HomeMy WebLinkAboutDCD Miles Sand and GravelRegular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Brent A. Butler, Director, Community Development
Josh D. Peters, Deputy Director, Community Development
Joel M. Peterson, Associate Planner, Community Development
DATE: May 22, 2023
SUBJECT: Presentation: Update on Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRL) for Miles
Sand and Gravel (MLA2021-00019)
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The review, analysis, and public process has been completed for a proposed 200-acre Mineral
Resource Land zoning overlay by Miles Sand and Gravel (MS&G) in the Wahl Lake
Extraction Area. This Comprehensive Plan amendment was initiated in 2021 and will join the
2023 amendment cycle for evaluation and decision.
ANALYSIS:
The existing 165-acre designated Mineral Resources Land Overlay (MRL) in the Wahl
Extraction Area has yielded much of the extractable mineral resources and areas have
undergone the reclamation process. MS&G proposes application of a Mineral Resource Land
zoning overlay to 200 acres of mineral resource land abutting the existing Mineral Resource
Land Overlay zone (Attachment B). Processing will still take place in the 19-acre approved
processing area at its current location on Wahl Lake Road. A conveyor would transport the
material from the new mining area to the existing processing area. Mining would continue to
follow Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements for segmental mining
and reclamation. The proposal would not increase production rate or alter existing number of truck
trips, causing no change to traffic.
On March 1, 2021, MS&G submitted application materials, geotechnical reports, and a State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist. The complete review and analysis have been
delayed by Community Development until this time due to staffing shortages and increased
workloads (Attachment C, Resolution 472-21, extension of amendment timeline). Thus, this
amendment will be reviewed within the 2023 amendment cycle.
Regular Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report & SEPA Environmental Review, Proposal to Amend Comprehensive Plan,
containing cited Attachments A, B, & C.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No additional fiscal impact. Fees are paid by the applicant for review of site -specific zoning
amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive update on site -specific amendment proposal.
REVIEWED BY:
_Z
Mark McCa ej, County Administrator Date
,ON JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�S 1 N1° 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.Jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd(a�co.iefferson.wa.us
SquareONE Resource Center I Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning
STAFF REPORT &
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Proposal to Amend Comprehensive Plan
• Mineral Resource Land Overlay
May 15, 2023
INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/
STATE ENVRIONMENTAL POLICY ACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Review of a Non -Project Action
Table of Contents
1. Fact Sheet
2. Project Summary
3. Environmental Summary
3.1. Introduction and Process
3.1.1.Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents
3.1.2. Level of Environmental Analysis
3.1.3. Process & Public Involvement
3.2 Proposed Amendment
4. Discussion of Outreach Issues
5. Additional Stakeholder Outreach
6. Review of Adopted SEPA Documents
6.1 1994 DEIS
6.3 2001 Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study
6.4 2018 Staff Rpt and SEPA Addendum for Periodic Review and Update of Comprehensive Plan
6.5 Discussion
7. Mitigation Measures and Conditional Use Permits
7.1 Approval Criterial for all Conditional Uses (JCC 18.40.330)
8. Cumulative Environmental Impact Analysis of Proposal
9. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
2
9.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
9.2 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty
9.3 Issues to be Resolved
9.4 Environmental Choices to be Made —Options to be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action
9.5 Effectiveness of the Mitigation Measures
10. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies —Evaluation of Compatibility with the
Comprehensive Plan
10.1 Rural Character & Rural Development—GMA and Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
10.2 Housing Element
11. Unified Development Code —Jefferson County Code
12. Conclusion
13. Criteria for Evaluation of Proposed Amendment —Required Findings
13.1 18.45.090 Findings for Board -Initiated UDC Amendment
13.2 Planning Commission & Board of County Commissioners Review of Growth Management
Indicators and Required Findings
13.3 Required Findings for All Proposed Amendments
13.4 Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment
13.5 Takings Findings
13.6 Findings on The Record
14. Planning Commission Recommendation
3
15. Attachments
Attachment A — Planning Commission Recommendation Letter
Attachment B — Application and SEPA Checklist
Attachment C — Resolution 72-21
Attachment D — Public Hearing Notice, August 31, 2022
4
1. Fact Sheet
Title and
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the
Description of
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) is considering
Proposed
adoption of an amendment proposal to the Comprehensive Plan (CP). This is
a site -specific proposal.
Action
This document is a combined Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) Analysis for the proposed CP amendment. The objective of this
document is to analyze the proposed amendment individually and
cumulatively with regard to CP amendment criteria outlined in Chapter 18.45
Jefferson County Code (JCC) and potential environmental impacts under
SEPA. Adoption of the CP amendment is a non -project action under SEPA
and is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e.,
the environmental review needed for future land use or building permit
applications).
Jefferson County Code 18.45.080 (1)(d) specifies that recommendations from
the Planning Department and Planning Commission, and subsequent decision
by the Board of County Commissioners on these proposed UDC amendments
will come forward as "deny", "approve" or "approve with modifications".
Proponent
Miles Sand & Gravel Company, 400 Valley Ave. NE, Puyallup, WA 98163.
Owner: Rayonier Forest Resources, 3033 Ingram St., Hoquiam, WA 98550
Lead Agency
Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD)
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official:
Josh Peters, AICP, Deputy Director
Department of Community Development
(360) 379-4450
Planner
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4457
0petersona-co.iefferson.wa.us
Date of Staff
August 31, 2022
Report
Date of Initial
August 31, 2022
SEPA
DNS Threshold
Det.
SEPA and Comments on the SEPA Threshold Determination must be submitted to the
Amendment Attn. MLA21-00019 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT —MINERAL
Comment RESOURCE LAND OVERLAY EXTENSION, Department of Community
Period Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, or via email to
0Peterson (c-)co.iefferson.wa.us, by Wednesday, September 21, 2022. A copy
of the subsequent final threshold determination for the specific proposal may
be obtained upon request.
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 21, 2022 to take oral and
written comment on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
before making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on
whether to adopt the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission
meeting and public hearing will be held on-line beginning at 5:30 PM,
Wednesday, September 21, 2022.
COVID-19 NOTICE: At this time, we are planning an on-line hearing with
no in -person attendance allowed. Please check the Jefferson County
Calendar for updated information about hybrid meetings:
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/Calendar.aspx
You can join the Planning Commission hearing by using the following
methods:
Zoom Meeting: Meeting ID: 886 7104 7253
Passcode: 894561
https://us02web.zoom.us/m/88671047253?pwd=0U8 TWZGWTVRRGNRVEQ
1 c2k0WDVadz09
This link is also provided electronically at the Community Development page.
This option will allow you to join the meeting live. You will need to enter an
email address. If you wish to provide public comment, click on the hand icon
at the bottom of the screen to "raise your hand."
Please sign on 5 to 10 minutes before the official start of the meeting to check
sound and video quality. This video will be closed -captioned enabled for
persons with disabilities.
Audio only: 1-253-215-8782, Meeting ID 88671047253, Passcode 894561.
Public Comment Period: The Department of Community Development and
the Planning Commission are accepting general comments on the merits of
this suggested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Written comments
will be accepted through the close of the Public Hearing on Wednesday,
September 21, 2022. Any written comments on these suggested
amendments submitted after the close of the public comment period will be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in
its legislative decision. The BoCC may also hold a public hearing before
taking action. Formal notice would appear in this newspaper. Written
comments on the proposal may be submitted to the Department of Community
Development, Attn. MLA21-00019 Miles Sand & Gravel Mineral Resources
Overlay Extension, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 or via
email to ipetersonCc�co.iefferson.wa.us.
M
Past Related
A Mineral Resource Land Overlay was established west of Discovery Bay in
Actions and
2008 (MLAO-00090) by Ordinance 02-0128-08.
Future
Miles Sand and Gravel has been operating within an existing 167-acre mineral
Anticipated
resource land overlay (Ord. 09-1213-10).
Actions
In the future, the County may review the sufficiency of the existing MRL
zoning designations.
Tentative
A legislative decision from the BoCC on this proposal is anticipated to be
Adoption Date
completed December 12, 2022. A current project schedule can be requested
from DCD.
Appeal
Appeals relating to a GMA action are heard first by the Washington Growth
Information
Management Hearings Board.
Location of
Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request
Background
copies of the original application for the proposed amendments, the adopted
Material
existing environmental documents or the Staff Report and Recommendation,
visit the Department of Community Development webpage,
http://www.co.mefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment and follow the link to Public
Notices. You can also access the project documents directly from the
Laserfiche Web Portal for 2021 case files, case MLA21-00019, at:
https://test.co.mefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/Browse.aspx?id=4080581 &dbi
d=0&repo=Jefferson.
2. Project Summary
Summary of Proposed Changes: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT —MINERAL
RESOURCE LAND OVERLAY EXTENSION. Miles Sand & Gravel Company (Applicant)
requests an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to
include additional land adjacent to an existing Mineral Resources Land (MRL) overlay which
would allow the Applicant to seek additional project -specific approvals for sand and gravel
extraction and processing. This application was received March 1, 2021, and was carried over
to 2023.
The proposed extension to the MRL overlay designation will add approximately 200 acres to the
existing 165-acre MRL overlay in the Wahl Extraction Area to access contiguous existing
resources. The proposed additional area for the MRL overlay is located in the vicinity of and
contiguous to existing MRL overlay areas where there is an existing mineral extraction facility.
Processing will be in the same area as currently done and no additional truck traffic is planned.
Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Development impact levels were examined in the Jefferson County Environmental Impact
Statements, and subsequent Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies were established. The
Comprehensive Plan includes Goals and policies for protecting and developing natural
resources in the County. This analysis finds the proposed amendments to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
What does this document do?
This report evaluates environmental documents, and Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies.
3. Environmental Summary
3.1 Introduction and Process
Amendments to CP zoning districts are "actions" as defined under State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA). SEPA review can be integrated with other governmental decision -making
procedures such as those under the Growth Management Act (GMA), and is supplementary to
0
those procedures for amending development regulations under GMA. (See WAC 197-11-210
through 197-11-235, SEPA/GMA integration procedures.) The thoughtful integration of SEPA
compliance with the overall effort to implement the act will provide understanding and insight of
significant value to the choices growth management requires (WAC 365-196-620(2)(a)).
