Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog128 Cheryl Halvorson Page 1 of 1 From: Stacie Hoskins Sent: Saturday, August 26,200610:19 AM To: Cheryl Halvorson Cc: Josh Peters Subject: Bailey 1999 CPA/map correction Hi Cheryl, I'm trying to locate the Ordinance that implemented the approved Comp Plan Amendments in 1999. Specifically, I want to reference the document that approved the change of Bruce Bailey's Chevy Chase Golf Course from Parks, Preserve and Recreation to RR1:5. I need to send my staff report to the hearing Examiner no later than Thursday, August 31St, so I'd really appreciate any help you can provide. I tried searching Laserfiche on line, but I didn't see it listed in the 1999 or 2000 Ordinances, and the Resolution page links wouldn't work for me. Thanks for your help, Stade.t. ~~ Development Services Manager, DRD Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4463 Fax 360-379-4451 shoskins@co.jefferson.wa.us 8/30/2006 c,h &'<'" ~ 1:'- h)6-* -\?'<<1 ""- W fl.. I -tv ~~ ~ ~ \ D ~ -r~e.-Y'\ ~ ~\e.i ~\l~ {o~ ~~ fA, C~~ ~(tID l ,....h :z-o'" e..... '"' lJ' . \ ~ ~ kk I \ ~ ~ l^,;Q,~,--r \>~ ~qtj>-C7I~ wK,vh. eel ~S ~<1Jv-e-6, ~~I ~ rf '-'e--'c\.. lOG ITEM #- 12! Page_-L-.Of 4-L ~Mt\ 00, I i~6( ;;tS-O} \ Long Range Planning Division Staff Report To Board of County Commissioners ~9 February 23, 1999 Re: Land Use Map Correction pursuant to Land Use Policy 1.5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan File Number: MCR99-000 1 Applicant: Al Scalf, Director of Community Development APPLICATION: Request to investigate and correct possible mapping errors on the Jefferson County Land Use Map. Request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, through the map correction process, in order to eliminate the "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" designation for privately owned parcels. Privately owned parcels currently designated "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" would revert to the "Rural Residential" land use density assigned under the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (No. 05-0214-96). PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Address the request as a map correction, notify affected property owners. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Staff report Application submitted by the Department of Community Development BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Owner: Area 1: Chevy Chase Golf Course Bruce V. and Barbara Bailey 10446 40th Place NE Seattle, WA 98155-4208 Area 2: "Seattle Council of Boy Scouts of America P.O. Box C-440408 Seattle, W A 98144-6015 Area 3: Black Point Properties LLC 308913 U.S. Highway 101 Brinnon, W A 98320-9719 LOG ITEM # Page_~Or- ~_.'--....:...... Site Area: Area 1: Northeast shore of Discovery Bay Area 2: South of Quilcene and on the north shore of Jackson Cove Area 3: South of Brinnon and in the Black Point vicinity Site Address: Area 1: 7401 Cape George Road, Port Townsend, WA Area 2: Not Applicable Area 3: Not Applicable Legal Description: Area 1: Portion of Township 30N Range 1 W Sections 29,30, and 31 Area 2: Portion of Township 26N Range 2W Section 13 Area 3: Portion of Township 25N Range 2W Sections 15 and 22 Land Use Classificati.on: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject parcels "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation." This land use designation is not included in the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 and therefore uncertainty exists regarding uses allowed in this district. Current Use ofthe Property Area 1: The subject parcels constitute the Chevy Chase Golf Course. Area 2: The subject parcels are used by the Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts of America for a seasonal Boy Scout Camp. Area 3: The subject parcels are currently unused. At the time of designation, the subject parcels were used as a privately owned recreational vehicle park. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 1.5.3: Mapping errors that are clearly erroneous based on inaccurate information or technical error on the part of the County may be corrected at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Map corrections of this nature shall not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In this case; a privately owned golf course, a privately owned Boy Scout camp, and privately owned property that was used as a "membership" recreational vehicle park were designated as "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" based upon the type of use occurring on the property at the time of designation (this designation first occurred on the February 24, 1997 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map). Two of these uses are currently permitted in the rural residential zones and therefore do not require a separate zoning classification. The third use, the Boy Scout Camp, while not currently listed as a permitted use, should be permitted throughout the rural residential areas of Jefferson County. An amendment to the EICO would ensure this use does not remain non-conforming for an extended period. LOG ITEM MCR99-000 l.doc 2 # Page ~_ . ( of 02/24/99 - -_.~ The intent of the "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" designation is to identify county, state, and federally owned parks, preserves, and recreation areas. This designation does not provide any benefit to privately owned parcels. Therefore, the Long-range Planning Division recommends that the subject properties revert to the "Rural Residential" designation and density assigned pursuant to the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (No. 06-0828-98). The uses for which the subject properties are currently being utilized fall within the range of uses permitted or envisioned as appropriate under the 'Rural Residential" designation. As stated above, golf courses and RV parks are currently permitted conditionally within the "Rural Residential" designation. In order to accommodate uses such as the Boy Scout Camp, staff recommends amending Table 13 in the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (No. 06-0828-98) to allow "Recreational facilities including parks, playgrounds, campgrounds, lodges, cabins and youth camps" as conditionally permitted uses within the "Rural Residential" designation. lOG ITEM MCR99-0001.doc .., J # Page -!f:-- Of_.Q2/2'!(99 .JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND MAP CORRECTION APPLICATION FOAAI [Please Print J Applicant/Contact: Al Scalf. Director of Communi tv Development :\1ailing Address: Jefferson County Courthouse. P.O. Box 1220 City: Port Townsend State: WA Zip: 98368 Phone: 360.385.9123 Fax: 360.385.9357 Site Location: Area I - Township 30N Range I W Sections 29.30. and 31 .-\rea 2 - Township 26N Range 2W Section 13 Area 3 - Township 25N Range 2W Sections 15 and 22 Parcel #: Area I - 001293004 (16.00 acres) 00130400 I (4.25 acres) 001304006 (20.04 acres) 001311005 (1.00 acres) 001292005 (70.84 acres) 001304002 (39.18 acres) 001304007 (0.92 acres) 99920090 I (1.3 7 acres) Area2- 602131002 (1 10.10 acres) 602132001 (36.00 acres) Area 3 - 502153002 (40.00 acres) 502153003 (19.25 acres) 502153021 (10.39 acres) 502153022 (10.27 acres) !i '1 !i U Ii j; I] il il -11 II !i II Ij Ii h ~ 11 ~; r; Ii ~ " i: I' r [i Type of Amendment Proposed: Policy Amendment ..t Map Amendment ..t 001293010 (1.91 acres) 001304004 (16.05 acres) 001311002 (23.00 acres) General Amendment ..t Site-Specific Amendment ..t 602131001 (74.30 acres) 502153020 (20.90 acres) 502153023 (90.16 acres) Map Correction Is the property in a special taxation or land-use program? Not Applicable APPII<an,Q? _ Signatu~~~ Date: '2. -'2.::3 -\~ ~,& S~~r (Below this line for office use onlv) Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Zoning Designation: _Rural Village Center _Village Commercial Center _Convenience Crossroad _General Crossroad _Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad _Rural Residentiall:5 _Rural Residential 1:10 _Rural Residential 1:20 Heavy Industrial _Light Industrial _Light Industrial/Commercial _Forest Resource Based Industrial Zone _Agricultural _Rural Forest _Commercial Forest _Inholding Forest _Mineral X Parks. Preserves, and Recreation _MPR-SF _MPR-MF _MPR-RC/CF _".-tPR-VC _MPR-SFT _MPR-OSR _MPR-RA _OTHER Requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Zoning Designation: _Rural Village Center _Village Commercial Center _Convenience Crossroad _General Crossroad _Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad _Rural Residential 1:5 X Rural Residential 1: 10 -X- Rural Residential 1:20 Heavy Industrial _Light Industrial- _Light Industrial/Commercial _Forest Resource Based Industrial Zone _Agricultural _Rural Forest Commercial Forest _Inholding Forest _Mineral _Parks. Preserves. and Recreation _MPR-SF _MPR-MF _MPR-RC/CF _~1PR-VC \"IPR-SFT MPR-OSR _MPR-RA _OTHER FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received: ~ llJ\. '- ') \ \" ~ ~ Assessor's Map: ..t - Questionnaire: ..t - Ownership Certificate: ..t - Application Complete: ..t~ Board Action: Map Correction: ..t - Docket: ..t - Fee: _Paid _Waived ~Not Applicable tl lOG ITEM Pa~f -,,~O -- ..t X ~, :J N~,r' (~~ I' ' V tjt< l.)O~'- -;J-S:O 1 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ~'d- IN THE MATTER OF an application for Jefferson County by and through the Department of Community Development, pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 1.5.3, in order to correct the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by establishing land use densities on 20 privately owned parcels previously without land use densities. )File No. MCR99-0001 ) )Findings, Conclusions ) and ) Decision Board of County Commissioners Decision: The Board of County Commissioners (Board) find that a mapping error occurred in designating certain parcels described below as "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" without assigning land use densities. The Board concludes that these errors should be corrected by reverting to the land use densities and designations established pursuant to the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (No. 05- 021-1-96) for the parcels indicated below: 001293004 (16.00 acres) 001304001 (4.25 acres) 001304006 (20.04 acres) 001311005 (1.00 acres) 602131001 (74.30acres) 502153003 (19.25 acres) 502153022 (10.27 acres) 001292005 (70.84 acres) 001304002 (39.18 acres) 001304007 (0.92 acres) 999200901 (1.3 7 acres) 502153002 (40.00 acres) 502153020 (20.90 acres) 502153023 (90.16 acres) 001293010 (1.91 acres) 001304004 (16.05 acres) 001311002 (23.00 acres) 60213 1002 (110. 