HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 CPA Staff Report v. 10-18-2023 Combined
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT DOCKET
STAFF REPORT AND SEPA ADDENDUM
Staff Recommendation
with Environmental Analysis
for the Adoption of Amendments
to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and Unified Development Code
October 11, 2023
INTEGRATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT
Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action:
Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents
Department of Community Development
Long-Range Planning
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-1
1 Environmental Summary & Fact Sheet
1.1 FACT SHEET
Title and Description of
Proposed Action
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management
Act (GMA), the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) is considering adoption of
three (3) individual site-specific amendment proposals
to the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
two (2) amendments proposals to the Unified
Development Code (UDC).
This document is a combined Staff Report and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for the
proposed amendments. The objective of this
document is to analyze the proposed amendments
individually and cumulatively with regard to
Comprehensive Plan amendment criteria outlined in
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45 and potential
environmental impacts under SEPA. Adoption of
Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments 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
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals will come
forward as deny, approve or approve with
modifications.
Following are brief descriptions of each of the proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC,
that are the subject of this notice.
Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1. ZON2021-0013: Miles Sand & Gravel,
addition of 200-ac Mineral Resource Land
Overlay contiguous with current extraction
operation, Wahl Lake extraction area in the
vicinity of 1500 Wahl Lake Road, Parcels
701011001, 701021002, 701121001,
701111001.
2. ZON2023-00004: Jamie and Alicia Gifford-
Yep, rezone 17-acre RR20 to RR5, Rhody Dr
and Anderson Lake Rd, Parcel 901101005.
3. ZON2023-00006: Midori Farm and M&J
Investments, rezone 14.5-ac RR5 to
Agriculture, 294152 Hwy 101, Quilcene,
Parcels 702133022, 702133029
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-2
Suggested UDC Amendments:
1. Planning Commission: Housing. Develop
regulations using performance standards for
single-parcel planned rural residential
developments. Develop congregate housing
regulations. These proposals may be carried
forward to the 2024 amendment cycle and
combined with other housing amendment
proposals.
2. Community Development: UDC
Housekeeping Omnibus Amendments. 12
total amendments. Enact existing
Comprehensive Policies by establishing
Highway Visual Corridor Overlay to codify
existing policies on a portion SR20, rescind
Forest Transition Overlay; clarify building
development process during UGA sewer
implementation, temporary use permit for RV
residence during.
Proponent The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
(BoCC) on behalf of the applicants.
Lead Agency Jefferson County Department of Community
Development (DCD)
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
(360) 379-4450
SEPA Responsible Official:
Greg Ballard, Development Code Administrator
(360) 379-4454
Contact Person:
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner
(360) 379-4457
Authors and Principal
Contributors
Jefferson County Department of Community
Development Long-Range Planning
Date of Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
October 11, 2023
Date Comments are Due For all amendment proposals:
• Oral comments are welcome at the Planning
Commission public hearing, 5:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, November 1, 2023, at the Tri-Area
Community Center, 10 West Valley Road,
Chimacum, Washington 98325.
• Written comments will be accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through the
close of the Public Hearing, November 1, 2023.
Written comments may be sent to: 2023
Amendment Cycle, Department of Community
Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-3
Townsend, WA 98368, or emailed to
planning@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Past Related Actions and
Future Anticipated Actions
ZON2021-0013: Miles Sand & Gravel Mineral
Resource Land Overlay (MRLO) was heard by the
Planning Commission in 2022, and the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the MRLO. The
proposal was held over to 2023 and will receive final
action in mid-December by the BoCC with the 2023
proposals.
Tentative Adoption Date A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the
Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendment proposals
under consideration is expected the second week in
December 2023. Meeting schedules and agendas for
the Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to this
Docket will be published in the Leader newspaper and
on the County website.
Appeal Information Issues relating to the adequacy of this SEPA
Addendum and other procedural issues may not be
appealed under the administrative appeal provisions of
JCC §18.40.330. Appeals of GMA actions are heard
first by the Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board.
Location of Background
Material and Documents
Incorporated by Reference
Background material and documents used to support
development of the Addendum are available
https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/
Browse.aspx?id=4713187&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson
Relation to Other Documents A series of documents have been prepared by or on
behalf of Jefferson County to evaluate the impacts of
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations (i.e., the Unified
Development Code (UDC) codified as Title 18 JCC),
including amendments to both the Plan and UDC.
These documents, listed in part 3 of this document,
“Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide
substantial background information and offer previous
environmental descriptions and analyses. They are
incorporated herein by this reference. The reader is
encouraged to refer to these documents in conjunction
with this document for a broader understanding of the
issues and impacts analyzed.
In this document, descriptions of and references to the
contents of the proposed amendments have been
provided to the greatest extent possible, but do not
include all information from the Comprehensive Plan
amendment applications. For a more complete
understanding of the discussion presented within this
document, the Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications themselves should be consulted.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-4
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
1.2.1 Introduction and Process
Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) on
August 28, 1998 and continues to update the Plan through required periodic reviews. The Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan is a policy document that guides growth and future land use decisions in Jefferson
County. In each successive year since initial adoption, the County has conducted a Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycle as provided by the GMA. JCC 18.45 contains the set of development regulations adopted
to guide the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with JCC18.45, all site-specific
amendments (formal applications submitted in conjunction with a fee) automatically qualified for the “Final
Docket.” One site-specific amendment application (ZON2023-00005) was withdrawn because the
proposed activity could be done in the current zone with a Conditional Use Permit, and did not require
rezoning. The 2021 Mineral Resource Land Overlay was delayed due to staffing issues attributable to the
Covid Pandemic, and eventually combined with the 2023 amendment cycle. This project, however, has
already been recommended for approval by the Jefferson County Planning Commission. On April 19, 2023,
the Planning Commission heard testimony on the two suggested amendments on the Preliminary Docket
and recommended them to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) to be part of the Final Docket. On
May 8, 2023, the BoCC then established the Final Docket, including the two UDC proposals and the three
site-specific zoning proposals.
This document is an integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum. The
object of this document is to analyze the proposed amendments individually and cumulatively with regard
to goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as amendment criteria outlined in JCC 18.45, and
potential environmental impacts as required under SEPA. The adoption of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and the UDC is a non-project action under SEPA, and the analysis presented in this
document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA requirements (i.e., the review needed for
future land use or building permit applications). This is an integrated GMA/SEPA document that combines
environmental analysis with a Staff Report offering a recommended action on each proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment and the UDC amendment. Guidance for preparing integrated
GMA/SEPA documents is found at Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-235. The analysis in
this document supplements the existing adopted environmental documents incorporated herein by
reference. 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals will come forward as deny, approve or
approve with modifications.
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents
The following existing environmental documents have been 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.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-5
6/30/1999
8/18/1999
Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS)--Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments
(Task III of 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.
6/11/2001 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.
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
2004 2004 Staff Report and SEPA Addendum to 1998 EIS for UGA Amendments
to the 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.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-6
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The three Comprehensive Plan amendment applications and two UDC amendment applications, including
all supplemental information submitted with or associated with the applications, all supporting record,
analyses, and materials listed in part 3 of this document, all Appendix Items to this report, and all other
materials or documents referenced in the text within are incorporated herein by this reference, pursuant to
WAC 197-11-600 and 635.
The documents listed in part 3 of this document, “Supporting Record, Analyses, and Materials,” provide
substantial background information and offer previous environmental descriptions and analyses. The
reader is encouraged to use existing documents in conjunction with this document for a more
comprehensive understanding of the issues and impacts analyzed.
1.2.1.3 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 2023 Comprehensive Plan & UDC Amendment Docket proposals.
Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of growth
management planning actions. The adoption of comprehensive plan and UDC amendments is classified
under SEPA as a non-project (i.e., programmatic) action. A non-project action, such as decisions on
policies, plans or programs, is defined as an action that is broader than permit review for a single site-
specific project. Environmental analysis for a non-project proposal does not require the same level of site-
specific analysis required in conjunction with a permit application; instead, a document such as an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a SEPA Addendum discusses impacts and alternatives
appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal (WAC
197-11-442). The analysis in this document is not intended to satisfy individual project action SEPA
requirements (i.e., the review needed for a future land use or building permit application).
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
2022 Staff Report & SEPA Environmental Review to establish regulations for the
siting, establishment, and operation of temporary housing facilities for
unhoused people needing emergency housing services. Proposal to Amend
Unified Development Code Chapter 18.20 JCC Performance & Use-Specific
Standards, Chapter 18.10 JCC Definitions. Integrated Growth Management
Act/State Environmental Policy Act Addendum. April 20, 2022.
2022 Staff Report & Environmental Review, Proposal to Amend Unified
Development Code (UDC) Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.12: ‘Legal Lot of
Record Determination and Lot Consolidation’ and Amendments to JCC 18.10
and 18.35. Integrated Growth Management Act (GMA)/State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum. August 24, 2022.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-7
SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are ready for decision,
and to exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready for decision-making (WAC 197-
11-060(5)). Phased review is appropriate when the sequence of a proposal is from a programmatic
document, such as an integrated GMA/SEPA document addressing comprehensive plan amendments, to
other documents that are narrower in scope, such as site-specific, project-level analyses (i.e., “project
actions” under SEPA). Additional environmental review of development proposals will occur as specific
projects are proposed (e.g., land use and building permit applications). This will result in an additional
incremental level of review when subsequent implementing actions require a more detailed evaluation and
as additional information becomes available.
1.2.1.4 Process and Public Involvement
The following is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2023
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, related UDC amendments, and associated Staff Report and
SEPA Addendum.
1.2.1.4.1 Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketing Process
The public process for compiling the final docket has followed the public involvement requirements of the
GMA and the specific procedures established in JCC 18.45.060 through 18.45.090. DCD staff compiled
the preliminary Comprehensive Plan amendment docket following the March 1, 2023 deadline for
applications set forth in JCC 18.45.040 (2) (a).