3.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents
The following existing environmental documents have been adopted through legal notice
published in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on August 31, 2022.
State Environmental Policy Act Documents Adopted
Year
State Environmental Policy Act Document Description
1997-1998
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda
prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS
and FEIS are dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and
examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative
versions of the Comprehensive Plan.
6/30/1999
Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS)--Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments (Task III of
8/1 8/1999
Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study)
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments. Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study Task IV.
6/1 1 /2001
Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study Supplemental EIS Final Decision Document, June
1 1, 2001
2002
Integrated Growth Management Act/State Environmental Policy Act Document
Environmental Review of a Non -Project Action: Draft Supplemental EIS August 21,
2002, to Supplement the Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final EIS (1997) and
Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments Draft and Final SEIS. November 25, 2002
Integrated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket.
This FSEIS was appealed before the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board (WWGMHB) of which the WWGMHB issued a Final Decision and
Order (FDO) and remanded it back to the Department for additional environmental
review.
The county hired Wheeler Consulting, to prepare additional environmental review
based on the FDO. A DSEIS to the 2002 CPA SEIS was issued on March 3, 2004. A
FSEIS to the 2002 CPA SEIS was issued on May 12, 2004 as part of the review and
in consideration of MLA02-00235.
2003
Staff Recommendation and Environmental Analysis with Regard to the Adoption of
Four Proposed Site -Specific Amendments to the 1998 Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan. SEPA Addendum August 6, 2003. Sept. 17, 2003 SEPA
Addendum for Suggested Amendments
0
Year
State Environmental Policy Act Document Description
2004 Staff Report and SEPA Addendum to 1998 EIS for UGA Amendments to the
2004
Comprehensive Plan issued May 19, 2004.
2004
2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community
Development Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued September 22,
2004.
2005
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, August 3, 2005. Incorporated by
reference: 1998 DEIS/FEIS and 2004 Addendum.
2006
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Rpt., July 19, 2006
2007
SEPA Addendum, adopting by reference 2004 Staff Report and SEPA Addendum
for UGA Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan issued May 19, 2004 and 2004
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community Development
Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued September 22, 2004.
2008
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, September 3, 2008. Adopted by
reference: 1998 DEIS/FEIS, and environmental documents from 2004, 2005, 2006,
and 2007 environmental review
2009
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, September 2, 2009. Adopted by
legal notice: 1998 DEIS/FEIS, September 22nd Staff Report 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, "and all supplementary information... supporting record, analyses,
materials."
2010
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, September 2010.
2013
Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum, Staff Report September 4, 2013. Adopted by
reference all previous SEPA documents.
2015
Staff Report & SEPA Environmental Review, Proposal to Amend Unified Development
Code, JCC 18.30.150 Sign Code, October 29, 2015. Integrated Growth
Management Act/State Environmental Policy Act Analysis, Environmental Review of a
Non -Project Action.
2018
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update 2038
SEPA Addendum to 1998 Draft and Final Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statements and subsequent Supplemental EISs and Addenda.
April 4, 2018
Source: Jefferson County 2022
3.1.2 Level of Environmental Analysis
This document provides both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of environmental impacts
as appropriate to the general nature of the code amendment proposal. The adoption of site -
specific zoning amendments is classified under SEPA as a non -project action involving
decisions on policies, plans, or programs (WAC 197-11-704) and a broader environmental
10
analysis is applied here than to those applied to permit review of a site -specific project. This
analysis is using the phased review concept (197-11-060(5)) and integrates the broad analyses
of the adopted documents to review the current proposed action.
3.1.3 Process & Public Involvement
Miles Sand and Gravel submitted the MRLO application on March 1, 2021. The project was
carried over from the 2021 amendment year for analysis in the 2022 amendment cycle, then
delayed into 2003. These delays were largely due to staffing shortages. There are no other
amendment proposals analyzed with this proposal. The Jefferson County Planning Commission
discussed the proposal or mineral resources in general, on 6-1-2022, 7-20-2022, 8-17-2022, 9-
17-2022, 9-21-2022, and 10-5-2022.The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
September 21, 2022.
In mid -September, Planning Commissioners were provided a tour of the site by Miles Sand and
Gravel.
Comments Received:
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe commented with concerns with impacts to Tribal Treaty Rights on
the nearby Thorndyke Creek as a fish -bearing stream. The Tribe provided recommendations to
gauge the stream levels and measure water quality parameters. Also, if the project includes
areas of known fish passage barriers, the Tribe recommends they be corrected.
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe commented with concerns about salmon -bearing streams,
waterbodies, and wetlands and potential impacts from the proposal. The Tribe recommends
eliminating from the proposal area, all waterbodies, wetlands, and applying 500-foot buffers.
Also, the Tribe recommends the use of Inadvertent Discovery Plans to protect cultural
resources.
On September 26, 2022, Community Development staff met with the Port Gamble S'klallam
Tribe to discuss the project. The concerns regarding wetland hydrology and fish passage
barriers were discussed and determined by Community Development to be elements that will be
addressed in subsequent Conditional Use Permitting for a specific project, rather than
recommendations added at this zoning stage.
11
The Planning Commission unanimously voted on October 5, 2022, to recommend approval of
the Mineral Resource Land Overlay and developed their recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners on October 17, 2022.
The Planning Commission Recommendations:
1. The Jefferson County Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the
200-acre Mineral Resource Land Overlay proposal by Miles Sand & Gravel
2. The Planning Commission finds that Miles Sand & Gravel has shown a great deal of
expertise and success with mine reclamation and have been accommodating and responsive to
the Tribe's environmental concerns outlined in the Tribes comment letters on the zoning
proposal. The Planning Commission encourages the Board of County Commissioners to
respectfully take into consideration Tribal concerns during your deliberation.
Although specific conditions would be added to a conditional use permit for actual mining
activities subsequent to this zoning approval, the Planning Commission would like the Board to
consider including conditions of approval in your zoning decision. (Tribal comment letters are
provided). The Planning Commission recommends the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall monitor water quality parameters to identify and correct any sediment
entering Thorndyke Creek from mining or transfer of mined materials.
b. The applicant shall monitor water quality parameters to identify and correct negative
changes to wetlands due to changes in soil horizon depth.
C. The applicant shall correct any fish -passage barriers within future mining project areas
3. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board provide future
resources for Community Development do additional work inventorying and zoning mineral
resources county -wide to update the Comprehensive Plan.
12
The Planning Commission recognizes that the water quality monitoring and fish -passage issues
will be addressed at the time of permitting. Recommendation #3, regarding future resources for
mineral resource identification is not a contingency for the Board to approve the zoning overlay.
That is to say, the Board can approve the Mineral Resource Overlay without committing to this
unrelated recommendation.
SEPA Threshold Determination
DCD has reviewed the proposed amendments and issued by public notice a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) on August 31, 2022. A threshold determination shall not balance
whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall
consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts (WAC
197-11-330(5)). The DNS determination considers the action as causing no probable significant
adverse environmental impacts.
A GMA 60-Day Notice of Intent to Amend the CP is not required for a site -specific amendment
3.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Request for Application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay to an Underlying Commercial
Forest Land Designation
Requests for application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay designation must be evaluated
against Mineral Resource Land classification and designation criteria set forth within the Natural
Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan (see narrative at pages 4-6 and 4-7; and NRGs
6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0, and NRPs 6.1 through 9.2). Relevant excerpts from this Natural
Resources Element narrative and goal and policy language include the following:
Mineral Lands
GMA Goal: conservation of productive natural resources lands of long-term commercial
significance, including forestlands, agricultural lands, and mineral resources
All counties and cities planning under the GMA are required to identify and designate such
natural resource lands for conservation to avoid conflicts with other incompatible uses and
ensure these lands are available to support economic productivity and healthy ecological
systems.
13
Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands
Under GMA, mineral resource lands are designated based on the following criteria (WAC 365-
190-070)
Counties and cities classify mineral resource lands based on geologic, environmental, and
economic factors, existing land uses, and land ownership. It is expected that mineral resource
lands will be depleted of minerals over time, and that subsequent land uses may occur on these
lands after mining and reclamation is completed. Counties and cities may approve and permit
land uses on these mineral resource lands to occur after mining is completed.
Jefferson County has designated mineral resource lands as an overlay to the underlying land
use designation. An overlay is used because mining operations are eventually depleted, and
sites are restored for other uses, and thus the Mineral Lands designation is not permanent
The criteria used to classify mineral resource lands in Jefferson County were based on the
guidelines provided by the state and an analysis of local conditions. Limited geological
information is available to accurately identify, evaluate, and designate mineral resources of
long-term commercial significance. U.S. Geological Survey Maps and Department of Natural
Resources surface mining data were reviewed by the Mineral Lands Work Group for the County
to determine current and potential mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance.
Based upon this evaluation, and in conjunction with the analysis and assessment of forest
resource lands, a high degree of overlap between lands devoted to growing timber and land
potentially containing commercial mineral deposits was identified. Because of the amount of
forest cover and geology of Jefferson County, most mineral resources are located in forest
resource lands.
Therefore, the inclusion of mineral extraction and primary processing as a permitted use on
designated forest land will protect mineral resource lands from the encroachment of
incompatible development, conserve the mineral resource land base of Jefferson County, and
allow for its future utilization by the mining industry. In addition, the County has included in this
strategy an action item to perform an analysis to determine the 50-year construction aggregate
supply, so as to ensure that the lands to be protected will meet the 50-year projected demand
within an economically feasible distance to the market area or areas within County jurisdiction.
This satisfies the GMA requirements to not knowingly preclude opportunities for future mining
14
and, as the lands are identified, to inform nearby property owners of the potential for future
mining use of these areas in order to prevent or minimize potential conflicts.
JCC Title 18 identifies the extraction of sand, gravel, rock, and minerals as a permitted use.
The JCC provides development regulations on mining activities such as size, clearing,
stormwater controls and protection of critical areas.
Comprehensive Plan:
Goal LU-G-19: Foster sustainable natural resource -based industry in rural areas through
the conservation of lands that support forestry, agriculture, mineral extraction, and
aquaculture industries and local employment opportunities.
