HomeMy WebLinkAboutM120108
District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan
District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin
County Administrator: Philip Morley
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of December 1,2008
Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of
Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner John Austin.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: a person
stated that he thinks that the County needs a sustainable, self-sufficient economy with a broader tax base; a
person asked that the Board lobby Federal Elected Officials to reduce the amount being budgeted for the
Border Patrol on the Olympic Peninsula; a citizen stated that in his opinion the State is proposing
disproportionate budget cuts that will affect K-12 and higher education and the benefits to people on fixed
incomes and he asked the Commissioners to talk to the State Legislators about restructuring State budget
priorities; a person reported that he read an article about a Clean Air Agency in several Washington counties
that plans to issue $1,000 fines to people emitting wood smoke from their chimneys and he thinks that in
these difficult economic times people need to be able to use supplemental wood heat; a citizen read his
comments on the final decision of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board regarding
the Critical Areas Ordinance; a person stated that he thinks it is important that everyone who speaks during
the Public Comment Period is treated the same; and a citizen said that he thinks the County should contract
with local companies for services whenever possible.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Chairman Johnson asked
that Item #1 on the Consent Agenda be pulled for discussion. Commissioner Austin moved to approve the
Consent Agenda minus Item # 1. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
1. DELETED RESOLUTION NO. 83-08 HEARING NOTICE re: Supplemental Budget Appropriations/Extensions for
Various County Funds; Hearing Scheduled on Monday, December 15,2008 at ] ] :00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers
(Approved Later in Minutes)
2. RESOLUTION NO. 82-08 re: Closing County Administrative Offices at Noon on Christmas Eve
3. CANCELLATION NOTICE re; County Commissioner Regular Meeting; Scheduled for Monday,
December 22, 2008
4. AGREEMENT re: Corrections Facility Maintenance; Jefferson County Central Services; Cummins
Northwest, LLC
5. AGREEMENT re: EnviroStars Servicemark License; Jefferson County Public Health; King County
6. Advisory Board Resignation; Olympic Area Agency on Aging (03A) Advisory Board; Louise
Marzyck
7. Advisory Board Appointment; Olympic Area Agency on Aging (03A) Advisory Board; To Serve a
Three (3) Year Term Expiring December 1,2011; Patricia Smith
Page I
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1,2008
8. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 21,2008 Totaling $4,571.36 and
Dated November 24,2008 Totaling $933,936.78
9. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 20,2008 Totaling $97,573.38 and
AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 20,2008 Totaling $18,288.05
HEARING NOTICE re: Supplemental Budget Appropriations/Extensions for Various
County Funds: (See Item #1 on the Consent Agenda.) County Administrator Philip Morley explained that
this item was pulled to add a request from the Veterans Assistance Fund. The Veterans Service Officers
Association has agreed to contribute $13,500 to purchase a new DA V van to transport Veterans to the V A
Hospital in Seattle. The cost is $3,500 more than originally anticipated. The revised hearing notice includes
a request for the Veterans Assistance Fund for $5,000 from the fund balance.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 83-08 in the matter of a hearing notice for
fourth quarter supplemental budget appropriations/extensions for various County funds. Commissioner
Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The public hearing is scheduled on
Monday, December 15,2008 at 11:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers.
COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were discussed.
Commissioner Sullivan reported:
· The PR TPO Legislative Outreach Committee will be promoting the transportation priorities for the
region which includes the Port Townsend/Keystone ferry replacement at the top ofthe list and the
Hood Canal Bridge repairs.
Representatives from the State Department of Ecology are giving a presentation on the proposed
instream flow rule at Fort Worden this week
The County Commissioners will be attending a joint special meeting with the Planning Commission
this week for a presentation on the draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP.)
Chairman Johnson reported:
· He and a Port Commissioner were discussing the need to schedule a local intergovernmental meeting
of the County, Port of Port Townsend, and PUD Commissioners and the City Council to discuss
infrastructure funding.
Commissioner Austin reported:
· Olympic Community Action Programs is having the last meeting of the year this week. They
received a substantial donation this year for capital funding that will allow more of their funding to
be used on human service programs. They are increasing the number of days of operation for the
Port Townsend Food Bank to two days a week, and they have partnered with other organizations to
open a winter homeless shelter at the American Legion.
Port Ludlow residents are concerned about the proposed State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR)/Pope Resources land exchange. Most of the people want the DNR to maintain stewardship
over their property in Port Ludlow. A meeting is scheduled on Thursday.
County Administrator Philip Morley reported:
· Katherine Baril is putting together a meeting of CEOs from severalloeal government and non-
governmental organizations on December 11. They will discuss options for partnering on projects
and programs. This may become a quarterly meeting.
.
.
.
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1, 2008
· At 5 p.m. today the Board will hold a public hearing on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the minutes of the
Special Meeting on November 5, 2008. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. The Chair called for
a vote on the motion. Commissioner Austin and Commissioner Sullivan voted for the motion. Chairman
Johnson noted that he had an excused absence at that meeting and abstained from the vote. The motion
carried.
Commissioner Austin moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 10,2008 as presented.
Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Update re: Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board Program: Eve Dixon, Noxious
Weed Control Coordinator stated that noxious weeds are a major problem for everyone in the County and
not just farmers and gardeners. Toxic weeds such as tansy ragwort and poison hemlock are quite prevalent.
Many people are allergic to scotch broom. This year the Weed Board was able to enlist large numbers of
volunteers from local communities in the County to work on special weed pull projects. The County only
has $14,000 in the 2009 General Fund budget for the Noxious Weed Program and they need more help.
Jill Silver, Weed Control District #1 representative, reported that the Noxious Weed Control Board did over
500 hours of volunteer work in 2008. Eve Dixon and another part time employee made 450 site visits and
did weed pulling along the roads. They are trying to contain small populations before they cause more
damage and require more effort or herbicides. They have been working to encourage groups of volunteers in
neighborhoods throughout the County. They work with the City of Port Townsend, the State Department of
Transportation (DOT), the County Road Crew, and the Grange organizations. They educate people about
the importance of eradicating noxious weeds before they go to flower so that they won't spread. Jill Silver
noted that the butterfly bush was recently put on the noxious weed control list. This is a common garden
plant and it is important that the flowers are clipped before they go to seed. Noxious weeds are invasive,
competitive and hard to control. They impact property values, agriculture, public health, recreation, and
wildlife habitat.
A portion of their funding comes from a partnership with Clallam County. For the past several years,
Clallam County has been awarded Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) Program grants from Secure Rural
Schools funding. The Weed Board wants Jefferson County to develop a dedicated funding source for the
program. The State RCW specifies that Weed Boards can only be funded from the General Fund or by a
parcel assessment which is a small amount of money per acre per year. Jefferson County is one ofthe few
counties in the State that doesn't have a parcel assessment. They offered several assessment scenarios that
they plan to present at public venues. They need $57,000 a year to run an effective program.
Linda Davis, Weed Control District #3 representative, noted that her weed district has more farms than the
other districts. Most people are trying to stay as organic as they can but this is difficult when weed seeds
come in from neighboring properties. She thinks that the current Weed Board can convince landowners that
charging an assessment is necessary.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1,2008
Katherine Ackerman, Weed Control District #5 representative, stated that she is from the South County and
her interest is educating individual landowners. In her weed district, they have problems with non-native
invasive plants moving into saltwater and freshwater shorelines. This impacts the animal and fish habitat.
Richard Hild, Weed Control District #2 representative, stated that he has been impressed by the number of
volunteers who have become involved. Eve Dixon came to a Realtors Association meeting and brought
examples of live weeds which he thinks gets the point across more convincingly than photos. He noted that
scotch broom can be a real problem for some people on heart medication. He urged the Board to consider a
dedicated funding source for the Noxious Weed Control Program.
There was a discussion with the Board about the amount of funding that the County receives from Clallam
County. The Board asked questions about the proposed assessment fees. Commissioner Sullivan explained
that a per parcel fee needs to be fair which is difficult because ofthe different size and configuration of
parcels. There was a discussion about how this fee would affect farmers. Jill Silver noted that they will talk
with people about the best way to do the fee assessment and bring a recommendation back to the Board.