From April through June, the Planning Commission and Community Development held public meetings to
gather information and testimony regarding preliminary docketing recommendations.
The site-specific proposals were docketed automatically. After timely and effective public notice, the
Planning Commission held an open record public hearing on April 19, 2023, to receive public comment on
the suggested amendments of the preliminary docket.
On April 19, 2023, the Planning Commission transmitted its final docketing report and recommendations to
the BoCC.
On May 8, 2023, Community Development presented the docket analysis and Planning Commission
recommendations to the BoCC. The BoCC discussed the suggested amendments on the preliminary docket
and accepted the Planning Commission recommendations.
1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Planning Commission Public Hearing - Public Comment
Period
The Jefferson County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on November 1, 2023 to
take testimony on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2023 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket and the associated UDC amendments. A formal Notice of Intent to Amend
appears in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, October 11, 2023, announcing the November
1, 2023 public hearing, along with the issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday,
October 11, 2023, and initiates a public comment period. The notice provides instructions for providing
testimony.
Written public comments submitted after close of the Planning Commission comment period will be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative decision. The
BoCC may accept the recommendations of Planning Commission, or hold their own public hearing before
taking final legislative action on the Final Docket (formal notice will appear in the newspaper of record, the
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the BoCC hearing).
1.2.1.4.3 Availability of Documents
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-8
For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original applications for the proposed
amendments, the adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact
Community Development at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the
Laserfiche Web Portal at:
Community Development/Long Range Planning/2023 CP-UDC Annual Amendment Cycle.
https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/Browse.aspx?id=4713187&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson
1.2.1.4.4 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Deliberation
Following the public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and UDC Amendments, the Planning
Commission will deliberate on the proposals, potentially over a series of meetings, and formulate a
recommendation on each proposal for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). It is
anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate its deliberations for the proposals following the close
of oral testimony on November 1, 2023, and will continue deliberating on the proposed amendments during
a special meeting on the following Wednesday, November 8, 2023. Meetings will be noticed pursuant to
the Open Public Meetings Act. Deliberations will possibly continue in the following regular meeting of
November 15, 2023, if necessary. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will forward their
recommendations and transmittal document to the BoCC on all proposed amendments for the BoCC
meeting Monday, November 20, 2008.
In making a final legislative decision on the 2023 Docket, the BoCC considers the Planning Commission
recommendations, the full case record of the Docket (all comments provided to the Planning Commission,
the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings, and other background information), the DCD staff
recommendation that accompanies the Planning Commission recommendation, legal advice from the
Prosecuting Attorney’s office, and any written or oral comments provided to the BoCC before or during a
BoCC public hearing on the Docket (should one be held). If the BoCC elects to schedule one or more
public hearings on the Docket following receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, there would
be another opportunity for agencies and the public to provide formal comments on the Docket. A legal
notice would appear in the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the publication of record, announcing
any BoCC public hearings on the 2023 Docket. A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under consideration is expected by the second week in
December 2023.
1.2.2 Major Conclusions
The summary conclusions and/or highlights from the analysis in part 2 of this Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum are presented here for the reader’s convenience. A reading of the analysis in part 2 in addition
to any supporting material referenced in the text, including Appendix Items, is encouraged. Generally,
information presented elsewhere is not reprinted here.
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The complete description of the proposals, analysis of impacts, and recommendation for mitigation
measures and conditions are within the individual staff evaluations for each of the proposed amendments
found in part 2 of this document, “Concise Analysis of the Proposals,” or among the Appendix Items, as
appropriate. Summary statements presented in Table 1 below consist of the final recommendations and
do not include discussion or explanations. Readers are encouraged to review the more comprehensive
discussion of issues later in this chapter under “Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty,” and also found in
the “Concise Analysis” in part 2, and to consult the Appendix Items, the amendment applications
themselves, and other supporting materials listed in part 3, in order to formulate the most accurate
impression of impacts associated with the proposals and staff recommendations.
“Significant” as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on
environmental quality. Significance involves context and intensity and does not lend itself to a formula or
quantifiable text (WAC 197-11-794).
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-9
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
1
ZON2021-0013;
Miles Sand &
Gravel, addition of
200-ac Mineral
Resource Land
Overlay contiguous
with current
extraction operation,
Wahl Lake extraction
area in the vicinity of
1500 Wahl Lake
Road, Parcels
701011001,
701021002,
701121001,
701111001.
The proposed land use is
favored by state GMA and
Jefferson County and
appropriate in the CF80
zone. Wetlands and Fish
& Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas
(FWHCA) could be
impacted. Reclamation is
required. Further
environmental review is
required at a project level.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified for MRLO.
Approve.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-10
2
ZON2023-00004;
Jamie and Alicia
Gifford-Yep, rezone
17-acre RR20 to
RR5, Rhody Dr and
Anderson Lake Rd,
Parcel 901101005.
Potential addition of two
homesites. Does not
change levels of service
available. No significant
adverse environmental
impacts identified.
Approve.
3
ZON2023-00006;
Midori Farm and
M&J Investments,
rezone 14.5-ac
RR5 to Agriculture,
294152 Hwy 101,
Quilcene, Parcels
702133022,
702133029
Current land use is
agriculture. Insignificant
loss of potential residential
use. No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve.
4
Planning
Commission:
Housing. Develop
regulations using
performance
standards for single-
parcel planned rural
residential
developments.
Develop congregate
housing regulations.
These proposals
may be carried
forward to the 2024
amendment cycle
and combined with
other housing
amendment
proposals.
Creates increased
residential use of parcels
with no increase in
environmental impacts. No
significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Continue in 2024
5
Community
Development: UDC
Housekeeping
Omnibus
Amendments.
Enact existing
Comprehensive
Policies by
establishing
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve.
Table 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
APPLICATION NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS?
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION/
PROPOSED MITIGATION/
CONDITIONS
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-11
Highway Visual
Corridor Overlay to
codify existing
policies on a portion
SR20, rescind
Forest Transition
Overlay; clarify
building
development
process during UGA
sewer
implementation,
temporary use
permit for RV
residence during
residential
construction, repeals
density exemption at
JCC 18.30.040(4),
multiple updates for
consistency and to
correct scrivener
errors.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-12
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Conclusions as to whether an impact would be considered significant, unavoidable, and adverse are found
in the Summary Matrix above. Many of those conclusions contain assumptions about the ability to plan
future development proposals in a way that would minimize impacts, or assumptions about how mitigation
measures or existing regulations would be applied. Based upon use, regulation, and mitigation
assumptions, none of the potential impacts of the future development scenarios evaluated in this document
would meet all of the parameters (significant and unavoidable and adverse).
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty
Table 3 summarizes the key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers:
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
1
ZON2021-0013;
Miles Sand & Gravel,
addition of 200-ac
Mineral Resource
Land Overlay
contiguous with
current extraction
operation, Wahl
Lake extraction area
in the vicinity of 1500
Wahl Lake Road,
Parcels 701011001,
701021002,
701121001,
701111001.
PC recommendations for conditions at MRLO designation,
County proposes mitigation identified at project-specific review.
See SEPA discussion below.
Wetlands
Fish passage barriers
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-13
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
2
ZON2023-00004;
Jamie and Alicia
Gifford-Yep, rezone
17-acre RR20 to
RR5, Rhody Dr and
Anderson Lake Rd,
Parcel 901101005.
This proposal, as is the case with the other proposed rural up-zones,
raises the issue: under what circumstances is it appropriate to re-
designate and rezone lower density rural residential parcels for
higher density rural use?
Criteria used to establish zoning districts should not be used in
isolation of other considerations including lot supply, variety of rural
densities, critical areas on the parcel, maintaining rural character,
avoiding rural sprawl and the parcel’s proximity to the proposed
Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area.
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. Changing the zoning of
the rural residential 1:20 parcel would not directly create pressure to
up-zone parcels immediately adjacent to the property and it does not
contain significant critical areas. The issues concerning established
pattern criteria and precedence to up-zone similar parcels in the
county remain controversial.
3
ZON2023-00006;
Midori Farm and M&J
Investments, rezone
14.5-ac RR5 to
Agriculture, 294152
Hwy 101, Quilcene,
Parcels 702133022,
702133029
Jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) are
required to identify and protect natural resource lands so that future
development does not preclude their use. The county favors
agriculture and has designated agriculture lands with prime soils, or of
local importance as AP20 & AL20, respectively. Community
Development recommends zoning the subject parcels as Agricultural
Lands of Local Importance (AL20).
#
APPLICATION
NUMBER &
DESCRIPTION
Table 3. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNCERTAINTY
4
Planning
Commission:
Housing. Develop
regulations using
performance
standards for single-
parcel planned rural
residential
developments.
Develop congregate
housing regulations.
These proposals
may be carried
forward to the 2024
amendment cycle
and combined with
other housing
amendment
proposals.
GMA density concerns
Challenges in establishing performance standards. There is a
need for careful development of, and consistent regulation of
performance standards.
5
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-14
Community
Development: UDC
Housekeeping
Omnibus
Amendments.
Enact existing
Comprehensive
Policies by
establishing Highway
Visual Corridor
Overlay to codify
existing policies on a
portion SR20,
rescind Forest
Transition Overlay;
clarify building
development
process during UGA
sewer
implementation,
temporary use
permit for RV
residence during
residential
construction, repeals
density exemption at
JCC 18.30.040(4),
multiple updates for
consistency and to
correct scrivener
errors.