Mineral resource extraction provides nonrenewable raw materials for a wide variety of uses,
including construction of essential public infrastructure. The GMA also requires that counties
evaluate future needs for mineral resources and ensure that access to mineral resources of
long-term commercial significance is not knowingly precluded by other types of land
development. To meet the requirements of GMA, mineral extraction should be a priority land
use for all designated mineral resource lands. Many of Jefferson County's designated mineral
resource lands are also designated forest land. Without definitive surveys and mapping of
mineral resources of Jefferson County, the broad forest land zones covering the largely
overlapping resource areas, provide a stand-in protective designation that helps to protect
mineral lands until additional surveys and mapping can be done. (p. 1-111)
The Land Use map of this Plan depicts the location of existing mining operations which currently
operate under a Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Reclamation Permit, and
provides an underlying land use designation. The Mineral Lands map accompanying this
element shows the parcels regulated under DNR permits, although it should be noted that the
mining operations for a number of the sites do not occupy the entire parcel.
GMA requires local jurisdictions to identify and protect natural resources including mineral
resources. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT —MINERAL RESOURCE LAND
OVERLAY EXTENSION. Miles Sand & Gravel Company (Applicant) requests an amendment to
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to include additional land adjacent
to an existing Mineral Resources Land (MRL) overlay which would allow the Applicant to seek
15
additional project -specific approvals for sand and gravel extraction and processing. This
application was received March 1, 2021, and was carried over to 2023
The proposed extension to the MRL overlay designation will add approximately 200 acres to the
existing 165-acre MRL overlay in the Wahl Extraction Area to access contiguous existing
resources. The proposed additional area for the MRL overlay is located in the vicinity of and
contiguous to existing MRL overlay areas where there is an existing mineral extraction facility.
Processing will be in the same area as currently done and no additional truck traffic is planned.
4 Review of Adopted SEPA Documents
As part of this environmental and Comprehensive Plan analysis for the proposed amendment,
the environmental analyses below were adopted into this analysis and reviewed. These
Environmental Impact Statements and SEPA Addendums were done by Jefferson County as a
phased environmental review process, with subsequent reviews building upon each other and
reviewing project and non -project proposals at the level of specificity that the project offered.
For this proposal, they were reviewed to identify whether impacts from the additional mineral
lands zone were directly evaluated; what level of evaluation had been done, and how those
results inform the current evaluation for the level of impacts that were found to be already
mitigated through implementing regulations (the UDC). Along with zoning, the EIS and
Addendum documents suggest that conflicts between land uses can be addressed in
implementing regulations, particularly through the conditional use permit process.
6.1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Implementing Ordinance, February 1994.
This EIS was done during the County's Interim Zoning Ordinance to apply land use controls. It
reviewed alternatives for performance based zoning and Euclidean zoning ordinances, as well
as the no action alternative for no land use control through zoning regulations. [Note:
"Euclidean" in this context refers to the Village of Euclid, Ohio, where zoning case law was
established in Euclid v. Ambler Realty, and is not referring to the Greek mathematician.]
The report evaluated comprehensive plan options for their significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts. General impacts to environmental elements were identified under all
16
alternatives, based on continued development activities in Jefferson County. One primary
mitigation measure for land use conflicts between residential and other uses was to "[designate]
in the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Plans specific residential districts for
various densities of housing. Design criteria for all development would alleviate aesthetic
conflicts between new and existing, especially historic, uses..." (Chapter 3 P. 3-35).
The preferred alternative of the 1994 report was the Euclidian Ordinance which provides more
predictability in land use, and more straightforward controls over land use conflicts.
6.2 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) dated February 24, 1997
and May 27, 1998, respectively, and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1998.
The DEIS and FEIS are and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of
adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan under the Washington Growth
Management Act —focused growth, dispersed growth, moderate growth.
In the February 24, 1997 DEIS, it evaluates the mitigating measures for nuisance issues, and
development of policies to physically separate the nuisances or hazards farther from residential
uses. (Intensify in Rural Village Centers). Addressing unmitigated impacts from growth, It also
mentions the "cumulative impact of growth" and recommended mitigation as part of the
development review and approval process (1997 DEIS, pp 4-60 to 4-61).
Impacts to aesthetics from the built environment is discussed in the DEIS at pages 4-96 and 4-
97: "As in the case of views, the visual environment will change as any area grows, varying by
type of growth, as rural features transform into urban. Without good planning this can erode
visual qualities by conflicts between incompatible uses without buffering —for example, heavy
equipment yards locating next to residential uses. Commercial development occurring along
highway corridors can present an unappealing aesthetic environment. These poor aesthetic
characteristics can erode property values and lead to blighted conditions." Mitigating measures
again included development of goals and policies in the comprehensive plan and in
implementing regulations that maintains a community's identity, develops in an aesthetically
pleasing way, and limits conflicts between uses.
17
6.4 2018 Staff Report and SEPA Addendum for Periodic Review and Update of Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. April 4, 2018.
6.5 Discussion
Further provisions regarding intensification of rural development are addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan and the implementing regulations of Jefferson County Code (JCC).
Performance standards and development standards that guide the density and intensity of uses
within the various zoning districts are outlined in JCC are found in 18.15.040 Table 3-1
Allowable and Prohibited Uses. By reviewing this table, the reader can see the patterns of
allowable and prohibited uses based on potentially conflicting land uses, and see the various
review and approval processes required for uses that may be appropriate in one area, but not
appropriate in the same zoning district in another area. These represent areas to use the
conditional use permit process to allow public input and administrative conditions to address
potential impacts (JCC 18.15.040).
The comprehensive plan and implementing regulations provide the policy and goals of
balancing the need for intensification of development with the need to preserve rural character.
Specific standards are in place to protect adjacent residential parcels from nuisance and to
protect an individual's right to enjoyment of their property. Development regulations define ways
of protecting adjacent residential properties from nuisance and neighborhood aesthetics with
application of Chapter 18.20 JCC (performance standards), Chapter 18.18 JCC (UGA
development standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (rural development standards).
5 Mitigation Measures and Conditional Use Permits
Some uses may be appropriate in a zoning district only if they meet certain conditions. A
conditional use permit does not change the zoning or allowed uses in a zoning district. All uses
must be consistent with the purpose of the land use district in which they are proposed to occur.
The approval criteria demonstrate the level of review and the specificity of conditions applied in
a conditional use permit.
7.1 Approval Criteria for all Conditional Uses (JCC 18.40.530)
IV
The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use
permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as "C(a)," "C(d)" or "C) if all of the
following criteria are satisfied. In instances where all of the findings cannot be made, the
application shall be denied:
(a) The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with
the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject
property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property;
(b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection,
water, wastewater disposal, and stormwater control;
(c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the
subject parcel;
(d) The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other
conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
(e) The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening
vegetation for the conditional use will not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or
use of neighboring properties;
(f) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use will not be hazardous
to existing and anticipated traffic in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
(g) The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this code and
any other applicable local, state or federal law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards
contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC;
(h) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to
an airport or airfield;
(i) The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural
environments that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval;
0) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole;
19
(k) The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan; and
(1) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to
the cumulative effect of similar actions in the area.
6 Cumulative Environmental Impact Analysis of Proposal
It is important to analyze the impacts of expanded uses in determining whether the expansion is
appropriate in the rural area. For this proposal, we evaluate where the proposed change is
applicable county -wide. Standards are based upon evaluation of the size, scale and intensity of
uses in rural areas includes size, scale and level of activity.
The cumulative impact of mineral resource lands is not believed to be a probable significant
adverse environmental impact in Jefferson County.
7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
7.1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Adverse impacts from mineral resource lands may be perceived by adjacent landowners. The
conditional use review and mitigation process in the development regulations are designed to
address specific site conditions and how the site can be designed to attenuate potential
nuisance issues. Review of Jefferson County rural character and nuisance standards describe
how rural living is characterized by some level of noise and temporary disturbance by nature of
being in a rural setting. Specific methods of site design, setbacks, screening and policies have
shown to be effective in site development.
7.2 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty
There have been no significant areas of controversy or uncertainty in the staff analysis
of the proposed Mineral Resource Land overlay.
20
7.3 Issues to be Resolved
Hydrogeological monitoring continues at the mineral extraction site to ensure the floor level of
the quarry remains above the water table. At the time of application of a conditional use permit,
analyses will be done to identify critical areas, such as wetlands and potential existing fish
barriers associated with the project, and specific protective measures to mitigate impacts.
7.4 Environmental Choices to be Made -- Options to be Preserved or
Foreclosed by the Action
The proponent has demonstrated that effective reclamation can be achieved at the site. Areas
are regraded, stockpiled soils are replaced and trees are replanted. Effective mitigation of
environmental impacts has been achieved through the existing performance and development
standards in the Unified Development Code.
7.5 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures include those already required by development regulations and additional
conditions that may be placed on a permit. SEPA review will be required as part of a conditional
use permit application, which will provide the lead agency with substantive authority to add
mitigative measures if the critical areas ordinance does not address any probable significant
environmental impacts.
8 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Goals and
Policies EVALUATION OF COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
8.1 Rural Character & Rural Development --the Growth Management Act and
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The Growth Management Act provides (GMA) planning tools to preserve rural character,
provide for areas of development and prevent those forms of sprawling development that
reduce livability, efficiency and cost effectiveness of communities.
21
Jefferson County did extensive public outreach in the years leading up to the 1998
implementation of our Comprehensive Plan and selected the GMA definition of rural character
as appropriate for Jefferson County. Jefferson County defined rural character both in terms of
visual character as well as in terms of intensity of uses:
In GMA at RCW 36.70A.030(15), "Rural Character" refers to the patterns of land use and
development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan:
(a) In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built
environment;
(b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live
and work in rural areas;
(c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
(d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
(e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density
development;
(f) That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and
(g) That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and
surface water recharge and discharge areas."
GMA defines "Rural development" as referring to development outside of the urban growth area
and outside agricultural, forest, and mineral resources lands; and can consist of a variety of
uses and residential densities —consistent with the preservation of rural character and the
requirements of the comprehensive plan's rural element (36.70A.030(16)).