The Weed Board has a very specific plan about where the funding will be used. Commissioner Sullivan
added that the timeline for putting an assessment on the tax bill for 2009 is passed and they may want to talk
to the Treasurer about their proposal.
Conservation Futures Program Revisions and Updates: Jerry Gorsline, Vice-Chair of the
Conservation Futures Citizen's Oversight Committee explained that the committee is required by ordinance
to review the Conservation Futures program principles at least once every two years and make
recommendations to the County Commissioners for modification of the program. The program has been in
place for five years and improvements have been made to the application guidelines and forms, rating
sheets, and the application process. Other changes include increasing the number of committee members,
offering operations and maintenance funding to projects upon request, requiring applicants to present
projects in person, and video-taping site visits.
This year the Committee initiated a program review with the objective of increasing awareness and access to
the program. Changes suggested were to address the high cost of appraisals and stewardship, to create a
grant program manual and other supporting materials, and to increase efforts to involve citizens in the
Committee's work. He explained that the Committee thought the requirement for applicants to provide an
appraisal for acquisitions with their application was a disincentive for citizens to participate in the program
because appraisal fees can be costly. They would like to change the requirement to allow the sponsor of a
project to provide an assessment of value, certified appraisal, or an estimate of value. However, before any
disbursement of funds, the funding amount would need to be supported by an appraisal. The exception to
this is if acquisitions have an assessed value or opinion of value by a Realtor or appraiser of under $20,000.
In order to meet the goal of improving communications about the program and making it more accessible to
citizens, staff developed a comprehensive program manual which will be going through legal review. The
Committee and staff will be hosting a series ofthree public workshops throughout the County in January to
encourage citizen participation in the program.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1,2008
The location of projects that have received Conservation Futures Funding were shown on a map. Jerry
Gorsline reviewed the progress on each project as required in the annual report.
Tami Pokorny, Environmental Health Specialist II, asked the Board to approve the recommendations of the
Committee. There was a discussion about the need for a certified appraisal and whether it could be waived
if the property was under $20,000. Commissioner Austin said that he would like the changes to go through
legal review.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the recommended changes subject to legal review.
Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The County Administrator
stated that a legal review would be requested on the recommendations this week.
Discussion re: AGREEMENT NO. 07-1540C to Acquire a Conservation Easement on
Glendale Farm in Partnership with the Jefferson Land Trust; Jefferson County Public Health;
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (ReO): Tami Pokorny explained that this
agreement with the RCO Fannland Preservation Program reimburses expenses related to the acquisition of a
conservation easement on Glendale Farm. The 188 acre farm is located near the Chimacum intersection.
The Jefferson Land Trust is the project sponsor and was awarded $230,000 in County Conservation Futures
Funds in 2007. In their Conservation Futures application, the Fannland Preservation Program was identified
as a potential source of additional funding. The County and the Land Trust submitted an application for
funding to the RCO in September, 2007. In March, 2008, the County provided a certification of sponsor
match based on community funds received by the Land Trust that were sufficient to provide the 50% match
needed to complete the project. Last month the County received notice from the RCO that the application
was approved and an agreement was sent to the County for approval. The reimbursement period extends
through December 31, 2009 and allows for reimbursement of up to $546,738 in eosts related to acquisition
and restoration ofthe project. This is 50% of the total anticipated project cost. A separate agreement
between the County and the Land Trust is being developed to enable the Land Trust to implement the
project in partnership with the County, execute an option to purchase, and hire the necessary sub-
contractors.
Sarah Spaeth, Jefferson Land Trust, explained that the LandWorks partners and the Land Trust brought this
project to the Board several years ago. They negotiated successfully with the landowner who was willing to
sell the development rights on the property. After receiving Conservation Futures funding, they submitted
the State grant, and began raising community funds. The Land Trust has incurred costs all along, including
the appraisal cost, the review cost, and costs to have the easement drafted. The contract between the County
and the Land Trust would allow these costs to be reimbursed. These are costs allowable under the State and
County grant programs. The draft conservation easement is almost completed and will go through legal
review with the County. They hope to close on the conservation easement at the beginning of 2009 and
begin work on the restoration projects. This guarantees that the property will be available for agricultural
uses into the future. This project was ranked #2 by the State and is the first project that has been awarded
restoration funding. The restoration component is important to keep the fann viable. There is a solar
energy component and fencing for some of the drainage that goes into Chimacum Creek that will provide
work for contractors in the County.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1, 2008
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the grant agreement for $546,737 for Glendale Farm with the
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: The following items were
discussed.
· Briefing on Community Development and Permit Review Cost Recovery. Department of
Community Development (DCD) staff discussed the organization and funding structure of the
department, including long-range planning, permit review, and inspection functions. This discussion
was prompted by the revenue shortfall that DCD has experienced over the past several months. The
Board explored what permit review and inspection fees cover. Another topic was the recent staffing
cutbacks that may affect permit review timelines and the work program for long-range planning.
DCD Director Al Scalf and staff will be scheduled at the County Administrator Briefing Session on
December 8 to discuss the Department's work program priorities. In January, there will be more
discussions on permit and inspection fees.
· Miscellaneous items discussed: a) Logistics for December 8 public hearing on 2009 County
Budget; b) a citizen's suggestion to install punch clocks to track stafftime and the impact it would
have on morale and better ways to manage staff; c) pending adoption of the Puget Sound Partnership
Action Plan; d) State Ferries efforts toreplace the Port Townsend/Keystone Ferry.
The meeting was recessed at the close of the County Administrator's Briefing Session and
reconvened at 5 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom for a hearing on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket.
HEARING re: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Approximately 35 interested
citizens were present when Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing in the Superior Courtroom. Joel
Peterson, Associate Planner presented each amendment and gave a brief description.
MLA08-32; Dave HollandlDavos Capital LLC, Applicant: This proposal is located at the corner of Arabian
Lane and Hastings Avenue in Port Townsend. The property is approximately 14.02 acres. The application
is to change from Rural Residential, I residence to 10 acres to (RR 1: 1 0) to Rural Residential, 1 residence to
5 acres (RR: 1: 5.) The DCD staff recommendation is to approve the application. The Planning
Commission's recommendation is to approve the application.
The Chair noted that all applicants will have 5 minutes to present their proposal. The applicant or a
representative was not present.
Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA08-32.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1,2008
Ryan Hunter, Port Townsend, explained his perspective on Comprehensive Plan amendment applications
related to rural residential rezones. He noted that his comments will address five of the proposed
amendments before the Board at this hearing: D. Holland, George, Broders, Brown, and Jackson. The
Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act (GMA) call on the County to direct growth to urban
areas and to restrict growth or control growth in rural areas. The County has set growth standards that allow
approximately 70% of the growth in urban areas and 30% in rural areas. He believes that the County has an
oversupply of rural residential lots when compared to the projected population growth and the allocation to
rural areas. By 2024, when all of the anticipated future growth is accounted for, the County will still have
over 1,000 vacant buildable rural residential lots available. It is impossible for the County to meet the goal
of directing 70% of growth to urban areas and restricting 30% of growth to rural areas. The County will
have a difficult time meeting the GMA directive to encourage growth to urban areas. He recommends that
the County deny all future Comprehensive Plan amendments that create new rural residential lots until the
oversupply of rural residential lots decreases.
Hearing no further comments for or against MLA08-32, the Chair closed the public comment on the
amendment.
MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George: 472 South Edwards Road in Port Townsend. The application is
to change from Rural Residential, 1 residence to 20 acres to (RRl :20) to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 10
acres (RR: 1: 1 0.) The DCD staff recommendation is to deny the application. The Planning Commission had
no recommendation on the application.
The applicant was not present. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on
MLA08-69. Hearing no comments for or against MLA08-69, the Chair closed the public comment on the
amendment.