Establishing Highway Visual Corridor Overlay to codify existing
policies on a portion SR20,
Rescind Forest Transition Overlay;
Clarify building development process during UGA sewer
implementation,
Temporary use permit for RV residence during residential
construction,
Repeals density exemption at JCC 18.30.040(4),
Multiple updates for consistency and to correct scrivener errors.
1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved
1.2.4.1 Environmental Choices to Be Made
Each choice taken by the County and its residents may impact environmental quality. Comprehensive Plan
goals and objectives are implemented through development regulations in the Unified Development Code
(UDC) (codified as Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). The UDC was developed such that
protective measures are incorporated into permit decisions. For more discussion on this process, refer to
1.2.4.2 below.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals on this year’s Docket may have the potential, if adopted,
to affect the environment. For this reason, each proposal must be carefully analyzed for potential impacts,
both as an individual proposal and with respect to cumulative impacts when associated with the other
proposals on the 2023 Docket, and if necessary, denied, conditioned, or modified appropriately.
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures
The legislative adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments and related UDC amendment is a non-project
action under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). In contrast, a project action would be a decision
on a land use or building permit reviewed under the general policy framework offered by the Comprehensive
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-15
Plan and its implementing regulations. SEPA review is required for project actions, unless those actions
are categorically exempt from SEPA review when the proposal is compared to the list of exemption
thresholds at WAC 197-11-800. Environmental review, such as the analysis contained in this document, is
essential at the non-project level in order to set up a regulatory framework that protects the environment.
Generally, mitigation measures would not be required for the programmatic action of adopting a
Comprehensive Plan or development regulation amendment, but may be useful and appropriate to address
probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified at the project level. It is often the case that
project action environmental review is where specific mitigation measures can be applied to condition a
proposal such that the approval and execution of the proposal does not present a significant adverse
environmental impact. With regard to environmental review of this year’s Comprehensive Plan annual
amendment cycle docket and related UDC amendment, it should be understood that Jefferson County has
in place a regulatory framework that follows the guidance established in Washington State laws, such as
SEPA, the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).
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 Interim
Controls Ordinance prescribed allowed uses within the various districts set forth upon the Comprehensive
Plan land use map, and the Land Use Procedures Ordinances outlined the development permit review
process and related administrative matters. The UDC replaced these and other previously existing
ordinances. It has now been codified at Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC).
Among the replaced ordinances was the Critical Areas Ordinance. Protective measures for critical areas
are contained in Chapter 18.22 JCC. Critical areas include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently
Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and
Wetlands. The County maintains data to assist in identifying these areas from a variety of sources, including
the State of the Washington and the US Federal government, in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
database. The data are used to create maps depicting the approximate location and extent of
environmentally sensitive areas.
Development Review Division planners conduct site visits, use historical information and use available GIS
information when reviewing land use and building permit applications. Protective measures are applied
accordingly. If needed, an applicant may be required to submit a Special Report, such as an Aquifer
Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Geotechnical Report, Grading Plan, Habitat
Management Plan, or Wetland Delineation Report. The contents of these Special Reports are governed
by Chapter 18.22 JCC. Submitted Special Reports are used not only to condition land use and building
permit approval, but can augment existing data for the County GIS database on critical areas.
Sometimes the existing regulations may not adequately protect the environment when examined in the
context of a particular project. Depending on the particular aspects of a development proposal, mitigation
measures above and beyond the protections provided by the established development regulations may be
needed to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts. In these cases, jurisdictions may employ their
“SEPA substantive authority” to further condition approval of a development application. These mitigation
measures are generally developed through project action SEPA review and established as permit
conditions through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a threshold Mitigated Determination of
Non-significance (MDNS).
Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of any one of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments in this year’s cycle is not always as clear as placing a condition on a
permit. For example, the legislative decision to adopt a modified version of the original Comprehensive
Plan amendment proposal may also be considered a form of mitigation. The Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) may be effectively mitigating the potential environmental impact of adopting a
Comprehensive Plan amendment by adopting a modified proposal or even deciding not to adopt the
proposal based on environmental considerations. For formal site-specific amendment applications, the
BoCC could apply a mitigation measure that affects future use of the land in question. In any of these
cases, mitigation as applied to a non-project action such as a Comprehensive Plan amendment is distinct
from mitigation as applied to a land use or building permit approval. It is at the time of project action review
that established protection measures for environmentally sensitive areas and other development standards
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
1-16
are applied to proposals for on-the-ground development. Judging the effectiveness of mitigation measures
in this context requires on-going attention.
1.2.4.3 Main Options to Be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action
The site-specific proposals and proposed UDC amendments reviewed in this document are relatively
minor in that they do not collectively represent a distinct change in direction from implementation of the
adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan or subsequent periodic reviews.
In deciding when it is appropriate to up-zone lower density rural residential parcels to higher density rural
residential designations, the County will establish precedents with far-reaching implications that will be
used to judge the appropriateness of similar rezone proposals in years to come. Therefore,
determinations that appear to have little direct environmental impact when viewed in isolation in 2023
may have significant indirect and cumulative environmental impacts if employed as justification for a
substantial number of similar rezones in future Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles.
Regardless of the alternative selected, growth and development under the County's adopted
Comprehensive Plan will result in some unavoidable adverse impacts. The County's adopted Plan is
designed to accommodate the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population
projections for the year 2038. Under any of the action alternatives reviewed in this document, continued
growth and development under the adopted Plan is likely to result in increased growth and development
in certain areas of the County, cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, increased demands upon
transportation facilities and transit, and increased demand for public infrastructure and facilities. The
County will continue to plan for distribution of growth that will result in the lowest levels of environmental
impacts, focus on infill, and balance capital investment.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-1
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals
2.1 OVERVIEW
Pursuant to JCC 18.45, Jefferson County is conducting an annual Comprehensive Plan and associated
Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment process. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy
Act (“SEPA” at RCW 43.21C), the Growth Management Act (“GMA” at RCW 36.70A), the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and Ch. 18.45 JCC, this amendment process involves concurrent analysis of all
proposals to identify the potential for cumulative impacts.
In general, Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals in Jefferson County fall into one of two (2)
categories:
Formal Site-Specific Amendments are proposals submitted by property owners requesting a change
in either Comprehensive Plan land use designation or density. One of the proposals in this year’s Final
Docket requires a concurrent UDC amendment.
Suggested Amendments are generally limited to proposals that broadly apply to the narrative, goals,
policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure adequate review
of potential environmental impacts, suggested amendments that could result in a need to re-designate
groups of parcels are analyzed using the same criteria employed for formal site-specific amendments
(i.e., JCC 18.45.080 (1) (b)).
This document addresses the three (3) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments and two (2)
suggested Comprehensive Plan/UDC amendment proposals on the 2023 Final Docket.
2.1.1 Individual & Cumulative Analysis, and Staff Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in Ch.18.45 JCC and, in turn, evaluates the
potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. Each amendment
proposal is described below, evaluated based on the required criteria, and a staff recommendation is made
based on those criteria. Tables are for summary information only; please refer to the staff report for each
proposal for greater detail.
2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators
Pursuant to 18.45.080(1)(b) JCC, all proposals regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must
include an inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at 8.45.050 (4)(b) JCC. These
growth management indicators address the following:
• Growth and development rates;
• Ability to provide services;
• Availability of urban land;
• Whether assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are still valid;
• Community-wide attitudes towards land use;
• Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendment; and
• Consistency between state law and the Comprehensive Plan, or the Comprehensive Plan and local
agreements.
These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a snapshot of
Jefferson County’s status during this 2023 amendment cycle. This section will serve to promote
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-2
consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators (GMIs) and is intended to be a
starting point for broader community consideration before the Planning Commission and the BoCC. While
this review of the GMIs provides some basic analysis related to County demographics, it is not intended to
measure progress in achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that task is reserved for the State-
mandated Comprehensive Plan periodic update scheduled for completion in 2025.
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45.050 (4) (b) – Growth Management Indicators
(1) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring
faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize.
Discussion:
The Office of Financial Management publishes census estimates each year beginning April 1.
Washington’s total population grew by an estimated 86,750—to 7,951,150 as of April 1, 2023, according to
annual estimates that the Office of Financial Management prepared.
The unadjusted population growth rate over the last year was 1.1%, somewhat slower than the
previous year, when the state’s population grew by 1.3%.
Washington’s population has grown by 244,840 people since the 2020 decennial census on April
1, 2020. The 86,750 increase is below the average annual increase from the last decade (98,200).
King County remains the main contributor to the state’s overall population growth, adding
30,100 people this year, compared to an average of 33,800 people per year between 2010 and
2020.
Migration continues to be the primary driver behind Washington’s population growth. From
2022 to 2023, net migration (people moving in minus people moving out) totaled 72,300, down
by 11,300 from last year. Net migration accounted for 83% of the state’s population growth.
Natural change (births minus deaths) was responsible for the other 17%. Natural change (14,445)
remains low but has recovered somewhat from the increased deaths and lower births during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Deaths will increase as baby boomers age, and birth rates from millennial
and post-millennial parents should continue to be lower than previous generations.
Consistent with previous years, over 71% of state population growth occurred in the five largest
metropolitan counties — Clark, King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Spokane. The nine counties with
populations between 100,000 and 350,000 saw 21% of the state’s growth. Counties with less
than 100,000 had an 8% share, smaller than the previous year. Whatcom (1.8%), Benton (1.5%),
and Snohomish (1.5%) were the three fastest growing counties. (OFM, 2023)
Housing growth is a significant reason Washington saw population growth this year, evident in
high occupancy rates in most cities in 2023. Over the past year, the state added 46,300 housing
units, 300 less than the previous year. Of all new units built this past year, 63% were multifamily units.
