actual existing traffic at this location is 16,898 ADT with LOS E which exceeds the LOS standard for both urban and rural road segments. In order to report a road segment with LOS D on SR-19 north of Irondale Road, the County averaged the traffic for the road segment in the UGA that operates at LOS E with the traffic on rural road segments north of Four Corners Road that have substantially less traffic. Under the requirements in RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a){iii), this Board should require the County to accurately report that existing traffic in the UGA on SR-19 is LOS E north of Irondale Road and that LOS E continues on SR-19 on the rural road segment between the UGA and Four Comers Road. 2. Consistency required for reporting period for six-year TIP The County cites to its six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as going from 2004 to 2009. Ex. 13-35 (Compliance Report) at 2-4. But just as the twenty year planning period goes from 2004 to 2024 (supra, this brief at 8) the six-year plan for a compliant UGA ordinance adopted in 2004 should go from 2004 to 2010. The County fails to provide the financing plan required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(F) and (6)(c) for the year 2010. When the County seeks to bring an UGA ordinance that complies with the GMA, the six-year plan should begin in the year that the UGA ordinance is adopted and the report should be for the full six years (for example, 2006 to 2012). 3. LOS required for intersections The County has reviewed the actual LOS for intersections. Ex. 13-35 at 2-4. But the County has failed to clarify that the LOS standard applies to intersections and it has failed to show how the LOS standard for intersections will be calculated. Supra, this brief at 11-12. 4. Inconsistency in population projection data Page 49 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 The County claims in Ex. 13-35 at 2-6 and in E . 13-36 at 3-1) that its population forecast for 20-years is 2.76 percent compoundled annu ly. If this were true, it would result in a population increase over 20 years of (1.0276)24 = 1.724 which means over twenty yeazs the population would increase by 72.4 percent. This is not nsistent with the other population projections in the comprehensive plan in violation of R W 36.70A.070(preamble) and - .130(1 xb). 5. Inconsistency in 20-yeaz plannin 'period In Ex. 13-35 at 2-6 the County reports a twenty eaz planning period for analysis of 2005 to 2024. This is inconsistent with the 20-yeaz planning 'od of 2004 to 2024 used elsewhere in the plan. Supra, this brief at 8-9. All of the UC~rA analy is should use the same 20-yeaz planning period to be internally consistent as required by! RCW 3 .70A.070(preamble). 6. County errs when it intends to all w urban development in the UGA for the next 6 yeazs without providing sewer In the County's transportation analysis it assumed that sanitary sewer will not be provided to the UGA unti12011 but that urban commercial and in ustrial development will be permitted before that time using rural on-site septic systems. Ex. 13-35 at 2-6. This is in conflict with RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (12) which do not allgw urban development until urban services (including sewer) can be provided. ', 7. County fails to reference!where it hows it work (Legal Issues 2-3, 5, and 8-10) The County presents the results of analysis for its transportation projections where it assumes that there will be (12.6 + 54.3) acres of new conhmercial development in the UGA over the 20-year planning period. Ex. 13-35 at 2-6 to 2-7. B t the County. fails to show its work and show the basis of this calculation or refer to the referent where it has shown its work. The County must show its work to show that it meets the req 'rements of RCW 36.70A.110(2) to properly size the allowed commercial developrr~ent in th UGA. There is no reference provided for the mjix of us assumed by the County for commercial growth during 2005 to 2010 in Ex. 13-35 at -7. For example, in Table 4 on page 2- 7, the County assumes 0.5 acres of office development. f half of the 12.6 acres of 2005-2010 commercial development in the UGA was office or an ually high traffic generator, then the traffic generation from this use alone would be 1061(6.3 ,0.5) = 13,369 new ADT. T'he traffic analysis doesn't consider this level of new traffic and dohs not provide any justification or reference showing why it does not do so. The County m t show its work. The County summary showing 0.5 acres develop d for office, assumes only 4,000 squaze feet of building on a 0.5 acre site. Ex. 13-35 at gage 2-7 Table 4. This corresponds to only 9 percent coverage for atwo-story building with ~ 2,000 s uaze foot footprint on a 21,780 squaze foot (0.5 acre) site. The UDC allows much more intendi a urban commercial development with building heights of 70 feet (seven stories) allowed and th no limit on building lot coverage. Ex. 13-32 at 18. The County has not shown its work as tb why it has assumed the types and levels of development it has assumed to perform its traffic analysis. More accurate traffic generation analysis would reflect actual allowed intensitijes of development and be more typical Page ~0 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OD January 9, 2006 of real urban development with higher amounts of office and retail development and higher amounts of traffic generation. In doing its traffic generation analysis the County has made a mathematical error in Table 5 in Ex. 13-35 at 2-8. The corrected calculation is given below using the County's assumption that gross floor azea is 21 % of total land azea developed. The County averages the building azea of the ten uses and gets 10,025 sq ft. The sum of the ten areas is just (10)(10,025) = 100,250 sq ft. In acres this is 100,250/43,560 = 2.30 acres of gross floor area. Using the 21% coverage, the gross acreage to accommodate this mix is (2.30/0.21) = 10.95 acres. The County could repeat this pattern about 5 times in the 54.3 acres that the County estimates will be developed in the period 2011-2024. The County's error is made in estimating the ADT that will be generated by this 10.95 acres of mixed development. To get the correct traffic generation, it is necessary to directly calculate the trips generated by each development and then add the trips together: Anticipated Development Trips per 1000 sq ft GFA Average GFA Trips 1. Quality Restaurant: 89.95 9,000 809.55 2. MedicaUDental 36.15 15,000 542.25 3. Nursery 36.08 9,000 324.72 4. Tire Store 24.87 5,000 124.35 5. Mini-Warehouse 2.5 12,250 30.63 6. Super Mazket Expansion 111.51 20,000 2,230.20 7. Hardware Store 51.29 20,000 1,025.80 8. Fast Food Restaurant 496.12 3,000 1,488.36 9. Convenience Market 845.60 •3,000 2,536.80 10. Bank 265.20 4,000 1,060.80 .Total 100,250 10,173.46 In this correct analysis using the County's data, this 10.95 acres of commercial land (with 100,250 squaze feet of floor area) will actually generate 10,173 ADT or (10,173/10.95) = 929 ADT per gross commercial acre of development. The County in making a math error concluded that this mix of development would only generate 179 ADT per acre of commercial land. Ex. 13-35 at 2-8. The County has made a math analysis error that underestimates traffic generation in the commercial area by more than a factor of five. The County has done its transportation analysis using 8,269 ADT added by commercial and industrial development from years 2011 to 2024. Id. The actual traffic expected to be generated using the County's assumptions but correcting the math error is expected to be five times greater. This means that all of the ADT and LOS calculations done by the County and shown in Ex. 13-35 (herein) at 2-22(Figure 2) and 2-23{Figure 3) aze grossly inaccurate. This also means that the ADT and LOS analysis and deficiency and capital facility analysis in Ex. 13-35 at 2-9 to 2-23 is grossly in error. The County assumed that in the years 2005 to 2010, there would be 2,980 additional ADT on 13.2 acres of commercial development. Ex. 13-35 at 2-7. This analysis should also be reviewed because if the accurate trip generation for 2011-2024 of 929 ADT per acre is applied to these 13.2 acres, the actual trip generation would be (929)(13.2) = 12,263 ADT or more than a factor of four higher than predicted by the County. This means that the ADT, LOS, deficiency, and capital facilities analysis done by the County for this period is also inadequate. This Board Page 51 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 ~, ~I should find that the County transportation analysis in E 36.70A.070(6). There is one other significant flaw in the Count; that the County uses only 21 percent for the ratio of grc commercial development in its 2011 to 2024 analysis. coverage for yeazs 2005 to 2010. Id. at 2-7. But the Cc limit this ratio to anything neaz 21 percent. Ex. 13-32 a regulations allow buildings 70 feet tall with no maxima azea. Id. The County's analysis of traffic generation is development allowed in its development regulations an required by RCW 36.70A.070(6). The County should 1 into its land use element as required by RCW 36.70A.0 traffic analysis that is internally consistent with those it 36.70A.070(preamble). At this time Ex. 13-35 should 1 36.70A.070. 13-35 does not comply with RCW s transportation analysis. The flaw is floor area to gross land area for x. 13-35 at 2-8. It uses even less ~nty's development regulations do not 18. In fact, the County development i ratio of gross floor azea to gross land of consistent with the levels of therefore it is not the reasoned analysis required to intensities of development K 1) and then it should be required to do ;nsities as required by RCW found not in compliance with RCW. 8. Chinacum and Port Hadlock intersections aze not adequately defined to allow public review (Legal Issues 1 and 2) In Table 6 on page 2-10 of Ex. 13-35, the Count} identifies two intersections, one simply as Chinacum and the second simply as Port Hadlock. T~ese intersections aze not well enough defined to allow reasonable public participation as requited by the statutes identified in Legal Issue 1.36.70A.070. • 9. TRP 1.10 and concurrency TRP 1.10 allows urban road standards to be only;~optionally applied to development in the Hadlock/Irondale UGA. The GMA requires urban road standazds to be established in the UGA and requires that these urban standards be met by a concj~rrency program. RCW 36.70A.070(6). The County is not in compliance with the GMA because ~it doe not have a concurrency ordinance established for the UGA.as required by RCW 36.70A.07b(6)(b). See Action Item 37 in Ex. 13- 35 at 2-18 which only calls for the future development of such a program. 10. TRP 4.10 and concurrency TRP 4.10 states that the County "should not" approve new development that does not meet concurrency requirements. Ex. 13-35 at 2-18. RC~GV 36.70A.070(6)(b) requires the County to "prohibit" such development. TRP 4.10 is not consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) in violation of -.130(1)(b). The County also is not in compliance with the GMA for failure to have a concurrency ordinance. Supra. C. General Sewer Plan The General Sewer Plan, Ex. 13-36, is adopted b~ the Ordinance to become Appendix I to the Comprehensive Plan. 'See Ex. 13-22 at 14 (Section One). 1. Urban Growth can not rely on ruratl septic systems in anon-municipal UGA The General Sewer Plan is based on the premise ghat most of the UGA does not need to be planned for sewer and new subdivisions in this azea can be developed to suburban density of Page 52 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMI~TIBUS January 9, 2006 3.5 units per acre using rural septic system standazds, without urban sewer. Ex. 13-36 at 1-1 to 1-2 and Ex. 1-2 and 2-3 in Ex. 13-36. As described in the briefing on noncompliance and invalidity on the UGA development regulations, this is not consistent with CWPP 1.3, 1.5, and 2.1 and failure to provide sewer throughout the UGA is a violation of the CWPP framework and RCW 36.70A.210(1) and -.130(1)(b) and RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (12). This Boazd should find the urban development regulations that allow urban development without sewer to be in noncompliance and be invalid throughout the UGA. 2. Exhibit 1-2 in Ex. 13-36 is internally inconsistent Exhibit 1-2 in Ex. 13-36 has been adopted as part of Appendix I of the Comprehensive Plan. Supra. Said Exhibit 1-2 shows locations of zoning districts. These zoning districts aze inconsistent with the locations of zoning districts on the zoning map in Ex. 13-31 that has also been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Ex. 13-37 at 2-9 ("UGA Zoning Map [is] adopted as part of this element"). It is a violation of RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) and - .130(1)(b) to have two zoning maps in the Comprehensive Plan that show different locations for zoning districts. 3. Exhibit 2-1 in Ex. 13-36 is internally inconsistent Exhibit 2-1 has the same flaw as Exhibit 1-2 in that it shows zoning districts that aze inconsistent with the zoning map in Ex. 13-31 and both maps are in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Indian Island should not be sewered Ex. 13-36 at 2-1 to 2-3 and at 3-3 and at other locations in the General Sewer Plan is in error by including Indian Island for sewer service when Indian Island has not been made a UGA and there is no evidence that RCW 36.70A.110(4) or any other provision of the GMA would -allow sewer service at that location. 5. Use of 2.2 people per household not consistent Ex. 13-36 at 3.1 assumes 2.2 people per household for analysis of sewer planning. This value is not used consistently in the comprehensive plan and is low for an urban area. For example, Ex 13-33 at 5-4 uses 2.3 people per household for this analysis in the Comprehensive Plan. The County is required by RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) to be an internally consistent document. The County fails to comply with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) by not using a consistent number for people per household. D. Consistency Document for CP Amendments The Consistency Document, Ex. 13-33, is adopted by the Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan. See Ex. 13-22 at 14 (Section One). This document was not attached to the Compliance Report and so this document is attached hereto. 1. Table 3-1 and 3-2 fails to show current planning period Table 3-1 at page 3-4 and Table 3-2 at page 3-7 in Ex. 13-33 (herein) fail to show the 20 year planning period (either 2004-24 or 2005-24) that is used elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. Supra, this brief at 8-9. These tables also fail to show the azea and population for the new UGA and so these tables are inconsistent with that UGA. This violates RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) for internal consistency and -.130(1)(b). 2. Failure to update Table 3-4 Table 3-4 at page 3-22 in Ex. 13-33 does not correctly reflect the commercial acreage inside or outside of the UGA. It does not even mention the commercial acreage in the UGA. It Page 53 of 58 Dorgan Comments -OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 is inconsistent with the commercial land use designatio .amendments made by the Ordinance and in violation with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) for i ternal consistency and -.130(1)(b). 3. Failure to make text consistent wi changes to Table 3-5 The paragraph of text below. Table 3-5 on page 3 23 and the second paragraph from the top of the page 3-24 of Ex. 13-33 have not been changed to reflect the changes made to Table 3- 5 and report inconsistent areas for crossroad acreage in "olation with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) for internal consistency sand -.13 1)(b). 4. Failure to make text consistent wi changes to Table 3-6 The paragraph of text below Table 3-6 on page 3 24 of Ex. 13-33 has not been changed to reflect the changes made to Table 3-6 and reports in nsistent growth rates for Port Hadlock in violation with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) for internal consistency and -.130(lxb). 5. Failure to clarify that all of Tabled 3-10 and 3-11 aze removed from CP The amendment that removes the title of Tables -10 and 3-11 on pages 3-45 and 3-46 of Ex. 13-33 without removing the content of the Uable cre es an inconsistency in violation with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) for internal consistency an -.130(1)(b). The County may want to clarify on the record that it was its intent to remove all o Tables 3-10 and 3-11 and then in the remand clarify this in the remand ordinance. 6. Failure to clarify that Footnote 1 qn page 5-2 is removed The amendment near the bottom of pag$ 5-2 in footnote and is in violation with RCW 36.70A.070(pre :130(1)(b). 7. Failure to make Tables 3-l, 3-2, The County has failed to update the incorporated made changes to Table 3-1 (page 3-4), Table 3-2 (page 3 33 in violation with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) for inti E. UDC Amendments UDC Amendments, Ex. 13-32, were adopted by 1 development regulations for the new UGA. See Ex. 13-2 implemented urban development regulations thpoughout upon adoption. ICAN has requested noncompliance and development regulations because the regulations aze egrE has not started sewer planning for most of the UGA and sewer planning for the remainder of the UGA. No devel will have sewer at time of occupancy. The County has n ever provide sewer to this UGA. 1. The zoning regulation er~oneousl} Visitor Oriented Commercial zones The GMA requires the County to identify lands v appropriate for housing, commerce and other uses. RCV is to provide "population densities [and] building intensi~ to implement and be consistent with the comprehensive ~ 13-33 fails to also remove the le) for internal consistency and - 5-1 consistent with the new UGA iata to reflect the new UGA when it 7, and Table 5-1 (page 5-4) in Ex. 13- rnal consistency and -.130(1)(b). he Ordinance to provide UGA urban Z at 14 (Section Three). This document the UGA and was effective immediately invalidity for these UDC urban giously premature in that the County s only at a very preliminary stage of >pment vested under these regulations ~t actually made any commitment to allow new residential development in its comprehensive plan that are 36.70A.070(1). The land use element ~s." Id. Development regulations are an. RCW 36.70A.130(lxb). The Page 54 of 58 Dorgan Commbnts -011 January 9, 2006 County has designated Urban Commercial in its comprehensive Plan for the UGA. Ex. 13-37 at 2-29. But the County has failed to provide "population densities [and] building intensities" for Urban Commercial in the comprehensive plan. Supra, this brief at 6-7, 10, and 18. When the County has failed to meet a GMA requirement to define the range of uses allowed by the designations in the comprehensive plan, the implementing zoning that implements uses for this designation can not be found to comply with the GMA because it does not implement a validly described designation. That being said, it is inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.070(1) to allow new stand-alone residential development to consume land that has been designated in the comprehensive plan for commercial development. The UGA urban development regulations allow single family homes, duplexes, and multifamily residential all to be built on land that has been designated for commerce Urban Commercial and zoned as Visitor Oriented Commercial. Ex. 13-32 at 6. This Board should find that the allowance of new stand- alone residential development on Visitor Oriented Commercial zoned lands and on lands designated for Urban Commercial development violates the requirement to actually plan for development in RCW 36.70A.070(1). The County has presented no reasoned analysis for allowing stand-alone residential development to consume land designated for commercial.. 2. New suburban development on septic systems should not be allowed to preclude future urban growth in the UGA Ex. 13-32 at 16 describes how the County intends to allow new suburban subdivisions in the UGA at a "standard density" of 3.5 units per acre without providing the urban sewer service required both by CWPP 1.3, 1.5, and 2.1 and by RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (12). The UGA urban development regulations should be found not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (12); -.130(1)(b), -.110(1), and -.210(1) for violation of CWPP 1.3, 1.5 and 2.1 because the allowance of suburban development with septic systems (or even 4 unit per acre development with septic waivers) precludes true urban development at densities of 4-6 dwelling units per acre in the UGA. Encouraging suburban development in a UGA discourages urban development with efficient provision of services. See RCW 36.70A.020(1). Urban services, including sewer, needed for urban development will not be available at time of occupancy as required by RCW 36.70A.020(12). The UGA urban development regulations should be found in noncompliance and invalid. 