When reviewing a site -specific development application, the Comprehensive Plan is not re-
evaluated or reanalyzed. Given the extensive investment that public agencies and a broad
spectrum of the public have made and will continue to make in Jefferson County's
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, it is essential that project review start from
the fundamental land use planning choices made in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations. If
the Comprehensive Plan or regulations identify the type of land use, specify density and identify
and provide for the provision of public facilities needed to review the proposed development and
site, these decisions, at a minimum, provide the foundation for further project review unless
there is a question of code interpretation. The project review process, including the
environmental review process under Chapter 43.21 C RCW (SEPA) and the consideration of
consistency, should start from this point and should not reanalyze these land use planning
22
decisions in making a permit decision, unless the county finds that the Comprehensive Plan and
regulations do not fully foresee site -specific issues and impacts identified through land use
project application review.
9 Unified Development Code —Jefferson County Code
Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) in December 2000 (effective
January 16, 2001) as the unified set of development regulations to implement the
Comprehensive Plan adopted in August 1998. Until the adoption of the UDC, the
Comprehensive Plan was implemented through a variety of separate ordinances, some in place
prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
The relevant sections of the Unified Development Code are Chapter 18.20 Performance and
Use Specific Standards, Chapter 18.30 Development Standards, and 18.40.490 Conditional
Uses. These chapters and sections provide appropriate standards and regulation for
addressing and mitigating site -specific issues when applying the proposed code.
10 Conclusion
The proposed amendment does not have any probable significant adverse environmental
impacts. The SEPA Checklist and past County Environmental Impact Statement and Addenda
adequately analyze environmental concerns. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
supports the proposed amendment.
11 Findings for Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.1 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Review of
Growth Management Indicators and Required Findings
18.45.090 (3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public
hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a
recommendation to the board of county commissioners using the site -specific criteria set forth in
JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable.
23
11.2 Required Findings for All Proposed Amendments--18.45.080(1)(b)
(b) Required Findings — Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall
develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is
located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan;
Staff Finding: The circumstances have not changed since the 2018 Comprehensive Plan periodic
review. An updated analysis on identifying mineral resource lands would be useful as there may
be updated information forthcoming from the state Department of Natural Resources.
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are
no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the
adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Finding: There is no indication that assumptions upon which the Comp Plan is based are no
longer valid.
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County.
Staff Finding: The need for Sand and Gravel is recognized by the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and also by the Growth Management Act that shapes it
11.3 Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment -- 18.45.050(4)(b)(i)
through (4)(b)(vii)
(b) Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The planning commission's periodic
assessment and recommendation shall be based upon, but shall not be limited to, an inquiry into the
following growth management indicators:
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster
or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
24
Staff Finding: Annual compounded Countywide total growth rate envisioned in the 2004
Comprehensive Plan was 1.78%. However, current population planning projections for 2010-2036
is 0.97% (Growth Management Planning Population Proiections, Resolution 38-15). There has
been a growing demand for sand and gravel resources in response to an initial trend toward
development.
(ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased;
Staff Finding: Levels of service in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan can generally be maintained at
the same level to accommodate the next 20-year population projection.
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need;
Staff Finding: After the initial 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan identification of Mineral
Resource Land zoning, additional mineral resource lands have been designated through use of the
Mineral Resource Land Overlay designation process.
(iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid;
Staff Finding: The Comprehensive Plan implements the GMA-required identification and
designation of mineral resource lands.
(v) Whether changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and
the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement;
Staff Finding: Changes in county -wide attitudes are not evident.
(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
Staff Finding: As mineral resources are extracted and the area is reclaimed and restored for
timber resource use, designation of additional mineral resource land to follow the resource is
needed.
(vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. [Ord. 2-06 § 1]
Staff Finding: There are no inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and the
Comprehensive Plan or GMA.
25
18.45.0800)(c) Additional Required Findings — Formal Site -Specific Amendments.
In addition to the required findings set forth in subsection (1)(b) of this section, in order to
recommend approval of a formal site -specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the
planning commission must also make the following findings:
(i) The proposed site -specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for
transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other
public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire
flow, and general governmental services);
Staff Finding: No additional truck traffic is anticipated. The proposal will be operating at
the same level, just in a different place. No impact to level of service to transportation
facilities or impacts to other services is anticipated.
(ii) The proposed site -specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and
implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Finding: There are no material inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan,
Growth Management Act, and Countywide Planning Policy
(iii) The proposed site -specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse
impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and
environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated
burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities;
Staff Finding: The project does not create any unmitigated impacts to the environment,
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, and parks.
(iv) In the case of a site -specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels
are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land
use development, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Access;
26
Staff Finding --Access: See Map Exhibit Cl. Access is from SR-104. This is the access for existing
mineral resource extraction facilities on Wahl Lake Rd. and adequately serves the proposal.
(B) Provision of utilities;
Staff Finding --Provision of utilities: necessary utilities will be evaluated further at the project -
specific level under a Conditional Use Permit.
(C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses;
Staff Finding: The existing zoning is CF-80 (commercial forestry); the proposed MRL zoning
overlay designation will be on CF-80 zoned land, and the underlying land use will remain forestry
as mineral extraction activities occur. After reclamation and replanting, the property will revert
back to forestry. All property abutting the proposed MRL overlay is also forestry use.
(v) The proposed site -specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land
use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole;
Staff Finding: The current zoning overlay is appropriate for mineral resources, and the
underlying Commercial Forest zoning will be preserved. This is compatible with the
surrounding land uses of the Wahl Lake Extraction Area.
(vi) The proposed site -specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and
population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Finding: The proposal includes mitigation during the extraction process, so that the
disturbed area remains at a relatively constant size, with concurrent reclamation
activities. The proposal does not affect population growth estimates.
(vii) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site -specific
amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and
services to the immediate area and the overall UGA;
Staff Finding: Evaluation Not Applicable.
27
(viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act
(Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County -Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other
applicable inter -jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws.
Staff Finding: The proposal is consistent with these plans and policies.
18.45.050(4)(b) Additional Findings
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is
occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
Planning Commission Finding: OFM growth rate is ca.1% countywide. This is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or
increased;
Planning Commission Finding: With the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA and
wastewater facility, the County will be increasing its ability to provide services for
growth and development. The nexus with this project is an increased demand for
aggregate for construction.
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and
need;
Planning Commission Finding: The Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that there
is sufficient land zoned to meet projected demand.
(iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to
be valid;
Planning Commission Finding: The assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are
still relevant and valid.
m
(v) Whether changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the
plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement;
Planning Commission Finding: Jefferson County is known for high quality mineral
resources. Additional mineral resource area identification and overlays would be
appropriate as noted in the Comprehensive Plan.
\(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
Planning Commission Finding: Supply of sand and gravel may be important locally
in Jefferson County. There have been supply -chain issues associated with the
Covid-19 Pandemic and building materials supply have been affected.
(vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County.
Planning Commission Finding: There are no material inconsistencies between the
Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Act, and Countywide Planning Policy.
12 Planning Commission Recommendation
Ch. 18.45 JCC: The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation
to the board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or
approved with conditions or modifications.
Attachment A
13. Attachments
Attachment A — Planning Commission Recommendation Letter
Attachment B — Application and SEPA Checklist
Attachment C — Resolution 72-21
Attachment D — Public Hearing Notice, August 31, 2022
29
Attachment A
�,0N JEFFERSON COUNTY
' PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 1 email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us
�S-1f f'c'http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/580/Planning-Commission
October 17, 2022
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Jefferson County Planning Commission is pleased to forward the following findings and
recommendations regarding Miles Sand & Gravel's proposed Mineral Resource Land Overlay
(MRLO) amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. We provide these recommendations for
consideration in your final deliberations regarding the proposed amendment.
The project proposal was received by DCD from Miles Sand & Gravel in 2021, and due to staffing
workload, was deferred to the 2022 comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. The proposal is to
designate 200 additional acres adjacent to the existing 165-acre MRLO at the Wahl Lake Extraction
Area.
Community Development introduced the proposal to the Planning Commission April, 2022, and has
reviewed the proposal in subsequent meetings since that time. The Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing on the proposal on September 21, 2002. On October 5, 2022, the
Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to approve the proposed MRLO (vote 9-0-
0). We provide our findings below and conclude with the Planning Commission recommendations.
Required Findings for All Proposed Amendments— I8.45.080(l)(b)
Planning Commission Review. All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed and
assessed by the planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners after holding at least one open record public hearing.
Required Findings — Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall
develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management
indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following:
(i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
Planning Commission Finding: The circumstances have not changed since the 2018
Comprehensive Plan periodic review.
(ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no
longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption
process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and
Planning Commission Finding: The assumptions of the Comprehensive plan are still valid.
_ge
(iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County.
Planning Commission Finding: The need for Sand and Gravel is recognized by the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan, and also by the Growth Management Act that shapes it.
18.45.080 1 c Additional Required Findings — Formal Site -Specific Amendments.
In addition to the required findings set forth in subsection (1)(b) of this section, in order to
recommend approval of a formal site -specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the
planning commission must also make the following findings:
(i) The proposed site -specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services
(e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental
services);
Planning Commission Finding: No impact to level of service to transportation facilities or
impacts to other services
(ii) The proposed site -specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation
strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan;
Planning Commission Finding: There are no material inconsistencies between the
Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Act, and Countywide Planning Policy.
(iii) The proposed site -specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to
the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service
capabilities;
Planning Commission Finding: The project does not create any unmitigated impacts to the
environment, transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, and parks.
(iv) In the case of a site -specific amendment to the land use map, that the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use
development, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Access;
Planning Commission Finding regarding Access: See Map Exhibit Cl. Access is from SR-104.
This is the access for existing mineral resource extraction facilities on Wahl Lake Rd. and
adequately serves the proposal.
(B) Provision of utilities;
Planning Commission Finding: Provision of utilities: necessary utilities will be evaluated
further at the project -specific level under a Conditional Use Permit.
(C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses;
Planning Commission Finding: The existing zoning is CF-80 (commercial forestry); the
proposed MRL zoning overlay designation will be on CF-80 zoned land, and the underlying
land use will remain forestry as mineral extraction activities occur. After reclamation and
replanting, the property will revert back to forestry. All property abutting the proposed
MRL overlay is also forestry use.
(v) The proposed site -specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in
the long-term best interests of the county as a whole;
Planning Commission Finding: The current zoning overlay is appropriate for mineral
resources, and the underlying Commercial Forest zoning will be preserved. This is
compatible with the surrounding land uses of the Wahl Lake Extraction Area.