However, this trend is not seen in Jefferson County. More than 72% of all new housing units the past two
years were built in one of the state’s five largest metropolitan counties. King County led all counties with
18,800 new housing units and saw 40% of the state’s total housing growth over the last year. (OFM, 2023)
Jefferson County ranks 33rd out of 39 Washington counties for population increase. The 2023 population
estimates for Jefferson County is 33,425, a net increase of 448 people since 2020. The 2023 population
estimate of the City of Port Townsend is 10,330. Note that migration is the driving factor in Jefferson County
population too, as the natural change (births & deaths) was -841 residents, and migration was +1,289
people, leaving the net gain of 448 people between 2020-2023 (average 149 per year). For comparison,
the decade 2010-2020 was recorded as an average annual change in population to be 311 people per year,
with an average Natural Increase of -175 and a Net Migration of 486. This reveals that the small Jefferson
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-3
County total population increases are accompanied by a higher net migration and an accompanying higher
net natural change. The numeric change in Jefferson County population between 2022-2023 was 75, or
0.22% change. The slow growth in Jefferson County is paired with below the state-average in housing
development.
Jefferson County is a designated as a rural county. With a total land area of 1,803.7 square miles, the 2023
population density of Jefferson County is 18.53 people per square mile.
Growth trends are difficult to predict. Washington State and its counties have tended to exhibit growth
spurts interrupted by periods of slower growth, stagnation, and even decline. For example, the “rural
rebound” growth trend experienced by most western states in the early 1990s –at the time of GMA adoption
–was the result of an exodus by nearly two million people leaving California during a severe regional
economic recession. Rural and non-metropolitan growth in Washington, including Jefferson County, during
the 1990s was far greater than anticipated, but slowed as California’s economy recovered in the mid-1990s
(“Washington State County Population Projections for Growth Management,” Office of Financial
Management, March 2002).
In 2015, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend developed a population projection and urban
population allocation for the City of Port Townsend, Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area, and the Port
Ludlow and Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resorts based on OFM’s 2012 Medium projections. The
County passed Resolution #38-15 on October 26, 2015, adopting the Updated Population Forecast,
summarized in Exhibit 1-2 of the Comprehensive Plan, reproduced here. The allocation of projected growth
is 70% to Urban areas and 30% to Rural areas. The projected growth rate countywide is 0.98%. The
population growth rate for 2022-2023 was merely 0.22%
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan EXHIBIT 1-2. Jefferson County & City of Port Townsend 20-year
Population Projection & Distribution (2018-2038). Refer to the Comprehensive Plan for full text and
footnoted information.
Location
(Unincorporated
unless noted)
2010
Population
Allocation
Total
Growth
County-wide
Projecte
d Growth
(2010-
38)
2018
Projected
Population
Estimate
d Growth
(2018-38)
Projected
Populatio
n 2038
2010-38
Projected
Growth Rate
Port Townsend
UGA (Incorporated)
9,113 36% 3,366 9,661 2,814 12,479 1.13%
Port Hadlock/
Irondale UGA
3,580 19.4% 1,814 3,795 1,516 5,394 1.48%
Port Ludlow MPR 2,603 10.1% 944 2,759 789 3,547 1.11%
Pleasant Harbor
(Brinnon) MPR
-- 4.5% 421 -- 352 421 24.1 %
UGA/MPR Subtotal 15,296 70% 6,545 16,215 5,471 21,841 1.28%
Rural & Resource
Areas Subtotal
14,576 30% 2,804 15,452 2,445 17,380 0.63%
County-wide Total 29,872 100% 9,349 31,667 7,816 39,221 0.98%
(2) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or
increased.
Discussion: The number of service providers in the County has not decreased and the County
continues to be equipped to provide the same levels of service available at the time of Comprehensive Plan
adoption. The County has adopted GMA-compliant plans to provide the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-4
Area (UGA) with urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater management. The Port
Hadlock Wastewater Facility will enable planned densities within the UGA to come to fruition.
(3) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need.
Discussion: As a part of the planning process for the unincorporated Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA, an
analysis of vacant lands within the proposed UGA and a build-out analysis were updated in 2018.
(Comprehensive Plan, Appendix E) This analysis evaluated developable lands and the ability to
accommodate the allocated population. The UGA has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected
2038 population of 5,394 people with an estimated growth rate of 1.48%.
With a theoretical carrying capacity of over 30,000 people, the City of Port Townsend UGA also appears to
be adequately sized to accommodate anticipated future urban growth.
(4) Whether any assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer
found to be valid.
Discussion: Since the periodic review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2018, the majority of
assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. Amendments to GMA and other laws made by
the State Legislature and precedent-setting decisions made by the Growth Management Hearings Boards
influence local government implementation of GMA. These amendments will be under consideration during
the 2025 Periodic Update commencing later this year.
(5) Whether changes in countywide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the Plan
and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement.
Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect, to the extent possible, countywide attitudes
about the future growth and management of the county. The Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted
in 1998, revised in 2004, and last updated in 2018. Updating the Comprehensive Plan in 2025 will likely
include an opportunity to reassess countywide attitudes. Between Comprehensive Plan updates,
countywide attitudes can best be inferred through local election results, perspectives expressed by public
representatives such as the Planning Commission, and comments received during public comment periods.
That said, an updated public opinion survey would also be an effective way to gauge countywide attitudes.
(6) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments.
Discussion: To some degree, circumstances have changed since Comprehensive Plan adoption in 2018.
Taken from a broad perspective, these changing circumstances include: the Covid Pandemic, issues
surrounding affordable housing, and climate change. Jefferson County adopted final development
regulations outlining a process for establishing legal lots of record, and siting and management of temporary
housing facilities were recently addressed with UDC amendments.
(7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson
County.
Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the Growth Management Act and the
Countywide Planning Policy with regard to rural land use districts and resource overlays. The UDC is found
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments to the UDC in this evaluation assist
with maintaining that consistency, including removal of the Forest Transition Overlay in Ch.. 18.15 JCC and
the Density Exemption in Ch. 18.30 JCC.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-5
2.2 FINAL DOCKET
Following are brief descriptions of each of the three (3) proposed site-specific amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and two (2) suggested text amendment proposals amending the UDC.
2023 FORMAL SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
Three formal site-specific amendment proposals from the public were received by March 1, 2023 per JCC
18.45.050(3). Site-specific amendments are automatically placed on the final docket for processing during the
amendment cycle.
1. Case # ZON2021-00019
Applicant: Miles Sand & Gravel
Location: Wahl Lake Extraction Area
Proposal: Extend Mineral Resources Land Overlay (MRLO) from existing adjacent MRLO areas
designating an additional 200 acres.
2. Case # ZON2023-00004
Applicant: Gifford-Yep Property (see Attachment 2)
Location: Rhody Drive and Anderson Lake Road, Chimacum
Proposal: Rezone 17 acres RR-20 to RR-5 for future 3-lot subdivision
3. Case # ZON2023-00006
Applicant: Midori Farm (see Attachment 4)
Location: Highway 101 & W. Columbia Street, Quilcene
Proposal: Rezone 14.5 acres from RR-5 to AL-20
2023 SUGGESTED UDC TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Planning Commission: UDC amendments to development UDC code provisions which provide
additional opportunities for workforce housing and affordable housing, by providing congregate
housing options and tiny home planned unit development options.
2. Community Development (DCD): Omnibus UDC amendments, new and deferred items,
addressing a number of corrections, updates, and clarifications to Title 18 of Jefferson County Code. A
highway visual corridor policy that has been in effect since 1998 will be codified in the UDC and will
appear on the Comprehensive Plan land use map.
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) in its legislative capacity may adopt each amendment as
proposed, adopt with conditions, adopt a modified version, or deny adoption.
The environmental review-based alternatives to each proposed action component are as follows:
• No Action - Continue application of the Comprehensive Plan without any or all of the proposed
amendments;
• Adopt with or without modifications and/or mitigating conditions as appropriate; or
• Defer for consideration during the next Plan and Code Update process.
2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary
Staff recommendations for each proposed amendment are explained under a heading for each individual
proposal. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. In
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-6
transmitting the Planning Commission recommendation to the BoCC, staff will have the opportunity to
append a supplemental evaluation to these preliminary recommendations. The preliminary staff
recommendations, including modifications and mitigation measures, are summarized in Major Conclusions
in this report.
2023 Comprehensive Plan and UDC Amendment Docket Summary of Staff Recommendations
#
Application Number
Applicant/PARCEL
NUMBER
General Description of
Proposal
staff recommendation
1
ZON2021-00019
701011001
701021002
701121001
701111001
Mineral Resource Land
Overlay Designation
Approve
2
ZON2023-00004 901101005 Gifford-Yep Rezone
RR20 to RR5
Approve
3
ZON2023-00006 702133022,
702133029
Midori Farm Rezone
RR5 to Agriculture
Approve
4
(No Case #)
Planning
Commission
Housing
Amendments
Countywide Congregate Housing,
Single-Parcel Cluster
Development
Continue UDC
amendments into 2024
and the Periodic
Update
5 (No Case #)
Community
Development UDC
Omnibus
Countywide Omnibus Housekeeping
Amendments
Approve
2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
Each of the three (3) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals and two (2) related UDC
amendment proposal evaluated in this document are grouped together below according to category to
evaluate them cumulatively; however, there is only one proposal per category in 2023:
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density
The single request for changes in Rural Residential density are subject to the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies contained in the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning Policies,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and applicable clarifications from the
Growth Management Hearings Board.
JEFFERSON COUNTY RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DENSITIES:
Rural Residential 1 unit/20 acres (RR 1:20)
Located in an area with similar development patterns; Adjacent to Urban Growth Area, Resource Production
Land or State/National Forest Land; parcels in coastal areas of similar size; includes land affected by critical
areas; includes private timberlands; includes agricultural lands.