MLA08-73; James JacksonlChimacum Heights LLC: This property is approximately 120 acres loeated
near Chimacum. The application is to change from Commercial Forest, 1 residence to 80 acres to (CF 1 :80)
to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 10 acres (RR: I : 10.) The DCD staff recommendation is to deny the
application. The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the application. The vote was 5 in favor
of denying the application and 3 against denying it.
The applicant was not present. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on
MLA08-73.
Kevin Coker, Port Townsend, submitted and read his testimony. (See permanent record.)
Eric Pickett, submitted and read his testimony. (See permanent record.)
Hearing no further comments for or against MLA08-73, the Chair closed the public comment on the
amendment.
MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR Partnership: This property is approximately 38 acres located on
Cleveland Street off Oak Bay Road in Chimacum. The application is to change from Rural Residential, I
residence to 20 acres (RRl :20) to Rural Residential, 1 residence to 5 acres (RR: 1 :5.) The DCD staff
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1,2008
recommendation is to deny the application. The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the
application. The vote was 6 in favor of denying the application and 2 against denying it.
The applicant was not present. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on
MLA08-84. Hearing no comments for or against MLA08-84, the Chair closed the public comment on the
amendment.
MLA08-93; Burnett/Pope Resources: This property is located approximately three miles west ofthe Hood
Canal Bridge, immediately north of SRI 04, adjacent to the Shine Quarry, and approximately 'lj mile from
the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR). It is 142 acres. The application is for a Mineral Resource
Lands Overlay (MRLO) in a Commercial Forest (CF 1 :80) designation, 1 residence to 80 acres. This
MRLO designation would allow extraction of mineral resourees from a hard rock mine. The DCD staff
recommendation is to approve the MRLO with a number of modifications to the application and mitigation
measures as conditions of approval. The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny the application.
The vote was 8 in favor of denying the application (unanimous).
The applicant was not present. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on
MLA08-93.
Bruce Schmitz, Port Ludlow, submitted and read his testimony. (See permanent record.)
Dave Armitage, Port Ludlow, submitted and read portions of his testimony. (See permanent record.)
Tonv Simpson, Port Ludlow, submitted and read portions of his testimony. (See permanent record.)
Maureen Black, Port Ludlow, submitted a letter from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission that concerns six citations against Iron Mountain Quarry. (See permanent record.)
Dianne Ridglev, Port Ludlow, submitted and read her testimony. (See permanent record.)
Hana Buresova, Port Ludlow, stated that her training is in transportation and she agrees with the comments
people have made about traffic issues as the result of approving the MRLO. She believes it would be very
prudent to designate no through traffic in Port Ludlow over 5 tons to protect the community although Iron
Mountain has said that they will only use SRI04.
Elizabeth Harmon, Port Ludlow, stated that she has been a resident for six years. There are a number of
successful people who live in Port Ludlow who use their expertise to help the community. She requested
that the Board not approve the MRLO which is located less than 2,600 feet from the MPR. There will be
blasting, mining, and trucks on the roads. The people in Port Ludlow give of themselves for the betterment
of the County and they are asking for the Commissioners support.
Daniel Darrow, Port Ludlow, stated that he has submitted several letters to the County. He wants to
reemphasize that the Planning Commission did a great job on this request and their reasoning is very clear
about why the MRLO should be denied. The current commereial forest zoning does allow mining, however
it is restricted to 10 acres at a time. It is important that the County maintain authority to control the impacts
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1,2008
of development. He thinks it is premature for the County to approve the MRLO application because Iron
Mountain Quarry hasn't submitted any detailed plans yet.
Teresa Forrest, Port Ludlow, stated that all Port Ludlow residents are very concerned about their quality of
life that will be impacted if the MRLO is approved. Many people oppose the overlay and the mine. Shine
Quarry is already a fully functioning quarry and has been a good neighbor. She moved to the area about 2'iS
years ago and until she needed rock, she didn't know it existed. Why would the County punish an excellent
community member such as Shine Quarry by even considering Iron Mountain. They would come in and
trample over everybody and possibly put Shine Quarry out of business. She would like to see some reward
given to Shine Quarry from the community.
William Brown, Port Ludlow, stated that he attended the Planning Commission's meeting with many other
concerned citizens. The Planning Commission did a good job going through their list of concerns in the
consideration of the Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO. They said they didn't have enough information. He is
concerned whether the parcel is physically suitable for the requested landuse designation and if that
designation is compatible with the surrounding area. He doesn't think that it is compatible.
Jim Moore, General Manager of Shine Quarry, stated that the quarry has been in business for over twenty-
five years. He has been there ten years. He takes pride in Port Ludlow and his life is there. He is going to
do everything he can to keep everyone happy in Port Ludlow.
Hearing no further comments for or against MLA08-93, the Chair closed the public comment on the
amendment.
MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown Trust, Applicant (David Goldsmith is the agent.): This
proposal is located one mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center Roads in Chimacum. The
request is to change 80 acres of 116 acres from Commercial Forest zoned 1 residence to 80 acres to (CF
1 :80) to Rural Forest 1 residence to 40 acres (RF: 1 :40) and the remaining 36 acres from Commercial Forest
zoned 1 residence to 80 acres (CFl :80) to Agricultural Lands zoned 1 residence to 20 acres (AL 1 :20). The
Den staff recommendation is to deny the application. The Planning Commission's recommendation is to
approve with modification. The modification is to recommend a split zone of the parcel to redesignate
existing pasture land as Agricultural Land (ALl :20) which would be 19'iS acres and retain the zoning of the
Forest Land as Commercial Forest (CFl :80.)
David Goldsmith, agent for the applicant, (applicant not present) eXplained that this property was
misclassified when the Comprehensive Plan was developed. Since the 1920's the parcel has been pasture
land and has been used as pasture land. One of the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan designation of
Commercial Forest (CF) is the soil classification. The pasture is not part of the forest land grade system
because the soils do not support a commercial forest. The Comprehensive Plan designation also required
that the parcel be designated Commercial Forest (CF) according to the Assessor's maps. This is where the
error oecurred because the Assessor's map shows it as open space Commercial Forest (CF.) The
predominant amount of land in the parcel was Commercial Forest and the pasture was added. However, one
classification was for tax purposes and one was for land use. Another criteria in the Comprehensive Plan is
that the Commercial Forest (CF) has to be part of a 360 acre, or greater, block ofland. This is not the case.
Both RF and CF are part ofthe forest land base and the proposal isn't to take the land out of the forest land
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1,2008
base. However, the proposal is that the property be set in context with surrounding land uses. He pointed
out that the zoning on adjacent property on three sides ofthe parcel is designated as non-forestry use. The
Brown Estate believes that the proper classification should have been Rural Forest (RF) based on the
surrounding land use. The Land Trust has shown some interest in the property because of the upper reaches
of Chimacum Creek. The Estate concurs with the Planning Commission that the agricultural lands should
be left as they are. They see it as two parts, the first part is the question about the classification and the
language in the Comprehensive Plan. The second part is the proper classification of the parcel.
Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA08.56. Hearing no
comments for or against MLA08-56, the Chair closed the public comment on the amendment.
MLA08-96; Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments, Applicant: This property is approximately Y2 acre
located at the intersection of Shine Road and SR 104. The application is to change from Rural Residential, 1
residence to 5 acres (RRl :5) to Rural Commercial/Convenience Crossroads. The DCD staff
recommendation is to approve the application with modification. The modification is to specifY that the
rezone be a Convenience Crossroads. The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve the
application. The property has been used since before the Growth Management Act as a commercial area,
primarily as a real estate office.
Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on MLA08-96. Hearing no
comments for or against MLA08-96, the Chair closed the public comment on the amendment.
MLA08-101; Catherine Hendy, Applicant: This property is approximately 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres located
on Center Road in Chimacum. The application is for a rezone from Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
to Light Industrial. The 1.2 acres is not included in the request. There is an old sawmill located on the
property. The Light Industrial designation would open up alternatives for the use of the property. The DCD
staff recommendation is to approve the application with modification. The Planning Commission
recommendation is to approve the application.
Joel Peterson noted that associated Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment MLA08-389 is also
included with this application which would change the use table to the new zoning.