(vi) The proposed site -specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan;
Planning Commission Finding: The proposal includes mitigation during the extraction
process, so that the disturbed area remains at a relatively constant size, with concurrent
reclamation activities. The proposal does not affect population growth estimates.
(vii) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site -specific amendment
does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the
immediate area and the overall UGA;
Planning Commission Finding: Not Applicable.
(viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act
(Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County -Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable
inter -jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws.
Planning Commission Finding: The proposal is consistent with these plans and policies.
18.45.050(4)(b) Additional 'Findings
(i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or
slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize;
Planning Commission Finding: OFM growth rate is ca.1% countywide. This is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
(ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased;
Planning Commission Finding: With the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA and wastewater facility,
the County will be increasing its ability to provide services for growth and development. The
nexus with this project is an increased demand for aggregate for construction.
(iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need;
Planning Commission Finding: The Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that there is
sufficient land zoned to meet projected demand.
(iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid;
Planning Commission Finding: The assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are still relevant
and valid.
(v) Whether changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and
the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement;
Planning Commission Finding: Jefferson County is known for high quality mineral
resources. Additional mineral resource area identification and overlays would be
appropriate as noted in the Comprehensive Plan.
\(vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments;
Planning Commission Finding: Supply of sand and gravel may be important locally in
Jefferson County. There have been supply -chain issues associated with the Covid-19
Pandemic and building materials supply have been affected.
(vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the
Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County.
Planning Commission Finding: There are no material inconsistencies between the
Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Act, and Countywide Planning Policy.
18.45.080(1)(d) Recommendation
The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation to the board
of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or approved with
conditions or modifications.
Recommendations:
1. The Jefferson County Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the 200-
acre Mineral Resource Land Overlay proposal by Miles Sand & Gravel.
2. The Planning Commission finds that Miles Sand & Gravel has shown a great deal of
expertise and success with mine reclamation and have been accommodating and
responsive to the Tribe's environmental concerns outlined in the Tribes comment letters on
the zoning proposal. The Planning Commission encourages the Board of County
Commissioners to respectfully take into consideration Tribal concerns during your
deliberation.
Although specific conditions would be added to a conditional use permit for actual mining
activities subsequent to this zoning approval, the Planning Commission would like the Board
to consider including conditions of approval in your zoning decision. (Tribal comment letters
are provided). The Planning Commission recommends the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall monitor water quality parameters to identify and correct any
sediment entering Thorndyke Creek from mining or transfer of mined materials.
b. The applicant shall monitor water quality parameters to identify and correct negative
changes to wetlands due to changes in soil horizon depth.
c. The applicant shall correct any fish -passage barriers within future mining project
areas.
3. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board provide future resources
for Community Development do additional work inventorying and zoning mineral resources
county -wide to update the Comprehensive Plan.
Richard Hull, Chair
Jefferson County Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT B
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel: 360,379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451
Web:uwwu t 1$ s t u ni rclupjncnt
G-mail: dcdl o.' •r` a wa.us
PERMIT APPLICATION
Steps in the Permit Process:
-Review application checklist to ensure all information is completed prior to submitting application.
-Make sure septic has been applied for and water availability has been proven.
-Make an appointment to meet with the Permit Technician by calling 360-379-4450.
-This is not a standalone application; it must be accompanied by a project specific supplemental application.
-Fees will be collected at intake. Additional fees may apply after review and payment is required before permit is issued.
For Department Use Only
Related Application #s:
Building Permit # coa AlNnOD NOSa3sd3P
MLA#
Sit�mation
le
Assessor Tax Parcel Number: 701011001, 701021002, 701121001, 701111001
Site Address and/or Directions to Property: In the vicinity of 1500 Wahl Lake Rd Port Ludlow
Access (name of street(s)) from which access will be gained:
State Route 104 to Wahl Lake Rd, Port Ludlow
Present use of property: CF-80
Description of Work (include proposed uses): Revision to Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to reflect MRL overlay area.
_Wastewater - Sewage Disposal
This property is served by Port Townsend or Port Ludlow sewer system? YES NO
If not served by sewer identified above, identify type of septic system below:
Type of Sewage System Serving Property:
Septic Septic Permit #: N/A
Community Septic Name of System:
Are other residences connected to the septic system?
Additions or repairs to sewage system:
Is it a complete or partial system installation:
Has a reserve drainfield been designated?
Date of last Operations & Maintenance check:
Case M
Complete Partial
Yes
No
Attach last report to application
Describe or attach any drainfield easements, covenants or notices on title, which may impact the property:
The authorized agent/representative is the primary contact for all project -related questions and correspondence. The County will mail
/ e-mail requests and information about the application to the authorized agent/representative and w'
below. The authorized agent/representative is responsible for communicating the information to all p ;A—
P1
By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein, and in any attachments, is true and
correct to the best of his or her knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with
respect to this application packet may result in making any issued permit null and void.
I further agree to that all activities I intend to undertake or complete associated with this permit will be performed in compliance with
all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations and I agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its
employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later inspections. Applicant may
request notice of the County's intent to enter upon the property for visits related to this application and subsequent permit issuance.
Signature: /' I A,/ �_ Print Name: Q02V' 1\ JJkLfx_(SDn Date: 3I i W a
ON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451
Web: www.co.[effersvn,wa.usltommunitvdevelopment Mar 01 2021
E-mail: dcd@co.iefferson.wa.us
SUPPLEMENTAL. APPLICATION JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
FORMAL SITE -SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
MLA # _ PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: Mlles Sand & Gravel Company
For Comprehensive Plan amendments, applications must be completed and submitted to the Department of Community
Development by March 9 of the current calendar year in order to be considered during the annual amendment process.
Completed applications that are received after March I will be placed on the docket for the following calendar year.
Applications for UDC amendments may be considered on a rolling basis. Applications that are incomplete (i.e., that do
not include all of the information required render the Jefferson County Code) will be returned to the applicant.
Submittal Requirements
1. A completed Permit Application, completed and signed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, and comprehensive
Plan Amendment fee, as set forth in the Jefferson County Fee Ordinance. Representative authorization is required if
application is not signed by owner.
2. Any additional information deemed necessary by the Administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment.
3. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit A," a vicinity map showing the following:
a. The location of the area proposed to be redesignated;
b. The land use designation of all property within five hundred (500) feet of the site; and
C. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of the site.
4. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit B," a description of the proposed Plan and any associated development proposal(s), if
applicable. Applications must include plans and information or studies accurately depicting existing and proposed uses and
improvements. Applications for such redesignations that do not specify proposed uses and potential impacts are assumed to
have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services.
5. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit "C," a map that depicts existing conditions on the site and within the general vicinity [i.e.,
within a three hundred (300)-foot radius]. The exhibit must depict topography, wetlands and buffers, easements and their
purpose, and means of access to the site. The intent of the exhibit is to clearly illustrate the physical opportunities and
constraints of the site.
6. The current land use designation/zoning of the site is: CF-80
7. The proposed land use designation/zoning of the site is: CF-80 with Mineral Resource Land MRL overly
8. The current use of the site is: Forestry
9. The proposed use of the site is: Forestry and mineral extraction
10. If changes to Comprehensive Plan or UDC text are required, please prepare and label as "Exhibit D," proposed amendatory
language (i.e., to affected text of both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC) shown in "bill" format, with text to be added
indicated with underlining (e.g., underlining), and text to be deleted indicated with strikeouts (e.g., stfikeeets).
SITE SPECIFIC APP.00C REV. 9/23/2020 Page 1
11. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit E," a thorough explanation of how the proposed redesignation/rezone and associated
development proposals, if any, meet, conflict with, or relate to the following inquiries:
a. Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or
is failing to materialize?
b. Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
C. Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
d. Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid, or is new
information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
e. Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County?
f. Do changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied
within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
g. Do changes in circumstances dictated a need for amendment?
h. Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County-
wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
i. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation?
j. Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services other than
transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental
services)?
k. Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
1. Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital
facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated?
M. Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities?
n. How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use
development including, but not limited to the following:
(i) Access;
(ii) Provision of utilities; and
(iii) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses?
o. Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties? If the answer
is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in the long-term best interests of the
county as a whole?
P. Does the proposed site -specific amendment materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are
the bases of the Comprehensive Plan?
q. If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), would the
proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate areas and the
overall UGA?
r. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the
Countywide Plannin_q Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws?
D
Mar 01 2021
JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
SITE SPECIFIC APP DOC REV. 9I23I2020 Page 2
12. Please provide an explanation of why the amendment is being proposed. (Attach additional sheets, if
necessary.)
See "Exhibit B"
JEFFERSON COUNTY OCC
JEFFERSONI
13. The applicant hereby certifies that the statements contained in this application are true and provide an accurate
representation of the proposed amendment, and the applicant(s) hereby acknowledges that any approval issued on
this application may be revoked if any such statement is found to be false.
(,,),
APPLZANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
y a- 2/26/2021
PROPo TY OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE
DATE
PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE 6�� r,&M~2a' DATE 2/26/2021
[NOTE: For all required signatures, repre"ntative authorization is required if application is not signed by the owner.]
SITE SPECIFICAPPAOC REV.9/23/2020 Page 3
a
Mar Ol 2021
Exhibit A - Vacinity Map & Land Use JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
Exhibit B
JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
The Applicant requests an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to
include land for Mineral Resources Land (MRL) overlay. MRL is used to "overlay" or designate the property
as a mineral resource extraction area as an interim use. The underlying land use designation of Commercial
Forestry (CF80) would still exist, and forestry would remain the subsequent use after mineral resource
extraction and reclamation are complete. The amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map would allow the Applicant to seek the project -specific approvals for mineral resource extraction.
The MRL overlay designation in this proposal will add approximately 200 acres to MRL overlay designated
property at the locations shown on the map exhibits. The geographic area proposed for addition to the MRL
overlay is located in the vicinity of existing MRL overlay areas, where there is an existing mineral extraction
facility. Properties surrounding the proposed MRL overlay area are in forestry use. Future uses of the
proposed MRL overlay, on an interim basis, are expected to include sand and gravel extraction and
processing, which will coincide with existing forestry uses on areas not being actively mined. The proposed
MRL overlay area is owned by Rayonier. Mineral resource extraction and associated activities within this area
will be conducted by Miles Sand & Gravel Company.