3. Allowed building heights and lot coverages for commercial are not consistent with commercial needs analysis or sewer analysis (Legal Issues 2-4) In Ex. 13-32 at 18, the UGA urban. development regulations allow commercial buildings 70 feet high (seven stories or more), and with unlimited floor area. This is not consistent with the historic commercial lands analysis that the County used to establish its need for additional commercial development. The historic County analysis was reviewed in the May 8, 2003 ICAN Opening Brief and in the June 6, 2003 ICAN Reply Brief in Case No. 03-2-0010 and this briefing and the evidence provided with this briefing is incorporated herein by reference. The Trottier analysis that provided the County's needs analysis for new commercial development was based on an assumption that there would be only one 5000 square foot building per 1.25 net acres in high intensity commercial areas. May 8, 2003 ICAN Opening Brief at 13-14. The Trottier analysis did some double dipping in its analysis to inappropriatelyincreasethe gross Page 55 of 58 Dorgan Comments --OMNIBUS January 9, 2006 acreage needed to obtain the required net acreage for~ercial development. Id. at 14-15. The conclusion of the analysis in the May 8, 2003 IC Opening Brief was that no additional commercial land needed to be designated in the UGA. Despite this analysis in the May 8, 2003 Opening Brief this Board allowed the County to have a 'gnificant increase in future commercial development in the Glen Cove LAMIRD and in the Had ock/Irondale UGA and elsewhere in the County. However, with regazd to commercial de~elopm tin the UGA, this Board found the UGA not in compliance with the GMA and so there has of been final agreement by this Boazd on the area designated Urban Commercial in the UGA. ith regazd to the zoning regulations, the urban development allowed must be consistent with a commercial needs analysis. The Commercial needs analysis in the Trottier Report was fob yeazs 1996 to 2016. See Ex. 20-21(11) attached to the May 8, 2003 Opening Brief. This needs alysis has not been updated for the current planning period which ends in 2024. This Boazd should require the County to update its commercial needs analysis to show its work to justify th proposed intensities of commercial development in the UGA. Using the basic assumptions in the Trottier Repo ,the County has established a need for a 5000 square foot building on each 2.5-acre (gross) corrimercial lot. May 8, 2003 ICAN Opening Brief at 12-14. This would justify (10.95)(5000 /(2.5) = 21,900 square feet of commercial building on 10.95 acres of commercial land. But in the analysis in the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the Ordinance, the C unty has assumed a mix of uses that will have 100,250 square feet of commercial building on 10.95 acres of commercial land. Supra, this brief at 15-18. With this expected five-fold increase in building intensity, the commercial needs identified by Trottier~will be met with one fifth (1/ ) of the designated commercial land azea. At this expected intensity of commercial developmlent in the UGA, the County has designated more than five times the open commercial 1 'than ean be justified by the Trottier Report. But as described eazlier in this brief, the ;County as not limited the intensity of commercial development to the parameters analyzed in a comprehensive plan. Supra, this brief at 18. Substantially more development could occur on the commercial lands in the UGA than the 21 percent ratio of building area to lot azea that vas the basis of the County's traffic analysis. Id. The development regulations in Ex. 13-32 ~t 18 and the azea of urban commercial zoning in the UGA should not be found in compliance w th the Act by this Board until the County updates its commercial and industrial lands need analysis and shows that the development allowed on the commercial lands in the UG by the development regulations is consistent with this updated needs analysis. This is requ' ed by RCW 36.70A.110(2). The sewer analysis also needs to reflect the intensities of developm t that aze to be allowed by the comprehensive plan and development regulations so that the sewer capacity is properly sized and financed. The County has failed to meet this requirement of RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) and - .130(1)(b). I 4. Fire flows aze not required to meet urban LOS standazds Ex. 13-32 at 20 provides that fire flow requirem is shall be as specified by the Jefferson County Fire Marshall. This does not ensure that fire flo swill meet a urban LOS standazd in the UGA. The County should be required to establish mi ' um requirements for water supply LOS Page 56 of 58 Dorgan Comments -0r Januar}19, 2006 that include fire flow requirements for the Hadlock/Irondale UGA. Urban services are to be provided in UGAs. RCW 36.70A.030(16) and (19); RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (12). Urban water service should not be allowed outside the UGA. RCW 36.70A.110(4). 5. Provisions allowing septic systems for new subdivisions or urban or suburban development do not comply with the GMA On pages 20-21 of Ex. 13-32, the County seeks to allow septic systems for new development under the new UGA urban development regulations. While it is appropriate to allow a new house on an existing lot of sufficient size to meet health codes, it is not appropriate to allow new residential subdivisions, duplexes, triplexes or multifamily development or new urban commercial or urban industrial development inside anon-municipal UGA to use septic systems instead of sewer. CWPP 1.3, 1.5, and 2.1 require UGAs to provide sewer. RCW 36.70A.030(19) specifically identifies sewer as the urban service to meet sanitary needs in a UGA. RCW 36.70A.020(12) requires sewer to be available at time of occupancy. RCW 36.70A.020(1) requires development to be encouraged in urban areas where sewer exists or can be provided in an efficient manner. While it maybe necessary in a municipal UGA to allow septic systems in limited areas, this should not be allowed in anon-municipal UGA where there is greater scrutiny. The County proposes to not have sewer in the majority of the UGA but still to implement urban (or really suburban) development regulations throughout the UGA. Subsections 4(B), 4(C) and 4(D) in Ex. 13-32 at page 20-21 should be found not to comply with the Act because these subsections allow suburban development in the UGA on septic systems in a manner that will preclude future urban development in the UGA. Subsection 4(E) in Ex. 13-32 at page 21 should also be found, not to comply with the Act because it continues to suggest that on-site septic systems can be installed in the UGA to allow suburban development that will preclude future urban development that could have been put on the site with sewer. Subsection 4(F) in Ex. 13-32 at pages 21 and 22 should be found not in compliance with the Act because of the limits placed in this no protest agreement - 20 years and necessary part of urban level of service phasing plan. No area should be included in the UGA that is not planned to have sewer within 20 years with all necessary analysis in the capital facilities plan. The County once again displays its intent to not make sewer available throughout the UGA during the 20-year. planning period. This is not allowed by the CWPP or by the cited provisions of the GMA. 6. The requirement that allows site plan approvals in the UGA without sewer violates the GMA The County has established a site plan procedure in Ex. 13-32 at pages 26-27 that allows suburban commercial, industrial, mixed use, or residential development to vest in the UGA using septic systems if it can be shown how the remainder of the site will accommodate urban densities. This provision does not require the project itself to be anything other than suburban. There need not be any remainder of the site. So this site plan procedure does not ensure that the site will be developed at urban densities and intensities but instead ensures that the portion of the site that is developed will have suburban development on septic systems. Page 57 of 58 Dorgan Comments -0MNIBUS January 9, 2006 Even if there is a remainder of the site, the devel per only has to show that urban densities are not precluded on that remainder. The deve oper does not need to ever put urban development on that remainder and would be allowed, well, to develop that remainder with additional suburban development on septic systems. On its face this site plan procedure should not b 'applicable to commercial and industrial projects because the developer must show that urban "d sities" are not precluded on the remainder of the project but "densities" are always precl ded on commercial and industrial developments. This procedure is not internally !consist t and should be found in violation of RCW 36.70A.020(1), -.070(preamble), and -.130(1)(b). III. CONCLUSION '~ For the reasons presented in this brief, the Count should be found in continued non- compliance with its UGA and implementing comprehen 'ive plan provisions and development regulations. The UGA urban development regulations i Ex. 13-32 should be found invalid because of the egregious act of allowing urban develop ent in the UGA without the provision of sewer anywhere in the UGA and without any sewer pl 'ng at all for most of the UGA. Dated this 8th day of March, 2005. B ICAN3a8.05 submitted, Steel, PE #31084 .y for ICAN Page S8 of 58 Dorgan Commepts -Olt Januaryt 9, 2006 cr ~ -~~ January 9, 2006 Jefferson County Commissioners Re: JCC 18 Omnibus Revisions NOISE Fortunately, the OMNIBUS definition of "conditional use" has not changed. It still includes noise impacts as a special characteristic of an operation that is only permitted in a district subject to approval and special requirements that are different from other uses that don't have that impact: 18.10.030. C "Conditional use" means a use that, owing to some special characteristics attendant to its operation or installation (e.g. potential danger, traffic, smoke or noise impact), is permitted in a district, subject to approval and special requirements, different from those usual requirements for the district in which the conditional use maybe located." However, the minds and long arms behind the OMNIBUS have rewritten the definition of "noise". The proposed definition drops the human experience of psychological or physiological effects of the stress of noise, and replaces it with how a machine experiences noise. 18.10.030. N "Noise" means .the intensity, duration and character of sounds from any and all sources. "Noise disturbance" means noise in excess of the limitations as defined by WAC 173-60 Maximum Environmental Noise Levels. The Code definition of "Noise" should retain the existing language but it should also include the mechanical definition. They are both important for the regulation of noise. What still needs to be written, however, is a new requirement that 24- hour mining is a serious public health and welfare issue and is not allowed because of unrelenting stressful noise impacts SEPA The County should not delete the automatic requirement of a conditional use permit for increased noise and other impacts of existing mining uses both in and OMNIBUS BOGC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 Page 1 of 4 .y s_1 outside of mining overlays. The proposed langrj~age about requiring it the impacts are large enough is meaningless because it does not include any automatic requirement for a SEPA Checklist th t could even lead to DS determination. What's proposed is doing SEP without SEPA. Regarding the SEPA Checklist for the CbMN1Bl revisions are consistent with the Comprtehensi~ adopted outside of the regular amendment cyc inconsistencies and outright conflicts for many particularly for noise. For example; CP 8-26 VIEW AND NOISE CONDITIONS GOAL: ENG 8.0 Protect the habitability, envirc of Jefferson County from the adverse it to viewsheds and noise and mitpgate i it makes the claim that all the Plan and may therefore be However, there are the proposed revisions, and al quality and natural beauty of development with respect s based on the: conditions. ENP 8.2 Include in the public plahning pr cess a discussion regarding limiting noise pollution impacts through o dinance provisions which may • require appropriate mitigation such as ve etative buffers, setbacks, acoustical walls, and termination of actilvities CP 4-7 The Regulatory Framework for Minerbl Land The Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance, adopted n May 25, 1995, is the current regulatory ordinance for Mineral Lands. Followi g Comprehensive Plan adoption, the interim ordinance will be reviewed and revis as necessary for consistency with this Plan. A final Mineral Lands Ordinance ill be adopted that includes the criteria for the designation of Mineral Lands as ong-Term Commercially Significant and the process for landowners too t-in to the designation that are contained in the interim ordinance. Once identified, lands under consideratibn for mmercial mineral extraction must also be evaluated to assess land use com atibility, economic issues, and environmental impacts. A matrix (Table 4-3) ac mpanying NRP 6.2 is provided as a reference point for both the County and ap licant 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 I land us s; noise; traffic; visual impacts; water resources, including surface water, groun water, and wetlands; soil, including erosion, slopes, flooding, and contami anon; and fish and wildlife habitat. OMNIBUS BOCC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 Page 2 of 4 { r ,- s. See Table 4-3, p. 4-36 Table 4-3 Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands CP 4-43 Action Item 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. CP 8-5 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION In order to address the environment in a comprehensive manner, Jefferson County has developed environmental goals and policies for protection of the following: • Shorelines • Air quality • Natural heritage vegetation and landforms • view and noise conditions CP 8-6 View and Noise Conditions The mountain, water, and valley 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 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 "pollution" 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 generally an accepted part of life, and noise conditlons have not generally 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 future public processes. OMNIBUS BOCC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 Page 3 of 4 CP Appendix C C-10 The following table summarizes the key components of the Environment Element as envisioned in the community' planning process. Development and Land Use Stalhdards • .Development should be comlpatible ith the physical features of the site. Diversity and originality in site, b ilding, and infrastructure design should be encouraged to achi ve the best possible relationship between development anKi the land. • Flexible development standards sf~ space and minimize the removal of • On-site drainage controls shauld be prevent run-off onto adjacent propel • Development activities and nearDV propE degradation. be used to maximize open fired to reduce erosion, and • Environmental concerns should be addressed with scientific evidence when dividing large parcels bf land. CP Appendix E E-6 While urbanization creates demand for s also encroach upon or build over those s inaccessible. Community opposition to n agricultural, or sensitive environmental a opportunities for mineral extractipn. Pote may include noise, dust, visual impacts, may be unaware of the County zoning of aggregate industry and property owners. nd and gravel resources, it may me resources, rendering them Wing near residential, :as may also limit the tial conflicts with other land uses fnd increased traffic. Citizens Land use regulations must implement the goals and policies of our Comprehensive Plan. The OMNIBUS needs m re work before it can say it has done this. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Olympic Environmental Council OMNIBUS BOCC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 .. :~~ Page 4 of 4 ~~ January 9, 2006 Jefferson County Commissioners ~~.~ ~ Re: JCC 18 Omnibus Revisions NOISE bL~~ ~ k ~~ -`~ Fortuna#ely, the OMNIBUS definition of "conditional use" has not changed. It still includes noise impacts as a special characteristic of an operation that is only permitted in a district subject to approval and special requirements that are different from other uses that don't have that impact: 18.10.030. C • "Conditional use" means a use that, owing to some special characteristics attendant to its operation or installation (e.g. potential danger, traffic, smoke or noise impact), is permitted 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." However, the minds and long arms behind the OMNIBUS have rewritten the definition of "noise". The proposed definition drops the human experience of psychological or physiological effects of the stress of noise, and replaces it with how a machine experiences noise. 18.10.030. N • "Noise" means .the intensity, duration and character of sounds from any and all sources. "Noise disturbance" means noise in excess of the limitations as defined by WAC 173-60 Maximum Environmental Noise Levels. « ,~ The Code definition of "Noise" should retain the existing language but it should also include the mechanical definition. They are both important for the regulation of noise. What stilt needs to be written, however, is a new requirement that 24- hourmining is a serious public health and welfare issue and is not allowed because of unrelenting stressful noise impacts SEPA The County should not delete the automatic requirement of a conditional use permit for increased noise and other impacts of existing mining uses both in and Page 1 of 4 OMNIBUS BOCC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 ~ f outside of mining overlays. The proposed language about requiring it the impacts are large enough is meaningless because it does not include any automatic requirement for a SEPA Checklist that could even lead to DS determination. What's proposed is doing SEPA without SEPA. Regarding the SEPA Checklist for the OMNIBUS, it makes the claim that all the revisions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and may therefore be adopted outside of the regular amendment cycle. However, there are inconsistencies and outright conflicts for many of the proposed revisions, and particularly for noise. For example; CP 8-26 VIEW AND NOISE CONDITIONS GOAL: ENG 8.0 Protect the habitability, environmental quality and natural beauty of Jefferson County from the adverse impacts of development with respect to viewsheds and noise and mitigate impacts based on the conditions. ENP 8.2 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 termination of activities CP 4-7 The Regulatory Framework for 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. OMNIBUS BOCC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 Page 2 of 4 See Table 4-3, p. 4-36 Table 4-3 Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands CP 4-43 Action Item 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. CP 8-5 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION In order to address the environment in a comprehensive manner, Jefferson County has developed environmental goals and policies for protection of the following: • Shorelines • Air quality • Natural heritage vegetation and landforms • View and noise conditions CP 8-6 View and Noise Conditions The mountain, water, and valley 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 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 "pollution" 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 generally an accepted part of life, and noise Conditions have not generally 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 future public processes. OMNIBUS BOCC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 Page 3 of 4 CP Appendix C C-10 The following table summarizes the key components of the Environment Element as envisioned in the community planning process. Development and Land Use Standards • ,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. CP Appendix E E-6 White 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 surrounding property and allowed mining uses, which contributes to the conflicts between the aggregate industry and property owners. Land use regulations must implement the goals and policies of our Comprehensive Plan. The OMNIBUS needs more work before it can say it has done this. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Olympic Environmental Council OMNIBUS BOCC Hearing Comments Nancy Dorgan January 9, 2006 Page 4 of 4 9'~ Page 1 of 1 ~t$94L[7'~'IOR ~D. 6 7.85 E9TABid9H1dI~1T OR B~il~'IRtlrf~tAL fl~YGNA'x'ti11~Q {SUNA) FOR 190I9g ~lSA1'Rl[gi1T AREAS ROR JSFFBR30R't~UNTY S, it is reca~ead that faadegaatety camta~otted aoteo maF' aulversel affect the heeith~ aafet,F, a!Ad welfare of #~ p~vpls, the vatue ~ properky, sad the qualit,Y of the saviroama-t,• sad ~3, aafions attid or profits en •peo9£io plea in Jefferaoa Cate naay create t~her eu-fee lavelf than aarmalb+ a~te~cad. ~it6fa sarrouudiaa gragertfes; and WH~RSAS, Chapter 70.147, Revlaed Code of ~'aean, and i'~apter 7,73-f i+Pgahin~on Ad~e~lafsttative Code, eeEabllahes maodaaum peribte aaiee lsvirly for verions e>»riraament~a or clsafea o~ oie; a~ad WHEIi.LrAB, said noise kvel• may lie appiiad tv ~arioneo arena as nsedad tK aeceaaary. NDW, ~ItB, Blt IT RE8OLYSD than C'haiptet 193-60 ~IfAC, is hsrsT~r adopted in its entirety 6y refereoae. 11~i?W, THER$FCtRS. BS IT FtJRTgSR RSEI?L~A tlmt BDNA eu~s shall t~ deai~natad to aoirfour~n erlth the lead nse deei2t~ati~ by the J~ecsoa Cow Coanp~hensive PIaQ ae pel~ C3sagter 173.6ii-03x}(3} WAO tm~ ~h~ea~ldve Ciasa~fiee by local reaoltrtio~. IQ4~. TSEit~'P[}RB, BE 1T FUA.TI~ER R13807JYED that this reaalntion resr.~: sttd reglnces Reeola#0,t- Nv. 23.84 APFROi~D and ADOPTED tbia~~ dam a~f 8ep7tembar. 1885. ,M• S ~' Bt3ARl} OF ~COS~gO~1~~p~R{8~~/O~ryg~/~ ~, • r. ~ ~~ • • •1' ~tFi' ii[l~iV~ ~~ R 110Zi1~1! 11J~ ~'~ .i r : J ~* r • f~ '. '~•: ` ' . S ~ * +s~~ ~ } Y * gyn. • ' ~ ~ I ~ • ~ • • Joha L. Etta ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ^ ii rrw.r~rir ~ r ~ ~ . •r ~_ 1. % • ~ . . ~ •. '~ ~' # of ~ .,_ . i t t ,~, ~~ •:~:~~.:~~ ;:rte ... ~~ . •' $.G. $ruvr~ ~daaabar i ~ ~ e~`dia9 C. k of the $aaTd f ~r9 W. Den~sa~ Memo http://test.co.Jefferson.wa.us/weblinkext/ImageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionke... 1 /4/2006 ~C:r~.~~ Page 1 of 1 R~[lTatJTI4N FO. ,7,'~,~ ~T~11~NT OR B~IRC~NI~EHTAL DRSIC,-~TATION FOR ~t~~ss asa~s~T cs~nla~ nRa~ks Boa ast~sa~t ooc~T~ w~i-e, ~ ~ recosaiz~ed that iaadectaaatei3- c~troi;ed ~ ~ adversel; affect the health, sai'efy, and wal~'ere of the people; the valae ~ Proper~i-; and the auallia~' of the eavbragmeat; aad W#il~SAB. actions aa~ ar protects an spe~ifia prapsrties ~ Jefferson i;out may create hasher anise levels than ao~nna>~r e~rnerleaced within s~adin~ prapectiei; and .irAB, Chapter ?0.107, Reroisad finds of Wse4hnsto®. sad Chapter 373- 9Pashin~fon motive Cade, +~stabliehee msaiautm permissible aviss Iewete i'or varfoue engironnaea#s or olaaes oi: ase: and ~PHBREAS. said naive is~rele ntsy be applied to various areas as ~raeded ar necessary. NQW, FRB, $>~ IT RSSO~~ that Chapt+ar 1T9-6tf 14'AC is hereby adapted im its entirety by refeean,ce. AI'FROYSD aQal ADt}F'!'