The applicant was not present. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing on
MLA08-1 0 1. Hearing no comments for or against MLA08-1 01, the Chair closed the public comment on the
amendment.
The Chair closed the public hearing on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Deliberations
and a decision are scheduled on the Board's agenda on December 8, 2008 at 5 p.m. in the Superior
Courtroom.
Page 10
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 1, 2008
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at
6:05 p.m. to the joint Special Meeting with the Planning Commission on December 3, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. at
WSU/Extension. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
MEETING.ADJOURNED
\ 1\ 1: '( C cO 1.1 .. .... "
SE,A-:t..;~' of! If' ",,~.,.: !.1 ...
Ib~' ...." Q \
~\ " ;" "",,~...j ,-, \
:- : ')~;'l~\"' )1 '. ,':,
1..-:.1 \ . \,,- ~.. , ~
",," ~, \ , ''''i, -j, : ~ :
A T~ r ,.' . -- ""7 _ , ;1::
.' <11.;.4.,.
"-'~'"":-"~':
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
~ '~ "1 ""\.
K~
Phil Johnson, Chair
(/i;~"
David~~ulhvan, Member
J~~~
~Q~ -'rrlCt~) erne
~lie Matthes, CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Page II
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
TITLE: Hearin re: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
DATE: Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:00 p,m,
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
~
;:xc.
=Jl ,fl-I
I tJ{L r LVI:>U./
fORi L LDLtJ
tf1, La Dk......
'~~
f'c
;)
','
Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
o
000
o O~
o oif
o DO
~'OO
OCKl
0r00
o gO
DtjD
Of2D
000
000
ODD
000
000
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST 1 ,-
if:",;.
~ :: ~'-
~!^
i': i!
,.. ".
TITLE: Hearin re: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
DATE: Monda, December 1, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print)
~.1
~>
,
- N; ~'"iJ'..
jL
{
'X
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
(1'"\
:? J>' t:.
-
..z.:~"-"i;~.J'LI\,,j Lw
r?= L.~>I..'",-
Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
o DB"'
D@TI
~DjiJ
o ~D
D~
DO
0~
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST I:" e,} ';
f .
TITLE: Hearin re: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
DATE: Monda, December 1, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.
PLACE: Su erior Courtroom
NAME (Please Print)
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
<4
T
,c' /';
X <';",,,.:;. b i:A.\-J.Lyv\",,\
6~L ~~c...
}5<:
/JU-JP JI'rMO'ciDON'
ft1 i cl~t
..., lit. ~ 11 si;;;GV
/IS/)06LEC LI'),V/-
Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
DD~
~DD
DD~
D ~D
DElD
Dl2lD
DDD
DDD
DDD
D DD
D DD
D DD
D DD
D DD
DDD
DDD
J ,~
, c
\
Public Hearing
5:00 p.m.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend, Washington 98368
360/379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax .! ". .
,
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopmentl " .
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator ~O
Al Scalf, Director, Department of Community Development (DCD~
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, DCD ~ _
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, Long-Range Planning, DC~
I December 2008
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public hearing on 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final
Docket and possible deliberations
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On July 7, 2008, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) established the
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket (2008 CPA Final Docket) following an
open-record public hearing on the suggested amendments held on June 9, 2008. Originally there
were thirteen (13) Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications received, including three (3)
suggested and ten (10) site-specific amendment applications. The site-specific amendment
applications were included automatically on the Final Docket, consistent with Chapter 18.45
JCC. The public hearing was held following the Planning Commission's recommendation not to
docket the three suggested amendment applications on the Preliminary Docket. The Final
Docket consisted often (10) site-specific amendment applications. (It should be noted that two
of the site-specific amendment applications were withdrawn in writing: MLA08-87, on May 9,
2008; and MLA08-59, on August 27, 2008.)
Following the withdrawal in writing of two site-specific amendment applications, the 2008 CPA
Final Docket consists of eight (8) site-specific applications for amending the map of land use
designations. One (I) Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment proposal (MLA08-389) is
also associated with this amendment process, as it amends the Development Regulations relating
to MLA08-l0l, one of the proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals.
, ; ~
Planning Commission and Final DCD Recommendations
Site-Specific Amendments:
1. MLA08-32; Dave Holland/Davos Capital LLC (Jim Graf, authorized agent for property
owner); comer of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue, Port Townsend, W A; 14.02 acres
(Assessor's parcel nwnber 001-064-002); RR 1 :10 to 1 :5.
2. MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown Trust (David Goldsmith, authorized
agent for property owner); one mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center
Roads, Chimacum, W A; 116 acres (Assessor's parcel nwnber 801-091-010; application
under 801-091-002); for 80 acres, request is CF I :80 to RF 1 :40; for 36 acres, request is
for CF 1 :80 to RR 1 :20 or AL 1 :20.
3. MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472 South Edwards Road, Port Townsend, W A;
20 acres (Assessor's parcel number 001-191-002); RR 1:20 to RR 1:10.
4. MLA08-73; James Jackson/Chimacwn Heights LLC; near Chimacum, W A; 120 acres
(Assessor's parcel nwnber 901-132-002); CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
5. MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR Partnership; Cleveland St., Chimacwn;
approximately 38 acres (Assessor's parcel nwnber 901-121-001); RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
6. MLA08-93; Burnett/Pope Resources; approximately three miles west of the Hood Canal
Bridge, immediately north ofSR 104; 142 acres (Assessor's parcel nwnbers 821-324-
002,821-311-001,821-291-002, and 821-302-001); apply Mineral Resource Lands
Overlay (MRLO) to CF 1 :80.
7. MLA08-96; Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments; intersection of Shine Road and
SR 104; .50 acres (Assessor's parcel number 821-333-001); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial.
8. MLA08-101; Catherine Hendy; 5411 Center Road, Chimacwn; 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres
(Assessor's parcel numbers 801-102-004 and 801-102-002); request is to rezone a portion
of 801-102-004 from Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ) to Light Industrial.
Department of Community Development (DC D) Staff presented analysis and preliminary
recommendations through an Integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) Addendwn on September 3, 2008, thereby initiating an associated public comment
period. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the eight (8) site-specific
amendment applications on September 17, and accepted written comments through October 3,
2008. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposals during meetings held October 15,
2008, and November 5, 2008, and completed findings to support its recommendations on
November 6, 2008.
A. The following documents are attached:
1. Memorandum from the Planning Commission re: Recommendations on the 2008 CPA
Final Docket.
2. Planning Commission Minority Report.
3. Public Comment letters (received since the close of the Planning Commission public
comment period on October 3, 2008).
4. Signed maps of proposals for which the Planning Commission recommends approval or
approval with modification.
5. DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendwn (September 3)
2
,
,
Planning Commission and Final DCD Recommendations
B. The following document is incorporated by reference:
I. Original applications.
The document listed under B. above has been previously distributed to the BoCC as Planning
Commission correspondence. Furthermore, all documents and additional information related to
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle are available on this County webpage:
http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2008cvcle.htm
Planning Commission meeting minutes can be accessed from this County web portal:
http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/Meeting&Minutes/Meetings&Minutes.htm
DCD staff presented before the BoCC the Planning Commission recommendations and
department recommendations on all eight (8) amendment proposals comprising the 2008 CPA
Final Docket on Monday, November 17,2008.
ANAL YSIS/STRATEGIC GOALSIPROS and CONS:
The BoCC is expected to take legislative action on all eight (8) proposals which comprise the
2008 CPA Final Docket no later than Monday, December 8, 2008, the second regular BoCC
meeting in December, per Jefferson County Code 18.45.080 (2)(d). The public hearing that is
the subject of this agenda request was duly noticed in the newspaper of record on Wednesday,
November 19,2008.
FISCAL IMPACT ICOST -BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
Staffing resources have already been committed from the general fund in support of Long-Range
Planning. Applicants have paid fees for this review process.