"` •��' t `lam
-A
"� .d*^�� r^'t ' L n ram_ • ��
h y a of 1u��r,46
++ j
�' It . • ' a � �'� �' ;�, �,, � �r �
ILr r I,ll r f^i
JL
F �- �A
Legend
Site Access
Streams
Water
Nl
#f f
y.
..• es & Wetlands
Proposed Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) Overlay�.
, kMar 01 2021 {
scllm
Exhibit C 2 - Vicinity Map JEFFERSON COUNTY ®CD
Exhibit E
JEFFERSON COUNTY ®CD
a) Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower
than anticipated, or is failing to materialize?
There has been larger than anticipated market for construction aggregates in the local
markets due to generalized growth in the area. In order to meet the future demand it is
necessary to increase areas of MRL overlay within Jefferson County.
b) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased?
a. The capacity has not changed.
c) Is sufficient urban land designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need?
a. Not applicable.
d) Are any of the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no
longer valid, or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption
process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
a. The assumptions in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are still valid. For
example on page 2-7 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan it states that "At
present, the Mineral Resource Lands overlay covers a relatively small area compared to
the extent of the potential mineral resources available in the county." Designating the
proposed MRL overlay will begin to help close the gap between designated property and
available mineral resources.
e) Does the proposed amendment reflect the current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County?
a. The need for Sand and Gravel is recognized by the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan, and also by the Growth Management Act that shapes it. Past amendments in
Jefferson County for expansion of the MRL overlay have been met with both positive
and negative responses. It is possible the expansion of the MRL overlay could be met
with mixed support by the residents. The expansion areas are adjacent to or very near
existing mining operations and are isolated from potentially sensitive uses. This presents
an opportunity for the County's mineral resource needs to be met with greater
sensitivity the values of residents.
f) Do changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the
basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement?
a. No, MRL overlay designation and mineral resource use is supported in the
Comprehensive Plan and Vision Statement.
g) Do changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendment?
a. Not applicable.
h) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive
Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County?
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and County -wide
Planning policy for Jefferson County.
i) Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements for transportation?
a. Not applicable directly but the sites are near transportation arteries that currently serve
mineral extraction uses.
j) Does the proposal adversely affect adopted level of service standards for public facilities and
services other than transportation (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire
flow, and general governmental services)?
a. No.
k) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
a. Yes. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states that mineral resources should be
protected for future use (pg 2-7). This proposed MRL overlay designation will reserve
this area for future mineral resources extraction.
1) Will the proposal result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation
network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated?
a. For this proposal there are no impacts to the county's transportation network, capital
facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features. Any future potential Impacts will
be evaluated specifically during project specific permit review and the SEPA process.
m) Will the proposal place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities?
a. No. Evaluation of service capabilities will be evaluated during project specific permitting
and SEPA for future uses.
n) How is the subject parcel(s) physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the
anticipated land use development including, but not limited to the following:
a. Access: See Map Exhibit C1. Access is from SR-104. This is the access for existing mineral
resource extraction facilities on Wahl Lake Rd.
b. Provision of utilities: necessary utilities will be evaluated further at the project specific
level.
c. Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses? The existing zoning is
CF-80; the proposed MRL overlay designation will be on CF-80 zoned land, and the use
will remain forestry until mineral extraction activities occur. At reclamation the
property will revert back to forestry which will remain the underlying use. All property
abutting the proposed MRL overlay is forestry use.
o) Will the proposal, if adopted, create a pressure to change the land use designation of other
properties?
No.
If the answer is yes, how would such change of land use designation on other properties be in
the long-term best interests of the county as a whole?
p) Does the proposed site -specific amendment materially affect the land use and population
growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan?
No, an MRL overlay is a temporary use, the property will revert back to CF-80 once
reclaimed. The property is commercial forestry and is not intended to be inhabited.
q) If the proposed redesignation/rezone is located within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), would the proposal materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and
services to the immediate areas and the overall UGA?
The proposal areas are not in the UGA.
r) Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A
RCW), the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, and other applicable inter -
jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws?
Yes. The GMA governs the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Both plans supports
designation of mineral resource land for future commercial use.
Mar 01 2021
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
Purpose of checklist:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization
or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental
impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal.
Instructions for applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please
answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult
with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does
not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You
may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to
these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making
process.
The checklist questions apply to all parts_ of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal
or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
Instructions for Lead Agencies:
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate
the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The
checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information neededto make an
adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is
responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: hf e
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable
parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS art 17).. Please
completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or
site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead
agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not
contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal.
A. Background hf M
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: hel
Shine 2021 MRL Overlay
2. Name of applicant: hel
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: hf e
400 Valley Ave NE Puyallup WA, Patricia Larson, 253-833-3705 x461
4. Date checklist prepared: hf elpl
March 1, 2021
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 12
D
5. Agency requesting checklist: hf elpl Mar 01 2021
Jefferson County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): heI JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
P 9 (� 9 P 9�f pl
2021 Jefferson Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with
this proposal? If yes, explain. hf elpl
Yes. Once the proposed MRL (Mineral Resources Lands) overlay is in process and/or
approved, application of site specific plans for mineral extraction will be submitted.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal. h
Environmental information will be prepared for mineral extraction during site specific permitting
process.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. hf e
None known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. h
Ordinance review, public hearing by the Jefferson County Planning Commission and
transmission from Planning Commission to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners.
Ordinance review, public hearing and adoption by the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners. Review by the Washington State Department of Commerce and other
agencies, per the Growth Management Act.
This is proposed is a MRL overlay designation which requires an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for Jefferson County. Approval from Jefferson County is
required for this amendment.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain
aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may
modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) hf e
The Applicant requests an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map to designate approximately 200 acres to include in MRL overlay.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If
a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a
legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you
should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed
plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. hj_e
The project is located 3.5 miles south-southwest of the State Route 19 and State Route 104
intersection. The nearest address is 1500 Wahl Lake Rd, Port Ludlow WA.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS h[ eM
1. Earth hf e
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197.11-960) July 2016
Page 2 of 12
a. General description of the site: hf elpl
(circle one): Flat Railing, Hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Mar 01 2021
UD
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? hf elpl JEFFERSON COUNTY OCO
40%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you
know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term
commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. hf jpj
Silty sand and sandy loam are found on the site. There are no agricultural land of long-term
commercial significance within the proposed area.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe,
hf eV
None known.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any
filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. hf elpl
The proposal is to designate approximately 200 acres of area with the MRL overlay designation for
future mineral extraction. Quantities of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed will be addressed
in a project specific permit.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. [he
No, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? hf e
None, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: hf elpl
None, N/A.
2. Air fq@Vj
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and
maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate
quantities if known. hf e
None, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. [hel
No, N/A.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: h[ elo
None, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
3. Water h[ elpl
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round
and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide
names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. hf e
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016
Page 3 of 12
Mar 01 2021 Wetlands, Thorndyke Creek and associated tributaries are in the vicinity of the project.
Thorndyke Creek flows into Hood Canal via Thorndyke Bay.
JEFFERSON COUNTY ®CQD
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters?
If yes, please describe and attach available plans. hf gM
No, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill
material. hf e
None, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known. hf elpl
No, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
3) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. [he
No.
4) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe
the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Riel al
No. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a
general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the
well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known. helpl
No, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment. Water use will be
addressed at the project specific level.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...
; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the
system(s) are expected to serve. hf elpl
None, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment. Discharges, if any,
will be addressed on the project specific level.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other
waters? If so, describe. hf e
None, N /A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment. Impacts storm water
and other runoff will be addressed at the project specific level through Jefferson County
and Washington State Department of Ecology.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. hf elpl
No, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment. Any impacts to
groundwater and surface water will be addressed at the project specific level.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so,
describe. 1hel
No, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment. Any impacts to
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 12
drainage patterns and surface water will be addressed at the project specific level.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern
impacts, if any: h[ elpl
None, N/A.
4. Plants [hel
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: hf elpj Mar 01 2021
D�
x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other JEFFERSON COUNTY ®C®
x _shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? [hel
None, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. h) e
Whitebark Pine, Golden Paintbrush
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on
the site, if any: hf e
None, N/A.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. hf e
None, N/A. This is a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment.
5. Animals [hel
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site. hel
Hawks, songbirds, deer, bear, elk, coyote and other small mammals.
Examples include:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960)
July 2016
rage 0 or 1 Z
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. hf elpl
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. hf e JDJJaV%
None known. 9Mar 01 2021
D�
JEFFERSON COUNTY ®CO
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: hf e
None, N/A.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. hf e
None known.
6. Energy and Natural Resources h[ elo
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. [help]
None. N/A
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. [help]
No, N/A.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: hf e
None.
7. Environmental Health hI W
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
hf eM
No.
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.lhe
None known.
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and
design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within
the project area and in the vicinity. 1hel
None known.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the
project's development or construction, or at any time during theoperating life of the project. [hella7
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 12
None, N/A.
ar 01 2021
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. hf elpl JEFFERSONCOUNTY ®CO
None, N/A.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: hj glp]
None.
b. Noise hf e
What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (forexample: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)? hf elpl
None, N/A.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project ona short-
term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
hours noise would come from the site. hi elpl
None for this proposal. Mineral extraction site specific permits and SEPA would evaluate and
adhere to Jefferson County Code requirements for any future long term noise.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: hf e
None.
8. Land and Shoreline Use hf @M
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses
on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. hf e
The current use of the proposed MRL overlay is CF-80 (Commercial Forestry). All property
adjacent to the proposed overlay is commercial forest zoning.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How
much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as
a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in
farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? hf e
The site is zoned and used as commercial forest land (CF-80). The MRL overlay is an interim use,
after reclamation the property will revert to its underlying zoning. After project specific permits for
mineral extraction are approved, Miles Sand & Gravel will work with the property owner on
conversion of forest properties to mineral extraction area, then upon reclamation, the property will
be restored to underlying zoning, currently commercial forestry.
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business
operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and
harvesting? If so, how: hf elpl
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site. hf e
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 12
42 Mar 01 20?1
None.