$D this 80th deY of hi'arc6. 2984. y7~~ 7 r ~f tip. ».. W 7 ~ ~-~ ~ ,, _ r. a r ~~ir Q = 3 t •• ~ ~ ~' .~ .t ~ ,' •. . ~ ~ ,..~ }~ 8 '~ ,/. ~y ' s't~rV r r~ ~7 !~ V Y S~ ~ ` •- /'.' L~T~' BARD i?F {^:OnMA~QSB~It~NRRS t}F YiW~ VV~. ~~~~~~4~~~ • ~ C. ~ fiilel'iC Oi tllB ~I~'~ JohA L. Pltts~ Medbea~ h~n•//4nc+ nn icffnrcnn u.o . ~ch~.chlinlrovtflm~noflicnl7v 7cnv7n7nhoovucRcoccinnkc 1 /d/7f1(1R Loma Delaney Page 1 of 1 From: Dulanna [dulanna@highstream.com] `' c 1 Sent: Monda Janua 09, 2006 9:17 AM ~~a ~ ~ ~~`~ `'~" Y, rY To: Loma Delaney Subject: Proposed new Uniform Development Code (UDC)18.20.240(2xf) Commissioners: I am writing concerning the proposal to allow 24-hour mining included in the proposed new UDC. I am away from the area temporarily, and cannot attend today's meeting to speak out. I live 2.1 miles from the Shine Pit. I already heaz the mining operations at the pit from my home early in the morning, and throughout the days. I have complained on several occasions to the operator of the mine, and the manager of the Fred Hills Materials Shine Pit even came to my home to measure the distance from the pit and to personally listen to the noise. He was unable to do anything, or to suggest anything to reduce the noise impact of his operations. I do not want to have to heaz the mining operation 24 hours a day! I think this is an unwarranted intrusion on the public living in the general area of the pit. There are other undesired aspects of the proposed unrestricted mining: additional lighting, dust and more trucks transporting gravel on the highways. Other counties impose more restrictions on mining operations, and for good reason. I urge you to carefully consider the well-being of the County residents neaz the mining operations, and re-impose limits restricting mining operations to the daytime hours. Thank you for your consideration, William C. Rothert A concerned Jefferson County resident and voter 1/9/2006 Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: Willi and/or Janet [aloha@olympus.net] Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:02 PM Lorna Delaney UDC revision comments HESRIFr RECORD January 7, 2006 Janet Welch Box 1221 Hadlock, WA 98339 Commissioners It is with great dismay that I read the staff/PC proposal for the current effort to gut the UDC. The intent of the changes is clearly to provide an atmosphere which is highly permissive to applicants while offering nothing but lip service to protecting the community from the impacts of the projects. I provide a few typical examples: 18.20.170 Adds to the generous list of allowed cottage industries the high impact activities of auto repair, fuel stations, and heavy equipment repair. The proposal attempts to temper the impact by imposing conditions on those uses. And will those conditions protect our neighborhoods, our aquifers, our quality of life? We all know of countless ongoing land use violations--unpermitted, non-compliant, and flippant activities which continue to exist because of the County's inability to effectively cite, prosecute, and curtail the problems. With the greater permissivity of the proposed regulations, why would we think that high impact activities such as gas stations and car and equipment repair would receive a higher level of oversight than the violations which currently exist? 18.20.010 Broadening the auxiliary use criteria. The auxiliary use no longer must be secondary to the primary use, but secondary to the 'permissibly' principal use. What, exactly, does it mean to be secondary to a permissible use? Other provisions eliminate the requirement that an owner needs to reside on the property. Sounds like an evasion of the intent of 'auxiliary use' to me. 18.20.160 Apparently the moratorium imposed on property owners who flagrantly disregard the forest conversion process has proved onerous to some of our upstanding developers. Better to provide them with a mechanism to 'release' the project from the moratorium they earned. Done. Congratulations. 18.30.050 The ongoing effort to create loopholes in rural density standards now addresses a pressing need of our rural neighborhoods: the ability for the owner of multiple trailers and antiquated septic systems to create individual substandard, density non-compliant lots for each of the systems. Property owners have always been able to install multiple septic systems on parcels to serve garage bathrooms, remote kitchens, and a myriad of other uses. With the proposed extension of the exemption clause, that garage can be made into a substandard lot, the outbuilding which .has been used for a rental for 10 years can be made into another one, the single wide that predated the house can be another one, and the extra trailer brought in for mom 15 years ago can be another one. This proposal sanctifies the past bad land use policies with the sought after financial rewards for those land owners. It is a fine example of bad land use decisions begetting a chain of even worse ones. .~:: tom: ~ > i ~GI ~c:: i Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: David Sullivan Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:17 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Hours of operation for Gravel Mines From: Marie Harrison[SMTP:HARIZON@TSCNET.COM] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:18:04 PM To: David Sullivan Subject: Hours of operation for Gravel Mines Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear David: HE~,RIPlG RCORD I am sorry to hear about this proposed development code amendment at such a late date in the process. I must not have been paying attention. At any rate, I am vehmentally opposed to the adoption of the new proposed hours of operation for gravel mines (UDC 18.20.240(2)(f). This is totaly extreme and not required to provide adequate supplies of gravel to Jefferson County. This is just one of the baby steps to the industrialization of Hood Canal to provide gravel nationally and globally with no revenue coming to the County. Please research this more thourghly and make a just decision for the residents of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Marie Harrison 910 Thorndyke Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 437-2800 1 /9/2006 Leslie Locke Page 1 of 2 From: Cathy Wright [catbil@olypen.com] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:52 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: concerns Jefferson County Commissioners: ~~~'y~~~ FOR I am opposed to the extension of hours the Fred Hill Materials will operate mining the gravel pit. My Concerns include: * New wording allowing 24 hr mining is not reasonable. It does not protect citizens. Other counties are more restrictive than this proposal. Clark County: 6AM - 8PM Spokane County: 7AM - lOPM if w/i 1,000 ft. of n residence Thurston County: 7AM - 7PM if nd jacent to residential zoning Kitsnp County: 7AM - 6PM.........NOTE: 90% of the gravel from Shine Pit goes to Kitsap County. *Backup alarms are aggravating waking neighbors from sleep yet they are not restricted by proposed decibel limits. In fact, they are specifically EXCLUDED under state law. It doesn't seem reasonable to adopt this new code establishing decibel level noise limits for anything when such rules are not enforceable anyway, due to County's budgetary limits. (manpower, measuring devices, training in usage of such devices, etc) * It's more than noise. Lighting, dust, crushing, loading, sorting, transporting, and all related activities do not appear to have been considered. New wording strongly benefits miners at the cost of neighbors and opens the door for the Pit to Pier Project in Hood Canal. (24 hr. mining will make it economically viable for loading ships) M. Wright 150 North Beach Drive 1/9/2006 ~~ = `7~~~ ~~~ ~o~ Leslie Locke From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Jefferson Count mining operations by nothing but distain directly employed by interest of the Jeff Gary W. Elmer 136 Gereaux Lane Quilcene, Wa 98376 Gary Elmer [gwelmer@earthlink.net] Sunday, January 08, 2006 8:38 PM Lorna Delaney 24h mining at Shine H~aei~u ~FCOa~ y Commisioners: I am writing to express my profound opposition to 24h Fred Hill Materials at the Shine Pit. Fred Hill materials has shown toward its neighbors and to the citizens of Jefferson County not their operations. A 24h operating strip mine in not in the best erson County residents. Blank Page 1 of 1 t;~C °. 7C L~ ~~`~~n~, Leslie Locke From: Cathy Wright [cwright@olympus.net] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 6:55 PM To: Lorna Delaney NER.RlPI a RECORD Subject: Proposed Unified Development Code I am writing to you to express my concerns about the subject proposal, and the negative impact it will have on myself and my Jefferson County neighbors. The primary objection for most of us is the unrestricted noise level, particularly for those residents with health issues which are negatively impacted by noise waking us or keeping. us from sleeping through the night. Further, backup alarms are aggravating, yet they are not restricted by proposed decibel limits. In fact, they are specifically EXCLUDED under state law. It doesn't seem reasonable to adopt this new code establishing decibel level noise limits for an hin when such rules are not enforceable anyway, due to County's budgetary limits (manpower, measuring devices, training in usage of such devices, etc.). Secondary concerns to residents include: . the intrusion of lights, . degradation of air quality due to dust, and . the impact on roads and traffic safety due to increased transport These concerns do not appear to have been a consideration in the drafting of the subject proposed code. The worst outcome is that, while the new wording would strongly benefit the mining company it would be bringing harm to the residents. It would also move us toward the Pit to Pier Project in Hood Canal, a terrible plan that a significant number of your Jefferson County neighbors are strongly opposed to in any form. It is unreasonable, in my opinion, for any gravel mining company located within sight or sound of residential areas to expect to operate 24 hours a day. I believe we should look to our sister counties (such as Clark, Kitsap, Spokane and Thurston) who have set fair and rational standards under which similar companies can operate. In fact, there is a 6:00 PM cutoff time for mining operations within Kitsap County, and they are the recipient of 90% of the gravel mined from the Shine Pit. Please consider the good of the Jefferson County residents you act for when you make your decision on this code; its impact will be with all of us for many years to come. Sincerely, Cathy Wright Port Ludlow, WA 1 /9/2006 CC , ~C 1~ ! ~`~~C'r~C Leslie Locke Page 1 of l From: BethOrling@aol.com Sent: Sunda , Janua 08, 2006 6:51 PM ~ ~~ ~~ To: Lorna Delaney Subject: 24 hour mining regulation We would like to go on record as strongly opposing the 24 hour mining allowance. This would seriously jeopardize the quality of life in our county. It would cause hardships to many families, including ours. Sound carries a very long distance in our otherwise pristine area. We can already hear the mining operation during the work day. To have it continue around the clock seems unconscionable. It would not improve the lives of workers who would be asked to take those long night shifts. We feel that allowing 24-hour mining would be a travesty and simply aggrandize an already overly-arrogant industry. Please vote against 24-hour mining. Restrict it to business hours. Thank you, Dr. and Mrs. Robert Zimmermann (Elizabeth Orling) 2722 Thorndyke Rd. Port Ludlow 1 /912006 Board of Commissioners P.O. BOX 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Omnibus Ordinance January 9, 2006 HE~?lPl~ R~GORD Q ~~~~~`L~~ ~ ~ ,~ .~ iFV ~ ~ '_=a ~~ JAN b ~ 2n06 JEi"r~irRaC~iv f ~;~~"°a BOARD 0~' CONi~~'iSSiON~i ~; Deaz Sirs; I have been working on a couple of situations which I wish to bring to your attention. I spoke with staff of these circumstances and they felt that the Omnibus Ordinance may well be sent back through the process for further clarification. Should this be the case, I suggest you take a look at these two separate issues in the community. Agricultural Lands Preservation: Scenario #l : Owner of parcel A, a 20 acre parcel containing a home and out buildings wishes to sell 7 acres to the adjoining property owner to be combined with Parcel B also a 20 acre parcel. The purpose of this transaction is to allow the owner of pazcel B to increase his pazcel for agricultural purposes. The 7 acres in question is separated from pazcel A's home site by Chimacum creek. This transfer will not create an additional pazcel and will enhance the agricultural use of the land. Current ordinance does not allow BLA's which create a `substandazd pazcel'. Suggest the Agricultural Sub-Committee address how to best assure that agricultural land be used for that purpose, and/or that the BLA ordinance reflect `net results' that meet community goals. - Scenario #2: Owner of an adjoining 40 acre pazcel and 30 acre pazcel in Chimacum Valley wishes to reconfigure the parcels through the BLA process. Net result will be one pazce150 acres and one parcel 20 acres. The Purpose is to sell off the 20 acre parcel for agricultural purposes. The land is currently leased and fend. Ordinance requires that building site feasibility be established for the 20 acre parcel; thereby assuring it could be a home site. The land is in the Chimacum Valley and may or may not support a home site. However, the ordinance forces this to be a home site even though the owner and buyer which to keep it in pasture land. Suggest the Agricultural Sub-Committee address how to best assure that agricultural lands be used for that purpose, and/or that the BLA ordinance reflect `net results' that meet community goals. Port Ludlow MPR: The Port Ludlow MPR section of the development code contains a restriction in Section 3.102.5 which states that existing subdivisions shall not be further subdivided. This restriction sets up an inequity affecting a handful of property owner and serves to undermine the purpose of the MPR. This restriction had its genesis when the N1PR statutory provisions were created by the legislature. This legislation was promoted by then Pope Resources to address situations like Port Ludlow under the rules of GMA. Following the guidelines established in the legislature, the County and the developer of this Port Ludlow MPR met and hammered out a development agreement. The development agreement utilized much of the language of the existing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) applied to Port Ludlow platted properties. Pope and the community wished to keep the same flavor of development under the new MPR rules as existed. Eventually Pope and the County entered into a development agreement and then fashioned the MPR ordinance around many of the provisions of the development agreement. The problem arose out of the application of these rules to properties not part of the development agreement or CCR's, yet which were swept up in the boundaries of the MPR, specifically the Ludlow Beach Tracts, which were created in 1946. These properties were included because they are contained within the boundary of the Port Ludlow sewer. utility. These acreage pazcels fronting on the southern shore of Port Ludlow bay have, for the most part, been short platted over the years. There are half dozen pazcels which have not. Most recently one of these parcels was short platted and it wasn't until after the plat was going through final approval that staff discovered the language of Section 3.102.5. Due to the fact this property had gone through preluninary approval and had complied will all conditions for final approval when the restriction of Section 3.102.5 was discovered, the plat received approved. The property which I represent is lots 7 and 8, Ludlow Beach Tracts containing in excess of 3 acres of land. There are three separate dwelling units and three sewer connections located on property. In keeping with the scale and intensity of development in the neighborhood the property could easily support additional parcels. If the MPR was established for a higher intensity of development than adjacent rural lands, then this prohibition stands in the way of that intent. Additionally, in my discussion with the Ludlow Sewer Utility, the indication is that there is sufficient room under the build out cap both for the remaining proposed development with in the MPR and the re-division of Ludlow Beach Tracts located within the MPR boundary. Suggest the restriction of further subdivision established under Section 3.102.5 be removed (allowing existing CCR's and the development agreement to stand) or make this restriction applicable to only those lands subject to the development agreement between Pope Resources and the County, and the companion CCR's. I thank you for your consideration of these suggested changes to the Omnibus Ordinance. Sincerely David Golds 536 Foster Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 W Z ~~ u ~~ ~ " ~~ d~ W J -(Q vJ ~ '" n ~: ~~ o LF.. l`1 g r O .~ 0 ~~~ x . ~~ YY,, ~~ Q~ li.l a ~ Q ~~~~~ d ~ r~ ~~~ ~ , J ~ ~~~~ ~ h 3 ~f N Ih W ~ v ~_ g "r O~SZ~ O ~ W A W ~" d~-~J ~ ~ :Y~ ~ -0 O ~1 n~ _ .p a1 m a "~°~L p~~ 3 q ~ z X r~ ~~ S H^ o as ~; Qr ~+ ~ ~~ __11 N ry \V ~ ~ }~`~~~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ X ~ ~ } h~- ~ ¢ Jo 4 iS~i4 ~4 I 3w~lvl.l E ~o L 13i~9 ~i ~111hIO1VN 3 8 .Lf ,LY .I N ~~ ~ ~h F~ go ~ eo ~~ N ~ ~v ~P ~~ q v~ W~ ~ ~~ Qg Q o~ ~~ Y ~ ~W ~ ^~W L p ~~ ~~ ~~ g N 1 l , I ~'"";:, I J Q ~~~ w ~a~ ~~ w ~~ . ~. n ~~ d ~~ v ~~~ s~ ^$ • L ~~ ~~ ~~~~ w se ltra wau~4 ~~ ~. l b ~~a ~~: ~ .t<t r ~ ~ n, '' ~~ W ~~ 91 ~n ~~~ • O ~ ~- / _ ~ *~ ~ : fry p U ~~ a ~~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~~~d ~e ~ ~~~ei c~~ ~~~ ~ ~n n ~i ~"~n ~ ~~~= t Y1tId`I~ NOIS.b'~1 Q „~~ ~,..p. ~ 7 I~IC}SI~iIQ02I "2i xx M r ~~ Nu~1 N ~ E nn Y~ ~~~ ~STyi^ s 7j ~~~~ v {~ d 7Y n ~,~ 6 1 W CH ~~~ ~ ~~~~ 1~r ~ 30 1 H ~ O~~Y _ j O 4~'1~ ~~x YS at eav A U Q ~~~ r.i ~~~~ $ !_~~ a ~g~~~ ,a •y ~ ~~b d 6~~~ ~ ~~ d'lYk4 Mai N~ ~r r 4 h n +~ ~~~r x° a~miO a ryi3Yf~~ _~ _ __ x~~ r ,l ~, m $,.~" ~ ~~ ~~ai ~'' f ~~l ci. z z ~ c~ n ~ ~;. ~ {=~ (~} ~ ~ t~ ~- • • - ~,p~- "~ ~ E~kiIBIT " 3" ~~~ -'-~*~ MASTER PLANNED RESORT $OU! RESORT COMPLEX/COMMUNITY i RECREATION (MPR-RC/CF/R) I< • . " • ~ VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER RECREATION AREA (MPR-RA} MULTIPLE FAMILY (MPR-MF) L.~_._,J SINGLE FAMILY (MRR-SF} ~;;;;;J SINGLE FAMILY TRACTS (MPR-S OPEN SPACE RESERVE (MPR-O; ~~~~ ~Mr •:r w~~r` i t I ~.w ,...~..s 1 i .............. t $ ~...............-+s^+...,.... ~ t ~ 1 ~ I ! ~ I ~ 'r ~ LAt~ USE MAP Dwa Name: zone-bw3.dwq Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Fred Holtgrave [fritz60@olypen.com] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:08 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Mining operation Dear Sirs: HERRI~Ir, RECORD The fact that you are considering 24 hour mining at the Shine Pit is astounding. Kitsap county restricts these types of operation from the hours of seven in the morning to six in the evening. 90% of the material that leaves the Shine Pit goes to Kitsap county. Do you see something wrong with this picture?? I would hope that you individuals are as concerned with your citizens as the government of Kitsap is with theirs. Are we merely a rural outpost that exists solely for the benefit of a neighbor county or do we deserve a reasonably quality of live also. Approval of 24 hours of mining at Shine I can assure you will cause an eruption of local rage against the ruling body of Jefferson. Sincerely, Frederick W. Holtgrave 1 /9/2006 Leslie Locke From: DONALD MOORE [boattail499@msn.com] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:56 PM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: donna4fish@aol.com Subject: hours of ravel mine o erations ~~~ ' "` as citizens of this county we are strongly opposed to new wording for extending gravel mining hours to 24 per day. We live close to the area and are opposed to all night mining because of the noise the dust,lighting,loading,sorting,and related activiities plus opening the possibilitiy of opening The Hood Canal to The Pit to Pier project. As voters we strongly oppose any change to the UDC that will allow the above goings on. Moore 98365 Hazel and Don 111 Finch Lane Port Ludlow,Wa. ph.437-2554 1 ~_ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: DWilliams3880@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:10 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: 24 HOUR MINING 4~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r, ~R~ Dear Sir: I do not understand why any mining would need to be done for 24 hours? What is so important that the community cannot be safe from noise, pollution, trucks, cars, and whatever else you use? All other counties have restrictions on the hours. Why not Jefferson County? Aren't the communities of Jefferson County important enough that they should have restrictions on noise that other counties enjoy. Also, it seems that this 24 hour rule is just a ploy to get the big ships in that you are hoping will happen if the Pit to Pier mining is granted. The Pit to Pier mining will be fought tooth and nail by everyone who has any interest whatsoever in the future of Hood Canal. Hood Canal belongs to all Washingtonians. It does not belong to any mining company. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Very truly yours, Diane M. Williams, Lacey, WA 1/9/2006 ., ~ Page 1 of 1 ~C ~- i t - I C~ Leslie Locke From: Audrey Bryan [audreye@olypen.com] ~ Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 12:11 PM ~' To: Lorna Delaney Subject: 24 Hour Mining This is to register my opposition to the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) 18.20.240(2)(f), which would allow 24-hour mining operation and all of the various noises associated with it. You are suposed to represent all of the citizens of Jefferson County, but this code sacrifices our rights and comfort. The commissioners of other counties protect these rights by restricting the hours of operation of noise sources. We expect you to do the same! Audrey Bryan 134 Robin Ln. Pt. Ludlow, Wa. 98365 1/9/2006 ~c~"~!