PLANNING AGENCY SUMMARY DISCUSSION:
One amendment proposal, MLA08-69, received a tie vote from the Planning Commission on two
separate occasions; therefore, no recommendation from the Planning Commission is forthcoming
on that application. Therefore, guidance provided the BoCC at JCC 18.45.080(2)(b) requires a
public hearing on the entire 2008 CPA Final Docket:
"If after considering the matter at the regularly scheduled public meeting the board of county
commissioners deems a change in the recommendation of the planning commission to be
necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing
using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.300."
Second, the Planning Commission specifically reviewed each proposal during deliberations
using the Growth Management Indicators found at JCC 18.45.050 and JCC 18.45.080.
Additional comments highlighting Planning Commission findings and conclusions are included
in this request.
Third, please find in this section the final DCD staff recommendations for the 2008 CPA Final
Docket. DCD presented analysis of individual proposals and of potential cumulative impacts of
the whole of the 2008 Docket, together with preliminary recommendations for each proposal, in
3
Planning Commission and Final DCD Recommendations
a Staff Report and SEP A Addendum dated September 3, 2008. In general, analysis presented in
the September 3 document and subsequent memoranda to the Planning Commission is
referenced rather than repeated here. Additional comments are provided where appropriate to
augment or highlight staff findings. Following are brief descriptions of each of the eight (8)
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, followed by the recommendations of the
Planning Commission and DCD. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file
number for reference.
SEPA REVIEW:
Cumulative environmental review of eight (8) amendment proposals was examined through an
environmental analysis called an Integrated GMAlSEPA Staff Report issued on September 3,
2008. This document fulfills the requirements for environmental review under WAC 197-11 in
consideration of cumulative impacts for the county-wide Comprehensive Plan Amendment
cycle. This agenda request also represents final SEPA review for the 2008 CPA Final Docket
process, and the completion of SEP A analysis.
2008 Site-Specific Amendment Proposals:
MLA08-32
Applicant: Dave Holland/Davos Capital LLC (Jim Graf, authorized agent for property owner);
comer of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue, Port Townsend, W A; 14.02 acres (Assessor's
parcel number 001-064-002); RR I :10 to 1:5.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve. Vote: 7-1-0 (7 favor, I oppose, 0 abstain).
The Planning Commission found that the proposal meets concurrency requirements and
does not affect adopted levels of service.
Final Staff Recommendation: Approve, as originally recommended in September 3 staff report.
MLA08-56
Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown Trust (David Goldsmith, authorized agent for property
owner); one mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center Roads, Chimacum, W A; 116
acres (Assessor's parcel number 801-091-010; application under parcel number 801-091-002);
for 80 acres, request is CF I :80 to RF I :40; for 36 acres, request is for CF I :80 to RR I :20 or AL
1:20.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve with modification. Vote: 8-0-0.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend a "split-zone" of the parcel,
to re-designate existing pasture land as Agriculture of Local Significance (AL 1:20),
{nineteen and a half (19.5) acres}; and further, recommends retaining zoning of forest
land currently designated CF 1:80.
4
.
.
(
Planning Commission and Final DCD Recommendations
Final Staff Recommendation: Deny, as originally recommended in September 3 staff report.
MLA08-69
Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472 South Edwards Road, Port Townsend, W A; 20 acres
(Assessor's parcel number 001-191-002); RR 1 :20 to RR 1 :10.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Tied (no recommendation). Vote: 4-4-0.
During deliberations there was no consensus reached as to whether the proposal is
consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various
Comprehensive Plan elements; also, there was no consensus as to whether the proposal
will create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties.
Final Staff Recommendation: Deny, as originally recommended in September 3 staff report.
MLA08- 73
James Jackson/Chimacum Heights LLC; near Chimacum, W A; 120 acres (Assessor's parcel
number 901-132-002); CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 5-3-0.
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
. the proposal is not consistent with the goals, policies, and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan;
. there is difficulty reaching consensus as to whether the proposal reflects current
widely-held values of Jefferson County residents;
. the proposal would create pressure to change the land use designation of other
properties; and the proposal is inconsistent with GMA regarding conversion of
Commercial Forest to Rural Residential.
Final Staff Recommendation: Deny, as originally recommended in September 3 staff report.
MLA08-84
Richard Broders/CMR Partnership; Cleveland St., Chimacum; approximately 38 acres
(Assessor's parcel number 901-121-001); RR 1 :20 to RR 1:5.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 6-2-0.
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact and conclusions oflaw:
. the proposal is not consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies
of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan;
5
"
Planning Commission and Final DCD Recommendations
. the proposal is not consistent with RCW 36.70A, the COW1ty-Wide Planning Policies,
any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state, and
federal laws.
Final Staff Recommendation: Deny, as originally recommended in September 3 staff report.
MLA08-93
Burnett/Pope Resources; approximately three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge, immediately
north ofSR 104; 142 acres (Assessor's parcel numbers 821-324-002, 821-311-001, 821-291-002,
and 821-302-001); apply Mineral Resource Lands Overlay (MRLO) to CF 1:80.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 8-0-0.
The Planning Commission established the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
. the proposal is not consistent with widely-held values of Jefferson County residents;
. the proposal was not completely vetted at the planning level of review;
. the proposal requires considerably more detail in order to be adequately reviewed,
particularly with respect to truck volume on SR 104;
. land use conflicts should be minimized, and the proposal as submitted renders
information insufficient to gauge effects; the proposal will or could result in adverse
impacts or place W1compensated burdens upon existing or planned service
capabilities, or could affect the COW1ty'S ability to provide adequate levels of service;
. the parcel is physically suitable for the proposed use, but is incompatible with
surroW1ding uses;
. the proposal could create pressure to change the land use designation of other
properties, which mayor may not be in the interests of the COW1ty as a whole;
. the natural and built environments may not be adequately mitigated as a result of the
proposal: while a non-project level of SEPA review was conducted, the Planning
Commission does not concur with staff that a finding of Mitigated Determination of
No Significance (MONS) is correct, but rather, that the proposal would involve
probable significant adverse environmental impact.
Final Staff Recommendation: Approve with modifications, as originally recommended In
September 3 staff report.
An additional staff comment on the proposal (which is not contained in the preliminary
staff report of September 3, 2008): the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) was
an Urban Growth Area (UGA) in 1994-1995, prior to its designation as an MPR. This
fact is included as supporting justification for staffs recommendation that there be a half-
mile buffer between mining activities and the Port Ludlow MPR.
MLA08-96
Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments; intersection of Shine Road and SR 104; .50 acres
(Assessor's parcel number 821-333-001); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial.
6
.' 1
Planning Commission and Final DCD Recommendations
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve with modification. Vote: 8-0-0.
The Planning Commission established the following findings offact and conclusions oflaw:
. the proposal concerns an existing retail establishment that qualifies as a legal non-
conforming use since 1977;
. traffic has increased on SR 104, and the project-level proposal would require
transportation review.
The Planning Commission included in its recommendation the provision that the Limited
Area of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) created by approval of this
proposal be designated Convenience Crossroads.
Final Staff Recommendation: Approve with modification, as originally recommended III
September 3 staff report.
MLA08-101 (and associated UDC amendment MLA08-389; found in Appendix D of the OCD
Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum dated September 3, 2008)
Catherine Hendy; 5411 Center Road, Chimacum; 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres (Assessor's parcel
numbers 801-102-004 and 801-102-002); request is to rezone a portion of 801-102-004 from
Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ) to Light Industrial.
Planning Commission Recommendation on MLA08-101: Approve with modification. Vote: 8-
0-0. (MLA08-389: Vote: 8-0-0.)
The Planning Commission included a modification of the original application by
clarifying that the recommended re-designation applies to a portion of less than four (4)
acres of parcel # 801-102-004, and further, includes the associated UDC amendment
already specified.
Final Staff Recommendation: Approve, as originally recommended in September 3 staff report.
RECOMMENDATION:
DCD staff recommends that the BoCC hold a public hearing on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Final Docket.
REVIEWED BY:
LI/U- &t:
Date
7
CC'Dc...D
1Ij!'8/0'?