Rural Residential 1 unit/10 acres (RR 1:10)
Located in an area with similar development patterns; adjacent to Urban Growth Area, transition density
between RR 1:5 and RR 1:20; parcels in coastal areas of similar size; includes land affected by critical
areas.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-7
Rural Residential 1 unit/5 acres (RR 1:5)
Located in areas of similar development; areas with smaller existing lots of record; along the coastal area;
adjacent to Rural Village Center and Rural Crossroad designations; overlay designation for pre-existing
platted subdivisions.
CONSIDERAIONS IN CHANGING RURAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY:
Rural Character
When considering the County’s goal of increasing development density in Urban Growth Areas and
maintaining rural character outside of UGAs, much attention is given to what “rural character” is. We shape
this definition from the Comprehensive Plan, the Jefferson County Code and clarifications from the Growth
Management Hearings Board.
Lot of Record
The legal regulatory requirements for lot subdivision are articulated in Chapter 18.35 JCC, Land Divisions,
implementing the State Subdivision Act (RCW 58.17). Historically, a “lot of record” may not have been
lawfully established to conform with County Code or RCW 58.17. Some of the old “paper plats” have been
in existence since the late 1800’s and may outline lots that cannot be developed with respect to current
zoning standards or State Subdivision Act requirements.
In September 2022, Jefferson County adopted Ordinance 9-22, enacting a new Chapter 18.12 Legal Lot of
Record Determination and Lot Consolidation. Previously, Jefferson County defined a “buildable lot”
basically on the ability of the lot to adequately meet health standards related to on-site wastewater disposal
(i.e. septic systems) and individual water systems (i.e. well). The Site Development Review/Legal Lot of
Record determination process will clarify what lots are actually developable, whether regarding site
constraints or identifying those lots not legally created under state subdivision law.
As a result of this process, the density exemption provision in JCC 18.30.050(4) is no longer relevant and
is part of the proposed housekeeping changes within the Omnibus Housekeeping changes proposed by
Community Development in this report.
Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD)
Since 1996, the maximum density that can be achieved through subdivision in Jefferson County is one
dwelling unit per five acres. In January 2001, Jefferson County adopted the Unified Development Code
(JCC Title 18) which includes provisions for innovative and environmentally sound site-design through
residential “clustering.” These provisions are contained at Ch. 18.15 JCC, Article VI-M (Planned Rural
Residential Developments or PRRDs). The PRRD standards are applied as a planning overlay, and
require a minimum of 10 gross acres when applied with a subdivision in the RR1:5 zone. If code provisions
are met, there is an allowance for a 20% bonus density increase.
Lot Supply & Housing Density
Another planning mechanism to preserve rural character is by ensuring there is a variety of rural densities
(RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b)). Rural character is a pattern of use and development in which open space, natural
landscape and vegetation predominate over the built environment. A county must assure that the “natural
landscape” predominates and fosters traditional rural lifestyles, rural based economies, and opportunities.
Jefferson County has ample undeveloped residential lots. Factors affecting the cost of development include
site constraints from critical areas, supply issues driving up cost of building materials, and availability of
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-8
contractors, has increased costs and slowed housing development and supply. Community Development
has seen an increase of residential development interest on marginal sites. Inexpensive residential lots
typically have intrinsic development challenges and may require special reports and engineering.
A related issue which may influence overall rural housing density and supply is that of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU). An ADU is “accessory” to the primary residence and provides a complete, independent living
facility. With some exceptions, each parcel zoned rural residential is eligible to create an ADU. Accessory
dwellings may become a more affordable option for housing development. Also, the use of pre-approved
stock plans can lower costs.
The factors of zoned rural residential density, developable lots of record, density exemptions and ADUs,
combined with the lot supply discussion in the Growth Management Indicators in 2.1.2 and again in staff
evaluations below, account for the total potential development capacity of the rural zones in Jefferson
County. The Comprehensive Plan gives guidance on how that development capacity may be shaped to
prevent low-density sprawl.
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES:
1. Policy LU-P-1.6 Ensure appropriate services are provided as needed and that the duplication of
services is avoided by promoting the coordination of local governmental agencies, non-profits,
cooperatives, educational institutions, programs, and planning.
2. Policy LU-P-15.1 Identify and implement rural land uses, densities, and environmental standards
which preserve and protect rural character. Evaluate environmental quality as critical to the
preservation of rural character when reviewing development applications in rural areas.
3. Policy LU-P-17.1 Residential uses in the unincorporated portions of the County shall be
characterized by a variety of rural residential parcel sizes and densities.
4. Policy LU-P-17.2 Encourage innovation and creativity in lot and site design and in re-platting of
existing lots to create efficient land developments, add flexibility in design, and encourage multi-
modal transportation while meeting underlying density and site requirements.
5. Policy LU-P-17.3 Carefully plan rural commercial development in a way that supports and is
compatible with rural community character and that can be supported by rural levels of service.
The following proposal for a change in residential density will be reviewed consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and other relevant laws and regulations. A general description, required findings and
conclusions, and staff recommendation for each proposal is provided below.
2.3.1.1 ZON2023-00004 (Gifford-Yep)
Applicant: Jamie and Alicia Gifford-Yep
Assessor Parcel Number: 901101005
Location: NW Corner of Rhody Drive (SR19) and Anderson Lake Road
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-9
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
Parcel 901101005 is approximately eighteen (18) acres in size, rectangular in shape, and is bounded on
the east by Rhody Drive (State Route 19) and to the south by Anderson Lake Road. The parcel is diagonally
across Rhody Drive from HJ Carrol Park, across Rhody Drive from RR1:5 zoned parcels, across Anderson
Lake Road from RR1:5 zoned parcels, and abutting the Evergreen Coho Escape (“SKP”) Retreat residential
area on the west property line, and abutting several substandard (to size) lots on the north property line
zoned RR1:20. The proposed amendment would change zoning from Rural Residential, one dwelling unit
per twenty acres (RR 1:20), to Rural Residential, one dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1:5). The applicant
plans to create a short-subdivision of the 18-acre parcel which could yield an additional two parcels for a
total of three parcels. One residence is present on the subject parcel.
The subject parcel is approximately 75% forested and is relatively flat. Critical Areas on the site include
some seismic soils in the northwest corner and a south-central portion of the parcel. Seismic soils will not
affect the ability to develop residences on resulting lots. The entire parcel is located in an area considered
to be a special aquifer recharge protection area--susceptible aquifer recharge area; however, development
may occur in these areas compliant with protection standards in the UDC. The area is served by the
Quimper Water Service Area.
Transportation
Anderson Lake Road Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was 1,923 from a 6/12/2019 count at mile post 2.66,
approximately 158 feet west of intersection with Rhody Court near State Route 19. Each new single-family
residence is estimated to generate up to 10 ADT. Two new residences are proposed to have access onto
Anderson Lake Road. Two new residences are estimated to increase the ADT of Anderson Lake Road by
20, up to approximately 1,943 ADT.
According to the Transportation Technical Document, Appendix C of the December 2018 Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, Anderson Lake Road would be operating at a Level of Service (LOS) A with 2,050
ADT forecast in year 2038. So, with the addition of 20 ADT from the proposed 2 residences of a future short
plat, the level of service on Anderson Lake Road is estimated to remain at LOS A.
2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(1)(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must
develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff findings,
conclusions, and recommendations follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis – ZON2023-00004 (Gifford-Yep)
JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to the area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
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 to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Population growth is occurring slower than
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Generally,
the planning assumptions in the Comprehensive
Plan are still valid.
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect,
to the extent possible, countywide attitudes
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-10
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
about the future growth and management of the
county. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan update
provides a relatively recent opportunity to
reassess countywide attitudes. The proposal is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
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
The proposal meets concurrency requirements
for transportation. The proposed amendment is
not expected to adversely impact the level of
county services.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
Rural residential densities allow for an adequate
supply of appropriately zoned land based upon
the County’s rural population projections and
needs. The rezone is adjacent to similar
densities and will not change rural character.
The location of the proposal is near rural
amenities (HJ Carrol Park), rural commercial
zones, and is served by adequate rural
infrastructure.
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
The proposed amendment will not result in
probable significant adverse impacts to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
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
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land
uses
Generally, the subject parcel is physically
suitable for the requested land use designation.
Applicants have proposed a future short
subdivision, which will be required to have a
shared driveway, entering Anderson Lake Road,
for the two additional lots that could be created.
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
Adjacent parcels to the south and east are
zoned at a higher density, RR 1:5. The west
side of the parcel is adjacent to a similarly
zoned (RR1:20) area but is a more densely
developed, grandfathered, housing
development (the Evergreen Coho “SKP” Park
on Anderson Lake Road. Three parcels
abutting to the north are zoned RR1:20 but are
about 1, 5, and 6 acres in size. The change in
residential density could potentially create
pressure to up-zone parcels under similar
circumstances at a County-wide level, but each
circumstance would be evaluated individually. In
order to prevent cumulative pressure to rezone
at a County-wide level, staff recommends that
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-11
this analysis shall not be utilized as justification
to support future rezone applications.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan
This particular site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use or population growth
projections. Care should be taken to prevent
possible cumulative effect with future actions.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA
The property is located about ¼ mile from the
south boundary of the Port Hadlock/Irondale
Urban Growth Area (UGA).
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires
the County to “encourage development in urban
areas”; “reduce the inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development”; and “retain open space” (RCW
36.70A.020(1, 2, & 9)). The GMA also requires
the County to contain or otherwise control rural
development (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(i)) and
through the Comprehensive Plan “provide
sufficient capacity of land suitable for
development…to accommodate the allocated
housing and employment growth…and
consistent with the twenty-year population
forecast...” (36.70A.115). Given that there are
similarly-situated parcels and the availability of
public services, it is presumed that the proposal
is consistent with the GMA and other applicable
laws and regulations.