1 0 acres) 602132001 (36.00 acres) 502153021 (10.39 acres) DATED THIS ~DA Y OF MARCH 1999 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: . /- 1\ r (J.:-' ( t.-/\ , /1 i (( D.JL.J (0 t-,--C-z., I LORNAL.DELANEY A- Clerk,of(~ Board ," \.1 ., \ . APPR~VE~' AS TO FORM ONLY: ~. . s:~~~G~V\ Director of Commum Development-, '. '. r ( .' i ) 1{' " ,f'U- It r ELANNE DALZELL rosecuting Attorney 2J~ iL,-u.rIt I DAN HARPOLE, Urman Excused Absence RICHARD E. WOJT, Member lOG ITEM # -------- Page:_.Cp- OL_ JEFFERSON COUNTY b S/I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 31C\ AI Scalf, Director MEMORANDUM GMA FILES PLANNING COMM/SSION./NFOR To: Planning Commission Members rv\A;led I-Jl-oJ Fr: Randy Kline, Department of Community Development Re: Items for January 17,2004 Planning Commission Meeting Date: January II, 200f I hope you all enjoyed a well-deserved break over the holidays. As you can see from the unprioritized list of pending planning projects that was sent to you last week, we have lots of work ahead of us in the New Year. Our first order of business will be compliance with the November 22, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order issued in regard to the County's use of the map correction process to establish densities at Camp Parsons and Black Point. While the Hearings Board did not object to the densities assigned to these two areas they did conclude that the map correction process failed to comply with the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act. Based on this order we will revisit these designations through a full public review process. With the goal of providing some background infotmation, I have enclosed a copy of the Hearings Board Order (see pages 5-6 and 9-10 for specific discussion regarding use of the map correction process) and a copy of a February 23, 1999 staff report related to this issue. See you all on Wednesday. See Pbo (A ~",e1~ # lOG ITEM Pag~ ..-.,-,,~ Building Permits/ Inspections Development Review Division Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 (360) 379-4450 Long Range Planning Division Staff Report To Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1999 Re: Land Use Map Correction pursuant to Land Use Policy 1.5.3 of the Comprehensive Plan File Number: MCR99-000 I Applicant: Al Scalf, Director of Community Development APPLICATION: Request to investigate and correct possible mapping errors on the Jefferson County Land Use Map. Request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, through the map correction process, in order to eliminate the "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" designation for privately owned parcels. Privately owned parcels currently designated "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" would revert to the "Rural Residential" land use density assigned under the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (No. 05-0214-96). PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Address the request as a map correction, notify affected property owners. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Staff report Application submitted by the Department of Community Development BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Owner: Area I: Chevy Chase Golf Course Bruce V. and Barbara Bailey 10446 40th Place NE Seattle, W A 98155-4208 Area 2: Seattle Council of Boy Scouts of America P.O. Box C-440408 Seattle, W A 98144-6015 Area 3: Black Point Properties LLC 308913 U.S. Highway 101 Brinnon, W A 98320-9719 LOG iTEM. #' . . page,~-1r-~ ot_._~_ Site Area: Area I: Northeast shore of Discovery Bay Area 2: South of Quilcene and on the north shore of Jackson Cove Area 3: South of Brinnon and in the Black Point vicinity Site Address: Area I: 740 I Cape George Road, Port Townsend, W A Area 2: Not Applicable Area 3: Not Applicable Legal Description: Area I: Portion of Township 30N Range I W Sections 29,30, and 31 Area 2: Portion of Township 26N Range 2W Section 13 Area 3: Portion of Township 25N R~nge 2W Sections 15 and 22 Land Use Classification: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject parcels "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation." This land use designation is not included in the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 and therefore uncertainty exists regarding uses allowed in this district. Current Use of the Property Area I: The subject parcels constitute the Chevy Chase Golf Course. Area 2: The subject parcels are used by the Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts of America for a seasonal Boy Scout Camp. Area 3: The subject parcels are currently unused. At the time of designation, the subject parcels were used as a privately owned recreational vehicle park. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 1.5.3: ,Mapping errors that are clearly erroneous based on inaccurate information or technical error on the part of the County may be corrected at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Map corrections of this nature shall not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In this case; a privately owned golf course, a privately owned Boy Scout camp, and privately owned property that was used as a "membership" recreational vehicle park were designated as "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" based upon the type of use occurring on the property at the time of designation (this designation first occurred on the February 24, 1997 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map). Two of these uses are currently permitted in the rural residential zones and therefore do not require a separate zoning classification. The third use, the Boy Scout Camp, while not currently listed as a permitted use, should be permitted throughout the rural residential areas of Jefferson County. An amendment to the EICO would ensure this use does not remain non-conforming for an extended period. MCR99-000 I.doc 2 LOG ITEM # P ----~ age_J_of --..--'----.. 03/01/99 The intent of the "Parks, Preserves, and Recreation" designation is to identify county, state, and federally owned parks, preserves, and recreation areas. This designation does not provide any benefit to privately owned parcels. Therefore, the Long-range Planning Division recommends that the subject properties revert to the "Rural Residential" designation and density assigned pursuant to the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (No. 06-0828-98). The uses for which the subject properties are currently being utilized fall within the range of uses permitted or envisioned as appropriate under the 'Rural Residential" designation. As stated above, golf courses and RV parks are currently permitted conditionally within the "Rural Residential" designation. In order to accommodate uses such as the Boy Scout Camp, staffrecommends amending Table 13 in the Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (No. 06-0828-98) to allow "Recreational facilities including parks, playgrounds, campgrounds, lodges, cabins and youth camps" as conditionally permitted uses within the "Rural Residential" designation. MCR99-000 I .doc LOG ITEM 3 03/0 1/99 # p -1'0 - , age of -------,.--- -_._..""'--"~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMEl\TT HEARINGS BOARD OL YMPIC ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION AND ORDER No. 00-2-0019 Petitioners, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent, and, BRUCE and BARBARA BAILEY, Intervenors SYNOPSIS OF THE ORDER We find the following map amendments and comprehensive plan (CP) amendments referenced in our order to be noncompliant. The expansqon of limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMlRDs) fails to meet the requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA, Act) to establish logical outer boundaries delineated by the built environment. The "clearly erroneous" mapping amendment method was inappropriately applied to mapping errors in the magnitude of 600 acres. It also . precluded public participation. We do not find that the density results of the County's action were noncompliant We find the amendment rezoning the Bailey property to be compliant- We do not find substantial interference with the goakof the Act. Westem Washinglon Growth Man3gemenl Hearings Board 905 24th Way SW. Suite '6-2 PO Box 40953 Olympia. Washington 98504-0953 Phon.:~-B966 Fax; 360-064-8975 lOG ITEr\A # Page~,-ICOf ~~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PROCEDURAL HISTORY. Petitioners Olympic Environmental Council, ct al. challenged Jefferson County's comprehensive plan amendments and its usc of the "clearly erroneous" mapping error method in changing the zoning for several Jefferson County properties. The hearing on the merits of the case was held September 28, 2000, in the City ofPolt Townsend C01.Ulcil Chambers at City Hall. All three Doard members were present. Janet Welch appeared for petitioners. David Alvarez, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, represented Jefferson County. Stephen Sheehy represented Intervenors Bailey. ,rRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY. BURDEN OF PRooF1 AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.320(1), the CP amendments are presumed valid upon adoption. The burden is on Petitioners to demonstrate that the action taken by Jefferson Cotmty is not in compliance ~ith the requirements of the GMA. RCW 36.70A.320(2). Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.320(3), we "shall fllld compliance unless [we] determine that the action by (Jefferson County] is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements of [the GMAJ." Tn order to find the County's action clearly erroneous, we must be "left with the finn and definite conviction that a mistake has been made." Department of Ecology v. PUD 1,121 Wn.2d 179, 201 (1993). Final Decisioa and Order Case 100-2-0019 November 22. 2000 ~e2 >~'"'. Il'-C'M' U:.Jb, t :'_J Wntem WlIShll)gton Gl'OVo'Ih Management Hearings Soard 905 24th W8'J SW. Suite *B'2 Po Box .cogS3 Olympia. Washington 98504-0953 ?bono: 3~664-8006 Fou: 360~-897S ./ tit: ~~.