S-s.,..Jt fo Dee, It>~(,<~ HrJ e"("CCTC(J
OP, 2-co'i$"" Dc:>d_. e -r.
Speech Provided by James A. Jackson, Member of Chimacnm Heigbts LLC regarding MLA08.73.
11/17/2008 to BOCC
Text of Speech below:
'f""'"f""'.!"';. iF'!.
i.." " .., .~
" , j,! I
~t;:. '\~":t v ~\L0-
~ l"'ARi~ ':'
II'" '. . \\:~ .:.
.. .~ -'-' ".. \. i "'~ ""-::;/
My name is James A Jackson, a member of Chima cum Heights LLC I have attended many of the
Jefferson County planning commission meetings this year while my father has attended nearly all of the
planning commission meetings even when the comp plan amendments were not a topic of discussion.
While we have done exhaustive legal analysis to ensure our petition meets the GMA and other state laws,
rulings, and court cases, it appears that both the planning commission and the DCD have failed to review
the legal bases of our petition and the evidence that we have provided. They have failed to provide legal
evidence to refute the evidence that we have provided. Failure to follow state law by Jefferson County will
have legal ramifications and potential costs that will be borne by the residents of Jefferson County. The
recommendation to deny our petition by both the planning commission and the DCD is putting Jefferson
County at legal risk which the BOCC must take into account and minimize. The BOCC therefore must
make a decision that follows state laws including the GMA and that minimizes legllI risks. The only
decision that has the most legal foundation based on all the evidence on record is an approval of our
petition.
The evidence that we have submitted over this last year and which to date has been ignored by the Planning
Commission and the DCD in summary is:
I. The soils of our parcel do not qualify the parcel to be classified as a commercial forest.
2. The size of our parcel does not qualify the parcel to be classified as a commercial forest.
3. The economic viability of a commercial forest operation on this size of property CANNOT provide a
return on investment which is required under state law.
In addition, I spoke to the planning commission members and DCD staff who were in attendance at the
September 17" public input meeting about a State of Washington Attorney General Memorandum on
Takings (see packet in our petition) that REQUIRES all local agencies which includes the DCD, the
Planning Commission and the BOCC to be advised by their legal counsel and to ensure the warnings of
possible takings be reviewed on EVERY ruling that may have a takings issue. All comp plan amendments
have a potential takings issue if a denial is issued which has been recommended by the Planning
Commission and the DCD on our specific petition and the majority of the other 2008 comp plan amendment
requests. The planning commission and DeD have to date failed to take into account this memorandum
from the Attorney General. Failure to foIlow the requirements of this memorandum also places Jefferson
County at legal risk with the potential costs again being borne by the residents of Jefferson County.
As we have consistently requested over this past year, we wish our petition to be reviewed on its own
merits. on the evidence we have submitted and based solely on the law. The two recommendations of
denial from the Planning Commission and the DCD have not followed these review procedures. It is our
belief that our petition follows all requirements of the GMA and other associated state legal laws and
precedents. It is requested the BOCC review our entire petition with all the supporting evidence provided.
It is anticipated the BOCC will approve our petition based on this review.
Thank you for your consideration once again.
9~tF)~
-pO Box 1'-/0 c;-
'fO.+ I+ztd loc I::- WA Cf<633 ~-I'-fO 5'
'---(,C' 'ttX'CJ
cA ~ Iibllo3
l)c<D) I,
jeffbocc-'
Page 1 of2
From: Dan & Soozie Darrow [desdarrow@olypen.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 23,200812:40 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comprehensive plan - MLA08-93
~l.
.1
,
': ii
~,
"'rv
t)~,
. ,
'., c-;,
We are writing to reinforce our support of the Jefferson County Planning Commission Recommendation by a vote of 8-0-0 to deny the
proposed Iron Mountain Quarry (IMQ) from Commercial Forest (CF) to Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO) - (item MLA 08.93
Burnett/Pope Resources).
. The reasons stated in the findings offact and conclusions oflaw make it clear that there is no reason to grant a MRLO.
. Iron Mountain Quarry has not, to our knowledge, submitted a plan that would justify the zoning change.
Below are copies of our previous comments that were submitted to support denial of a modification of the Comprehensive Plan
zoning.
Dan & Esther Darrow
110 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
360-437-9208
de_SJj~tLQ~lypeI1,c.QJll
copies of previous submissions:
submitted - October I, 2008
Atten: DCDiPlanning Commission
Below are additional comments against changing the zoning for the site of the proposed Iron Mountain Quarry (IMQ) from
Commercial Forest (CF) to Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO) - (item MLA 08-93 Burnett/Pope Resources). This supplements
our comments that were submitted on September 20, 2008.
. The Office of the Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County issued a Report and Decision on September 24, 2008 denying the
appeal ofIron Mountain Quarry (IMQ) regarding the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP).
o This affirms the right of Jefferson County to require a CUP and limit the potential impact to 10 acres.
. The Hearing Examiner's Findings state that the present Commercial Forest (CF) classification authorizes mineral extraction
activities.
o Thus, retaining the CF zoning does not restrict IMQ from mining activities.
o Changing the zoning to MRLO could allow extended mining without the CUP requirements.
. Jefferson County should retain all oversight capabilities to assure that IMQ does not detrimentally affect the surrounding
environment and residential areas.
. IMQ is a g.ew business operator that would be opening up a new area. As such, it is our view that they should be required to
obtain any and all permits required. Maintaining the CF zoning will allow Jefferson County to retain its oversight
responsibilities.
. Because this is a new area, we seriously question whether IDlY-mining should be permitted.
Dan & Esther Darrow
110 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
360-437-9208
desditrmw@olypen.cQm.
submitted - September 20, 2008
Alten: DCDiPlanning Commission
11/24/2008
.--'
Page 2 of2
After attending the meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission and the Jefferson County Dept. ofComrnunity
Development Sept. 17,2008, we are .writing hoping to deter the Planning Commission from recommending in favor of the mineral
resource land overlay proposal on agenda item MLA 08-93 Burnett/Pope Resources as the DCD has done. There still remain too many
questions that we feel should be cleared up before that - i.e.
. how are the rocks to be transported and to where?,
. will the removal of the ridge create noise problems for the MPR beyond what should be allowed?,
. will the water use of the mine deplete the already problematic aquifers that are currently being used by the MPR?
. will the wildlife, though perhaps not on any endangered list, have somewhere to go besides the backyards of the residents of
the MPR?
The county roads in and around the MPR are not built to the standards required for transporting large, heavy loads. The MPR is a
walking community and heavy truck traffic would create potentially dangerous situations for the many walkers, particularly since the
roads do not have wide shoulders. The cost of repairing, widening, or other necessary costs should not be on the shoulders of the
County Transportation Dept. The mining company has not, as yet, revealed their transportation plans in the event that the mine
becomes a reality.
We believe that removal of the ridge will create noise as well as weather problems for the MPR as it is now a buffer from the
southerly winds and from the traffic sounds ofSR104.
OWSl already has problems drilling viable wells for MPR consumption. Disturbance of the aquafer and large use of the water by the
mine could create more problems.
We already have bears, cougars, bobcats, and coyotes roaming our backyards, many because of the recent logging activities on the
Pope property. These animals need a home and should not be forced to be killed by cars or seek food from humans.
The Planning Commission Members should all have the opportunity to visit the site, if they have not already done so.
. It appears that IMQ is attempting to ride on the coat tails of the existing operation at Shine Quarry. However, IMQ is
requesting to mine a separate and additional area that has not been mined in the recent past - if at all. IMQ is a !1~eJ\' business
operator that would be opening up a new area. As such. it is our view that they should be required to obtain any and all
permits required - including the Jefferson County Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
. Further supporting the requirement to obtain all permits, including the CUP. is the fact that, to date, IMQ has not submitted
any planning documents nor been open to discussing and working with the greater Port Ludlow residential community to
develop a mutually beneficial arrangement to preserve the natural living environment.
. Note that the land land in question is in close proximity to the "Gateway to the Olympic Peninsula!!. Will this scar on the land
make a good impression on visitors to the Peninsula?