~ ~~~~c~ Leslie Locke From: cthomson@bwwonline.com Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:39 PM 3 A ! To: Lorna Delaney ~~~ ~ Subject: proposed new Uniform Development Code ~ ~~ Re: UDC 18.20.240 (2) (f) Dear Commissioners; It is my understanding that the proposed new UDC would allow greatly expanded, perhaps 24 hour, mining operations in the County. I live at Bridgehaven, very near the Fred Hill mining activity and strongly object to ANY INCREASE in hours of operation or noise levels currently being experienced. I believe that such changes would allow much greater periods of operation and higher noise levels than are currently allowed in adjoing counties, and inappropriately so. Why would such a relaxation of mining restrictions be warranted? Don't grant this kind of concession to one commercial activity!! A lot of private property owners are affected by this and greatly concerned. Listen to your constituency. Regards, Curt Thomson 231 North Beach Drive, Port Ludlow, WA (Bridgehaven) eC-~ 1~~D ! ~`ilCf~ Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: jalamills@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 3:22 PM To: Lorna Delaney HEA41PJr, RECORD Subject: Mining hours of operation I am writing in opposition to the proposed changes in the Unified Development Code that would allow mining operations to expand to 24 hours a day. While I understand the importance of balancing everyone's needs (residential vs. commercial mining), this proposed change is completely one-sided. Why should one company's profit motive be so superior to an individual's interest to enjoy their residence and community? What grave shortage of gravel exists that compels the County to allow 24 hour mining operations to the detriment of the surrounding community? While the proposal may contain limits on noise and other harmful side-affects or operating a mine 24 hours a day, these limits are really a fiction if the county isn't in a position to measure and enforce the restrictions. We all know that this is one more step along the way to the implementation of the "pit to pier" project. I am asking that you represent the interests of all of Jefferson County and not one company. Please impose reasonable restrictions (lam to 6pm) as other counties have done. Thank you for opportunity to voice my concerns. Jerome Mills 370 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, WA 98365 1 /9/2006 CC'. ~'~ iIR IO(r Leslie Locke From: Stef and Chris Hawley [snugjolpups@olympus.net] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 2:33 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: UDC18.20.240(2)(f) Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, Page 1 of 1. ~-' ~"~~~:? I am writing to you about my concerns about the upcoming vote on the proposed ne UDC 18.20.240(2)(f). I do not believe that it should be approved. Allowing 24 hour mining operations is not a sound policy for Jefferson County. Most of the mining in this county is conducted in residential aread. This does not protect citizens. Other counties are more restrictive and we should be too. I strongly urge you to please vote no on this proposal. Thank you. A concerned voting citizen of Jefferson County, Stephanie and Chris Hawley Port Ludlow, Wa 1 /9/2006 CCU ~ Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Sean Sullivan [sean@sjimech.comj Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:48 AM ~~,~" ~~~ To: Lorna Delaney ~~ ~"~I Subject: Unified Development Code 18.20.240(2)(f) Gentlemen, I am not able to attend the hearing scheduled for Monday morning at 10 AM at the Jefferson County Courthouse due to work obligations. However, I would like to have my concerns read during the hearing regarding the County's consideration for the proposed new Unified Development Code (UDC) 18.20.240. As a waterfront property owner on the south side of hood canal bridge (in direct view of the mine), I am extremely concerned about the hours of operation the mine is permitted and the objectionable noise and lighting pollution that would result from extended hours of operation. I know that those lobbying for the interest of the mining company have assured everyone that the conveyor belt, truck traffic and other mining related noises will be minimal or undetectable across the canal. However, as someone that was born in this County and raised of the waters of Puget Sound, I know that this is simply not true. Sound travels extremely well and unimpeded over water. If we are able to hear traffic on the opposite side of the canal, why is it that we would not be able to hear the mining operation at a much higher and objectionable level. With regard to lighting, we are able to see house porch lights on the west side of the canal from our home. This we enjoy. What we would not enjoy is the intrusion of lighting that would be necessary to safely illuminate a mining operation during evening hours. It would be irresponsible for the County to grant the mine the extended hours of operation. If this were to happen, I would like to have the home phone numbers of all the county officials responsible for the decision, so I could call them every time our peaceful setting is disturbed by noise and light. The County has an opportunity to allow the mine to benefit from it's current limited hours of operation and for the neighboring community to enjoy their environment and protect their investments. This is the sort of balance Community leaders should strive to attain. Sincerely, Sean Sullivan Concerned property owner and business owner 29639 Beach Drive NE Poulsbo, WA 98370 (360) 697-4565 1 /9/2006 ~c~~ ~~c~ ~~~ ~~~(~ Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: jimymari [jamesgonzalez39@wanadoo.es] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:20 AM To: Lorna Delaney ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ " ~~ ~~-= Cc: donna4fish@aol.com Subject: FHM operating hours For the attn of the Honorable Jefferson County Commissioners, My wife and I own a home on N. Beach Drive (Bridgehaven), and we note with extreme interest the lack of controlled operating hours in the latest UDC (the wording, if approved, would allow for 24 hour operations at the shine pits). We must respectfully declare our opposition to the wording and intention of this UDC to you, and repeat our and our neighbors in Bridgehaven and Shine areas opinions regarding the lack of concern of FHM for the environment AND the people of Jefferson County Sincerely, James D. and Mariana L. Gonzalez 1/9/2006 CC ~' 17~~ ~I~I~'~ Leslie Locke Page 1 of 2 From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:22 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: 18.20.240(2)(f) and sentence structure concerns Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Pat & Ken [mailto:patnken@olypen.com] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:36 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: 18.20.240(2)(f) and sentence structure concerns To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Re: Proposed amendment to UDC 18.20.240(2)(f) January 8, 2006 ~ky~~ ~'~ I am writing in regards to one of the proposed amendments to the UDC. I have two issues I would like to cover. First, the English major in me prompts me to draw your attention to the structure of the following proposed sentence as it is written in the UDC amendment draft: 18.20.240(2)(f) All mineral extraction, processing and related activities that take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays shall not exceed the limitations of WAC 173-60-040(2)(a), noise associated with mineral extraction and processing outside of this specified time period shall be reduced by 10 dBA for residential receiving properties unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the administrator. I can only guess that what was meant was to have a period after "...WAC 173-60-040(2)(a)." Anew sentence would then begin "Noise associated with ..." If that is not what was meant then you need to do further corrections. As it stands, it is a run-on sentence and is not clear. If the assumption is correct then you have stated that there will be work done outside the hours of 7 am to 7 pm. Therefore it is redundant to state that "...unless extended hours of operation are authorized..." There cannot be extended hours of operation if you are already stating that there will be "mineral extraction and processing outside of this time period (of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)." Not unless you are in a different galaxy and/or dimension for that and time has a whole different meaning or no meaning. Pefiaps what you are meaning to say is that if an emergency need arises then the noise limitations can be exceeded and are not subject to the limitations that you are proposing? Or do you mean that if an emergency need arises then those after hours operations must reduce the noise level by 10 dBA? You might want to clarify the writing in this before adopting it into the UDC. 1/9/2006 _ "' _ , Page 2 of 2 My second point is only valid if my assumption as to the meaning of the sentence is correct. If "... activities (will) take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays..." and "mineral extraction and processing (will take place) outside of this specified time period" then you are indirectly stating that the work can continue 24/7. The only restrictions have to do with noise levels. For those of us who live fairly close to the Shine Pit and get to listen to the noises associated with the work being done, this is not a happy prospect. When the prevailing winds are from the south, the sound carries on the wind to our place. We already hear it late at night and on weekends so the idea that we could be permanently listening to them round the clock is cause for concern and objection. It is my understanding that Clark, Spokane, Thurston and Kitsap Counties all have specified hours of operation for mining practices. Jefferson County should also continue the limitations as originally stated in the UDC. But then my objections are based on the assumption as to the real meaning of the proposed run-on sentence amendment. With correction comes clarification. With clarification we can comment with confidence. Sincerely, Pat Todd 196 Scenic View Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 1 /9/2006 C'E : ~~~ ~ ~ ctlC~ Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: Larry Mayes [mayes@olympus.net] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 3:09 PM !~ ~,~~ c ~ ~~ To: Lorna Delaney Subject: 24 Hour Gravel Mining/UDC 18.20.240(2)0 Dear Commissioners, I'm writing to ask that you oppose the amendment to UDC 18.20.240(2)(f) which if approved will ultimately result in 24 hour mining operations at the Shine Pit. DCD staff maintains the amendment is simply clarification of existing code. My question to you is what part of the publics' face looks that gullible? It is so very obvious to the public that this amendment has been proposed specifically for the benefit of Fred Hill Material. If you approve this amendment the adverse impacts to neighbors in the area will be huge. Yes the mine has been in operation since 1959 and many homes have been built in the area knowing the mine existed. All records and past practice indicated a reasonable sized mining operation during daytime hours to serve the local regions need. When the Hill family ran the mine it was a good neighbor. That is no longer the case. The current operators have a track record of false documents, violations and intimidation. For Jefferson County to adopt clear dBA noise levels when it does not have the ability nor the intention of enforcing them is at best a disservice to the community. At worst it is corrupt. Without the ability to hire, train and equip adequate staff to monitor noise levels on a 24 hour basis your appropriate response should be to establish reasonable hours of operation. Please do so while you still have the ability. Even if Jefferson County had the resources and intention to enforce night time noise restrictions, two critical noises are exempt. Both backup alarms and trucks entering the roadway are exempt under the WAC. They are some of the loudest and most disturbing noises and would be heard around the clock. Please don't forget that strip mining has adverse impacts beyond noise. Lights, dust, processing, loading ,the conveyor belt and truck traffic will be non stop at the Shine Hub even though the actual mining maybe a mile away. The larger issue is the pit to pier project. For the project to be viable Fred Hill Material will require around the clock supply of gravel. From their initial proposal FHM's strategy has been to piece meal the project. FHM is attempting to avoid having to address the aggregate impacts of a major industrial development and port facility in Hood Canal. Previous decisions by Jefferson County has accommodated FHM's strategy. The only purpose for approving this amendment is to move the pit to pier project forward and do so in a piece meal fashion, skirting an honest assessment of the impacts. Kitsap County has gravel mining operations. Kitsap County as do other counties, limit the hours of operation. Both citizens and mining operations benefit. The gravel company owners make money, contribute to the economy and citizens receive some level of protection. A huge majority of the gravel from the Shine Pit is utilized by Kitsap County which protects its' residents with reasonable hours of operation. You need to do the same for Jefferson County residents. Larry Mayes 1805 SE 8th Pl Renton,WA 98055 1 /9/2006 .~ o~ ~, ..~c. ~ il~?~o~, Leslie Locke From: Pat Rodgers Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 8:18 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Public Hearing Input Importance: High From: John Fabian[SMTP:FABIANJ@OLYMPUS.NET] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 8:18:14 PM To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Pat Rodgers Subject: Public Hearing Input Importance: High Auto forwarded by a Rule Gentlemen Page 1 of 1 ~~ ~ ~~ I am out of town and unable to attend the Public Hearing on the "Omnibus" Code Amendment Package. I have serious concerns about the implications of the proposed change describing hours of operation and noise disturbance limits for gravel mines in Jefferson County. Please accept my written comments which are attached. In addition, please examine closely the definition of "noise disturbance" in the package and ask yourself if the new language and definition is in the best interest of the citizens of Jefferson County. Also, please ask yourself if the proposed definition will result in enforceable codes. John Fabian 100 Shine Road Port Ludlow WA 98365 1 /9/2006 Hours of Operation for Gravel Mines Unified Development Code Amendments 18.20.240(2)(f) JCC This is not just a wording change to clarify the code. It explicitly opens the door to 24 hour mining operations. Current wording that restricts night time mining operations that "create a noise disturbance," allows the county an opportunity to independently evaluate complaints, in order to protect citizens. Proposed new wording strongly benefits miners at the cost of neighbors and further opens the door for the pit to pier project. It also, largely, ties the county's hands and removes the opportunity to independently evaluate and resolve citizen complaints. Backup alarms are the loudest and most aggravating noise, waking neighbors from a sound sleep. These alarms are not restricted by the proposed dBA limitation. They are apparently specifically excluded under state law, but create a disturbance to surrounding residences. It does not seem appropriate to adopt a new code, establishing firm dBA noise limits, when the county has neither the equipment nor expertise to monitor and enforce. Until the county can afford to buy the equipment and hire and train a staff to monitor and enforce mining noise limits, specific hours of operation should be enacted to protect local citizens' rights to the enjoyment of their private property. Hours of operation, however, are not just about noise. Lighting, dust creation and greatly intensified mining are also issues. These issues do not seem to have been considered. Mining operations also include processing, sorting, loading, and shipping. While the mining itself will be moving further from local homes, the noise from Shine Pit will remain largely unabated. Expanded hours of operation will open yet another door for the pit to pier project which will be facilitated if mining operations are permitted to expand to 24 hours a day. There are several counties that could be used to establish a precedent to establish fixed hours of operation. Kitsap County limits gravel mining operations to the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM. Clark County limits gravel mining operations to the hours of 6 AM to 8 PM. Spokane County limits operations to the hours of 7 AM to 10 PM if within 1000 feet of any residence. Thurston County limits hours of operation to 7 AM to 7 PM if adjacent to residential zoning. Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: John Fabian [fabianj@olympus.net] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:22 PM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: donna4fish@aol.com Subject: Gravel Mining Operations in Jefferson County Importance: High Gentlemen HE~41~;G RECORD Please consider the attached input during your deliberations dealing with the UDC amendment on mineral extraction. Unfortunately, my duties have me in Florida this week so t will not be able to attend the publicd hearing on 1 /9/06. John Fabian 100 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 1 /9/2006 ,, Hours of Operation for Gravel Mines Unified Development Code Amendments 18.20.240(2)0 JCC This is not just a wording change to clarify the code. It explicitly opens the door to 24 hour mining operations. Current wording that restricts night time mining operations that "create a noise disturbance," allows the county an opportunity to independently evaluate complaints, in order to protect citizens. Proposed new wording strongly benefits miners at the cost of neighbors and further opens the door for the pit to pier project. It also, largely, ties the county's hands and removes the opportunity to independently evaluate and resolve citizen complaints. Backup alarms are the loudest and most aggravating noise, waking neighbors from a sound sleep. These alarms are not restricted by the proposed dBA limitation. They are apparently specifically excluded under state law, but create a disturbance to surrounding residences. It does not seem appropriate to adopt a new code, establishing firm dBA noise limits, when the county has neither the equipment nor expertise to monitor and enforce. Until the county can afford to buy the equipment and hire and train a staff to monitor and enforce mining noise limits, specific hours of operation should be enacted to protect local citizens' rights to the enjoyment of their private property. Hours of operation, however, are not just about noise. Lighting, dust creation and greatly intensified mining are also issues. These issues do not seem to have been considered. Mining operations also include processing, sorting, loading, and shipping. While the mining itself will be moving further from local homes, the noise from Shine Pit will remain largely unabated. Expanded hours of operation will open yet another door for the pit to pier project which will be facilitated if mining operations are permitted to expand to 24 hours a day. There are several counties that could be used to establish a precedent to establish fixed hours of operation. Kitsap County limits gravel mining operations to the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM. Clark County limits gravel mining operations to the hours of 6 AM to 8 PM. Spokane County limits operations to the hours of 7 AM to 10 PM if within 1000 feet of any residence. Thurston County limits hours of operation to 7 AM to 7 PM if adjacent to residential zoning. Lorna Delaney Page 1 of 3 From: Frank Kelley [kelley@ncplus.netJ Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 12:28 AM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: Frank Kelley Subject: Omnibus Amendment Public Comment Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, ~~ ~~h~.Y Unfortunately due to my patient load today I will not be able to attend the public hearing on the Omnibus Amendments to the Unified Development Code. 1 submit these comments for your consideration. 