JEFFERSON COUNTY OCGD
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? hf e
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? hf elpl
CF-80 (Commercial Forestry)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? hf elp]
CF-80 (Commercial Forestry)
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? hf elpl
None.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify._[he
he
Some wetlands are shown in the County's mapping system near the proposed MRL overlay
area. These wetlands and any other critical areas will be taken into consideration, along with
any required buffers during the project specific application process.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? hf elpl
None for this proposal.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? hf e
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: hf elpl
None, N/A.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: hf e
The proposed MRL overlay is adjacent to previously approved MRL overlay designation properties,
as well as adjacent to existing mineral extraction facilities. The property is within and surrounded
by commercial forestry property. After reclamation the property will revert to its underlying use, as
mineral extraction is a temporary use.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any: hf elp�
None. The property will revert to commercial forest zoning upon reclamation.
9. Housing hf e
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 12
income housing. hL e
None.
MMar 01 2021 1)),
JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing. hf elpl
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: hf e
None, there are no impacts.
10. Aesthetics hf e
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal
exterior building material(s) proposed? hf e
None for this proposal.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? hel
None for this proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: hf elpl
None.
11. Light and Glare hf e
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? hf elpl
None, N/A.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? hf elpl
No.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? hel
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: hf elpl
None.
12. Recreation hj e
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? hf elpl
None.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. hf elp]
M
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016
..U- a — —
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, includi I
i ies to
be provided by the project or applicant, if any:�1:
None. Mar 01 2021 s
13. Historic and cultural preservation hf a JEFFERSON COUNTY OCD
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed
in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe.
hf elpl
No.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This
may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of
cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to
identify such resources. hf e
None known. Historic and cultural preservation will be evaluated at the project specific level.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or
near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and
historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. [he
This proposal only addresses Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zoning
Amendment. Historic and cultural preservation will be evaluated further at the project specific level.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to
resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. 1hel
None, N/A.
14. Transportation hf e
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. h� e
SR 104 will be the access to the MRL overlay area. Wahl Lake Road though Miles Sand & Gravel's
existing facility will be the primary access to the site, along with existing logging roads.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? hf elpl
No. Public transit is not available within or near the site.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How
many would the project or proposal eliminate? hf elpl
None.
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or
state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public
or private). hf elpl
Not at this time.
SEPA Environmental checklist (NAC 197-11-960)
July 2016
Page 10 of 12
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe. hf e
No, water, rail or air transportation are not proposed.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such
as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make
these estimates? hf elpl
None for this proposal.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest
products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. hl e
No.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: hel RD
jy1jC2M
None. 4Mar 01 2021
JEFFERSON COUNTY ®CAD
15. Public Services hf eM
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police
protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. hf e
►1561
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. [hel
None.
16. Utilities hf elpl
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: fhelpl
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other
No utilities are currently available at the site.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. hel
None proposed as part of this application-
C. Signature hLpeM
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: '(Va&meal —V�
Name of signee Patricia Larson
Position and Agency/Organization Corporate Programs Manager/Miles Sand & Gravel Company
Date Submitted: 3/1/2021
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 12
RMar01 2021 DO
D. supplemental sheet for nonproject actions hf M JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD
(IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the
list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate
than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage,
or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The proposal is a request for an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map. Project specific evaluation will evaluate discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. Mineral
extraction under a project specific permit would be the future use.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
General mitigation measures for site specific mineral extraction are described below.
Project specific impacts will be evaluated under the future site specific permits and
future SEPA:
• A site specific stormwater plan will be prepared for mineral extraction facilities under
DOE NPDES Permit and Jefferson County Public Works.
• A clean air permit will be obtained from the appropriate authority.
• A Spill Control Plan is included in the Site Management Plan as required by the DOE
NPDES Permit.
• Noise levels for specific mineral extraction activity will be evaluated for the site, and
will comply with Jefferson County Code.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is a request for an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map. Future mineral extraction will require the removal of trees as an interim use, some animals may
become displaced into the surrounding commercial forest lands.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Mineral extraction is an interim use, after mineral extraction is complete, the property will revert to the
underlying use which is currently commercial forestry (CF-80).
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is a request for an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map which will not have any impact on energy and natural resources. Future use of mineral extraction
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 12
will use fossil fuels to power equipment used in excavation and reclamation of th .�WMI2021 DO
extraction in itself will process and deplete the mineral resource.
JEFFERSON COUNTY ®CO
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Electrical equipment is used when practical and all equipment using fossil fuels will be properly
maintained to make them as efficient as possible. Mineral extraction is an interim use, after mineral
extraction is complete, the property will revert to the underlying use which is currently commercial
forestry (CF-80).
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated
(or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic
rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or
prime farmlands?
The proposal is a request for an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map. For the subsequent use, site specific permits and SEPA will be necessary.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Evaluation of the impacts will be addressed under the site specific permits. Site specific SEPA will
identify and determine any necessary protection levels for parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains or prime
farmlands.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The proposal is a request for an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map. Subsequent use could consider any shoreline impact in the SEPA process through buffering.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
For the subsequent use, site specific permits will be necessary and required buffer of shorelines will be
determined per Jefferson County Code during the SEPA process.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
The proposal is a request for an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map. For the subsequent use, site specific plans will be necessary to determine impacts to
transportation or public services and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Evaluation of the impacts will be addressed the site specific permits and SEPA in regards to
transportation or public services and utilities.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements
for the protection of the environment.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 12
None known.
i zags
Mar 01 2021 D�
JEFFERSON COUNTY OCD
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 12
• Vc-D 2 ATTACHMENT C
GC,- A U:b
CA
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF ESTABLISHING }
THE 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN } RESOLUTION NO. 7-2- 21
AMENDMENT DOCKET AND }
ESTABLISHING DEADLINES FOR }
LEGISLATIVE ACTION }
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) and WAC 365-196-640(6)(a) require
JeffersonCounty to allow interested persons to suggest amendments to the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan or its development regulations during annual
amendment cycles; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) requires that local governments consider
their annual amendments, together, no more than one-time per year; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan's Plan Foundation and
Chapter 18.45 Jefferson County Code ("JCC") incorporates the requirement to allow
interested persons to suggest amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan or its development regulations during the annual amendment cycle; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.45 JCC establishes a preliminary and final docketing
process for the annual amendment cycle; and
WHEREAS, JCC 18.45.050 establishes a preliminary docket which requires the
following proposed amendments to be placed on the preliminary docket: (1) formal
site -specific amendments and (2) suggested text or site -specific amendments; and
WHEREAS, JCC 18.45.040 requires that suggested amendments be submitted
to DCD no later than March I` of each year for consideration in the final docket; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the final docket does not constitute a decision or
recommendation that the substance of any docket item should be adopted by the
BoCC; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2021 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to accept testimony regarding the suggested text amendments on the
preliminary docket, and after deliberations on the hearing record, the Planning
Commission voted 7-0 to recommend two amendments (MLA21-00018 & 19) be
placed on the 2021 final docket; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2021 the Planning Commission's recommendations
for the Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Final Docket were presented to the
BoCC for consideration, deliberation and possible adoption, at which time the BoCC
moved and voted to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for the final
docket; and
WHEREAS, in the past year, DCD lost its director and planning manager, and as a result,
operated much of the year with interim management, which meant that the duties and projects
normally performed by interim management were impacted; and
WHEREAS, DCD has experienced other staffing shortages due to COVID-19 and other
reasons; and
WHEREAS, these DCD staffing limitations have resulted in workload and time
constraints that make it impossible to meet the deadline established JCC 18.45.080(2)(d) and
handle its existing workload at the same time; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the County, considering COVID-19 and its
impacts on residents, businesses and DCD staff, and significant staff reductions, to suspend
all remaining deadlines regarding the review, recommendation and final adoption of the 2021
docket items for DCD staff, the Planning Commission and the BoCC; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the BoCC that in response to the
reduction in DCD staff, the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle shall be revised as
follows:
1. All deadlines in Chapter 18.45 JCC for the processing and adoption of 2021
docket items, which occur after the adoption of the Final Docket on May 10, 2021, be
suspended; and
2. The Planning Commission hearing, report and recommendation to the BoCC
on all items on the 2021 final docket shall be completed no later than May 18, 2022; and
3. The BoCC shall take final legislative action on 2021 docket items by July 5,
2022, unless extended by the BoCC consistent with WAC 365-196-640(3)(a).
(SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE)
APPROVED this day of December, 2021.
SEAL: $�
it
I V
1
o 3�*
H
ATTEST:
P Cc & �14
Carolyn Jallaway,
Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Kate Dean. Chair
Member
Heidi Eisenhour, Member
Consent Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Brent Butler, Director, Community Development
David Wayne Johnson, Interim Planning Manager, Community Development
DATE: December 6, 2021
SUBJECT: Resolution to Modify the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Docket
Schedule Due to Department of Community Development (DCD)
staff limitations.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Chapter 18.45 Jefferson County Code (JCC) contains a process for the annual
Comprehensive Plan Cycle. Due to DCD staffing limitations, that schedule cannot be
met. DCD staff presented this issue to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
on October 11, 2021, during a workshop at which the BoCC agreed to the extended
the timeline for processing of the 2021 Comp Plan Amendment Cycle (CPAC) by
resolution (attached) to suspend the current cycle for 2021, and establish new
deadlines for BoCC review and action.
ANALYSIS:
In April and May this year, DOD's Director and Planning Manager resigned respectively,
necessitating staff to fill those positions on an interim basis. Management resigned soon
after acknowledging record -setting permit activity as outlined below and submitting a
request for Special Personnel Authority.
1 st
Quarter Year
Building Permits
Land Use Permits
2021 —1st
quarter
300
153
2020 —
1"
quarter
183 (2021 is 164% of
2020 levels)
163 (2021 is 94% of
2020 levels
2019 —1st
quarter
148 (2021 is 202% of
2019 levels)
138 (2021 is 111% of
2019 levels
2018 —
Is'
quarter
220 (2021 is 136% of
2018 levels)
109 (2021 is 140% of
2018 levels
Consent Agenda
The authority waived the 2-year experience requirement for the Permit Tech II, converted
two existing clerk hires to two-year term assistant planners, authorized lead status to an
Associate Planner to support Energov, and resulted in the hiring of a new Planning Tech.