The DCD staff study and recommendation details many issues and cautions regarding the Mineral Resource Land Overlay. In fact,
reading the analysis presents more reasons not to approve the MRLO.
These questions and issues have not been resolved or completely addressed and should be before any approval is given.
Dan & Esther Darrow
110 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
360-437-9208
c;lesdarrowra::olypen.com
11/24/2008
2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
e (' '.})en \ lId- ~ lot
03:34:49 p.m_
11-24-2008
1/5
r
"'1 r l'" f'\ f'\ ""
!lr'\ t H,,I1 j
~:~. ;;_'~"'~,,-":'f!i; ~ \~-i'
MCCULLOUGH HILL. PS
701 Fifth Ave., Suile 7220
Se'lde WA 98104-7042
206-812-3388
206-812-3389 fax
www.mhseattle.com
lIf1V ') ~ Orn"
J\:l./ -_ '":~ l ;JtJU
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
FAX NO.:
360-385-9382
FROM:
Courtney R Flora
DATE:
Novembex 24, 2008
CLIENT NO.:
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:
5
COMMENTS:
PLEASE CALL IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES
THE lNFOIU\lfATION CONTAINED IN Tf-IIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF TI-IE
ADDRESSEE AND lYLA Y BE CONFIDENl1 AL, MAY BE A'rTORNEY~CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND MAY CONSl1TU'fE
INSIDE INFORMATION. UNAUTI-IORIZED, USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS PROl-lIBn'ED ,AND MAY BE
UNLAWFUL. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUN"ICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMM:EDIAT'ELYNOTIFY us AT 206~
812-3388.
2068123389
Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
03:34:57 p_rn
11-24-2008
2 IS
~1. 1l;;-'t.~
':\~ ~
i 'J:-"l'"
MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS
November 24, 2008
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
11':','/
'-~ /1
/
Re: 2008 Gmwth Management Act Docket Request (#MLA08-73, Jackson)
Dear Board of County Commissioners:
This is on behalf of James E. Jackson, owner of 120 acres of property near Chimacum,
Washington ("Property"). Mr. Jackson has submitted a Growth Management Act ("GMA'') docket
request to Jefferson County ("County''), asking that the Property be redesigno.ted from Commercial
FO!est (CF-80) to Rural Residential (RR-10).
The Property does not qWllify as "commercial forest land" under the GMA. For that
reason, we respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC'') approve this
docket request.
I. The Property Does Not Qualify As "Commercial Forest Land" Under the GMA.
A. The Prqper1;y is not cutrendy used for forestl;y and cannot support a viable forestl;y
operation.
Mr. Jackson bought the Pmperty a year and a half ago. Although the Property was not being
used for commercial timber production at that time (and had not been so used for many years),
there was a Forest Management Plan in place, prepared by the previous owners. Mr. Jackson asked
Foresrech LLC, the Company that prepared the Plan, to advise him whether it was possible to
sustain a commercial forestry operation on the Pmperty.
Forestech considered the Property "as is," and under a hypothetical "fully stocked"
condition, and concluded that under either scenario, the Property would have a net neg;>tive annual
return. This conclusion was supported by Ian Hanna, Director of Northwest Certified Forestry.
The Forestech Report and email from Mr. Hanna are part of the record.
Forestech also completed a soil land index study which concluded that 79 acres of the
Property (70 percent), consists of Class V soils. Class V soils cannot support a commercial forestry
operation. This study is also part of the record.
There is no contrary factual evidence in the record. Accordingly, the BOCC must accept the
fact that the Pmperty has no long-term commercial viability fO! timber production.
701 Fifth Avenue . Suite 7220 . Seattle, Washington 98104 . 206.812.3388 . Fax 206.812.3389 . www.mhseattle.com
~-~>.. ._~--,.. .~~.....~~~.'
2068123389
Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
03:35:13 p.rn
11-24-2008
3/5
Board of County Comtnissioners
November 24, 2008
Page 2 of 4
B. The GMA and County Comprehensive Phln require that propert;v designated
"commercial forest'. be devoted to growing trees and co11111lerciallv viable.
In order to qualify as commercial forest land under the GMA, land must be "primarily
devoted to growing trees for long-term c011111lercial timber production on land that can be
economically and practically managed for such production." It must also have "long-term
co11111lercial significance." RCW 36.70A.030; WAC 365-190-060. The GMA is cle", that "long-tenn
commetcial significance" Gudged primarily by parcel size and soil type) is the key question in
determining whether property qualifies as c011111lercial forest land under the GMA.'
The County's Comprehensive Plan basically adopts these state criteria (although it fails to
prioritize the "co11111lercial viability" criterion as required by the GMA). See Natural Resources
Conservation Element, pp. 4-2 - 4-5. The County's Comprehensive Phln does provide that
co11111lercial forest hind should "consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one (1) through four (4) as
mapped by the Department of Natural Resources." rd. at 4-3.
In this case, the Property does not meet the criteria established under state law or the
County Comprehensive Plan. It is not currendy used for timber production, and it cannot support a
viable timber opetation. For these reasons, the Property cannot hlwfully remain in a "co11111lercial
forest" designation.
II. The Staff and Planning Commission Recommendations Violate the GMA.
The County's Department of C011111lunity Development ("DCD") has reco11111lended against
redesignating the Property from CF to RR. Its recommendation was based on:
. "a widely held value of County residents is the preservation of the county's forest land";
. "population growth is occurring slower than was projected in the Comp Plan";
. "redesignation could set a precedent for rezoning commercial forest hind to rural
residential"; and
. "redesignating commercial forest land for rural residential use would not be consistent with
the GMA."
September 3, 2008 Staff Report at 2-38 - 2-42.
None of these justifications comply with the GMA or the County Comprehensive Plan. Most
notably, the Staff Report did not address the long-term commercial viability of the Property (other
than to quote boilerplate language from the 2007 Forest Management Plan that has since been
discredited by its author).
1 Once that thre.shold criterion is considered, the Washington .Administrative Code ("WAC; provides seven criteria to
assist in determining whether the property's proximity to population areas may compromise the property's long-term
commercial viability. WAC 365-190-060.
. "___, ..,_.'-~,__ ----'----',.. ,"0<. ,.~,_, . ....,.-"-"_,.,._..".."c.,~. ..-"-'----'-----'_'-"-'""wr."~'_'_'-'--..~.,...,__'_'""'."...
2068123389
Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
03:35:32 p.m.
11-24-2008
4/5
Board of County Commissioners
November 24, 2008
Page 3 of 4
Similarly, a majority of the Planning Commission recommended against redesignation of the
Jackson Property from CF to RR. Like DCD, the Planning Commission did not consider whether
the Property qualifies as "commercial forest" under the GMA and County Comprehensive Plan.
Rather, it concluded that "there is difficulty reaching consensus as to whether the proposal reflects
widely-held values of Cmmty residents," and noted that the "proposal would create pressure to
change the land use designation of other properties. ,." November 6, 2008 Planning Commission
Recommendation at 2, Again, these aJ:e not lawful (or relevant) grounds on which to base a deuial
of the docket request,
Notably, the Planning Commission's "Minority Report" did consider the GMA, It correcdy
concluded that:
[TIhe paJ:cel does not meet the state definition for Commercial Forest and is thus
improperly designated by Jefferson County, The land fails to meet the definition in
two ways: first" the land is not in commercial forest use as required by the state; and
second, the soil quality does not meet Jefferson County standaJ:ds for Commercial Forest,
The Minority Report got it right, 'It considered whether the Property meets the statutory
designation criteria-the only permissible standaJ:d, The BOCC should adopt this reasoning,
III. Continuing the Commercial Forest Designation on the Property Will Give Rise to a
Substantive Due Process Claim.
The Washington Supreme Court has held that a County's land use planning actions must
"withstand the due process test of reasonableness," Pmf?ytery v. King County, 114 Wn,2d 320, 330,
787 P.2d 907 (1990). To determine whether a regulation violates due process, the court applies a 3-
prong due process test: (1) whether there is a public problem or 'evil'; (2) whether the regulation
tends to solve this problem; and (3) whether the regulation is 'unduly oppressive' upon the property
owner. Id.