1 listened to the audio from the workshop I could not attend. I wanted to thank Commissioner Sullivan in particular for raising some of the issues about these changes. Your attempt to do what is right by all parties comes through on the audio. I noticed staff never answered your question about the requirement for a SEPA trigger before increasing impacts could legally be addressed through section 18.20.240. I have included some more background information to help you make your decision. The proposed changes to the mining sections are more than "housekeeping" matters to bring clarity to the law. These changes are an attempt to formally withdraw from regulating a range of increasing mining impacts that includes, but is not limited to noise. It is appalling to me that the county is proposing allowing mining operations to expand to 24 hours a day, seven days a week without even so much as a public hearing. Is this the regulatory framework for the upwardly mobile? If this were proposed where Fred Hill Materials Attorney James Tracy lives, do think he would object? Actually I have read his objections to other Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and the impacts of 24 hour mining are much more insidious than what he has previously opposed. l think it is important for you to remember that this is ultimately a local legislative decision. The state granted many exethptions to the maximum permissible environmental noise levels (WAC 173-60-040), but not mining activities. It purposefully left that regulation authority to counties. Through my appearance before the county you might be left with the impression that I'm a vindictive obstructionist only concerned with my property interest. I assure you that I'm more grounded than that but my perspective has certainly changed since we elected to settle here in 1999. I moved here to start a family with swell-paying position waiting for me. I have tended to support those that favor increased development. While I still believe in this county's future I disagree about the causes and remedies of the socioeconomic problems here. I'm skeptical that the underlying cause for the expanding underclass here is the lack of retail sales or opportunities to mine at night. Historically these beliefs have been perpetuated by ideologues that elsewhere would be recognized as poorly prepared to compete in this economy, much less to lead it. I do want to see others here have the same economic opportunities that I enjoy. I would like to make a contribution to this county outside of commenting on land-use issues. It is my impression that few come to these hearings so for now I consider myself an advocate for a wider public interest in these matters. I hope you will recognize that the Omnibus Amendment process is complex and the details are not known to many citizens. The SEPA notice was commenced during the holidays and once again public comments and workshops take place during the daytime when some can not attend due to work obligations. Many of the people that will be affected by this law are older and have a more difficult time understanding the legal and regulatory issues involved. I would like to say the Planning Commission was a good substitute for citizen representation but they appeared poorly prepared to deal with these issues. Please take this example where the planner presenting the changes describes the position of the county. This characterization is grossly wrong and near the opposite of the county's current and future position. (from page 10 of the 11/2/05 minutes) "Edel Sokol asked for staffs take on the issue. Kyle Alm responded that his understanding was that now there was no real standard to judge "significant impact". He stated that they were looking at a DS from the standpoint of the operator expanding an existing mine. With a DS, they would have to go through an EIS and consider the 1 /9/2006 Page 2 of 3 offsite impacts. He thought the intent was that, if they wanted to change their hours of operation, it would trigger a Type III conditional use permit. He asked if that was what he was hearing from the commissioners. Ms. Sokol asked if it was set up that way now. Mr. Alm replied that it was not. Ms. Sokol asked if we could set it up so that, if they wanted to operate outside of normal hours, it would automatically trigger a conditional use permit. Mr. Alm replied that, while he did not know, he supposed you could condition any permit the way the county wanted to. Jim Hagen did not support jumping right to a Type III if they wanted to operate outside of normal hours." One problem with this section. is that in order to issue a DS, which is a specific SEPA procedure you must have a "trigger." Some form of a new "major action" (regulatory approval) must be sought by the applicant from Jefferson County before this law can be applied. For example an operator that seeks to go 24 hours a day 7 days a week doesn't need any new approval from Jefferson County. Most activities that increase off-site impacts will not require county approval so they won't be brought under regulation. Another problem with this approach is that the SEPA Administrator is awarded deference in application of the DS threshold. In my experience with the county, this authority has been abused. There is a criteria for what a significant impact is. Mr. Scalf demonstrated this in the workshop and it comes from SEPA. The same threshold can be applied without the county tying its hands with the DS determination. Mr. Scalf and Mr. Alvarez should be able to directly answer your question, as they are intimately familiar with these issues. They have a history of inconsistent application of the UDC section 4.24.7. Previously the county tried to arbitrarily bring Lakeside Industries asphalt batch plant in Cape George under the UDC even though they were not seeking any change in their legal non-conforming operation. It is my understanding Lakeside threatened legal action as the county had no standing to apply the new regulations. In another case Northwest Aggregates appealed to the Hearings Board when the county argued that their permit to mine deeper was an increase in off-site impacts. The county later withdrew the requirement for a CUP. This application of the UDC should be considered a.success however and a reason to leave this section unchanged. This leverage evenfually resulted in better water quality monitoring through the "good neighbor policy, "than other state agencies with primary oversight authority were willing to provide. The inconsistent application of the UDC came full circle with the Fred Hill Materials Wahl mining proposal over the last year. I presented a petition on behalf of many of my neighbors that reminded the county of its obligation to apply the CUP requirement if the off-site impacts increased. This request had three effects: 1. The county vested 24/7 operating conditions by asserting that the Shine Hub had operated 24/7 since 1959. This would be funny if not so absurd. Fred Hill Materials started operations here in 1979. Through the 1980s the mine was frequently vacant. In public statements and documents since inception of the UDC they denied that they were operating at night. This response should tell you that the threshold of the impacts of the Shine Hub expansion were considered significant by the county. 2. Fred Hill Materials quit denying they have been operating at night. Previously they asserted the activity was Ace Paving who was granted temporary extended hours by a conditional use permit. No doubt they will deny that 24-hour operation is not a secondary impact of the Pit to Pier project when that environmental veview is performed. 3. The county sought to change this law. Not an underhanded change for the benefit of this applicant? You decide. A Type III conditional use permit is something we make residents get when they build stairs to the beach, but it is too much of a burden to pu# on miners exploiting loopholes•to work at night? These changes are extreme if you understand their implications. I'm surprised that Mr. Alvarez is getting information on what other counties have done at the eleventh hour. It doesn't appear the county has done its homework in the best ways to represent everyone's interest in these matters. This issue requires broad public participation, especially in the context of the counties desire to establish a wider nuisance ordinance. I hope you will not make any changes at this time. Respectfully 1/9/2006 Jefferson County Boazd of Commissioners, Unfortunately due to my patient load today I will not be able to attend the public hearing on the Omnibus Amendments to the Unified Development Code. I submit these comments for your consideration. I listened to the audio from the workshop I could not attend. I wanted to thank Commissioner Sullivan in particulaz for raising some of the issues about these changes. Your attempt to do what is right by all parties comes through on the audio. I noticed staff never answered your question about the requirement for a SEPA trigger before increasing impacts could legally be addressed through section 18.20.240. I have included some more background information to help you make your decision. The proposed changes to the mining sections aze more than "housekeeping" matters to bring clarity to the law. These changes aze an attempt to formally withdraw from regulating a range of increasing mining impacts that includes, but is not limited to noise. It is appalling to me that the county is proposing allowing mining operations to expand to 24 hours a day, seven days a week without even so much as a public hearing. Is this the regulatory framework for the upwardly mobile? If this were proposed where Fred Hill Materials Attorney James Tracy lives, do think he would object? Actually I have read his objections to other Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and the impacts of 24 hour mining are much more insidious than what he has previously opposed. I think it is important for you to remember that this is ultimately a local legislative decision. The state granted many exemptions to the maximum permissible environmental noise levels (WAC 173-60-040), but not mining activities. It purposefully left that regulation authority to counties. Through my appearance before the county you might be left with the impression that I'm a vindictive obstructionist only concerned with my property interest. I assure you that I'm more grounded than that but my perspective has certainly changed since we elected to settle here in 1999. I moved here to start a family with awell-paying position waiting forme. I have tended to support those that favor increased development. While I still believe in this county's future I disagree about the causes and remedies of the socioeconomic problems here. I'm skeptical that the underlying cause for the expanding underclass here is the lack of retail sales or opportunities to mine at night. Historically these beliefs have been perpetuated by ideologues that elsewhere would be recognized as poorly prepazed to compete in this economy, much less to lead it. I do want to see others here have the same economic opportunities that I enjoy. I would like to make a contribution to this county outside of commenting on land-use issues. It is my impression that few come to these hearings so for now I consider myself an advocate for a wider public interest in these matters. I hope you will recognize that the Omnibus Amendment process is complex and the details are not known to many citizens. The SEPA notice was commenced during the holidays and once again public comments and workshops take place during the daytime when some can not attend due to work obligations. Many of the people that will be affected by this law are older and have a more difficult time understanding the legal and regulatory issues involved. I would like to say the Planning Commission was a good substitute for citizen representation but they appeared poorly prepared to deal with these issues. Please take this example where the planner presenting the changes describes the position of the county. This characterization is grossly wrong and near the opposite of the county's current and future position. (from page 10 of the 11/2/05 minutes) "Edel Sokol asked for staffs take on the issue. Kyle Alm responded that his understanding was that now there was no real standard to judge "significant impact". He stated that they were looking at a DS from the standpoint of the operator expanding an existing mine. With a DS, they would have to go through an EIS and consider the offsite impacts. He thought the intent was that, if they wanted to change their hours of operation, it would trigger a Type III conditional use permit. He asked if that was what he was hearing from the commissioners. Ms. Sokol asked if it was set up that way now. Mr. Alm replied that it was not. Ms. Sokol asked if we could set it up so that, if they wanted to operate outside of normal hours, it would automatically trigger a conditional use permit. Mr. Alm replied that, while he did not know, he supposed you could condition any permit the way the county wanted to. Jim Hagen did not support jumping right to a Type III if they wanted to operate outside of normal hours." One problem with this section is that in order to issue a DS, which is a specific SEPA procedure you must have a "trigger." Some form of a new "major action" (regulatory approval) must be sought by the applicant from Jefferson County before this law can be applied. For example an operator that seeks to go 24 hours a day 7 days a week doesn't need any new approval from Jefferson County. Most activities that increase off-site impacts will not require county approval so they won't be brought under regulation. Another problem with this approach is that the SEPA Administrator is awarded deference in application of the DS threshold. In my experience with the county, this authority has been abused. There is a criteria for what a significant impact is. Mr. Scalf demonstrated this in the workshop and it comes from SEPA. The same threshold can be applied without the county tying its hands with the DS determination. Mr. Scalf and Mr. Alvarez should be able to directly answer your question, as they are intimately familiar with these issues. They have a history of inconsistent application of the UDC section 4.24.7. Previously the county tried to arbitrarily bring Lakeside Industries asphalt batch plant in Cape George under the UDC even though they were not seeking any change in their legal non-conforming operation. It is my understanding Lakeside threatened legal action as the county had no standing to apply the new regulations. In another case Northwest Aggregates appealed to the Hearings Board when the county argued that their permit to mine deeper was an increase in off-site impacts. The county later withdrew the requirement for a CUP. This application of the UDC should be considered a success however and a reason to leave this section unchanged. This leverage eventually resulted in better water quality monitoring through the "good neighbor policy, "than other state agencies with primary oversight authority were willing to provide. The inconsistent application of the UDC came full circle with the Fred Hill Materials Wahl mining proposal over the last year. I presented a petition on behalf of many of my neighbors that reminded the county of its obligation to apply the CUP requirement if the off-site impacts increased. This request had three effects: 1. The county vested 24/7 operating conditions by asserting that the Shine Hub had operated 24/7 since 1959. This would be funny if not so absurd. Fred Hill Materials started operations here in 1979. Through the 1980s the mine was frequently vacant. In public statements and documents since inception of the UDC they denied that they were operating at night. This response should tell you that the threshold of the impacts of the Shine Hub expansion were considered significant by the county. 2. Fred Hill Materials quit denying they have been operating at night. Previously they asserted the activity was Ace Paving who was granted temporary extended hours by a conditional use permit. No doubt they will deny that 24-hour operation is not a secondary impact of the Pit to Pier project when that environmental review is performed. 3. The county sought to change this law. Not an underhanded change for the benefit of this applicant? You decide. A Type III conditional use permit is something we make residents get when they build stairs to the beach, but it is too much of a burden to put on miners exploiting loopholes to work at night? These changes are extreme if you understand their implications. I'm surprised that Mr. Alvarez is getting information on what other counties have done at the eleventh hour. It doesn't appear the county has done its homework in the best ways to represent everyone's interest in these matters. This. issue requires broad public participation, especially in the context of the counties desire to establish a wider nuisance ordinance. ] hope you will not make any changes at this time. Respectfully Frank Kelley 773 South Point Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 _ - I ~m writing to inform you that the noise from the Fred Hill Materials (FHM) Shine Pit du... Page 1 of 2 I Leslie Locke From: Pat & Ken [patnken@olypen.com] ~ Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:48 PM aa~~ ~~ R To: Lorna Delaney Subject: New Unified Development Code. (UDC) 18.20.240(2)(t7 January 8, 2006 To: Jefferson County Commissioners Subj: Unified Development Code (UDC) 18.20.240(2~(fl I am concerned about the proposed amendment to UDC 18.20.240 (2)(f) which would seem to allow operations at the Shine Pit and other mining locations to expand their work hours beyond 7 a. m. to 7 p.m. I find that the noise from the Fred Hill Materials (FHM) Shine Pit during night and evening hours is an irritation and aggravation and that any expansion of their working hours should be strictly curtailed. We live approximately 2 miles from the Shine Pit and we can clearly hear the rock crushers, truck engines and back-up alarms from their operations from time to time in the evening hours. The noise has also been noted at Teal Lake during weekends. I have had the opportunity to read the October 2002 Report on the Existing Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Fred Hill Materials Operations at Shine. The study, done.by Environalysis of Seattle WA., was contracted by FHM. The purpose was to conduct noise monitoring of FHM operations at the Shine Pit on behalf of the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. My main point of concern is that Environalysis LLC conducted their noise measurements on only 4 days during August, September and October of 2002 and that these measurements were made only in the nearby vicinity of the Shine Pit. I have, on numerous occasions, heard noise from the Shine Pit operations clearly from the hillside north of highway 104 and in the vicinity of Teal Lake. Our home near mile post 12 on highway 104 receives noise from the Shine pit day and night, sometimes for several days in a row especially during the summer months. The Environalysis study indicated that they used meteorological data from the Puget Clean Air Agency in Poulsbo. The data they obtained said that the winds almost always come from the north, northeast, southeast, and south. I have been recording meteorological data at my home north of Shine for the past several years and I can attest that in our neighborhood the wind usually blows from the south and occasionally from the north. I suspect that local terrain affects wind direction and speed. The noise from the Shine Pit is most noticeable when the wind is less than 5 mph from the south. In the summer months the ambient evening noise is very low and this industrial noise can be heard for great distances. The Environalysis study attributed many of the instances of noise in excess of the prescribed limits to environmental conditions such as branches or animals rubbing against their microphones. I find this a rather weak explanation since a professional data collector would surely place their instruments so these instances were unlikely. I am also surprised that Jefferson County is accepting an environmental noise study that was provided by FHM without any independent input. I sense a grave conflict of interest here. 1 /9/2006 ~- I am writing to inform you that the noise from the Fred Hill Materials (FHM) Shine Pit du... Page 2 of 2 I make no distinction between the various industries located at the Shine pit; both Ace Paving and FHM are located there in a symbiotic relationship so they jointly are responsible for any impact on the environment. I complained, to no avail, about the noise in August of 2004 to both you and FHM. Only FHM responded and they indicated that the ACE Paving noise was due to an emergency repair to Highway 101 and that Jefferson County was not restricting the hours of operation at the pit. Although, hopefully, my measuring instruments are by no means equal to those employed by Environalysis, the sound of their operations at the pit is clearly heard once the noise from highway 104 is diminished due to bridge openings or night time low traffic density. If operations at the Shine pit are permanently extended to night and weekend hours then the quality of life in the neighboring community is sure to be lessened. It would seem to me that Jefferson County should not consider any expansion of the Shine Pit activities including night and weekend working hours until the true impact has been measured and evaluated. Sincerely, Ken Hanson 196 Scenic View Lane Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (360) 437-7974 1/9/2006 ~: -~~ ~~aj~~ Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Kathy Larkin [klarkin@olypen.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:21 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Oppose 24 hr mining Jefferson County Commissioners Gentlemen, ~~-~ ~°'~ I strongly oppose mining of gravel for 24 hrs per day. This does not help the people of Jefferson county. Please take action against it. This will contribute to an unhealthy environment. Sincerely, Kathy Larkin No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 /Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 -Release Date: 1/6/2006 1 /9/2006 -~~ ~ j~~/ Leslie Locke From: Darlene Schanfald [darlenes@olympus.net] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:01 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comment on Fred Hill Operating Hours To Whom It May Concern: hEkRIPIG f<~GORD I understand that Fred Hill is asking for a code change/permit to operate its Shine area mining operations on a 24 hr/day basis. I write to urge you to oppose this. A 24 hour noise operation is likely to be very disturbing to sleep of those in the area. As someone who has been a sleep disorder researcher, instructor and clinician, I am well aware of the affects of noise on sleep, and, subsequently, of sleep loss -- especially from noise on a continual basis. >On a personal note, Fred Hill has an operation about a mile from me >in Sequim. That site >closes about 5 PM. Also, Clallam County noise time limit may be >site by site, but when >Rayonier Mill, Inc. demolished the mill, they had to stop around >6PM. They could not operate 7 days/week. >Many years ago I lived on San Juan Island. Some distance from me, >and next to a house I would have loved to have rented, was a mining >operation which ran, I think, 24 hrs/day. No matter how many hours >it operated it was extremely disturbing to its neighbors. Needless >to say, I wouldn't rent that house next to it. Business must operate in a sensible, respectful, non threatening manner and on a sensible schedule. It does not have the right to disturb residents who move to an area prior to a change in business practices. Governments must protect the public and allow only respectful and sensible business practices. Please do not allow this 24 hour operation code/permit. Thank you, Darlene Schanfald 481 Holgerson Rd Sequim WA 98382 1 . ~i~ :- A~ ~. ~~ ~. ~'1!