__._.......,;- P8<Je _,. t1:"_~. ._._, .,._~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES Petitioners challenged actions of the County which expanded three LAMIRDs, charging that the expansions went beyond logical outer boundaries, were inconsistent with the Growth Management Indicators (GMls) called for by the CP, and were lUltimely in that the CP calls for a reevaluation of boundaries only after the Tn-Area Special Study was completed. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 99-01, 99- 02,99-05. They further alleged that commercial- industrial expansion is inappropriate within LAMlRJ:)s, particularly when it causes LAMlRD expansion. Petitioners asserted that the Board of County Commissioners (HOCC) failed to comply with the CP by responding to site-specific rezone requests rather than awaiting the results of the StUdy to set final boundaries. They maintained that LAM!RD boundary expansions do not comply with the Act. Regarding "clearly erroneous" mapping errors (Jefferson County's term), Petitioncrs alleged that there was no documentation of a technical error or inaccurate information causing the purported error. Map corrections (MCR) 98-0001,99-0001. They maintained that there was no provision in the CP for properties to revert to preplan zoning, such as the densities found in the Interim Grov.1h Strategies Ordinance (IGSO), densities assigned to the Scout Camp, the recreational vehicle park, and the golfeourse owned by the Bai1cys, (MeR 99-0001) and (0 mineral resource lands (MeR 98-0001). Petitioners contested the rezone of the Bailey property from the "mapping error" rezone (one unit per 10 acres) to a second rezone through tbe CP amendment process (one unit per 5 acres). They asserted that the BOCC used an "old pattern oflow- density residential sprawl as' a basis for allowing the development of a new pattern of Final ~i$ioD and Onlcr Case #00-2-0019 Novembu 22. 2000 hsc3 Westorn Washington Grow1h Man:k9_nl Hearings Soard 905 24th Way SW, Svit. '8-2 PO Box 40953oOlympia. Washir\9lOn g8S()4.-0953 Phone; 360-664.a966 fax: 300-664.8975 # lOG ITEM Page J<. ~ - -~v ---- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 low-density spraw1." They noted that the County had failed to apply GMls as called for by the CP. We decline to review MeR 98-0001, as it was not included in the petition fOt'review or the prehearing order. CONTENTIONS LAMIRDS Petitioners observed that the amendments to the CP diminished the excellence of a fine document. Petitioners noted that the question of whether LAMIRDs are expandable has not previously been addressed by the Growth Management Hearings Boards. Petitioners maintained that the object of LAMlRDs was to limit more intensive rural development. Therefore, they are not expandable except under certain conditions of a CPo In this case Petitioners noted that the CP provided for changes to LAMlRDs after special studies regarding urban growth areas (UGA) were complete. Petitioners further noted that we had insisted on this condition since the very first Jefferson County case in 1994. The County has still not completed the study. Expansion ofLA.\4IRDs, they argued, was therefore inconsistent with the CP and noncompliant with the GMA and our previous orders. In arguing against expansion, Petitioners noted that County Finding of Fact #52 . identified the properties as adjacent to cxisting commercial property which, they claimed, is ''thc exact argument that has in the past led to strip development and commercial sprawl." They commented that "iufill" onto vacant property within a ~ommercial bOtmdary is very different from expansion of that boundary to include adjacent vacant land. Theyargtled that this definition of "infill" could best be PiDa.l Dc;ision aOO ORler Cue #00-2-0019 November 22, 2000 P~e4 Western Washin910n Gl'OlIf1h Management Hollfirlgs Board 905 24th Way SW. Sui\e '8-2 PO Box 40953 Olympia. Washington 98504-0953 Phono: 3&0-61>4-8966 ~ax.: 360-6&4-8975 L(>G ITEM #. FJa.ge_J~_ o~_~..__ 1 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 described as "outfill." Further they noted this would not concentratc growth into limited areas whose boundaries are delineated predominately by the built environment. The COWlty responded that this was the very same CP which wc had earlier found to be all excellent document for growth management. Cotton v. Jefftrson County, 98-2- 0017. The County described its actions as de minimus, and asserted that the need for expansion was the result of originally "tight-lining" the boundaries ofLAMIRDs. It pointed to a need for an additional 300 acres of commercial area as a strong justification for expansion of LAMTRD boundaries. The County also pointed out that we had never made a ruling against LAMIRD expansion. Mappinl! Error and CP Amendments Petitioners argued that it was a mistake to use the ""clearly erroneous" mapping error approach for an area larger than 600 acres and pointed out that staff had recommended using the second mapping error approach, involving a CP amendment. They stated that the assignment of residential density for more than 600 acres of rural land was a GMA action and should have been subject to full public review as recommended by staff (Ex. 3-28, Staff Report, p. 3). They also asserted that reversion to an ordinance predating the CP (the 1050) resulted in a land use map that was internally inconsistent as well as noncompliant with the GMA. They alLeged that there was no public participation, no documentation of the action, and that the action was counter to staff recommendations. With regard to the CP amendment rezoning the Bailey property (CPA 99-13), Petitioners stated that "if the County's intent is to preserve the golf course for open space and recreational purposes, then it should have zoned the county laud appropriately, requiring the property to be maintained in large acreages v,ith Fwal D<<ision >>00 Orlkr Case #00-2-0019 November 22. 2000 ~tt:5 Wll.lllern Wa$hing\ol'l Grow1tl Managomonl Hearings Board 905 24th W"If SW. Suilo IIB-2 PO BOll 40953 Olympia. Washington 98504-OgS3 Pl\one; 3&0-664.8966 Fu.: 360.G&4-897S # lOG ITEM p ---- , age 1'.r----:--. --~- y-_ of ---...."""---.....,-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 appropriate clustering provisions availablc." They claimed that the BOCC action had accelerated the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development. The County maintained that the three properties in MeR 99-0001, including the Bailey property, needed underlying density, and that this density was omitted in the Private Reserves and Recreation (PR&R) zoning classification, owing to an oversight. The County asserted that this enactment would not reduce the variety of rural densities as it was only a small percentage of the rural area. The County acknowledged that GMIs include population growth. land capacity, economic indicators, changes in teclmology, omissions or errors. or a declared emergency. The County asserted that <'it is doubtful that the County's plan intcnded the GMIs would have any significant. b-...aring on whether or not the plan amendments should succeed." The County recognized that it is "forced to give life to all of the language in its plan." Yet, claimed the County, "this should not change the outcome of this petition for review," Intervenors Bailey argued that they intended to preserve space for recreation, and noted that 130 acres were already devoted to the golf course. The 70 undeveloped acres needed to be more dense than the one to 10 density assigned after the mapping error approach because the golf course development would not otherwise be . economically viable. Final ~ision Uld Ouk: C&<e #00-2.0019 November 22, 2000 "~c6 lC>G ITEM #_-- i:.. Jaae l~._.._..of_._ ',. ,.....' _..,-"-',,,......,- Weslem Washington GrowU'l Managemenl H.arings Bo:lrd 905 24th Way Sw. Suile .e-2 PO Box 40953 Otympia. Wa:.hinglon 96504-0953 Phone: ~-8966 Fax: 360-664-8975 I ., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONCLUSION LAMIRDS We conclude from the record in this case that the County was clearly erroneous in approving CPAs 99-01~ -02. and -05, allowing expansion ofLAMIRDs. and thus failed 10 comply with the AcL. In each case the expansion went beyond !.he original logical outer boundaries as predominantly delineated by the built environment. The expansions were also inconsistent because the County failed to apply the GMIs called for in the CPo Further, the County was clearly in error in assuming that LAMIRDs were an appropriate target for commercial industrial expansion in the County in general. LAMIRDs were never designed to accommodate large commercial industrial tracts. . The Act cans for such accommodation in UGAs or other special districts under GMA sections .365 and .367. The Discovery Bay property, including the motel of Mr. Moa, was expanded by amendment l?eyond the logical outer boundary of the Discovery Bay NeighborhoodlVisitor LAJvlIRD. The County ordinance precluded use of residential areas for drain fields to support commercial enterprises. Without the rezone and expansion of the LAMIRD, the motel could not expand. The added land is vacant. In Vines v. Jefferson County, #98-2-0018, the County denied an addition to a LAMIRD preventing Mr. Vines from expanding his commercial enterprise. Like the Vines LAMIRD, the Moa expansion does not provide a logical outer boundary predominately delineated by the built environment as of 1990. It is more pro~}y termed "outfiU" than "infill." The same holds true for the Spigarelli and Smith LAMIRD expansions. Fiml Decision a1KI Order ~ #OO-HlO19 Novcntber 22. 2000 Page 7 WesJern Waslll"9lon Growth Management Hearin9s Bo:ud 905 24\h W;q SW. Suite .B-2 PO Bar 40953 Olympia, Wuhlll910n 9SS04-09S3 Phone: 360.664-8966 Fax: 360-664-8975 lTEM '.--....,---..........--- ,... .L-:1.._.CJ~_.