State Environmental Policy Act
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental
Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions
Question #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?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in a significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge. All
development shall comply with Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, which requires stormwater to be addressed on site.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could affect native plants and animals. It is
not, however, likely to result in a significant impact. Project specific development that may occur as a result
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-12
of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for plants, animals, fish,
and marine life.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal may potentially contribute to the depletion of energy resources and some loss of forest
resources, however, such impacts are not considered significant. All subsequent project specific
development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local energy conservation standards.
Question #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 not likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection.
Question #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?
Allowable land and shoreline uses are not affected by this amendment except for the intensity of residential
development due to the density change. No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment.
It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.1.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The Rural Residential 1:20 parcel is evaluated to be appropriate for a RR 1:5 designation as it is
adequately served by public services and does not contain significant critical areas. While there remains
a surplus of residential lots in relation to the 20-year projected population growth, its allocation to rural
areas, and the affect this has on encouraging growth in urban areas, staff determined that there is not
sufficient data at this time to factor it into the recommendation. Furthermore, while approval may set a
precedent which could increase pressure in subsequent years to up-zone parcels under similar
circumstances, the county shall analyze future amendment applications on a case by case basis.
2.3.2 Request for Change from Rural Residential Land
Designation to Agriculture
A request for change from Rural Residential land to Agriculture is subject to the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies contained in the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning Policies,
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and applicable clarifications from the
Growth Management Hearings Board. Of greatest relevance is Chapter 2, Natural Resources, of the
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-13
Comprehensive Plan. The most relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan when considering Rural
Residential zoning are discussed under section 2.3.1 of this document, above. Relevant excerpts from the
Natural Resources Element narrative and goal and policy language are provided below for convenience.
In 1998, as part of planning under the Growth Management Act, Jefferson County identified agricultural
lands to be conserved through zoning as Agricultural Lands of Local Importance (AL-20) and Prime
Agricultural Lands (AP-20) based on soil types as well as the existence of agricultural activities on the
land. Through a zoning process, the county allowed landowners to elect to have their properties zoned
agriculture and can be enrolled in the Jefferson County Open Space Tax Program as agricultural land
pursuant to the Washington State Open Space Taxation Act. Agricultural zoning limits the density of
development, prohibits non-farm use, though also allows accessory uses.
As part of the 2003 agricultural lands planning effort, a one-time agriculture land rezone opt-in was
offered to enroll qualifying agricultural lands as “Open Space—Ag Land” [MLA03-209], and was enacted
in Ordinance No. 05-0428-03, adopted April 28, 2003, defining these areas as “existing and ongoing
agriculture”.
Although soils play a significant role in determining whether land is capable for agricultural uses, it is not
the exclusive method since some types of agriculture are not soil-dependent. A key element of the
GMA’s definition for agricultural land is that the land is primarily devoted to commercial agriculture;
meaning, that the land is actually used or capable of being used for agricultural production.
Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources p 2-7:
Agricultural Lands
Agricultural lands are an essential and valued part of Jefferson County’s food system, both for local
production and export to other areas. To identify areas that are suitable for agricultural use, the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) assigns classifications to farmland soils based on their physical
and chemical characteristics and potential for production. Prime Farmland is land that has the best
combination of characteristics for agricultural production and is not urban in nature. Farmland of
Statewide Importance is quality farmland that does not meet the criteria to be classified as prime
farmland, but still has the capability to produce high crop yields when managed appropriately. 0 shows
the acreage of each USDA farmland classification present in Jefferson County.
Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 2-2, Jefferson County Farmland Classifications
Farmland Classification Acres
Prime Farmland 35,542
Prime Farmland if drained 16,923
Prime Farmland if irrigated 10,577
Prime Farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
796
Farmland of Statewide Importance 209,818
Total 273,656
Source: USDA NRCS, 2017.
Most of Jefferson County’s Prime Farmland soils are in the river valleys of western Jefferson County,
particularly along the Hoh and Queets rivers, and in the coastal areas south of La Push. Prime Farmland
soils in the eastern county are concentrated in the Dosewallips River valley near Brinnon, in the area around
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-14
Quilcene, and in the area along Snow Creek between Discovery Bay and Crocker Lake. The Chimacum
and Beaver Valley areas contain extensive soils that qualify as Prime Farmland if properly drained, and
these areas are home to most of the county’s actively cultivated cropland.
Eastern Jefferson County also possesses large areas designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance.
While these soils may not possess the same physical and chemical characteristics as Prime Farmland soils,
they are suited to many types of agricultural activities and represent a valuable potential resource.
Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources p. 2-9:
While agriculture is a vital part of Jefferson County’s economy and culture, barriers to the economic
sustainability of farming in the county continue to arise. In recent years, the number of individual farms has
trended upward, including a rise in total commodity values. However, sales have decreased per farm, as
the local industry transitions towards smaller targeted farm operations. As land values continue to rise,
starting and maintaining a productive, profitable farm is challenging for many Jefferson County farmers.
Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources pp. 2-16, 2-17:
Not only does the GMA mandate the protection of agricultural lands, farmland conservation is a centerpiece
of that legislation. Under GMA, agricultural resource lands are designated based on the following criteria
(WAC 365-190-050):
The land should not already be characterized by urban growth.
The land is being used or is capable of being used for agricultural production. Factors to consider
include whether the physical conditions are well-suited to agriculture. Soil conditions are important
considerations, but some agricultural operations are less dependent on soil quality than others.
a. Lands currently used for agriculture and those capable of being used for such must be evaluated
for designation, and land enrolled in federal conservation programs is recommended for inclusion.
b. The land capability classification system of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
shall serve as a primary indicator of agricultural capability.
The land has long-term commercial significance for agricultural production. Counties and cities should
consider the following factors, as applicable:
a. Presence of prime and unique farmland soils;
b. Availability of public facilities and services;
c. Water availability;
d. Tax status, such as enrollment in a current use taxation program;
e. Relationship or proximity to urban growth areas,
f. Predominant parcel size;
g. Land use settlement patterns and compatibility with agriculture, including intensity of nearby land
uses and history of nearby development permits;
h. Value of the land under alternative uses; and
i. Proximity to markets.
Jefferson County is committed to protecting limited agricultural lands, as well as promoting agriculture as
the key component of a strong local food system, which has multiple benefits to the economy, emergency
preparedness, health of local citizens, and ecosystem services. Successful, commercial agriculture can be
practiced on many types of soils, through a variety of environmentally sound means, on small parcels as
well as large, and in all zoning classifications in the county. Small ventures that simply augment family
income are valuable to both the land owner and the whole community.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-15
To conserve the agricultural resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the farming industry while
recognizing the diversity of agricultural land owners, Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial
Significance consist of two designations:
1. Prime Agricultural Lands (AP-20)—The purpose of the prime agricultural lands zoning classification
is to protect and preserve areas of prime agricultural soils for the continued production of commercial
crops, livestock, or other agricultural products requiring relatively large tracts of agricultural land. It is
intended to preserve and protect the land, environment, economy, and lifestyle of agriculture in
Jefferson County. These lands must be protected as “agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance.”
— Criteria for Designation: AP-20
▪ Meet all criteria for agricultural production capability established in WAC 365-190-050 and
consist, in substantial proportion, of land with prime agricultural soils as defined by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington; and
▪ Is located in rural areas served by transportation infrastructure adequate to facilitate transport
of agricultural goods to market; and
▪ Is in an area characterized by a substantial proportion of undeveloped parcels of land 20
acres or greater in size; and
▪ Is outside of any area designated as Master Planed Resort (MPR) or Urban Growth Area
(UGA); and
▪ Is in an area where no existing land uses are present that would seriously interfere with the
successful long-term practice of a range of agricultural activities; and
▪ Does not include land currently designated Rural Forest (RF-40) presently in a parcel size 40
acres or larger, or Commercial Forest (CF-80) or Inholding Forest (IF).
2. Agricultural Lands of Local Importance (AL-20)—The purpose of the agricultural lands of local
importance is to protect and preserve parcels of land which, while not necessarily consisting of prime
agriculture soil or relatively large acreage, are still considered important to the local agricultural
economy, lifestyle, and environment. As such they deserve protection as “agricultural lands of long-
term commercial significance.
To preserve and stimulate agricultural diversity and to maintain an undeveloped land base for future
agricultural use, the owner of a parcel may petition the County for designation as Agricultural Land of
Local Importance. When the owner of a parcel or an aggregate of parcels petitions successfully for
rezone to agriculture, the land shall be considered Agricultural Land of Long-Term Commercial
Significance, and as such, it shall be afforded the rights and protections of natural resource land.
— Criteria for Designation: AL-20
▪ The land is located away from existing land uses that would interfere with agricultural
practices; and
▪ The land is located outside any area designated as Master Planed Resort (MPR) or Urban
Growth Area (UGA) and is not characterized by urban development; and
▪ The land is physically and topographically suitable for the practice of commercial agriculture;
and
▪ Is located in rural areas served by transportation infrastructure adequate to facilitate transport
of agricultural goods to market; and
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-16
▪ If currently designated as Rural Forest (FR-40), the land is already platted into 20 acre of
smaller parcels; and
▪ The land is not currently designated as Commercial Forest (CF-80) or Inholding Forest (IF).
[end pp 2-16, 2-17]
Comprehensive Plan Policies, Chapter 2: Natural Resources
Goal NR-G-1 Encourage the conservation and long-term sustainable use of resource lands so their
continued future use will not be precluded by other uses; and encourage the long-term sustainability of
natural resource-based economic activities throughout Jefferson County.