~ ~'~ ~: ~~ r ~~~ ~:~ t,~ Qc. ~Ds~- Y ~ Irtet~e~a E F'1'~a ~t s -., ~.~ ~ ~,y ~ ~~.~~+ . .t, ~~ ~~ at.~. ~. 3~\ yam, ' LET ~ ~~ ~ ~~t ~ , Lot ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ i~ ~~~~ ~~~~ h ~~ ~ ~~~~~ a -~~ lti r~~~~~ f -~ c~ ,.~ ~x ~ :o~.~ .y??y t~3 oc. ~e+ N ~7 ~rar t~# ~, ~~r~ ~r~rr~ ~~ r~ ~r.~ M~~ t~i0sy Y !'l,4 c ~ ~.~ ~. ~~,~ 7'~7t!?'?~O(it G ~~ +~. Y ~~~ F i~s~.s -a, 3 ~, y~~ ~~~~ .,~~ +~ ~.~' ~- r~ - ~~ ~„ #-; ~+~_is i~.c~r~ ~, 4~kra~e ~i •i •i L~Ty~yjY~ ~~ ~ ~ ~"~`~~' ;..~ »~~ ~c ~ r~ X1;1 n-*~r ~ ~ Lot ~~ ~~ :~ ~ c ~,~ ~ ~; Cz.~,~~1~ ' h ~, ~ ,~~-r~;;lt~ ~~ GL' E ~, {.~ ~= ~~~ ublic Comment regarding changes to UDC 1~~~2~)~~}~, ~ ,~ °.. ~,i ,.~. Current language: All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. unless extended hours of operation for emergency purposes are authorized by the administrator. Proposed language: All mineral extraction, processing and related activities that take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. shall not exceed the limitations of WAC 173-60-040(20)(a), noise associated with mineral extraction and processing outside of this specified time period shall be reduced by 10 dBA for residential receiving properties unless extended hours of operation for emergency purposes are authorized by the administrator. I am here to request that the current, more restrictive language, be retained. The cited WAC 173-60-040 basically says the receiving properties (labeled as Class A) cannot receive noise levels of more than 45dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. WAC 173-60-030 defines Class A properties as "lands where human beings reside and ~ ` " This leads me to the ]uly 2003 Mats Mats Ouarry Final Environmental Impact Statement. In Volume I, Chapter 3.6, Noise, there is a table titled, "Common Sound Levels and Sources and Subjective Human Response." Please note that the 45dBA reading falls in the "sleep interference" column under "Possible Effects on Humans". This seems in direct conflict to the Washington Code definition of "lands where human beings reside and sleep." It doesn't say "...reside and have sleep interference". I have also brought a sound expert here today- only in book form. David A Harris, a building and acoustic design consultant who resides in Port Ludlow, wrote the textbook, Noise Control Manual for Residential Buildings (1997). I would like to quote from pages 210-211: "...noise relates to our environmental situation. If background noise levels are very low, as experienced in the country, an intrusive noise at 50 dB will become "highly annoying". Unfortunately, most annoyance studies reflect an urban acoustical environment where background sounds are already near 60 dB. If your project is located where the background noise is low, such as a retirement community next to a national forest, the level of acoustical mitigation must be far more extensive than usual to assure peace and quiet." I would like to conclude with the request that the acoustical mitigation employed by Jefferson County should be the retention of the current UDC 18.20.240(2)(f) language and the rejection of the proposed language change. Thank you, Rae Belkin Mats Mats Area Coalition WAC 173-60-040: Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. Page 1 of 1 About Us ~ Contact Us ~ E-maN No ~fiti ications ~ Smirch ~ Help Legislature Home ~ Senate ~ House of Representatives Print Version ~ No disponible en Inside the Legislature WACs > Title 173 > Chapter 173-60 > Section 173-60-040 ~ Find Your Legislator 173-60-030 « 173-60-040 » 173-60-050 visiting the Legislature ~ WAC '! 73-60-040 Agendas, Scttedules and Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. ~ Calendars (1) No persort shall cause or permit rxNSe to intrude into the property of another person which noise +~ Bill Information ~ exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels set forth below in this section. Laws and Agency Rules f (2)(a) The noise limitations established are as set forth in tt~ following table after any applicable ~ Legislative Committees adjustments provided for herein are applied. f ~ Legislative Agendes ~ E-mail Notfications i EDNA OF EDNA OF ~: Students' Page ~ NOtSE SOURCE RECEMNG PROPERTY ,__ _ _._ . .. I ClassA Class B Class C Outside the Legislature ~ cu~SS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA ~ Washington State ct.ASS a 57 60 65 History and Culture ~ cuss c 60 65 70 Congress -the Other Washington ~ (b) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the noise limitations of the foregoing table shall a TV Washi ton ~ i reduced by 10 dBA for receiving properly within Class A EDNAs. ~ Washington Courts (c) At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations in (a) and (b) above may be exce Tran rtation ~ for any receiving property by no more than: ~ Performance Audit ~~ () 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes [n any one-hour period; or ~ OFM Fiscal Note Website ; ; (117 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any one-hour period; or _ __ V'~ ~~ " ~ (i~ 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. Access Washington [Order 74-32, § 173-80-040, fled 4/22/75, e4~dive 9/1!75.) Comments about this site ~ Privacy Notice ~ Accessibility Information ~ Disclaimer http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-60-040 1/4/06 WAG 173-60-030: Identification of environments. Page 1 of 2 About tJs (Contact Us (E-mail ~ (Search (Help Legislature Home ~ Senate ~ House of Representatives Print tlersion j No disponi6le en Inside the Legislature ~ Find Your Legislator ~° Vsiting the Legislature Agendas, Schedules and Calendars Billlnformation Laws and Agency Rules Legislative Committees Legislative Agencies E-mail Notfications 1 Studerrts' Page ._ Outside the #-egislature Washington State j History and Culture ~ Congress -the Other I Washington ~ TV Washington ~ +~ Washington Courts i Transportation ~~ nce Audit ~ OFM Fiscal Note Website WACs > Title 173 > Chapter 173-60 > Section 173-60-03{} 173-60-fl20 « 173-60-03D » 173-60-040 VVAC 173-&0-{330 Ideat~fication of environments. (1} Except when inducted within spedfi~c prior designations as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (~ this section, the EDNA of any property shall be based on the following typical uses, taking into consid~ the present, future, and historical usage, as well as the usage of adjacent and other lands in the vidn'r (a} Glass A EDNA -Lands where human beings r„~i sleep~Typically, Class A EDNA will be folowing types of property-used ~o"r"~ina~n albiEation: (i) Residential (ii} Multiple family living accommodations (iii) Recreational and entertainment, (e.g., camps, parks, camping fadlities, and resorts) (N) Corrnrninity service, (e.g., orphanages, homes for the aged, hospitals, health and correctional facilities) (b) Class BEDNA -Lands irnohring uses requiring protection against Hasa interference with speec Typically, Class B EDNA will be the following types of property: () Commercial living accommodations ~ Commerdal dining establishments (~7 Motor vehicle services ('nr) Re#ail services (v) Banks and office buildings Access ,a.r~~Washingtom,. (vi) Miscellaneous commerdal services, property not used for human habitation (vi) Recx~tion and. entertainment, property not used for fiuman habitation (e.g., theaters, stadium: fairgrounds, and amusement parks) (viii) Community services, propeAy not used for human habitaton (e.g., educational, religious, governmental, cultural and recreational facilities). (c) Class CEDNA -Lands involving economic activities of suds a nature that higher noise levels th experienced in other areas is normally to be antiapated. Persons working in these areas are normally covered by noise control regulations of the dep~trrrent of Tabor and industries. Uses typical of Class p are generally not permitted within such areas. Typically, Class C EDNA wiN be the following types of ProPertY~ (~ Storage, warehouse. and distnbution facilities. u Industrial property used for the production and fabrication of durable and nondurable man-madE rid Agricuih~ and silvicultural property used for the production of crops, wood products. or livestc (d) Where there is neither a zoning ordinance in effect nor an adopted comprehensive plan, the lac authority of local government may, by ordinance or resolution, designate specifically described EDNA: conforrrt to the above use criteria and, upon deparUnental approval, EDNAs so designated shall be as forth in such local determination. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-60.030 1/4/06 Table 3.6-7: common souna severs ana sources ana suo ecnve hu man rtes nses Thresholds/ Sound Level Subjective .Possible Effects Noise Sources dBA Evaluations on Humans Human Threshold of Pain 140 Deafening Continuous e~q~osure Carrier je# takeoff (50 ft) to levels abo~te 7o pn cause hearing loss Siren (100 ft) 130 Loud rock band Jet takeoff {200 ft) 120 Auto hom {3 ft) Chain saw 110 Noisy snowmobile Lawn mower (3 ft} 100 Very Noisy motorcyde {50 feet) Loud Heavy trade (50 feet) 90 Pneumatic drill (50 feet) 80 Loud Busy urban street, daytime Normal automobile at 50 mph 70 Speech Vacuum leaner (3 ft} Interference Large au conditioning unit{20 feet} 60 Moderate Conversation (3 fee#) Quiet residential area 50 Sleep Light auto traffic (100 ft) Interference library 40 Faint Quiet home Soft whisper {15 feet) 30 Slightrustling of leaves 20 Very Faint Broadcasting Studio 10 Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Note that both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold boundaries. Consequently, there are overlaps among categories of response that depend on the sensitivity of the noise receivers. Mats Mats Qaanry >=lna/ E/S Chapter 3.6 -Noise 3.6-2 r a~.t Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, i a x r~e~ ~ i _ ~~ 'r, ~ . ..... _. ..: Unfortunately due to my patient load today I will not be able to attenc~.,t~t~,bli~h~~rJr~~o~ the Omnibus Amendments to the Unified Development Code. I submit se~`ddrrim~fits 1'br yotar consideration. I listened to the audio from the workshop I could not attend. I wanted to thank Commissioner Sullivan in particular for raising some of the issues about these changes. Your attempt to do what is right by all parties comes through on the audio. I noticed staff never answered your question about the requirement for a SEPA trigger before increasing impacts could legally be addressed through section 18.20.240. I have included some more background information to help you make your decision. The proposed changes to the mining sections are more than "housekeeping" matters to bring clarity to the law. These changes are an attempt to formally withdraw from regulating a range of increasing mining impacts that includes, but is not limited to noise. It is appalling to me that the county is proposing allowing mining operations to expand to 24 hours a day, seven days a week without even so much as a public hearing. Is this the regulatory framework for the upwardly mobile? If this were proposed where Fred Hill Materials Attorney James Tracy lives, do think he would object? Actually I have read his objections to other Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and the impacts of 24 hour mining are much more insidious than what he has previously opposed. I think it is important for you to remember that this is ultimately a local legislative decision. The state granted many exemptions to the maximum permissible environmental noise levels (WAC 173-60- 040), but not mining activities. It purposefully left that regulation authority to counties. Through my appearance before the county you might be left with the impression that I'm a vindictive obstructionist only concerned with my property interest. I assure you that I'm more grounded than that but my perspective has certainly changed since we elected to settle here in 1999. I moved here to start a family with awell-paying position waiting for me. I have tended to support those that favor increased development. While I still believe in this county's future I disagree about the causes and remedies of the socioeconomic problems here. I'm skeptical that the underlying cause for the expanding underclass here is the lack of retail sales or opportunities to mine at night. Historically these beliefs have been perpetuated by ideologues that elsewhere would be recognized as poorly prepared to compete in this economy, much less to lead it. I do want to see others here have the same economic opportunities that I enjoy. I would like to make a contribution to this county outside of commenting on land-use issues. It is my impression that few come to these hearings so for now I consider myself an advocate for a wider public interest in these matters. I hope you will recognize that the Omnibus Amendment process is complex and the details are not known to many citizens. The SEPA notice was commenced during the holidays and once again public comments and workshops take place during the daytime when some can not attend due to work obligations. Many of the people that will be affected by this law are older and have a more difficult time understanding the legal and regulatory issues involved. I would like to say the Planning Commission was a good substitute for citizen representation but they appeared poorly prepared to deal with these issues. Please take this example where the planner presenting the changes describes the position of the county. This characterization is grossly wrong and near the opposite of the county's current and future position. (from page 10 of the 11/2/05 minutes) "Edel Sokol asked for staff's take on the issue. Kyle Alm responded that his understanding was that now there was no real standard to judge "significant impact". He stated that they were looking at a DS from the standpoint of the operator expanding an existing mine. With a DS, they would have to go through an EIS and consider the offsite impacts. He thought the intent was that, if they wanted to change their hours of operation, it would trigger a Type III conditional use permit. He asked if that was what he was hearing from the commissioners. Ms. Sokol asked if it was set up that way now. Mr. Alm replied that it was not. Ms. Sokol asked if we could set it up so that, if they wanted to operate outside of normal hours, it would automatically trigger a conditional use permit. Mr. Alm replied that, while he did not know, he supposed you could condition any permit the way the county wanted to. Jim Hagen did not support jumping right to a Type III if they wanted to operate outside of normal hours." One problem with this section is that in order to issue a DS, which is a specific SEPA procedure you must have a "trigger." Some form of a new "major action" (regulatory approval) must be sought by the applicant from Jefferson County before this law can be applied. For example an operator that seeks to go 24 hours a day 7 days a week doesn't need any new approval from Jefferson County. Most activities that increase off-site impacts will not require county approval so they won't be brought under regulation. Another problem with this approach is that the SEPA Administrator is awarded deference in application of the DS threshold. In my experience with the county, this authority has been abused. There is a criteria for what a significant impact is. Mr. Scalf demonstrated this in the workshop and it comes from SEPA. The same threshold can be applied without the county tying its hands with the DS determination. Mr. Scalf and Mr. Alvarez should be able to directly answer your question, as they are intimately familiar with these issues. They have a history of inconsistent application of the UDC section 4.24.7. Previously the county tried to arbitrarily bring Lakeside Industries asphalt batch plant in Cape George under the UDC even though they were not seeking any change in their legal non- conforming operation. It is my understanding Lakeside threatened legal action as the county had no standing to apply the new regulations. In another case Northwest Aggregates appealed to the Hearings Board when the county argued that their permit to mine deeper was an increase in off-site impacts. The county later withdrew the requirement for a CUP. This application of the UDC should be considered a success however and a reason to leave this section unchanged. This leverage eventually resulted in better water quality monitoring through the "good neighbor policy, "than other state agencies with primary oversight authority were willing to provide. The inconsistent application of the UDC came full circle with the Fred Hill Materials Wahl mining proposal over the last year. I presented a petition on behalf of many of my neighbors that reminded the county of its obligation to apply the CUP requirement if the off-site impacts increased. This request had three effects: 1. The county vested 24/7 operating conditions by asserting that the Shine Hub had operated 24/7 since 1959. This would be funny if not so absurd. Fred Hill Materials started operations here in 1979. Through the 1980s the mine was frequently vacant. In public statements and documents since inception of the UDC they denied that they were operating at night. This response should tell you that the threshold of the impacts of the Shine Hub expansion were considered significant by the county. 2. Fred Hill Materials quit denying they have been operating at night. Previously they asserted the activity was Ace Paving who was granted temporary extended hours by a conditional use permit. No doubt they will deny that 24-hour operation is not a secondary impact of the Pit to Pier project when that environmental review is performed. 3. The county sought to change this law. Not an underhanded change for the benefit of this applicant? You decide. A Type III conditional use permit is something we make residents get when they build stairs to the beach, but it is too much of a burden to put on miners exploiting loopholes to work at night? These changes are extreme if you understand their implications. I'm surprised that Mr. Alvarez is getting information on what other counties have done at the eleventh hour. It doesn't appear the county has done its homework in the best ways to represent everyone's interest in these matters. This issue requires broad public participation, especially in the context of the counties desire to establish a wider nuisance ordinance. I hope you will not make any changes at this time. Respectfully Frank Kelley 773 South Point Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEYELCIPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townseru, WA 9!8368 xY i?, ~Q4 Ron Sumn:~as Cllacie~r Northwest P.O. Box 1?30 Seattle, WA 98111 Al ~, C~trttar RB: Y+am' ~ t~ ~ at -tt ~~ Mr. S Thatilc you for your letter dated Febniary 6, 2004 regarding a proposal for accelerated extraction of material at your Mats Mats Quarry to bid on the Part of Seattle's third runway project. This proposal would include removal of approximately seven million cubic yards of materials over a two year period include operating 24 hours a day17 days a week. Based on the potential to incre~,ase off--site impacts we have umcluded that Type III zoning conditional use permit would be required (See Section 4.24(7xa} of the UDC attached}. This is based on the Potential increased of off-site impacts including: noise (crushing, transport, barge); lights from night time operations; vibration from incrzased number and magnitude of blasts; groundwater with accelerated excavation not providing adequate time to identify problems; changing the subsequent use of the pi~erty and how the property is reclaimed. The proposed improvements far a conveyor loading system would occur within a suction of shoreline designated Suburbaa by the Shoreline Management Master Program. This facility world be considered esther industriaUport facilities or piers/docYs, which both require a Secondary Use: in the Suburban Shoreline designation. If the value of the proposed improvements exceeds $5,000 a Shoreline Substantial development permit would also be required. Finally, the Washington State DNR would have to make a SSPA determination whether your recent proposal dated February 6, 2004 has morn or less impacts than the proposal addressed in the F131S completed July 17, ?A03. If you recent proposal has more impacts then what w ' analyzed in the FEIS then additional environmental review may be required ff you wisb to proceed with these prarmits please give me a call. ~ ~~ Sincerely, {i ~ ,= ~r~ tmg and ,Associate Planner ~ D s~ F.~•c ,;,~..