__ 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II LAMIRDS were never designed to be used as a safety valve for commercial growth and expansion. LAMIRD commercial activity is limited to infill development and redevelopment within the logical outer boundary as predominately delineated by the buill environment in 1990. Tn and of itself, need for additional acreage is not a justification for expanding LAMIRDs beyond their logical outer boundaries. Commercial acreage should be encouraged within Urban Growth Areas. LAMIRDs are not required to have population assigned to them, whereas UGAs are. Expanding LAMIRDs to increase commercial acreage or population removes incel1tives for directing population growth to UGAs. Ibe BOCC may wish to "fully utilize any and all opportunities provided by law that might promote rural commercial growth." County briefp. 18. Expansions ofLAMIRD boundaries is not an "opportunity provided by law." The "limited" in LAMIRD means just that. The CP states that when the Special Study is complete the County will decide whether or not the LAMIRD interim boundaries are sufficient in light of the need for additional UGAs. The County notes in ils brief that the Tri-Area Special Study was released in 1999 by Trottier (Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast). In contrast, Petitioners allege that actions to expand LAMIRD boundaries were untimely because they were taken prior to the completion of the Special Study. Petitioners pointed out that the Trottier report was only the first phrase of the Tri- Area Study. . The CP funher requires GMIs to be a basis for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan regarding UGAs and LAMlRDs. The CP delineates the indicators which .shalJ be considered as the basis for findings regarding the necessity for UGA designation or LAMIRD expansion. The record shows no clear findings regarding the three subject LAMIRDs. We found the County's action regarding the application of GMIs to be inconsistent with its comprehensive plan. I ./ Ymal DocDion and Order CalO 100-2-0019 November 22. 2000 I'age 8 Whlem Washinglon Growth Man~ Hearings Board 90S 24th Way SW. Suite '8-2 PO Box 40gSS Olympia. Wastlin!Jton 91lS04-0953 Phone; 360-15&4-6966 Fax: 360-664-e~75 LOG ITEM # . . . Paaet<l of . ' ,-"',' .........:..-.....".""--- "'_:_--,- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mappin~ Errors and Other CP Amendments We have a fIrm and definite conviction that the County's use of the <<clearly erroneous" mapping error approach failed to comply with the public participation requirements of the Act. Public participation is required for a change of this magnitude of more than 600 acres. The need for public participation is underscored by the Bailey's own statement in Ex. 133 (12-1-99 letter to the Planning Commission): "On July 16, 1999, we submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application to Jefferson County for the approximately 200 acres of our property, that presently contains the Chevy Chase Golf Course. We did so because: 1. When we were made aware of a decision by Jefferson County on March 1, 1999 that was an attempt to correct, a "clearly erroneous mapping error" that identified 0\Jr property (as well as other privately owned land parcels) on the Comprehensive Land Use Map as "Private Reserves and Recreation." With this correction our property was assigned a density of RR 1/1 0, but we were never informed of and/or included in this decision making process. Obviously. had we been informed in March, we would have made then the same case we have in this current fonnal application."(Emphasis supplied) TIllS approach was also internally inconsistent, as GMI were not applied. We note, however, that the densities assigned through this approach were in compliance with the GMA ,requirement for a variety of rural densities. We do not fInd they contributed to low-density sprawl. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate clear error on the part of County regarding CPA 99-13, despite the fact that the stated aim of the Baileys in preserving a County recreational facility will be more difficult to meet because the County failed to distinguish the properly as a unique zone for recreational purposes, and because of Final Deci~i"n ~ Onlcr Case 100-2-0019 November 22, 2000 Pa~e 9 Western Washlngton Growlh M~nagemool Hoarings Board 905 24111 Way SW, Suite '8-2 PO Box 40953 Olympia. Wasl'lirlgton ge504-0953 PhOnc:~~8~ Fax:~664.897S L()G ITEM #; p .----- , agfi...,.,L:l,_.of ~.""."..........~ 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the absence of clustering provisions, which would make the operation of tIle golf course and propenics more economically viable. The County was within its discretion to consider surrounding densities in its rezone deliberations. One unit 10 5-acre density does not, per se, constitute Jow-density sprawl. We do not fmd that reliance on the densities in the JOSO constitutes failure 10 comply with the Act as the resultant densities are within the parameters of varieties ofrural densities called for in Section .070 of the Act. T nvalidit\' Petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that the County's noncompliance substantially interferes with the goals ofrhe Act. ORDER We find CPAs 99-01, -02, and -OS and MCR 99-0001 fail 10 comply with the Act and remand them to the County. Within 90 days oftbis oIder the County must return the logical outer boundary of the Chimicum Neighborhood Visitor Crossroad. Ness' Comer General Crossroad, and Discovery Bay Neighborhood Visitor Crossroad, to their positions prior to the COl.U1ty's approval of the above- noted CPAs. MeR 99- 0001 (Recreational Vehicle Park and Scout Camp only) must be reconsidered under the map amendments approach inVOlving an error in interpretation of criteria. This approach includes full public participation. With regard to the third property under MCR 99-0001 (Bailey's Chevy Chase Golf Course) the spirit and intent of the public participation requirements, including consideration of GMIs, was achieved through the CPA 99-13 process, and need not be repeated. RCW 36.70A.l40 r-inaJ Decision aod Ordc:r ClISl: 100-2-0019 November 22, 2000 P~10 WeS/Btn W/lshltlgton GI"DWth Management Hoarings Boord 90s 24th Way SW. Suile .8-2 PO Box 4()9S3 Olympia. Washington 98504-0953 Phono: 360-664'8'366 Fax: 360-664.8975 L()G iTEM # p-'. "~'---'---'------' t'Jaqe ~ 1) of "'" ..._.~.,."-~.",...,-.,.--,,.,- -_..~----- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 Any findings of noncompliance included in previous sections of this final decision are incorporated in this order by reference. Findings of Fact pursuant to RCW 36.70A.270(6) arc adopted and attached as Appendix I and incorporated herein by reference. SO ORDERED this 22Jld day of November, 2000. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT fIEARlNGS BOARD Les Eldridge Board Member fIlu f1lJ,Wd.l/e,~ William H. Nielsen Board Member Final D~-rion aDd 0nJa Case 100-2-001' Noye~ 22, :zooo l'agell LC)G ITEM # '..--- Page~....:~ of --_.__.""",.~ Western Washington Growth Mana9'lmonl He~ Board 905 24th Way SW. SuiICl '8-2 PO eO" 40053 Olyrnp;tl. Wosmngton 98504-0953 Phone: 360-664-89G6 Fax: 36<>-664-8975 .1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 2 FINDINGS OF FACT APPENDIX I 1. Logical outer boUndaries (LOBs) of LAMIRDs must be delineated predominately by the built environment. 2. After establishing such LOBs, Jefferson County expanded its LAMIRDs into vacant land beyond these LOBs in CPA 99-01, 02, and 05. 3. There is no provision in the Act for interim LAMlRD outer boundaries. 4. GMIs were not applied to the CP As in question. 5. One unit per five acres does not constitute low-<iensity sprawl under this record. 6. The failure of the County to provide density for more than 600 acres of PP&R space does not constitute a "clearly erroneous" mapping error under . the terms of the CP. Pinal Decision and Order esse 101)..2-0019 NOl'l:mbet 22, 2000 Pll~12 lOG ITe # c~11 P ----- . age '7". '1 ---. -... .--- "-- -:...J.::_ or. ~-..".,--.........; We8lorn Washington Growth ManagolPlOnl ....llfin9s Board llO5 24th Way SW. Suite _8-2 Po ~ 40953 Oty~ Waminglon 98S04-0llS3 Phone: 360-664-8966 Fax: 360-6&4-8975 , &~,~ In the Matter of Approving Certain Comprehensive Plan .A.mendments Proposed During the 1999-2000 Amendment Cycle } } } } i^SDD LJ- ~ ,-(t) /b~ STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson RESOLUTION NO. 27-00 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as is required by the Growth Management Act as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., set in motion the proper professional review and public notice and comment with respect to the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, as is mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan have been approved by the Board because that particular amendment was found to be in conformance with the Growth Management Act; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that it approves certain of the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that it makes the following general Findings of Facts applicable to all of the adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments that are described and listed in the attachment to this Resolution. 1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998. 2. The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the citizens of this County 011 a regular basis, although it need not be made available more than once per year. 4. This particular amendment "cycle" began in mid-1999, the deadline for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 5. Some 14 proposed amendments worked their way through the entire process laid out in state statutes for such amendriients. 6. Those 14 proposed amendments went through professional review at the County and State level. 7. Those 14 proposed amendments went through reVIew by the County's Planning Commission. ~e,e- c-~A ~or~ ~\l-e.'1 ") II LOG ITEM Pa~ '-..,-..1..- of --'--"" Resolution No. 27-00 Page 2 8. Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the County's Planning Commission. 9. Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. 10. Those 14 proposed amendments were the subject of a vote to approve/reject by the Board of County Commissioners. 11. The eight proposed amendments that are described in this attachment were approved by the Board of County Commissioners because they were found to be in conformance with the Growth Management Act. 12. The Board of County Commissioners has generated for each of the eight proposed amendments a set of Findings of Fact (marked as "FF") and Conclusions of Law ("CL") that relate solely and specifically to that approved amendment. They are attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 13. County personnel have organized and collected the record, i.e., those documents that were relied upon by the Board in reaching the decisions that are memorialized within this Resolution. 