Policy NR-P-1.5 As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update Periodic Review Process under the Growth
Management Act, regularly review and update the inventories and designations of forest, mineral, and
agricultural resource lands of long-term commercial significance in Jefferson County to ensure that all
such designated lands meet requirements of state law, and are available into the future.
Goal NR-G-8 Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and its associated economy and lifestyle.
Policy NR-P-8.1 Support the conservation of agricultural land through prioritization and protection of
parcels large enough to maintain viability of agricultural use, tax incentive programs, the purchase or
transfer of development rights, and other methods developed in cooperation with agricultural
landowners and managers and stakeholders.
Policy NR-P-8.4 Support the preservation of family owned farms by discouraging the conversion of these
lands to other uses.
Policy NR-P-8.8 Analyze the benefits and feasibility of new or revised development regulations to
implement cluster development in rural and resource areas, such as in association with
cooperative/joint ownership farming operations.
Policy NR-P-8.9 In lieu of subdividing agricultural zoned lands, explore innovative zoning techniques, as
described under RCW 36.70A.177, to help facilitate the availability of more affordable farm land and
create opportunities to expand the market for local food.
Policy NR-P-8.10 Consider allowing tools that support current and new generation farmers with access
to land and housing.
2.3.2.1 ZON2023-00006 (Midori Farm)
Applicant: Midori Farm and M&J Investments
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 702133022, 702133029
Location: 294152 Hwy 101, Quilcene
2.3.2.1.1 General Description
Rezone 14.5-acres RR5 to Agriculture. Historically, this 14.6-acres was one parcel that was used
as farmland. Currently, there are no buildings or development on site. In 2007, the previous
owner divided the parcel into two parcels now zoned Rural residential 1:5 (RR5). In 2016, M and
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-17
J Investments purchased the property with the intention of keeping this productive farmland as
working farmland. Since 2016, Midori Farm has been leasing this land to grow WSDA-certified
organic vegetables. Midori Farm currently has a long-term lease on the property and plans to
continue farming here. The zoning amendment to AP-20 or AL-20 will match existing neighboring
farmland zoning. Future plans include building a small vegetable processing facility (less than
1000 s.f.) to allow Midori Farm to make value-added products onsite.
2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative Impact Analysis – ZON2023-00006 (Midori Farm)
JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances related to the area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The subject residential-
zoned parcels have already been in agriculture
use.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
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 to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Population growth is occurring slower than
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Retaining
the subject parcels for future residential use is
not critically important.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The Comprehensive Plan encourages
agricultural uses.
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
The proposal meets concurrency requirements
for transportation. The proposed amendment
should not adversely impact the level of county
services.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
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
The proposed amendment will not result in
probable significant adverse impacts to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
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
The subject parcels are physically suitable for
the requested land use designation.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-18
designation and the anticipated land use
development, including but not limited to
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land uses
The proposed site-specific amen
dment 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
The agriculture use is well situated in this area
and is in proximity to other agricultural uses.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan
This particular site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use or population growth
projections.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA
The subject parcels are not within an urban
growth area.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable inter-jurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires
the County to protect agriculture where it is
appropriate.
Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions
Question #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?
It is not likely that this proposal would result in any significant increase in water withdrawal or discharge.
This area, including the subject parcels, are already being farmed.
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could affect native plants and animals. It is
not, however, likely to result in a significant impact.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal would not be expected to contribute to the depletion of energy resources. Such impacts from
agriculture are not considered to be a significant environmental impact.
Question #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.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-19
The proposal is not likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection.
Question #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?
Land uses are not affected by this amendment except that the future theoretical yield of several residences
as would be allowed if zoned RR5, would be precluded as zoned Agriculture. No portion of the site lies
within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to generate any noticeable additional demand for public services. Current levels of
use would continue.
Question #7 Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment.
It is unlikely to conflict with related local, state and federal laws.
2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment with designation as Agricultural
Lands of Local Importance (AL-20).
2.3.3 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 are subject to the goals,
policies, and implementation strategies contained in the Growth Management Act, County-Wide Planning
Policies, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson County Code and applicable clarifications from
the Growth Management Hearings Board. Applications must be evaluated using Mineral Resource Land
classification and designation criteria set forth within the Natural Resources Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Relevant excerpts from the Natural Resources Element narrative, goal, and policy language include
the following:
Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources pp. 2-4, 2-5:
Mineral Lands
Mineral lands provide an important non-renewable resource in the form of sand, gravel, and hard rock
basalt. These resources are used in a variety of applications, such as making concrete, restoring
beaches, and providing gravel for roads. Mining interests have remarked that the County’s gravel
deposits are of very high quality (ANSI “perfect”, a materials engineering standard from the American
National Standards Institute), which means it is highly useful for roadway and other construction activities
without further processing. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) records 13 active
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-20
surface mining permits in Jefferson County, primarily concentrated in eastern Jefferson County, though
two are in western Jefferson County along the Hoh River. In addition to these sites under active
production, the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
has classified extensive areas in both the eastern and western county as potential source areas for sand
and gravel based on soil characteristics.
Surface soil characteristics and other proxy indicators identify sub-surface geology providing initial data
for mineral resource mapping. This preliminary information needs to be refined with other data sources.
Much of Jefferson County’s forest resources have potential mineral resource value. The forest resource
designation provides another level of land use resource protection for unidentified mineral resources
within the County.
The Department of Community Development and mining interests have periodic discussions regarding
mineral resource mapping and locations. Since the County does not have financial resources to conduct
independent geological surveys of County-specific resources, available state and federal data sources
need to be considered along with ongoing public-private communications. As part of comprehensive
planning under the Growth Management Act, a periodic review of potential mineral resource lands of
long-term commercial significance is done by the County based upon our available data sources.
Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands
Based upon the criteria provided by the Department of Natural Resources, there are three key issues that
need to be addressed in the designation and conservation of mineral resource lands:
1. Classifying the types of mineral resources that are potentially significant in Jefferson County;
2. Defining the amount and long-term significance of aggregate that is needed to meet the demand of
Jefferson County’s projected population; and,
3. Determining how to balance a variety of land uses within mineral resource areas.
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 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.
Updated information from the Washington Department of Natural Resources may be available for
evaluation during the 2025 Comprehensive Plan periodic review.
The Regulatory Framework for Mineral Lands
Once identified, lands under consideration for commercial mineral extraction must also be evaluated to
assess land use compatibility, economic issues, and environmental impacts. Specific areas of review may
include, at a minimum, the following: compatibility with neighboring land uses; noise; traffic; visual
impacts; water resources, including surface water, ground water, and wetlands; soil, including erosion,
slopes, flooding, and contamination; and fish and wildlife habitat.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-21
Reclamation creates opportunities for new uses compatible with current, ongoing and reclaimed adjacent
land uses. Reclamation reduces the dangers associated with some post-mining features, improves the
aesthetics of the site, and can create environmental amenities, such as lakes, ponds, wetlands, and
forests.
Reclamation plans are required by the Department of Natural Resources and will be considered by
Jefferson County during environmental assessment of proposed mining operations. Policies in this Plan
encouraging reclamation plans will be addressed through SEPA review of mining operations regulated by
the Department of Natural Resources. The State Department of Natural Resources regulates mining
sites of three (3) acres in size or larger.
The proposal for application of the MRL Overlay designation will be reviewed consistent with this narrative,
goal and policy direction. A general description, criteria review, and staff recommendation for the proposal
is provided below.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal NR-G-6 Conserve and protect Mineral Resource Lands for long-term economic use, while providing
for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mineral extraction and processing
operations.
Policy NR-P-6.1 Work with Washington Department of Natural Resources to develop standards and
guidelines to identify and address the impact of mining operations on adjoining properties. Conditions
placed on mining uses should not have the intent of rendering mining operations economically
unfeasible.
Policy NR-P-6.2 Evaluate small mining operations to determine when the cumulative impact of small
operations becomes a significant adverse impact upon the land or upon adjacent lands.
Policy NR-P-6.3 Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral extraction
activities.
Policy NR-P-6.4 Designate mineral resource lands as follows:
1. Mineral Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance: Properties that have been approved with a
mineral resource lands overlay consistent with JCC 18.15.170 and those properties actively being mined
for commercial production in compliance with State and County permits, as appropriate.
2. Provisional Mineral Lands: Areas known to be potential sources of valuable mineral resources,
including sand, gravel, stone, or rock, but not included in the MRLO overlay and not in production. These
areas include:
a. Maps and information provided by the Washington Department of Natural Resources, the
United States Geological Service, and any relevant information provided by property owners;
b. Lands classified by NRCS as “good” sources of sand, gravel, or road fill material; and
c. Lands classified by NRCS as “fair” sources of sand, gravel, or road fill material, and which are
located outside cities and urban growth areas.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-22
Policy NR-P-6.5 The provisional mineral resource designation is an interim measure to protect mineral
resources until the presence of a commercially viable mineral deposit can be verified through a geologic
study.
1. Property owners who wish to finalize designation of their property and undertake mining activities
may submit a study by a qualified geologist indicating the presence of commercially significant,
accessible mineral resources and request a mineral lands overlay. Likewise, property owners may
request removal of their property from the provisional mineral lands designation by submitting a study
from a qualified geologist confirming the absence of such resources.
2. The County may evaluate whether non-mineral lands activities on the provisionally designated areas
may foreclose the potential for mineral extraction and request a study of development applicants. The
county may condition uses to ensure that significant deposits are not foreclosed over the long term.
Goal NR-G-7 Ensure, through Washington Department of Natural Resources reclamation plans, that
County mineral resource lands are restored to safe and useful condition with enhancement and
mitigation of damage to the function and aesthetics of the environment and subsequent land uses.
Policy NR-P-7.1 Ensure that County-required reclamation plans preserve the safety, function and value
of adjacent lands including aesthetic and environmental and water resource values.