~ ~ • ~~ C Bui~iina Permits/ Ip~o~ {360) 379-445t} FAX: (364) 379-4451 Jefferson County Board Of Commissioners and Al Scalf, Director of Community Development, I object to the Jefferson Counties implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C and Chapter 197-11 WAC) public comment process for the UDC Omnibus Amendments as it pertains to mining (section 18.20.240). This process has been prejudiced by grossly inaccurate information about code changes to the local citizens, the Jefferson County Planning Commission and the local media. This is well documented in the public record. Current code: All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, electrical interference to the detriment of adjoining property or the persons having the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoining property. Proposed code: All mineral extraction, processing, and related activities take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays shall not exceed the limitations of WAC 173-60-040(2)(a), noise associated with mineral extraction and processing outside of this specified time period shall be reduced by l OdBA for residential receiving properties unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor,electrical interference to the detriment of adjoining property or the persons having the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoining property. The current applicable section of the code above clearly prohibits mining noise after 7 p.m. The county cannot give authority to exceed WAC 173-60-040 during the daytime. I foresee no possible way trained staff could innocently construe this section of code to allow 24 hour mining without the Administrator declaring an emergency. I will follow-up this objection with a hand delivered copy to the Department of Community Development. You can ignore the confidentiality disclosure at the bottom of this page (not that you are not ignoring everything I write about anyway). Frank Kelley Kelley a~ncplus.net 773 South Point Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 12:47 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Unified Development Code Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Mnnnger Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Ronald F Mack [mailto:rfmacki@juno.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 12:45 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Unified Development Code -{ ~ca f 'p~ A ~"~ r, F' i! The proposed new Unified Development Code falls short in protecting homeowners near mining projects since it allows for 24 hr mining operations. The noise and busyness of these projects is a public nuisance if not restricted to normal hours of operation ns specified in other jurisdictions. It appears that more consideration is given to mine operators than to your constituents. Thank you. RF Mack, Poulsbo, WA. 1 /9/2006 Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: sue [sjora@olypen.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:51 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: New UDC 18.20.240(2)(f) Jefferson County Board of Commissioners r p = ,~ 3 , ~~., !~~¢~BJe Gentlemen - I attended this morning's meeting and am compelled to respond to Mr. Baskin's statement. I have lived in Shine since 1991. When we first moved here the Shine pit, owned by Fred Hill Materials, was not a 24 hour a day seven day a week operation. The road leading up to the pit from Highway 104 was a single lane gravel road. The expansion of operations necessitated the installation of a heavy duty concrete roadway which should give a clue as to the date. The first "official" document I am aware of in which hours of operation were mentioned was an environmental check list submitted by Fred Hill Materials seeking expansion of their gravel extraction operation into timber lands. In that document FHM stated the hours of operation would remain 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. I can't believe Mr. Baskin can not recall that document as much was made of several misstatements regarding impacts to wildlife, water and fish in the proposed expansion at several public hearings in front of the prior BOCC. Several comments were made regarding creation of jobs in our county. While the extraction and shipping of gravel by FHM does offer employment to some, hardly any actually live in Jefferson County. At a prior hearing, at the county fair ground due to the size of the crowd, a good showing of FHM employees were attending and spoke. A show of hands at that time revealed one employee actually living in Jefferson County. So who actually benefits from the this mining operation? A privately held company in Poulsbo and it's employees living in Kitsap County. We don't even benefit from sales tax generated by this company from it's operation in our county. I urge you not to change the rules to suit FHM. Sincerely, Robert Gebo 295 Margaret Street Port Ludlow, WA 98365 1/10/2006 Leslie Locke From: Sally Adams [sally.adams@att.net] ~,~ ~2 < ~ ~ ,~ t ~ ° ` ; .~,, Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:18 PM ~ ~ >g.;, To: Lorna Delaney ' a ~'~ ; Y°°~ Cc: Senator Phil Rockefeller; Representative Sherry Appleton; Governor Christine Gregoire Subject: gravel mining -from bad to worse Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, It has come to my attention that one more threat to the natural landscape of Hood Canal and all life in the vicinity has been proposed for the benefit of one company (Fred Hill) -- to allow 24 hr. mining operations. The cost to the environment of the entire pit-to-pier operation on the quality of life for the Hood Canal region is already way to high. The outcries of the community have been muffled, but this must stop. It is time for you to hear the voices of the many who ask that you not give away this natural WA treasure for the sake of what -- profit for one company and 25 - 50 short-term jobs, perhaps. As bad as the Pit to Pier Fred Hill project is, this latest move to intrude on the peace of residents and life in this area 24-hours per day, non-stop is unconscionable. Where is the environmental impact statement? Where are our legislators and our Governor who are not intervening to protect the integrity of the entire Hood Canal region from the magnitude of the inevitable impact of this pit to pier project? The environmental fallout locally and downstream will be huge. We all must say "no more." A County cannot go this far without the state noticing. Please do the right thing and begin to act for the benefit of the entire community. You are asking us all to pay too high a price. Sincerely, Sally Adams 10250 NE Darden Lane Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 1 Leslie Locke From: Philip Hansten [hansten@waypoint.comj Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:08 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Hours of Operation for Gravel Mines Dear Jefferson County Commissioners: ~ z ~~u ,: ~ j ~ ~.. Regarding hours of operation for gravel mines, I would urge you *not* to allow mining operations 24 hours a day. My reasons are as follows: 1. The current operation of the Shine Pit is already causing noise pollution in the surrounding residential areas. We live in the Shine area, and leaving our windows open while we sleep in the summer is an invitation to being awakened early in the morning by the noise. 2. Decibel limits have limited usefulness for several reasons: a) The area around Shine is a quiet rural area, and noises do not have to be very loud to disturb. b) The TYPE of noise is important. Back up alarms are SUPPOSED to be alerting. That is their purpose. c) Decibel limits are only useful if there is regular enforcement (unlikely given the resources). 3. Mr. Baskins says their testing shows the noise is at acceptable decibel levels. This reminds me of some Congressional hearings I attended several years ago in Washington DC. I was testifying on whether drug interaction labeling on non-prescription medications was adequate (it wasn't, and still isn't). But the size of the print on the label was also an issue, and the drug companies had hired an expert to explain that, based on the font size, font type, color of label, etc. that the labels were readable. So one of the professors pulled out of his pocket a non-prescription bottle and handed it to Representative (now Senator) Ron Wyden. Neither Wyden nor any of the other House members could read the bottle--the print was too small. The drug company expert tried to obfuscate with fancy slides and discussions of optics, but his testimony was rendered moot by one small bottle of a nasal decongestant. Similarly, Baskins can do all the decibel testing he wants--if people. who live near the Shine Pit are awakened and disturbed by the noise, it is a problem. Sincerely, Philip Hansten lO1 Merridith Street Port Ludlow, WA 98365 USA cell phone: 206-949-3949 phone: 360-437-7633 fax: 360-437-8070 home email: hansten@waypoint.com university email: hanstenc~u.washington.edu www.SquamishHarborBooks.com 1 ~ C . ,~ ~.-~ Ii,C~C~~, Page 1 of 1 Leslie Locke From: RobertWMaule@aol.com ~~ ~~ ~ 4°~ ~~~`'~ ~`~~. ` ~; , Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:25 PM a ~ ~"` ` _': ~~ ~< . To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Egregious Proposed New Unified Development Code I am alarmed, nay outraged, that the county is considering a new Code that would permit 24 hour mining operations. I cannot think of a more destructive way to ruin the peace of the residents of the County. Counties such as Clark, Spokane, Thurston and Kitsap have limits that prohibit the dust, noise, traffic and other disturbances to daytime hours. That allows economic development without destroying peace and quiet for residents trying to sleep. Please reconsider, and think first of the health and well being of your citizens. Robert W Maule 360 697 3219 1/10/2006 Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:04 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: FHM Gravel Facility ~ r ~ ~~ ' ~ ~a, ~ ~"~ Y r ~; ~ ``~ .4 •' Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Leigh [mailto:patricialeighl@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 7:52 PM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: Hood Canal Coalition Subject: FHM Gravel Facility Dear Jeff: We recently bought some acreage in Shine, and have, as a result, become aware of the controversy regarding expansion of the FHM gravel facility and attendant proposed changes to Jefferson County code. While we are not experts on the subject, and recognize that, to one degree or another, commercial activity is to be expected even in what appears to be an overwhelmingly residential-use area, we are disturbed by some of the proposals. For instance, we have been informed that FHM has requested that they be allowed to run their operation 24 hours a day, regardless of its proximity to residential uses. Frankly, this is nuts: to my knowledge, no other county in the state allows around-the-clock operation of what is by its very nature, an extremely noisy, messy process. In addition, I gather that this 24-hour schedule is required to make construction of a pit-to-pier scheme commercially viable, allowing loading of barges with gravel in that portion of Hood Canal adjacent to, or even within, an area overwhelmingly devoted to residential use. This is doubly nuts: unless I am much mistaken, I would not be permitted to construct a pier or dock for tying up a rowboat, yet FHM is to be allowed to construct a loading pier suitable for large barges, in a waterway that is already threatened with "death" by various sorts of man-made pollution. As previously noted, we cannot very easily oppose the existence of FHM, given that, presumably, it has carried out a permitted use for all these years. However, there seems to us to be rather a large difference between accepting an existing use and turning a blind eye to substantial expansion of that use, which would appear to benefit only the proprietors of FHM and, of course, the coffers of Jefferson County. I think you might find that there are other ways to expand the tax base. Caving-in to the blandishments of the sole beneficiary of this sort of scheme in the face of significant popular opposition can only call into question the integrity of the Jefferson County Commission, as well as potentially raising liability issues with respect to, among other things: noise pollution and associated health impacts; particulate pollution and attendant asthma/respiratory problems among adjacent residents; impact on the ecological health of Hood Canal itself. Page 1 of 2 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, While I am a member of the Planning Commission, I will be commenting today as a citizen of the County. I wish to comment on the proposed wording of the Jefferson County Code, the section on mineral extraction and processing, 18.20.240, specifically section 2c alluding to buffer zones, and 2f which has to do with hours of operation and noise. While I have toured the Fred Hill Materials Shine pit, I live directly across State Route 101 from Penny Creek Quarry in Quilcene, and my references will be to that pit. Chapter 2c proposes all mineral extraction and processing activities must, to the extent possible, employ best management practices for drainage, erosion and sediment control, buffer zones and other precautionary measures. It refers the reader to 18.30 of the Jefferson County Code. However, 18.30 makes no mention of buffer zones, nor can I find buffer zones for mineral extraction spelled out anywhere in the code. Taking a page from file number ZON98-0041 of the hearing examiner's notes dated 29 June 1999 on the Fred Hill Materials Shine pit, there is a reference to Jefferson County Code 18.35.070 (4) which states buffers are required: "Buffers Required. All minera/ extraction and processing uses shall deve%p or maintain perimeter buffer areas consistent with the requirements ofJCC 18.30.040." Therefore, the delineation of buffers in the Code has eroded since 1999. Consequently, I feel that it is imperative that buffers be defined for mineral lands. "RCW 70.107,010 Purpose. The legis/ature finds that inadequate/y control%d noise adverse/y affects the hea/th, safety and we/fare of the peop/e, the va/ue of property, and the qua/ity of the environment. Anti-noise measures of the past have not adequate/y protected against the invasion of these interests by noise. There is a need, therefore, for an expansion of efforts statewide directed toward the abatement and control of noise, considering the soda/and economic impact upon the community and the state. The purpose of this chapter is to provide authority for such an expansion of efforts, supplementing existing programs in the field, [1974 exs, c 183 §' I.Jry Jefferson County adopted the above chapter of the Revised Code of Washington on 3/20/84 as Resolution 23-84, and again on 9/16/85 as Resolution 67-85. Section 2f proposes all mineral extraction and processing must take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays and shall not exceed the limits of WAC 173.60.042, and goes on to say that noise associated with mineral extraction and processing outside of this specified time period shall be reduced by 10 decibels for receiving residential property. I am opposed to any wording that gives a quarry carte blanc to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by the perceived reduction of noise levels. In issuing the most recent permit for Penny Creek Quarry (April 2005), planner Greg Ballard accepted a noise study put together by the wife of the owner of the quarry as evidence that the quarry was within acceptable noise compliance. Further, this County has shown that it has neither the personnel, expertise, equipment, nor inclination to adequately deal with noise complaints and enforcement as is its responsibility. Page 2 of 2 In closing, if we were discussing the Fred Hill Materials Shine pit, considering the closest neighbor is roughly 1.5 miles, I could see how one might think my concerns are petty. However, when you consider that a number of citizens live in close proximity to a quarry that the County has (1) allowed to start up and (2) permitted to expand to more than 50 acres, (3) on a critical aquifer recharge area, (4) across from an already established small rural residential development, and (5) which the County has issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance that (6) avoids an environmental impact statement; and (7) further considering that the County has never acted on any of the noise complaints over the years, you can undoubtedly see how one might become concerned about small wording changes within the code. Thank you, Michael Whittaker 170 Moon Valley Drive, P. O. Box 120 Quilcene, WA 98376 -~ cc : ~~~ i ~~c f ~~ Leslie Locke From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:05 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: The current law? Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 -----Original Message----- From: Frank Kelley [mailto:kelley@ncplus.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:48 PM To: Al Scalf; Greg Ballard; Lorna Delaney Subject: The current law? Gentleman, h ;,~ r' ~ ~ ~,' I have a quick question about current regulation of mining noise in Jefferson County. This is not about the Omnibus Amendment process (kind of like this is not about 24 hour mining and water transport projects). know this comment period is closed. 18.20.240 (2), (f) All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, electrical interference to the detriment of adjoining property or the persons having the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoining property. It is my understanding this section of code is interpreted by the DCD to mean that the term "noise disturbance" is noise that exceeds the WAC (173-60-040). So therefore under the current interpretation they can exceed the WAC during the daytime then? Thanks Frank i •. Leslie Locke From: David Alvarez Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:29 PM To: Leslie Locke; AI Scalf; Kyle Alm; Roseann Carroll; Cheryl Halvorson Subject: RE: The current law? My gut reaction is that Frank Kelley is correct, during the day they can exceed the standard set out by the state that defines a "noise disturbance." I would recommend that someone call Frank Kelley and tell him that. David Alvarez -----Original Message----- From: Leslie Locke Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:27 PM To: Al Scalf; Kyle Alm; Roseann Carroll; Cheryl Halvorson; David Alvarez Subject: FW: The current law? -----Original Message----- From: Frank Kelley [mailto:kelleyc~ncplus.net) Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:48 PM To: Al Scalf; Greg Ballard; Lorna Delaney Subject: The current law? Gentleman, I have a quick question about current regulation of mining noise in Jefferson County. This is not about the Omnibus Amendment process (kind of like this is not about 24 hour mining and water transport projects). I know this comment period is closed. 18.20.240 (2), (f) All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, electrical interference to the detriment of adjoining property or the persons having the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoining property. It is my understanding this section of code is interpreted by the DCD to mean that the term "noise disturbance" is noise that exceeds the WAC (173-60-040). So therefore under the current interpretation they can exceed the WAC during the daytime then? Thanks Frank 1 -~ I r<"~ ~~ C- ~~ Leslie Locke Page 1 of 2 From: Lorna Delaney ~~~ s. ~ ~ , ,. ; ~ ~,,~ Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:56 PM ,., To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Public Comment for Omnibus Amendments (please add to public comment file on this subject) Lornn Delaney, Humnn Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Kelley, Frank [mailto:FKelley@pacificvascular.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:11 PM To: AI Scalf; Lorna Delaney Cc: Kelley, Frank Subject: Public Comment for Omnibus Amendments (please add to public comment file on this subject) Jefferson County Board Of Commissioners and Al Scalf, Director of Community Development, I object to the Jefferson Counties implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C and Chapter 197-11 WAC) public comment process for the UDC Omnibus Amendments as it pertains to mining (section 18.20.240). This process has been prejudiced by grossly inaccurate information about code changes to the local citizens, the Jefferson County Planning Commission and the local media. This is well documented in the public record. Current code: All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, electrical interference to the detriment of adjoining property or the persons having the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoining property. Proposed code: All mineral extraction, processing, and related activities take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays shall not exceed the limitations of WAC 173-60-040(2)(a), noise associated with mineral extraction and processing outside of this specified time period shall be reduced by l OdBA for residential receiving properties unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor,electrical interference to the detriment of adjoining property or the persons having the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoining property. The current applicable section of the code above clearly prohibits mining noise after 7 p.m. The county cannot give authority to exceed WAC 173-60-040 during the daytime. I foresee no possible way trained staff could innocently construe this section of code to allow 24 hour mining without the Administrator 1/12/2006 Page 2 of 2 declaring an emergency. I will follow-up this objection with a hand delivered copy to the Department of Community Development. You can ignore the confidentiality disclosure at the bottom of this page (not that you are not ignoring everything I write about anyway). Frank Kelley Kelley(a),ncplus.net 773 South Point Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is private, confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Pacific Vascular, Inc. 1/12/2006 ~.. ~ :::~ fy„t~ ~ i I ~p a ~) ~._.., _ f G ~ 'P ~ j jj~ f }S pp~ 1 To the Commissioners, ~ ;,~~ ~~. 