14. ' The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for each of the specific approved amendments are hereby incorporated in this Resolution as if stated in full here. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of April 2000. . chard W ojt, Chair dJ Dan~o~ &tmgfOrd. Seal: ..............----- :::::-........ "<-';:1TCoi.f'~, '-"~'~ ~/..." '. ;..... <t. - .. "\I'; " . " ..". . 0 . '. .... A\ ...: ... .-s. , ", ., "}.;.;" '" "4.4'1 ~ ,. . ~i:., '/\..;.;:t~"- \"/ ~ : \ :;:~ '~'~')-~'i) : ~ . '''~''. ..'1, ~. ~/. ... . ."'~. ~.~. /. . ':'- . .~ \.: ..~_. ..,. . ',' .,. >>Ii:J..i If ...~_~ L..... - ~.( -" /" ~.. #t0t~)~ . " .~, ~ ATTEST: cY~a fU~' Lorna Delaney, CMC . Clerk of the Board JEFF SON COUNTY DEP / F MMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM: r{J [t~-J ~ 3 )3i>)CiJ Prosecuting Attorney ~ LOG ITEM' # ' -f p.-......- - . .'. ""'-..-.~ . aCe ~ -f ---- ..; ~.-. 0 - -.,._--.=,..,""-"-', Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 1 CPA #001 (Smith) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: This amendment would change the zoning of 3.57 acres of land located at the northwest comer of the Chimacum intersection from Rural Residential 1:5 and would include these acres within the boundary of the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.01O et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF) County planners determined that this project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations, specifically storm water management. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-01 on January 5, 2000 and fmalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF) The County Planning Commission was unable to form a majority opinion on this proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. (FF) The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended that the County rej ect this amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9, 2000. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was. not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF). Two persons provided oral testimony at the public hearing before the County Commissioners. (FF) # lOG ITEM .--- Paqe ---=--. ",. --2..C..of ...~-."",,-,~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 2 There was no written testimony submitted at the public hearing or by 5 :00 p.m. on February 11,2000. (FF) The Board of COUflty Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 01 on February 14,2000. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners entered upon their record information that this applicant possesses at present certain indicia of a commercial property, specifically a water tap or taps and fire flow of potentially sufficient quantity (as measured in gallons/second) to be deemed commercial rather than residential in nature. (FF). The 3.5 acres (more or less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment were included in at least one of the three proposals considered by the Board of County Commissioners when the Board reviewed and discussed creating bOUfldaries for non-incorporated Urban Growth Areas. Thus, the land in question has always been considered suitable for designation as commercial land. Any designation to the contrary undertaken when "logical boundaries" of pre- existing commercial areas were drawn in 1998 was a step taken as a matter of caution: the goal then was to not overstock (as compared to the needs of the COUflty over the next 20 years) the County with undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL). The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the 3.5 acres (more or less) that are the subject of this amendment will not cause an overstocking within the County's Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated population and commercial needs for the next 20 years) undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the 3.5 acres (more or less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment as well enactment of other amendments that increase commercial acreage in unincorporated areas will not cumulatively lead to an overstocking within the County's Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated population and commercial needs for the next 20 years) UfIdeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (CL) The County Commissioners decided that approval of this particular proposed amendment would direct future rural commercial growth to a pre-existing (July 1, 1990) limited area of more intensive rural development in support ofRCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). (CL) The County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve this amendment, finding it in conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL) lC)(3 ITEtVi # Pape:_i~.. oi--- _._.,-".....,,~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27 -00 Page 3 CP A #002 (Moa) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: The amendment changes the zoning of7.62 acres ofland located at the foot of Discovery Bay from Rural Residential 1:5 and would include these acres within the boundary of the Discovery Bay Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. (FF) The Commissioners took legislative notice that this real property is located at one of the "gateways" to eastern Jefferson County and thus is and will be an excellent site for a tourism- based enterprise. (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF). This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations, specifically storm water management and protection of critical areas, as that term is defined and regulated by County Ordinance. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-02 on January 5,2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF) The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that they reject this amendment. (FF) A minority report supporting adoption of this proposed amendment was signed and forwarded to the County Commissioners by two members of the Planning Commission. (FF) The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended that the County reject this amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony during a public hearing on February 9,2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF). With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the , l()G ITEM ......,'~ - l'?' '~.~ f-Ja ..., ,ge~22-.0f ~~~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) (FF) Approximately one half-dozen persons provided oral testimony at the public hearing. The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 02 on February 14,2000. (FF) The family-run business located on the real property in question existed prior to July 1, 1990 and is and was always a legal use at that site. (FF). The County Commissioners orally noted that prevention of overly-intense development of the real property which is the subject of this amendment is assured because pursuant to the current County development regulations the applicant is limited to a structure of no more than 7,500 square feet. (FF) The real property in question has been historically perceived as commercial land, e.g., the County's 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the 1992 Interim Zoning Ordinance both gave it a commercial designation. Thus, the land in question has always been considered suitable for designation as commercial land. Any designation to the contrary undertaken when "logical boundaries" of pre-existing commercial areas were drawn in 1998 was a step taken as a matter of caution: the goal then was to not overstock (as compared to the needs over the next 20 years) the County with undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (FF) The subject property is adjacent to a parcel that is presently zoned commercial. (FF) The County Commissioners decided that approval of this particular proposed amendment would direct future rural commercial growth to a pre-existing (July 1, 1990) limited area of more intensive rural development in support ofRCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). (CL) This proposed amendment will advance Comprehensive Plan policy goal EDG (Economic Development Goal) 8.0, to "promote the development of tourist and tourist-related activities as a provider of employment" because it promotes a tourist-related business. (CL) This proposed amendment will advance Comprehensive Plan policy goal LNG 8.0, to "support the continued existence and economic viability of legally established land uses which become nonconforming as a result of the Comprehensive Plan," because it removes the nonconforming aspect of this tract. (CL) This proposed amendment will advance Comprehensive Plan policy LNP 8.3, which encourages expansion or replacement of pre-existing commercial and industrial uses in rural areas because it directs rural commercial growth to a site where such commerce is already transacted. (CL) , 0#' (' '......cM.... il.... v Ill..... I '# PaQe~ ;rOf--'-' ~. ......-,.,-..,.."',...'.C.~A~_._~. ......~.,.."'" Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 5 With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL). The County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve this proposed amendment, finding it in conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL). lOG iTEM # p--- · .age___.2J~Of - ---.-.~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 6 CP A #004 (Johnston) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: The amendment removes parcels totaling approximately 276 acres located along Dosewallips Road in Brinnon from a Commercial Forest designation and instead zones those acres "Rural Residential 1 :20." (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.OI0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF) This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations, specifically storm water management and protection of critical areas, presumably through generation of a geotechnical report. (FF). The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-04 on January 12, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF) The Planning Commission voted unanimously for the approval of this amendment. (FF) The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended that the County reject this amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9, 2000. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 04 on February 14,2000. (FF) With respect to this amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular amendment. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF). The Board of County Commissioners found that these two parcels, one of 148 acres, another of 128 acres, were improperly classified as commercial forest of long-term significance LOG ITEM # Paoe .:Z: 0 ...-;:--"-- ~., // Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 7 because the total acreage (276 acres) falls short of the minimum 320 acres needed to meet the Commercial Forest designation found within the County's Forest Land Ordinance. (FF) The northern most parcel is bordered on the west by land zoned RR 1 :20 (Rural Residential 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres) and national forest land. The southern parcel is bounded by national forest land and land zoned RR 1:5. (FF) Designation of the two parcels mentioned in this application at the zoning density of RR 1 :20 complies with LNP 3.3.3 ofthe County's Comprehensive Zoning Plan because the tracts are adjacent to other 20 acre parcels and adjacent to national forest lands. (CL) Table 3-8 of the County's Comprehensive Plan indicates that land adjacent to national forest lands should be zoned at RR 1 :20, precisely the zoning density requested by this applicant. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners is empowered by the County's Comprehensive Plan to rescind and correct mapping errors. (CL) A majority of the County Commissioners voted to approve this amendment, finding it in conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL) # L.(>G ITEM ff'"'.___ r"age ~ -~.4)_ of ------.,..",.-~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27 -0 0 Page 8 CPA #005 (Spigarelli) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: The amendment would change the zoning on a five (5) acre parcel located adjacent to the northwest comer of the Ness' Comer General Commercial Crossroad from "Rural Residential 1 :20" to instead include these acres within the boundary of the adjacent commercial crossroad. (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.OI0 et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF) This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations, specifically a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report as required by the Critical Areas Ordinance. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-05 on January 5, 2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF) The County Planning Commission was unable to form any type of majority opinion with respect to this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (FF) The State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development recommended that the County reject this amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9, 2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF). With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CP A 99- 05 on February 14,2000. (FF) M. tC)G iTEfVi tj, - Palle bi.-.. -o--r." --. \0.1. '.....""._ "_,,,_.. .. "___,.",,.,_.......,., Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 9 Some eight people provided oral testimony at the public hearing. (FF) The five (5) acres (more or less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment were included in at least one of the three proposals considered by the Board of County Commissioners when the Board reviewed and discussed creating boundaries for non-incorporated Urban Growth Areas. Thus, the land in question has always been perceived as suitable for designation as commercial land. Any designation to the contrary undertaken when "logical boundaries" of pre- existing commercial areas were drawn in 1998 was a step taken as a matter of caution: the goal then was to not overstock (as compared to the needs of the County over the next 20 years) the County with undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (FF) The parcels under consideration in this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment have been zoned commercial in prior incarnations of the County's Zoning Code, specifically the 1992 Interim Zoning Code and the 1994 Zoning Code. (FF) Assuming that the five acres that is the subject of this proposed Comprehensive Plan i\mendment is added to the commercial acreage at Ness's Comer, the tight-line logical boundaries drawn in the wake of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan still represent a 41 % reduction from the commercial areas as they were drawn in the earlier 1994 Zoning Code. (FF) Enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would further the intent of LNP 5.2.3, the policy of directing future commercial growth in rural areas to avoid low density sprawl in those areas. (CL) Enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would further the intent of LNP 5.3, the policy of concentrating and containing commercial growth into areas that were predominantly built as of July 1, 1990 by promoting in-fill through development regulations. (CL). The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the five acres (more or less) that are the subject of this amendment will not cause an overstocking within the County's Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated population and commercial needs for the next 20 years) undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners concluded that inclusion of the five acres (more or less) that are the subject of this proposed amendment as well enactment of other amendments that increase commercial acreage in unincorporated areas will not cumulatively lead to an overstocking within the County's Comprehensive Plan of surplus (when compared to anticipated population and commercial needs for the next 20 years) undeveloped commercial acreage in unincorporated areas. (CL) The County Commissioners decided that approval of this particular proposed amendment would direct future rural commercial growth to a pre-existing (July 1, 1990) limited area of more intensive rural development in support ofRCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). (CL) t/: L(JG ITEM-p-- ')agEL~ ~"l.~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 10 With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL). The County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve this amendment, finding it in conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL). l(;G ITEM # p--:--~----'_.-- , aqe ?l~ of ,->. . '-u'~ .'..' "..-..." '""_.~.,---.. Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 11 CP A #012 (Hilton) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: The amendment would, if approved, change the zoning of a twenty (20) acre parcel located between West Valley Road and Center Road from "Rural Residential 1 :20" to "Rural Residential 1: 1 0." (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a determination of non-significance. (FF) The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development ("DCTED") stated in a letter dated December 1999 that it had no concerns with this amendment. The County Commissioners decided such a statement constitutes silence on the part of DCTED with respect to this amendment. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission determined that rezoning this subject property to RR 1:10 would not jeopardize the status quo with respect to any adjacent agricultural or forest resource lands. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission determined that rezoning this subject property to RR 1: 10 would not jeopardize the status quo with respect to any adj acent residential lands. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-12 on January 12,2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, recommended that the County Commissioners approve this amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9, 2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they LOG lTE~1l # Paqe 3s- of ~ ~. .........--,.,....-- ~..._~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27 - 0 0 Page 12 did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 12 on February 14,2000. (FF) The Commissioners find that the real property that is the subject of this Comprehensive Plan amendment is a region of the County where the largest lot in proximity to the subject real property is 9.16 acres, which is less than the proposed RR 1: 1 0 (one dwelling unit per 10 acres) zoning that is requested in this amendment. (FF) The County Commissioners and the County's planners have jointly reached the conclusion that designation of the subject parcel at RR 1 :20 was the result of an erroneous interpretation of the rural area criteria as applied to this parcel. (CL) The County Commissioners, upon the written advice of the County planners, decided that approval of this amendment would support LNP 3.3.2 of the County's Comprehensive Plan because the lot in question can be up zoned to RR 1: 10 since the lots nearby are between 1.83 acres in size and about 9 acres in size. (CL) With respect to this particular amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners at the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) Determining this Comprehensive Plan amendment conforms with the Growth Management Act, the County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve it. (CL) L()G ITEM # Pag€,__~~_,O(~ ~...