As a result, valuable planners were retained and the department's work stabilized. Upon the
management team's resignation, an Associate Planner Lead was named interim planning
manager and his current planning duties and projects reassigned. This restructuring
impacted the CPAC. Since this time, planning staff have been operating with a one full time
employee (FTE) deficit. DCD staffing limitations have resulted in workload and time
constraints that make it impossible to meet the deadline established JCC 18.45.080(2)(d) and
handle its existing workload at the same time.
In April 2020, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopted a resolution No.
25-20, suspending deadlines in the Chapter 18.45 JCC schedule for the CPAC due to
impacts from COVIDI9, extending the deadline for processing the 2020 CPAC to
February 26, 2021. Due to additional items (2) added to the final docket and reduced
time in which to complete the work, the BoCC extended that deadline again through
resolution No. 69-20, for final action to April 30, 2021 consistent with WAC 365-196-
640. These actions are consistent with the proposed action and are a result of impacts
beyond the control of DCD.
ATTACHMENT:
Resolution to 2021 CPAC
FISCAL IMPACT:
No significant impact by adopting the revised resolution. To the extent cost estimates to
complete the work which involve general fund supported activities at a level that exceeds the
staffing and budget already supported by the General Fund, the Board may be asked to
appropriate additional General Fund transfer dollars to support that work through the extended
deadlines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review, consider and adopt the attached resolution
REVIEWED BY:
1144,e �Z 1, 11,17,hl
Mark McCauley I erim County Administrator Date
Attachment D
SON c0 JEFFERSON COUNTY
c DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
c
621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368
��. 360-379-4450 1 email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
gs1QN6 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/CommunityDevelopment
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
RELATING TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN APPLICATION MLA22-00035
AND
NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND
PENDING SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
AND
NOTICE OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Jefferson County is issuing an integrated
GMA/SEPA document per WAC 197-11-210 through 197-11-235, relative to
proposed amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson
County has determined that it is the appropriate SEPA lead agency for the
proposal. Adoption of any amendments through this action would be a Non -
Project Action under SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Summary of Proposed Changes: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT —
MINERAL RESOURCE LAND OVERLAY EXTENSION. Miles Sand & Gravel Company
(Applicant) requests an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map to include additional land adjacent to an existing Mineral
Resources Land (MRL) overlay which would allow the Applicant to seek additional
project -specific approvals for sand and gravel extraction and processing. This
application was received March 1, 2021, and was carried over to 2022.
The proposed extension to the MRL overlay designation will add approximately
200 acres to the existing 165-acre MRL overlay in the Wahl Extraction Area to
access contiguous existing resources. The proposed additional area for the MRL
overlay is located in the vicinity of and contiguous to existing MRL overlay areas
where there is an existing mineral extraction facility. Processing will be in the
same area as currently done and no additional truck traffic is planned.
The underlying land use designation of Commercial Forestry (CF80) remains and
forestry is managed on areas not being actively mined. Forestry is the subsequent
land use after mineral resource extraction and reclamation are complete.
Applicant: Miles Sand & Gravel Company, 400 Valley Ave. NE, Puyallup, WA
98163. Owner: Rayonier Forest Resources, 3033 Ingram St., Hoquiam, WA 98550
GMA Notice: This document serves as the 60-day Notice of Intent to Amend the
Jefferson County Development Regulations and is being circulated per WAC 365-
196-620 to State agencies responsible for reviewing proposed amendments to
comprehensive plans and/or County Development Regulations.
SEPA Notice: The proposed amendment will be reviewed under SEPA as a Non -
project Action involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs (WAC 197-11-
704). The Department of Community Development (DCD) has assumed the
responsibility of Lead Agency under SEPA, has reviewed the proposed project for
probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS). This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead
agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this notice. The
proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable development
regulations, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation
measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared.
Mitigation measures may include provisions already in Ch. 18.20 JCC for use -
specific performance standards and Ch. 18.30 JCC for development standards.
Comments on the SEPA Threshold Determination must be submitted to the
Department of Community Development, Attn. MLA21-00019 Miles Sand &
Gravel Mineral Resources Overlay Extension, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,
WA 98368, by the close of Jefferson County Planning Commission Hearing, which
begins at 5:30 pm on September 21, 2022. A copy of the subsequent final
threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request.
Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents: This announcement also serves as
a notice of adoption of existing environmental documents. After review of the
suggested amendment and existing environmental documents, the SEPA
Responsible Official at DCD has determined that existing environmental
documents provide adequate environmental review to satisfy the requirements
of WAC 197-11-600.
The following existing environmental documents are being adopted:
• 1997-1998 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements
(DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS are dated February 24,
1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential
cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
• 6/30/1999 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS)--Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments (Task III of Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study)
• 8/18/1999 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments. Tri-Area/Glen
Cove Special Study Task IV.
• 6/11/2001 Glen Cove/Tri-Area Special Study Supplemental EIS Final
Decision Document, June 11, 2001
• 2002 Integrated Growth Management Act/State Environmental Policy
Act Document Environmental Review of a Non -Project Action: Draft
Supplemental EIS August 21, 2002, to Supplement the Comprehensive
Plan Draft and Final EIS (1997) and Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments Draft and Final SEIS. November 25, 2002 Integrated FSEIS
2002 Amendment Docket.
This FSEIS was appealed before the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) of which the WWGMHB issued
a Final Decision and Order (FDO) and remanded it back to the Department
for additional environmental review.
The county hired Wheeler Consulting, to prepare additional
environmental review based on the FDO. A DSEIS to the 2002 CPA SEIS
was issued on March 3, 2004. A FSEIS to the 2002 CPA SEIS was issued on
May 12, 2004 as part of the review and in consideration of MLA02-00235.
• 2004 Staff Report and SEPA Addendum to 1998 EIS for UGA Amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan issued May 19, 2004.
• 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community
Development Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued
September 22, 2004.
• 2009 Integrated GMA/SEPA Addendum Staff Report, September 2, 2009.
Adopted by legal notice: 1998 DEIS/FEIS, September 22nd Staff Report
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, "and all supplementary
information... supporting record, analyses, materials."
• 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update 2038 SEPA
Addendum to 1998 Draft and Final Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statements and subsequent Supplemental EISs and
Addenda. April 4, 2018
Planning Commission Public Hearing: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson
County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 21,
2022 to take oral and written comment on the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan before making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners on whether to adopt the proposed amendment. The Planning
3
Commission meeting and public hearing will be held on-line beginning at 5:30 PM,
Wednesday, September 21, 2022.
COVID-19 NOTICE: At this time, we are planning an on-line hearing with no in -
person attendance allowed. Please check the Jefferson County Calendar for
updated information about hybrid meetings:
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/CaIendar.aspx
You can join the Planning Commission hearing by using the following methods:
Zoom Meeting: Meeting ID: 886 7104 7253
Passcode: 894561
https://us02web.zoom.us/i/88671047253?pwd=0U8vTWZGWTVRRGNRVEQ1c2k
OWDVadz09
This link is also provided electronically at the Community Development page.
This option will allow you to join the meeting live. You will need to enter an email
address. If you wish to provide public comment, click on the hand icon at the
bottom of the screen to "raise your hand.". Participation will be up to the Chair of
the meeting
Please sign on 5 to 10 minutes before the official start of the meeting to check
sound and video quality. This video will be closed -captioned enabled for persons
with disabilities.
Audio only: 1-253-215-8782, Meeting ID 88671047253, Passcode 894561.
Public Comment Period: The Department of Community Development and the
Planning Commission are accepting general comments on the merits of this
suggested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Written comments will be
accepted through the close of the Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 21,
2022. Any written comments on these suggested amendments submitted after
the close of the public comment period will be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative decision. The BoCC may
also hold a public hearing before taking action. Formal notice would appear in
this newspaper. Written comments on the proposal may be submitted to the
Department of Community Development, Attn. MLA21-00019 Miles Sand & Gravel
Mineral Resources Overlay Extension, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA
98368 or via email to ipeterson@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request copies
of the original application for the proposed amendments, the adopted existing
21
environmental documents or the Staff Report and Recommendation, visit the
Department of Community Development webpage,
http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment and follow the link to Public
Notices. You can also access the project documents directly from the Laserfiche
Web Portal for 2021 case files, case MLA21-00019, at:
https://test.co.iefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/Browse.aspx?id=4080581&dbid=
0&repo=Jefferson.
[end]
MINERAL RESOURCE
LANDS OVERLAY
MILES SAND & GRAVEL (MLA2021-00019)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Apply 200-acre Mineral Resource Land overlay (MRL) to Wahl Lake
Extraction Area
Extends mineral extraction zone from an existing 167-acre MRL
Does not increase production or traffic just extends ongoing operation
Underlying zone is Commercial Forest (CF-80)
Exhibit C 1 - Site Access JEFFERSON COVM YDOC
P D
Par 0�1 2021�
REGULATION OF MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION
Washington Department of Natural Resources — Surface Mining & Reclamation
GMA reference (RCW 36.70A.050 & citations in Chapter365-190 WAC)
"Shall first identify natural resource lands."
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan references: Land Use, Natural Resources,
Environment, Economic Development.
Jefferson County Code: JCC 8.20.240 Mineral extraction, mining, quarrying and
reclamation.
1
JCC 18.20.240
The total disturbed area of mineral extraction, mining
and quarrying sites (excluding access roads) and any
associated mineral processing activities shall not exceed
10 acres. Any proposed mineral extraction which
would create disturbed areas in excess of 10 gross
acres shall require an MRL designation.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PROCESS
Familiarization of Planning Commission with evaluation criteria
Review of Community Development Staff Report and SEPA Addendum
Hearing held on September 21, 2022 to receive public comment on
proposal.
Findings and public testimony recorded to make Recommendation.
Recommendation letter provided to the Board.
Because project is added to 2023 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle,
project will be evaluated for cumulative impacts with 2023 proposals.
2022-2023 Extended Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle
2022 Amendment Cycle
F
023 Amendment Cycle
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Groundwater & surface water monitoring for potential
affect on Thorndyke Creek, wetlands, aquatic resources.
Correct fish passage barriers if they are in project area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Provide funding for renewed County mapping of
mineral resources.
f
u estions
?
r r�s