6.. \. - First of all let me say that from the front desk at Department of Community Development to Mr. Al Scalf, I have been treated fairly, respectfully, responsively, and with patience. My experience in dealing with this county government has been without exception a pleasure, and I say so such that my insistence to this level not be taken in any way as complaint or a disparagement of the existing system or the people that make it work. Had I been able to make the meeting in person, I'm confident that would come across, but in-lieu of that, let me put it in writing. Our specific case concerns the possibility of a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) across lots with different zoning (see attached visual aid.) The understanding I have received, via Al Scalf, is the county's right to deny such adjustments was already challenged in a case that went ultimately to the state Supreme Court. Who, in layman's terms, ruled that if the parties involved started with two parcels and ended with two parcels, i.e., no new parcels were effectively created, the BLA should be allowed. But when the county proceeded to use that appealingly simple ruling as precedent they it found it was not properly "integrated" with the Growth Management Act(GMA) and the allowing of any BLA which did not create extra parcels, regardless of zoning, created even greater problems and inconsistencies such that they were forced to revert to the equally appealing simplicity of "No BLAs across different zones." Simply put, our hope is that perhaps it might be in the best interest of everyone involved if there can be language allowed into the ground rules that falls somewhere between any and never as regards BLAB across zones. And perhaps the county would like the authority to allow some BLAB across zoning in specific circumstances of their choosing. Given the Supreme Court's ruling, rule number one would seem to be... NO new parcels shall be created, i.e., start with two end with two, period. And any cross-zone BLAB allowed should be aligned with the over-all intent of the as opposed to a means to get around it. I'm going to throw out some "language" relevant to our specific case as two examples, that might be considered. Example One If the allowing of the BLA effectively address one or more existing non conforming lots such that they become conforming that should be considered a plus. If Lot A was allowed to merge .with Lot C it could become one twenty nine acre lot zoned one per twenty, hence addressing the currently non conforming lot A which is nine acres zoned one per twenty. In addition Lot D, which is currently a sixty-acre parcel zoned one per eighty, could be zoned one per forty and become a conforming lot, thus creating two conforming lots that previously did not. Example Two If the allowing of the BLA effectively allows a more gradual transition in zoning that should be considered a plus. In our case if lot B currently zoned one per twenty but inexplicably surrounded by one per eighty, was merged to the proposed Lot C they could then be zoned one per forty hence creating a more sensible and gradual transition between zones from twenty to eighty. And again lot D could also become one per forty. The reality. of our situation, and probably others as well, is that if some land is allowed to be bought and sold amongst existing neighbors it may well forgo the need for larger parcels to be sold to third parties. It may forgo the need for third parties entirely. Our intent is to increase the size of the families land as much as our means will allow for our children and theirs, before the price of land becomes beyond reach. Setting aside the implications of the GMA, it does seem that the intent is that large amounts of land be allowed to exist in the hands of relatively few families. We believe our proposed exception is a win- win situation for the buyer, the seller, the county and the GMA. And we hope that the. county will brave the gray. waters between always and never. Thank you for taking the time to read this. If there is ever another meeting at which it would be appropriate for me to present our case in person I would welcome the opportunity. Andrew Johnston dI~C' 1,~v1C~.S ~-~. ~ , ~~1,/.,11~~-Y~ ~~~~^J ~~~cl ~~t -~.~~~~ Page 1 of 1 A: r l~ http://maps.co.jefferson.wa.us/output/parcels_outside_GISSERVER2076108859892.png 1/10/2006 Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 :r From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:45 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Hours of mining Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Mnnager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Nora Regan [mailto:norarn5l@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:11 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Hours of mining January 11, 2006 To the County Commissioners: I am writing to say I am strongly in favor of restricting mining-related activities that create noise disturbance, to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the Shine pit and subsequent areas. There is no way to monitor or control abuses of a noise ordinance beyond these hours at this time. For this reason, the hours of work must be limited in order to prevent noise disturbance of nearby residents. From being at the hearing Monday, it is obvious that there is abuse occurring during the extended hours when people are trying to sleep, as told by citizens who are neighbors of the pit. I do not understand why this mining operation needs to expand its hours...unless it's to create an abundance of material so as to ultimately ensure the need for the pit-to pier operation? This is a Kitsap- owned business and in Kitsap County, they limit their operations from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. It appears that these Kitsap owners respect their fellow citizens by stopping work and the associated noise at a reasonable hour in their own county. But, by requesting a change in the wording of the present code, it shows their lack of concern/respect for the citizens of Jefferson County regarding how their quality of life will be affected by increased hours of noise, dust and lighting. It is clear that this change of code which allows greater room for interpretation on the part of the mining company and still no way to monitor disturbance factors, will be a boon for the miners and cause greater distress to the nearby landowners. With the present code, you have the power to do the interpreting. Please keep the code as it is and maintain some semblance of control over this mining operation. It is OUR county, after all. Sincerely, Nora Regan, 1331 Olympic St, Port Townsend, WA. 98368 1/11/2006 -From: Jamnes Tracy To: Jefferson County Commissioners Date: 1/11!2008 Time: 2:33:36 PM E F ~ ~. THE LAW OFFICES OF ~" _:' JAMES C. TRACY ATTORNEY ~ COUNSELOR AT LAW OLYMPIC PEAKS BUILDING 18887 STATE HWY 8305 NE -SUITE 500 POULSBO, WA. 98370.7401 Ph: (360)779-7889 Faa:(360)779-8197 January 11, 2006 DELIVERED VIA FACSIMILE Jefferson County Board of Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, Washington In Re: Qlllnibus UDC Amendment Proposal Gentlemen: Page 2 of 3 ~. ~~ ~~ w>A w ^; - .Y p.~f ~ ~4R`r i. : T ~, .. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above referenced proposal. The difficult work undertaken by the Staff and Planning Commission in this periodic review of Jefferson County's Development Regulations is a thankless task, but one which will hopefully produce a code which is more user friendly, less vague and ambiguous in content, and more reflective of the mandates of the Growth Management Act and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Specifically regarding the changes proposed to UDC Section 18.20.240, the initial Commissioner's public hearing on the proposed changes clearly demonstrated that several citizens were mistakenly interpreting language developed to clarify UDC Section 18.20.240(f j as modifying the status quo to expressly allow mining 24/7. This mistaken impression on the part of those testifying was purposefully fueled by the similarly incorrect information promulgated by the Hood Canal Coalition in their recent fund-raising appeal. Unfortunately, despite their clear attempt to generate public hysteria by alleging that this supposed "new" allowance of 24/7 mining was directly related to the economic viability of FHM's pending Pit-to-Pier application, the HCC neglected to tell the public that any change to the UDC would not impact either FHM's MRL designations or the Fit-to-Pier application - a double misrepresentation, and doubly inrelevant to the question before the Board at this time. Concisely stated, no prohibition of night time mining operations exists in either the existing UDC or the proposed UDC amendments. The only requirements in either the existing or proposed code that differ between day and night mining operations are the applicable noise standards between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. which are reduced 10 dBA from daytime standards for receiving property within Class A EDNAs. (See WAC 173-06-040(b)) Further, FHM must observe that the current Section 18.20.240 proposal contains terms of such Page 1 of 2 From: James Tracy To: Jefferson Coolly Commissioners Date: 1/11/2008 Time: 2:33:36 PM Page 3 of 3 significant vagueness and ambiguity as to render the proposal virtually impossible to administer (or defend). For example, the use of the term "minimal adverse impact" on "surrounding areas" is clearly a vague and ambiguous basis upon which to determine "reasonable performance standards" for non-MRL mining operations. (See 18.20.240(1)) In addition, many critical terms are undefined and/or so relative as to be unsuited to a regulatory function, malting an informed reading of the applicable requirements impossible. (See, for example, "to the extent possible", "appropriate to protect `adjoining' lands", "unreasonable", "`detriment' of `adjoining' property owners", "quiet use and enjoyment".)The proposed UDC amendments to Section 18.20.240 should not be adopted by Jefferson County in their current form. Despite the hyperbole and deliberate misinformation generated by the HCC in their continued opposition to FHM's Fit-to-Pier application, an opposition that is not based upon fact since the EIS has not yet been published, FHM has and will continue to participate in communication with the surrounding community which can lead to reasonable measures that will further decrease the impacts our operations have on the community. FHM pursues this "Good Neighbor" policy despite the obligation of the County to protect natural resource lands and processing activities from encroaching incompatible development. FHM believes that with a well informed and cooperative effort, more precise, balanced, and meaningful local regulation of mining operations is possible and will benefit all concerned. To that end, FHM requests that the County Commissioners convene an advisory panel, composed of Jefferson County staff, Planning Commission, industry, and community representatives, to review applicable law and standards, regulatory approaches of other Washington jurisdictions, available technology and best practices, actual operational performance and impacts, and then to deliver for your consideration a thoughtful, informed, and balanced approach for regulation of mining activities for inclusion in the UDC. Treating this matter with the seriousness it deserves will undoubtedly produce a better product for Jefferson County's citizens. FHM looks forward to working with you in that effort. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, /s/ James C: Tracy, WSBA #15656 Land Use Counsel Fred Hill Materials, Inc. Page 2 of 2 „ 4 From: James Tracy To: Jefferson County Commissioners Date: 111 1 12 0 0 6 Time: 2:33:36 PM Page 1 of 3 The Law Offices of James C. Tracy Olympic Peaks Building - 18887 Hwy 305 -Suite 500 Poulsbo, Washington 98370-7401 Phone: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 To: Jefferson County Commissioners From :James Tracy Fax Number : 1-360-385-9382 Company Date :1111/2006 Time :2:33:24 PM For Information Call: 3607797889 Subject : Fax Number :3607798197 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This facsimile is Drotected by the attorney client Drivelege or other grounds for confidentialitvlnon-disclosure. This information is intended solely for the indivuduallcompanv to whom it is addressed If you are not the intended recepient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure coaving distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If received in error, immediately notify sender for return. Cover pages by Delrina ~e ,-• ~ ~' i Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Lorna Delaney ~,~ , ~ , . Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:55 PM t ~ ~ , ~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~., To: Leslie Locke ~ ~~-~ ~ Subject: FW: Comments -UDC OMNIBUS Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Manager Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 From: Nancy Dorgan [mailto:ndorgan@waypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, January li, 2006 11:52 AM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Comments -UDC OMNIBUS Please add the attached letter to the record of comments for the UDC OMNIBUS. Thanks, Nancy 1/12/2006 January 11, 2006 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Revisions to Jefferson County Code Chapter 18 -Unified Development Code HOPE (Housekeeping Omnibus for Permit Efficiency) Air ort Commissioners: Staff explained the reason for the line in/out airport-related revisions to the Planning Commission during their October 5, 2005 deliberations: "Josh Peters stated that the airport language adopted in 2004 was never integrated into the code from a document management standpoint. He suspected that the language may have already been adopted. It was in the Omnibus draft as a means of integrating the 2004 language. He stated that staff would verify that." (PC Minutes, p. 7) If Staff has not yet given the BOCC a more detailed explanation for the OMNIBUS airport proposal, it should be part of your pending deliberations I am concerned that the language is intended to further facilitate what I would consider the inappropriate conversion of rural designations within a noise "overlay" into a light industrial park under the guise of an Essential Public Facility GMA land use designation. I question and would like the BOCC to question what possible process the phrase "...or any other applicable process" Staff has in mind in their proposal: 18.15.110 Special use permit -Siting of essential public facilities. Article IIIA. Jefferson County International Airport Essential Public Facility District (AEPF) 18.15.1110 Designated. (2) AnYparcels or parcels (a subsequentl~quired by the Port in accordance with the provisions of the approved JCIA Master Plan, or (b currently owned by the Port, which are approved for inclusion in the Airport Essential Public Facility District through the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan text and land use amendment process, or anx other applicable process. January 10, 2006 Page 1 of 2 Omnibus Amendments to JCC -Airport Dorgan Comments The JCIA Master Plan referred to above has not been adopted by the County as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The contents of the JCIA as amended cannot be considered automatic pre-approvals for expansion of our GMA designation called AEPF (refer to legend on land use map). To do so would be contrary to the early and continuous public participation requirements of GMA, among other things. The JCIA Master Plan is anFAA-required planning document used by the Port. It is not a GMA document. The JCIA Master Plan already contains maps showing intended future development of all the parcels south of the runway between Highways 19 and 20 for future commerciaUindustrial development, including some such development on the west side of Highway 20. Those are not GMA designations, and while the Port conducted public process for its plan, it was not a GMA process. Nevertheless, the County's regulatory language cited above refers to those JCIA mapped parcels for possible inclusion in the Count's GMA designation called "Airport Essential Public Facility District." In the GMA meaning of the term, there is nothing essential or public about a light industrial park next to an airport, even one that fostered economic development and subsidized (i.e. "protected") the airport through lease revenue orprofit-sharing. There is no process outside of a Comprehensive Plan text and land use amendment process to create such development. Even an Industrial Land Bank designation is also a Comprehensive Plan amendment and land use designation. There is no " or any. other applicable process " -unless the County mistakenly believes it can convert parcels within the noise overlays into a formal GMA AEPF land use designation via apermit-level rezone outside of the CP amendment process, as was tried in the now-invalidated development regulations for the Irondale/Hadlock UGA. For these reasons, the "or any other applicable process" phrase should be deleted from the OMNIBUS proposal. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan Port Townsend January 10, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Omnibus Amendments to JCC -Airport Dorgan Comments c~ ~ ICJ ~-~a - olo r ~ . 1 ^' ~, - " L,' _ _ _ ' ,~ ~ ..~. '~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ,M ~n rx, '•a.r"'t.i sir°~ -t .. 1 '=6 'r~: L:: ~ x;r-I;: ~ 1 _. ._ .. , , ,.. _ iA? I i f~ r-! 'Y C:! t_! t;t r_' fc' _..:: C:~ I"'i $i 1. la t~ t~• 7. r I w7 ~,., I i I:1 i.] I:., C.I L:1 I..l £i fc' ;:r :..'..I ~:::i !. ~I:. i. ~_ i (..i ii ,1. C:} ._ ~ 1 kr.' i_J >.1 t,., Y^ ~ ~ rl M" C7 1 !•7 ~ C: C]'l: 'C cl Q~-~ 1 r7 CJ lA fii't: t~' 1 "!? ~~ . L ct t"'' f''' t=d ~:] ct 1 r'' M ] C] a: a ~~ f i C7 ! .t 1 C~ i") C] ~ ] f. ..... :1. r? C: i 1_l. C] iii' i::€ NV r ~ F f:? i` . trc' L I 1 *:? `v' iN I~] L.l i t" f:} ' ... ... 7 ~..) ,.. t i..11.. c.l "_. t.. t., 7. i i i' ` I_. 1 ' c:t I_.. _... I { ... ... :I. r- C_ <:d ...; . .~..j.. ..: t?._E C':I C. •::i. ~::: ~ :. !:1 LJ ~:: ~i:: I'l f' 1::7 1"' C~t E:] L:F i'r it ~ ! . .._ .... ~' rr' :,~:~ I .. •"+..` i:7 i., it i i_i ii.. -... ~a i-~ .... . C: I _! __ 'l. U C_ Y' _ _ __ ._ : a __ a. ,,) }",: l:1 C] i'" 7. r .'a i _.; ~:; 1. '-• ,.. ' -: _.. ._ _: 1'Z !.:. t:: irV !"i f:.. .~ ~:: .,. ' '.:.. _. L] `::' t i:J i+v , ..,_ i i C' ; E3 !" C. i.] c3 1 t"' - " I C] (? I t N_'. ~ c_ rl ,:~ J C:' _ r? G_ .i C'' ;_:- 4~d i'i iJ t"' 1 •t; ;]. _ L 4:.1 .i. •:' i? :tGC..':~__~i,.. __..,~..ir~ _.-_~ .,r~•~:_~._: L. rat, .. !" LJ I ; ; : . t __ .l , __ c:l I ! ~.: ~.~ Ll _ , _ to >_, i'l £ ; } ;: (Sc ~_1 J L` _ .~ : 'r' .4 ~:.. :' r-' C]'i ~i i E.3 c:' ! .. e'' (_ : .. .. _ _ ._ 1..r'l.l.C::~~;~ _ I?C1 {... .....T L:tT,;;~..-•• ~.i.r~~. ~._.7.rr]7.1..i:'C.] r-!C]f;j'"a ;,k -h :_'t..il..:;..:;.y.'.i.'.:ir..l c:'titl.~ r' E:. _...: f:. L. __ . i I -" ' 7 . ; ~.~ s a ; 1 F-i '-~ F ~ r' +"; F] __ r . ":. L •a i.., ;... ; ._ _.. .._. 1 ; 1 •__ ,:.. .... i.;'...: _n _. _.. _a ca EY a t., a r _.i _., l•. C:i L:f i"' i ~ •_ E_ >. "_ '. .=t ~ ~ ~ ':.i ». ',•V ~a 'L. '_B l" . _- ,_ r_ r_ ca. rl !.7 b a fw i -- C I cd. !a ,.i l_J .4 {". r t "~ ~:] r"' ~: ] i. _ f c_ z i-: '~= r ' ~ r' ' :: ? i'rs ~.i C_ ~::~ c:• 1 S.3 i r s'i i::i ! i 1_ ; ~. i _. ~.. = , s ._ c.^, ~ i i. S .' r_ 1 _a i:, ,'., T ~ ~5 -a 1 - ~ !_ '' _ ~. _7! 1 _.,.~ _..~,._ __ _ y ..J 1 ...... La ~=~ •t:. ~t:. f~"' r, ~~' ?. C: x ;:.i ~~ r-, C ~ ..:; i 'i » ~~ :~ ,i i ~.. » ... .. , , ,.:i. ;:tta' r!_u.::!~ i:.r'i '.Ik.-:.i:_aai''_fYlf.•3'I'i7:. flll.'!'cc•t. ~.e!_nl..i....j___. i.]r"'C7(:]E:}I"''i:.`,`' 'eiit?''d#a1'":{G '~~_ a. t'Tl t;a -] ;:d ,4:'ra '? "'' ? iM'i r"" ":~ :l, t:.f t r.3.'~'::L C:1 r? °.:_ ti3 ("j Ca {::: ?-i + f""-,; c? '% ~ i :.c C:f 1'd P`i C.' ° , + i::; !"" ..:: I: ] a ~I:.::._ :a : a :.: '__ .. r ' L.i l.( ~i 7. , i -_.. _.. __ a.:3 , '..~ F~. act '... E? " C] r'7 xn I ; :_i i.,,t t.a Ci Hy r~-.G:a._..i:~•~:~ t t.='.:.c?1~1 1:. C] C]t"c=' ,'h:~:CF?C mil': L"Ji...t= 1r'?::c'_^`:_ i..lt•-.~::'~!t~Y".._' ~_} 1 Jt' ',' l.i ? t cl ~' r r"` C? "M ? 'F.. 1`1 ~? l: c:+. r'' r "' t. C] c? 7..r' = r..; C] G] '=• c:i.'~ c:l l- C:] 't". ` . ~. ~.i ~=' v -r-.' ::._f-1:.: .,, _~'1 i M_.._I yi..ti~ ~...~i f'i' .. ._ -1:= { li.l r1FNt i.. ._ :~i i. {'; !..a ]. •, 1 _1,... -_... v .. =:c _: -__ ...: _.: , , _. 7. _... ~~ 7. i"'i _a [i ` .''_.. 1. 7. tJ R a 1, hi :~ }'~ F= 7. ~.. I t;, ' t i I,:::': ;' t_ c3 ._ .I.. ., .~ .~ ~.., F~ ~..., ,_ _.. i°:Y 4•_, •: j_ Y., Y'y ~`I FJ t.i ., ~• . ~ j•_- ;j ~_ 'I" ...... r .;. r , w•I __ I ! .. __ r'' s. t:. _., •ai ; ~' _ i- _] (' r"' i :4 `.:_ ''=ir 1 G' : i :L 55 ..: i ._ S ? C:i » ; i ~ --' :L r' ...... ,.. i'ii' ice: :., _. i'3 1A `_ l' '..: ,•~ • '•• j.::y 1 - - ..: , .7 __ 4 c.17.:1. _ r i f 1 f., t.: ..! r'1 w _ :. ~ t' L.; ~? ':~ N" ~: 1:: i - •: r- t'.i ..., ;. , . i.? i_l iEi :i r? E:•? __• ~ ~ ,a,~.l !•-' ~r~ ('? c.:i I" j:] r't._ ~ ` = u 'r'' .; I _y .;- .. _ 3-~ .iE] :~:. j...: ,~:: ° r . ._ .., "1 .! i .. ,' ' ~:... yY i...' :~ I .I_ i .. C "~. i:.' i,; L .. ,-) :. ,. , ,_.: FI i..,: is _. r _. .. - ,._. _.~ _.t 7..._ L. _.: '. :.-t .' _.,r'c1 ! ;"_,._Jfi1H_, CJ4JI i _'r` 4`1I.. _~ ..,.,.. ,L, .._. _...'.t:. , _1 i..i _3'...t '._ r-i ... ti , I..i ~:.".°" v. I..i ':' ~'r~'::]n !...I c.;'~=•:: r°i:_x':aI;:.J.-.•"::a ~..rrt.~ _. ~~'; ..ic:_ r-,~.:...;:.:.:',. ... , t°' 1 f?' cit cif? i»:1 C:7 C? C] ~:. ci 1:' ~::,1:..' C.','~/ =_' C : c:l Y-' !"' E:? C:i sl 7. ;'"' 'an ~'1 t :i ~:= ~`s 1 ;.': c:t. I''"A !'., =it I :it i'.. F ~' ~; :, ~ , r~ i ~ ~'7 ~~=;~~- Leslie Locke Page 1 of 1 From: Lorna Delaney Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:34 AM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Cottage industrys UDC Lorna Delaney, Human Resource Mannger Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9133 ~' ~. ~, e~z: ,< ~>; .. Y ~> ;E, <~ From: Orville & Barb [mailto:kimshan@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, January li, 2006 3:19 PM To: Lorna Delaney Subject: Cottage industrys UDC When the Commissioners are concidering the proposed addition to the UDC reguarding cottage industries, car repair should not be included. If they are, safe guards must be in place to protect neighboring land owners. The repair shop must be concieled from neighboring land, and have their own private drive accessing county or state roads. Neighbors need protection from noise and dust generated from delivery trucks and customer cars. Safe gurds to protect land, water table and wells from possible polution from oil, antifreeze, battery acid and oil spills. The Health Dept. should inspect property for viloations and charge the owner for the cost to the county. The land should be re-evaluated to be taxed as business property. If you approve the car repair as a cottage industry, applications must be on an individual) baises and property inspected before permission is granted. 1/17/2006