=-~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 13 CP A #013 (}lailev) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law: The amendment would change the zoning of approximately 200 acres located between Cape George Road and South Discovery Road (which includes the Chevy Chase golf course) from "Rural Residential 1: 10" to "Rural Residential 1:5." (FF) County planning staff analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EP A (RCW 43.21C.01O et seq.) and arrived at a mitigated determination of non-significance. (FF) This project has probable impacts that can be mitigated under current County regulations, specifically by mandating a transportation study, a storm water management plan and a Critical Aquifer Recharge Report at the time when a site-specific application is made to the County's Department of Community Development. (FF) The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development wrote to the County in December 1999 recommending rejection of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on December 1, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-13 on January 12,2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19,2000. (FF) The County Planning Commission, by a bare majority vote of 5-2, voted to recommend rejection of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (FF) The two dissenting members of the County's Planning Commission provided the County Commissioners with a "minority report" explaining why, in their joint opinion, this amendment should be approved. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony regarding this amendment at their public hearings on February 9 and 10,2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated on the open record that they LOG ITEM #: Page_~7 of,' ~ --._-~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27 -00 Page 14 did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) Some dozen or so persons provided oral testimony with respect to this amendment at the public hearing held before the County Commissioners. This testimony reflected both support for and opposition to this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. (FF) The public record regarding this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is also extensive and includes documents advocating both approval and rejection of this amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 13 on February 14,2000. (FF) While the Baileys' holdings of some 195-200 acres are denominated as several parcels, all of those parcels are held in fee simple title by the applicants and have one common use at present, the Chevy Chase golf course. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners concludes that the phrase "a residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1 :5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with a) an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e. 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record" as found within LNP 3.3.1 (a) is an ambiguous phrase subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners finds that the ambiguous language of LNP 3.3 .1 (a), which is stated in full in the prior Finding of Fact, can be reasonably read to require them, when considering an amendment that touches upon that LNP, to consider the entire "area" where a lot or lots or located. Thus, they must consider more than merely the lot or lots that are the subject of the particular Comprehensive Plan amendment. (FF) The County Commissioners make the finding of fact listed above because of the language found in the Comprehensive Plan at LNG ("land use goal") 3.0, which states, in relevant part, that it is a policy of the Comprehensive Plan that land use decisions made by this County "[ e Jnsure that rural residential development preserves rural character, ......, is compatible with SURROUNDING land uses, and minimizes infrastructure needs." The County Commissioners find the inclusion of the word "surrounding" in that LNG quite instructive in this regard. (FF) The County Commissioners have utilized surrounding densities (as opposed to the densities extant for the parcels that are the subject of any specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment) when making decisions with respect to both the Johnston proposal (CPA 99-04) and the Hilton proposal (CP A 99-12}. (FF) The County Commissioners stated that in July and August of 1998, prior to the enactment of the County's Comprehensive Plan, they and the staff of the County's Department of Community Development were required to examine some 40 sites throughout the county to determine what zoning (e.g., should it be zoned at RR 1 :5, RR 1: 10 or RR 1 :20) would be L()G rrE"M' '# .. /r"j '--t r" BO, ,C)"~ -"_._~ ....,c .....t.-. ","_.." ~ " .0'__, "--":"'~,.,.#'..._~,"" ':.''''--'';'''", Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27 -00 Page 15 appropriate for those sites. Some of these 40 sites involved multiple Assessor's parcels in single or unified ownership. Some of these 40 sites involved a single parcel with (obviously) single ownership. In each case the Commissioners examined and considered the zoning density that had been applied to adjacent lots and parcels. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners received evidence from the County's planning staff (Department of Community Development) that approximately 4/5ths of the lots that surround or touch upon the Baileys' tracts are five acres or less in size. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners received evidence from the County's planning staff (Department of Community Development) that more than 9/1 Oths of the lots surrounding or abutting the Baileys' tracts are ten acres or less in size. (FF) The County's Comprehensive Plan, more specifically Table 3-2 on page 3-7, included 95 buildable lots at the site of the Baileys' tracts because the Baileys then had pending with the County a formal development application to subdivide their tracts, which would have permitted the eventual construction of 95 homes. (FF) Thus, the County Commissioners took notice when deliberating regarding this amendment that within the figure found in the column entitled "Existing Supply of Vacant Buildable Lots of Record" for the Quimper Peninsula (again see Table 3-2 on page 3-7) that figure includes and assumes there are 95 buildable lots on the Baileys' tracts. (FF) The upzoning of the Baileys' tracts to RR 1:5 would create no more than 40 buildable lots and thus with respect to the column entitled "Existing Supply of Vacant Buildable Lots of Record" for the Quimper Peninsula the net result of approving this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is to REDUCE the total number of "vacant buildable lots" by approximately 55. (FF) The County Commissioners received written testimony from the applicant that the upzoning of these tracts to RR 1:5 serves to at least, in small part, guarantee the continued existence of the existing use, the Chevy Chase Golf Course, a golf course open for the public's use which is also a source of employment and tourism dollars. (FF) There has been a golf course in continuous operation at the Chevy Chase site for some 75 years, or three-quarters of a century. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners concludes that if one assumes that this specific Comprehensive Plan amendment will be enacted, it should be noted that Jefferson County will continue to have a variety of rural residential densities, i.e., RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20. (FF) This proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, to the extent that it serves, in any manner, to preserve and maintain the existing golf course known as Chevy Chase at the site of this proposed amendment, also serves to promote and further goal 9 (encourage the development of recreational opportunities) of the Growth Management Act as codified at RCW 36.70A.020(9). (CL) LOG ITEM s . - ...,_,,~_ of ~'""",'------ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 16 Adoption of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment may serve, in some manner, to preserve the Chevy Chase golf course which has been in continuous existence for 75 years at the site that is the subject of this amendment, and preservation of that golf course serves to support planning goal #13 ("historic preservation") listed in the Growth Management Act and codified at RCW 36.70A.020(13). (CL) The Board of County Commissioners conclude that their interpretation of the ambiguous LNP (land use policy) 3.3.1 is consistent with the interpretation they have applied to other sites prior to adopting the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and consistent with the methodoloy they used when analyzing and deciding upon the resolution of the distinct Johnston and Hilton amendments. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners concludes that because some 4/5ths of the abutting and adjacent lots contain some five acres or less and that ratio increases to above ninety per cent (90 %) when the cut-off size is increased to ten acres or less, that as a matter of fairness, i.e. in order to not act in an "arbitrary and discriminatory" manner towards these applicants, the land in question should be rezoned to RR 1:5, i.e., one dwelling unit per five acres. To the extent that such a decision to rezone to RR 1:5 promotes fairness for the applicants as landowners, then goal #6 (property rights) of the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.020(6) has been promoted. (CL) The Board of County Commissioners, sitting in their quasi-judicial capacity with respect to this specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, is authorized and mandated to read an ambiguous statutory section, specifically LNP ("land use policy") 3.3.1 in a manner that is consistent with and does not render meaningless other closely-connected statutory sections, specifically LNG ("land use goal") 3.0. (CL.) The County Commissioners conclude that after the enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment there remains extant in Jefferson County a variety of rural densities, as mandated by RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) and LNP ("land use policy") 3.1 of the County's Comprehensive Plan. (CL) The County Commissioners conclude that approval of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is compatible with and satisfies the language of LNP ("land use policy") 3.3 and more specifically LNP 3.3.1. (CL) The County Commissioners conclude, pursuant to relevant decisions of the Western Washington GMHB, that zoning at a density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (known in this County as RR I :5), which follows from enactment of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, does not equate, perse, with a zoning density that rises to the level of a suburban/urban nature. (CL) The Commissioners find that this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would serve to reduce by at least 55 the number of excess buildable lots for the Quimper Peninsula as tabulated in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. While the tabulations for the Quimper Peninsula . ,,""',;: .