Policy NR-P-7.2 Encourage reclamation plans that provide enhanced public value such as parks,
playgrounds, open space, trails, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat.
Policy NR-P-7.3 Encourage reclamation that occurs on an ongoing basis as mineral deposits are
depleted.
2.3.3.1 MLA2021-0019 (Miles Sand & Gravel)
Reference Number: MLA2021-00019
Applicant: Miles Sand & Gravel
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 701011001, 701021002, 701121001, 7401111001
Location: Vicinity of 1500 Wahl Lake Road, Port Ludlow, Wahl Lake Extraction Area
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would seek to apply the Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay designation to
approximately 200 acres of CF 1:80 designated and zoned land. Because the proposal is to apply an
overlay designation to the subject properties, it would not seek to change the underlying CF 1:80 land use
designation and zoning.
The entire proposed MRL Overlay area is identified by the Jefferson County Assessor as designated
forestland (i.e., for deferred taxation purposes). Re-designation would not change the permissible dwelling
unit densities on-site, which would continue to be restricted to one dwelling per eighty acres consistent with
the underlying CF 1:80 zoning. CF 1:80 would be the subsequent use.
The proposal was received by Community Development in 2021. Due to staffing shortages and issues
attributable to the Covid Pandemic, review of the proposal was carried forward to 2022. The Planning
commission completed their review in 2022 and provided their recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners to approve this overlay. As staffing and time constraints again brought this proposal to the
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-23
end of 2022 without legislative action, the proposal was combined with the 2023 amendment cycle so that
the Comprehensive Plan would be amended no more than one time per year per GMA.
2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners must
develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff findings,
conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Cumulative Impact Analysis – MLA2021-00019: Miles Sand & Gravel
UDC/JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan
The existing MRLO area has undergone
extraction under Conditional Use Permits. As
the resource is followed, additional area needs
to be added to the overlay. Extraction in these
new MRLO areas will be reviewed under a new
Conditional Use Permit.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
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 to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are presumed to
be valid.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The proposal reflects current widely held values
of the residents of Jefferson County residents
insofar as mineral extraction is conducted in the
county.
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
The proposal does not include any additional
traffic than currently occurs. The proposal does
not affect any County roads.
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
elements of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
goals, policies and implementation strategies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
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
Potential impacts from mining activity as a result
of the MRLO are possible. Those impacts can
be mitigated through a combination of SEPA
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval
during the project phase.
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
The subject parcels are suitable for the MRLO
as they contain known mineral resources.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-24
development, including but not limited to
access, provision of utilities and compatibility
with existing and planned surrounding land uses
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
The MRLO will not create pressure to place
mineral overlays on other properties.
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
The MRLO designation is appropriate for the
underlying CF1:80 zoning. It could have an
effect on future use of the parcel for forestry,
though land at this site already reclaimed is
shown to support reforestation.
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment
does not affect the adequacy or availability of
urban facilities and services to the immediate
area and the overall UGA
The proposal is not within a UGA.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson
county, any other applicable interjurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other local,
state or federal laws
The proposal is consistent with GMA, CWPPs
and other applicable policies, agreements and
laws.
In addition to the findings and conclusions required under JCC 18.45.080 (1) (b), the Planning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners must also develop additional findings and conclusions as set forth
under JCC 18.15.170 that consider specific criteria relative to mineral lands. Mineral Resource Lands of
long-term commercial significance are those lands from which the commercial extraction of minerals (i.e.,
sand, gravel, rock and other valuable aggregate or metallic substances) can be anticipated within twenty
(20) years, and which are characterized by affirmative findings relative to all of the criteria set forth in the
table below.
Assessment of Long-Term Commercial Significance of Mineral Resources
UDC/JCC Criteria (JCC 18.15.170) Staff Evaluation
Has a known or potential extractable resource
in commercial quantities been verified by
submittal of a geologic and economic report
prepared by a qualified professional?
Yes. A geologic report has been submitted.
Is the parcel is a minimum of 10 acres in size?
Yes. The proposed overlay encompasses
approximately 200 acres.
The parcel is not surrounded by parcels smaller
than five acres on any side.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-25
Is the subject property surrounded by parcels
no smaller than five acres in size on 100
percent of its perimeter?
Does the current, or will the future, land use
designation have a residential density equal to,
or lower than, one (1) unit per five (5) acres?
Yes. The underlying zone is Commercial Forest
(CF-80). The existing and future permissible
density of all areas within the proposed MRL
Overlay is one dwelling unit per eighty acres.
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside the
shoreline designation, an urban growth area or
rural village center, and more than one-half
mile of any established or potential urban
growth area or rural village center boundary, as
shown on the official maps of the
Comprehensive Plan?
Yes.
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside of
regulated wetland or fish and wildlife habitat
areas pursuant to Chapter 1.22 JCC?
No. There are regulated wetlands and fish-
bearing streams on the proposed MRLO and
are proposed to be avoided or mitigated in the
project phase.
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental
Sheet to the Environmental Checklist developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions
Question #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 impacts would be commensurate with aggregate surface mining.
Question #2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Effects would be direct from removal of habitat and indirect from disturbance by mining activities and
discharge from the site. Currently, there are fish passage barriers in the proposed MRLO area which may
be corrected through project-specific evaluation and permitting. There are wetlands in the proposed MRLO
area. Methods already employed at the site include avoiding the seasonal high subsurface water level by
a margin that ensures the wetland hydrology is maintained. Also, water quality monitoring can be used to
evaluate the potential for affects to plants, animals, and hydrology.
Question #3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The natural resources would be depleted by their extraction, which is the purpose of the project. Energy
use on site is not considered to be a limiting concern.
Question #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.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-26
Project materials provided by the applicant propose base mining depth to be above subsurface water levels
as is conditioned with the current mining site. Potential impacts to wetlands or buffers would be mitigated
by maintaining mining above the seasonal high water table.
Question #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 expanded MRLO will not affect shoreline use. The expanded MRLO will maintain the existing
processing area and current intensity of use, though moving into additional resource extraction areas.
Aggregate conveyance will be designed to prevent dropping material in stream areas. Otherwise, water
quality could be a concern.
Question #6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
No additional truck traffic is planned or anticipated.
Question #7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not appear to conflict with any law. Environmental protections will be achieved through
SEPA mitigation measures and through Conditions of Approval at the project level.
2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval and designation of the 200-acre Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO). Site-
specific conditions would be specified in the operating permit. In general, staff finds the proposal meets
requirements for conservation of mineral resource lands under the GMA, through the natural resource lands
designation process (RCW 36.70A.040 (3)(b) and 36.70A.170) and through the adoption of development
regulations to implement their conservation (RCW 36.70A.060(1)). GMA requires that land appropriate for
mineral extraction activities is not inappropriately converted for residential purposes.
It is the policy (Comprehensive Plan) of Jefferson County to protect resource industry activities that are
performed in accordance with applicable regulations from being subject to legal action as public nuisances.
However, Jefferson County’s strategy for maintaining compatibility between activities on natural resource
lands and adjacent land uses includes protection of those nearby land uses from adverse impacts.
Therefore, mitigating conflicts between mineral extraction activities and other land use activities located
adjacent to them may be accomplished by requirements applied, during review of a conditional use permit
application, which minimize the conflict.
2.4 STAFF REPORTS: SUGGETSTED TEXT AMENDMENTS
2.4.1 Planning Commission Proposed Housing Amendments
General Description and Environmental Information
Note: Housing amendments are continuing into the 2024 amendment cycle.
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-27
2.4.2 Community Development Proposed UDC Omnibus
Housekeeping Amendments
2.4.2.1 General Description. The proposed housekeeping amendments are listed in
the attached spreadsheet and shown in the line-in/line-out attachment.
2.4.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative Impact Analysis – Housing Amendments
JCC Growth Management Indicators Staff Evaluation
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan
County circumstances related to the
amendments have not changed substantially
since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Whether the assumptions upon which the
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 to the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
Assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan are still
valid, and the proposals implement the Goals &
Policies.
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The amendments implement Comprehensive
Plan Goals & Policies, following widely held
values of county residents.
Supplemental Sheet for Non-Project Actions
Question #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 proposed UDC amendments will not increase discharges to water, emissions to air, or production,
storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances.
Question #2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Generally, the UDC amendment proposals are just textual amendments. However, rescinding the Forest
Transition Overlay (FTO) will be more protective of forest resources. The State Route 20 Highway Visual
Corridor has already been a policy, but adding it as a mapped overlay will make this buffer area easier to
administer—making it more protective of native vegetation, thus habitat, along this portion of State Route
20.
Question #3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The UDC amendment proposals will not influence the use of energy or natural resources.
Question #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,
Jefferson County 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
October 11, 2023
2-28
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural
sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands.
The proposed UDC amendments do not have any direct environmental affect to sensitive areas, but by
nature of the State Route Highway Visual Corridor preserving a natural buffer along a portion of the
highway, and the Forest Transition Overlay no longer allowing a low-density residential zone abutting forest
resources, sensitive areas may be indirectly protected.
Question #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?
Same answer as question #1: Generally, the UDC amendment proposals are just textual amendments.
However, rescinding the Forest Transition Overlay (FTO) will be more protective of forest resources. The
State Route 20 Highway Visual Corridor has already been a policy, but adding it as a mapped overlay will
make this buffer area easier to administer—making it more protective of native vegetation, thus habitat,
along this portion of State Route 20.
Question #6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposed UDC amendments will not have any affect on transportation, public services, or utilities.
Question #7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The UDC amendment proposals are primarily housekeeping in nature, and are intended to clarify or
implement policies, correct errors, and generally be more in line with local and state requirements.
2.4.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the UDC Omnibus Housekeeping Amendments.