-,""".-# i-l)G ITEM Pa'-o~::-~----"-~- .....(7 ,;"") _. ,_..,,--.,_.,...f _._,."..,.,~... Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 17 included the 95 residences the Baileys then intended to build at the Chevy Chase golf course, the Baileys would be, with this amendment, now eligible to build at most 39 or 40 residences. Reducing the official number of buildable lots located within the unincorporated portion of Jefferson County (as opposed to what is listed in the Comprehensive Plan table) serves to promote and further goal 2 (the reduction of low-density sprawl) of the Growth Management Act as codified at RCW 36.70A.020(2). (CL) The specific interpretation of LNP ("land use policy") 3.3.1 undertaken by the Commissioners in examining this Comprehensive Plan Amendment (as well as the amendments separately proposed by Johnston and Hilton) does nothing more than implement and follow the plain language of LNG ("land use goal") 3.0 found in the Comprehensive Plan, which mandates that any land use decisions should be made in such a way to "ensure that rural residential development preserves rural character, protects rural community identity [and] is compatible with surrounding land uses." This land use goal includes the word "surrounding" and the Commissioners considered that in deciding how they should interpret and utilize the ambiguous LNP. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) Determining that this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment conforms with the Growth Management Act, a majority of the County Board of Commissioners voted to approve it. (CL) 1_C>G 'TEM " (f, of :. ""....."..._;.~.._-,.:~".l.><._'=" "'~ -""__-',,_,.-.-- Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 18 CPA #014 (Olympic Property Group) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: The amendment would change the zoning of Ludlow Point Village Division 2 located along Paradise Bay Rd in Port Ludlow from MPR-MF ("Master Planned Resort-Multi Family") to MPR-SF ("Master Planned Resort-Single Family.") (FF) The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development ("DCTED") stated in a letter dated December 1999 that it had no concerns with this amendment. The County Commissioners found that this constitutes tacit approval of the amendment on the part of DC TED. (FF) County planners analyzed this proposal pursuant to the State EPA (RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a determination of non-significance. (FF) The County's Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The County's Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-14 on January 12,2000 and finalized its recommendation to the Board on January 19, 2000. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission concluded that redesignating the real property that is the subject of this amendment from MPR-MF (Master Planned Resort-Multi Family) to MPR-SF (Master Planned Resort- Single Family) more accurately reflects the improvements in existence at present at the site. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the approval ofthis proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners took public testimony at a public hearing on February 9,2000. (FF) There was neither written nor oral testimony on this amendment at the public hearing and up to the submission deadline of5 PM on February 11,2000 for written materials. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 14 on February 14,2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) Regarding this particular amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would decide on #: L()G ITEM Page-Ijli~-f' ._,~ "-'i-'~. l./' \,~, ~--.- '"'_....""...".,........,"" Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27 -00 Page 19 this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Plan. The individual Commissioners also stated on the open record that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application for an amendment. (FF) The impact of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is to limit the potential intensity of the lots in question, since it would only permit a less intense use, specifically single- family homes rather than multi-family dwellings. (FF) Twelve of the fourteen lots involved in this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment presently have single family homes located on them. (FF) The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is in compliance with and would further the Growth Management Act because it reflects the actual developed intensity of the lots within Ludlow Point Village Division 2. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) Because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would neither alter the population forecasts as they are found within the Plan nor alter the allocated non-urban population distribution, this amendment is in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, this amendment was unanimously approved by the County Commissioners as being in conformance with the Growth Management Act. (CL) lOG ITEM #: . p----- age (/':>--f '---..~ 0 ----...~~ Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27- 0 0 Page 20 CPA #018 (Public Works) Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law: This is a "text" amendment. If this amendment were adopted, the Utilities Element would be amended to add goals and policies implementing UTP 8.1: "Promote the wide spread availability of telecommunications technologies in cooperation with other public and private entities, to facilitate communication among members of the public, public institutions and businesses." (FF) County planners reviewed this proposal pursuant to the State EPA (RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and arrived at a determination of non-significance. (FF) The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development ("DCTED") stated in a letter dated December 1999 that it had no concerns with this amendment. Silence from DCTED, the Commissioners concluded, provides them with discretion to decide as they feel is appropriate. (FF) The Planning Commission took public testimony on this amendment at a public hearing on November 17, 1999. (FF) The Planning Commission held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99-18 on December 1 and formulated fmdings on December 15, 1999. (FF) The Jefferson County Planning Commission, by a 7-1 vote with one abstention, voted to recommend approval of this amendment. (FF) The Board took public testimony at a hearing on February 9, 2000. (FF) Each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they had not participated in any conversation outside a public meeting where they heard or learned of an argument or position relating to this amendment that was not also found within the public record relating to this amendment. (FF) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, each of the County Commissioners stated on the open record of the public hearing that they could hear and decide upon this proposed amendment without bias. The Commissioners also each stated on the open record that they would so decide on this amendment only during a public meeting and would decide based solely upon the evidence presented and the applicable criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan. The individual Commissioners further stated that they did not hold any financial self-interest in the outcome of this particular application. (FF) There was neither oral testimony nor written testimony from the citizens with respect to this amendment either at the public hearing or until the submission deadline for written testimony, the close of business on February 11,2000. (FF) The Board of County Commissioners held deliberations regarding amendment CPA 99- 18 on February 14,2000. (FF) L()G tTEM if..!' ;~~ Pa-o"" CJ-,L',,--. '-~. '" .~. nf ~ __,..._.._. ,.'.__; """"'"~, l(.", ~., --.,.~-~-, Exhibit A to Resolution No. 27-00 Page 21 Jefferson County, because much of the county has low (or rural) population densities, is considered a "high cost" region by the various businesses and firms that provide telecommunications services for the Olympic Peninsula. (FF) Adoption of this amendment would make the "Action Plan Principles, Goals and Strategies" of the "Jefferson County Technical Advisory Steering Committee" part of the Comprehensive Plan and by doing so furthers and implements UTG ("utilities, telecommunications goal") 8.0 of the Comprehensive Plan. (CL) Adoption of this amendment would make the "Action Plan Principles, Goals and Strategies" of the "Jefferson County Technical Advisory Steering Committee" part of the Comprehensive Plan arid by doing so furthers and implements UTP ("utilities, telecommunications policy") 8.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. (CL) Only through "aggregating" the broad-based information technology needs of this county, work that can be promoted and encouraged by the Jefferson County Technical Advisory Steering Committee, can the citizens and businesses of this County put themselves in the "best position for future negotiations and partnership with [the J telecommunications and cable television industries." This unified planning strategy is most consistently represented in the document entitled "Action Plan Principles, Goals and Strategies," the specific document that this amendment would formally make part of this Comprehensive Plan. (CL) With respect to this particular application for an amendment, the statements provided by the County Commissioners on the open record of the public hearing indicate that all of them had the ability to debate and vote on this amendment without violating this state's "appearance of fairness" doctrine. (CL) Acting in their legislative capacity, and finding that the proposed amendment is in conformance with the Growth Management Act, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted to approve this amendment. (CL) LOG ITEM # Paae" (f rof " ....),1:7~~_,~~._". _,,,_