The County has a laudable goal of preserving commercial forest land. Even assuming for
the sake of aJ:gument that this goal satisfies the first prong of the test, the second and third prongs
cannot be met. Preserving property that does not meet the state law definition of commercial forest
does not tend to solve the problem of disappearing forest land. In reality, the County would not be
preserving forest land-it would simply preserve a land use designation that bears no relationship to
the actual characteristics of the Property,
The third prong asks whether the regulation is "unduly oppressive" upon the property
owner. This prong of the inquiry "lodges wide discretion in the court and implies a balancing of the
public's interest against those of the regulated landowner," Pmf?ytery, 114 Wn,2d at 331. The
Pmf?ytery Court identified a number of factors to aid the court in effecting this balancing.
On the public's side, the seriousness of the public problem, the extent to which the
owner's land contributes to it, the degree to which the proposed regulation solves it
2068123389
Line 1 McCullough Hill, p
03:35:54 p.m.
11-24-2008
5/5
Board of County Commissioners
November 24, 2008
Page 4 of 4
and the feasibility of less oppressive solutions. On the owner's side, the amount and
percentage of value loss; the extent of remaining uses, past, present and future uses,
temporary or permanent nature of the regulation, the extent to which the owner should
have anticipated such regulation and how feasible it is for the owner to alter present or
currendy planned uses.
Id.
There is no evidence in the record that the potential loss of commercial forest land is a
serious public problem in the County. Even assuming that it is, maintaining a commercial forest
designation on property that does not legally qualify as commercial forest and cannot be profitably
managed as commercial forest does not solve the problem. Moreover, leaving the Property in
commercial forest designation would deprive the Jacksons of all economically beneficial use of their
property.
In sum, if the County maintains a commercial forest designation on property that does not
legally qualify as commercial forest, it will give rise to a substantive due process claim.
IV. Conclusion
The evidence in the record is undisputed that the Jackson Property (1) is not primarily
devoted to growing trees for long-term commercial timber production; (2) cannot be economically
and practically managed for such production; and (3) does not have long-term commercial
significance for growing trees. As such, it cannot be la.wfully designated as commercial forest.
The Board of County Commissioners should approve the docket request, removing the
Jackson Property from the commercial forest designation. 1ms will allow the Jackson family to
create a maximum of twelve large parcels that will protect wildlife habitat, create an appropriate
buffer to adjoining residential and commercial forestry uses, and enhance the County's rural
character, consistent with UDC 18.15.015.
Thank you for your atrention to this letter.
.f-
~
cc: Client
ec. \::leu \1\J..5[oK
;., i
To: Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County, Washington
Submitted prior to the December I, 2008 deadline
NOY )
R,e\ fV\LA 01:-"3
Sirs,
The petitioners, Chimacum Heights LLC (the Jackson family) asks the Board of County
Commissioners, when deliberating our request, to please consider the following three
points.
1. As noted in the Planning Commission's minority report this 120 acre parcel does not
meet the Jefferson County Code, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or the State
GMA basic (legal) criteria to be classified as a commercial forest oflong-term
significance. The Jefferson County Code definition for commercial forest defines, in
part, a designated parcel "be maintained as a viable commercial activity." In addition to
interviewing numerous foresters and forest related businesses, we have submitted written
documentation from a licensed forest manager who verifies this parcel cannot, under any
circumstances, produce an annual (or annualized) income as a commercial forest
operation. It has been and will indefinitely be a money losing enterprise. This is a site
specific reality. Further, this parcel is not "a predominately large tract ofland" as
required by the Comp. Plan and GMA criteria. Commercial forests are generally
hundreds, if not thousands of acres in size. Another element is Land Soil Grade. The
Jefferson County Compo Plan, page 4-3; Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource
Land in Jefferson County specifies that "Any parcel.. . should consist primarily of Forest
Land Grades one (I) through (4)...." We have submitted two letters from independent
licensed forest managers verifying our parcel is about 70% (average 82 acres) in class 5
soil. Again, this is a site specific analysis, not County Assessors or State agency
mapping, which according to both (County and State) disclaimer notices, are general
findings, covering large geographic areas, and are not to be used by state or local
government employees for reliable, advisory or legal purposes. Each disclaimer states the
best and reliable analysis should be obtained by a licensed professional, of which we've
submitted two.
2. The second major point we would ask you to consider is that although this parcel does
not meet the criteria for commercial forest; it does perfectly meet the elements of rural
residential (RRI: I 0). In Jefferson county there are far fewer ten acre parcels than either
five acre or twenty acre sites. More importantly, our parcel location conforms to the
Compo Plan vision which recommends new development be 'close in' to urban activities
and facilities to prevent urban sprawl. This land is only y" mile from the Chimacum
Corners activity and only % mile to 1 mile from all the Port Hadlock community, and has
PUD water, PSE power and paved residential roads to the site. Lastly, there are already
fully completed smaller developments on three sides including 28 near by rural residential
building permits within the past two years. These are GMA and Compo Plan indicators
showing land such as ours is "conducive to change."
3. The third major point we ask you to consider is the fact that Chimacwn Heights LLC
is a family entity of which this 120 acres is the sole property in the entity. My family and
I are the sole owners. Our goal and intent is (over the next 3 to 10 years) to divide this
land into twelve 10 acre sites as defmed by the Jefferson County Code. In addition to
preserving and protecting the resources of our county (see RRI: 10 definition) our goal is
to help provide for our children and specifically grand children (education).
Therefore, because this parcel does not meet the legal criteria to be classified as
commercial forest land of long term significance; and because it does meet the criteria to
be changed to rural residential; and because our request will cause no harm to Jefferson
County but will, in fact, be a potential benefit to our family and others, we ask that you
join with the Planning Commissioner's minority and approve our request.
If for some reason, you would still choose to deny or request, we would ask why? What
motive would persuade you to lock our family into an indefinite zero income producing
commercial designation, and at the same time deny our extended family the potential to
financially meet our long term economic goals?
(i .. " , i
\ LQ_~{(VC+ \\v,L"",
, \ i/ .,---."
/\ r'" ~
(h.. '\^^ rr;, .\.,1>"11;",,,
(jUv ,''''''\ ,;vCv11u, \
)[,0 - Li '(;8,)'1 ~ 1
, ,.?
" -
c::oJs
...)
~cp
i\1~
~ou>,.\;\v.P-
(
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA 08-73
Updated infonnation: November 2008, and submitted prior to the 12/01/08 BDCC meeting
Subject: Updated facts pertaining to our MLA 08-73 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
request.
To Whom it may concern:
Background: Coming into this Compo Plan Amendment process, we Chimacum Heights
LLC/the Jackson family were complete novice's. This was our first experience in such a
matter. I am a senior citizen and have found this to be a daunting task, to say the least. It
has required many, many hours of research at the County library (RCW's, WAC's,
Jefferson County Code, Comp Plan); many hours research on the computer regarding
related issues and court cases as well as many contacts with professional foresters, forest
managers and others related to this issue.
Corrections and Updates: During all this research and obtaining written testimony
from professionals we have uncovered errors that have been un-intentional or
ignorantly placed into the record by us. This update is submitted to correct and
bring up to date more accurate data.
(I) In various places in our prior packets we have stated (as that is what we were led to
believe) that our parcel soil grade was predominately class 3 and 4 soils. As of this date we have
two letters (done independently) from professional forest managers that show approximately 82
acres of our 120 acre total is class 5 soil grade. The remainder is class 3 and 4.
( Further we have obtained written Disclaimers from both Jefferson County and the
\ Department of Natural Resources that, in this case mapping data is, "provided 'as is'. 'as
available' and 'with all faults.... ...and that County and State employees "assume no
responsibility or legal liability for the accuracy, completeness. reliability. timeliness. or
/ usefulness of any of the information provided nor do they represent that the use of any of the
information will not infringe privately owned rights. The information is not intended to
l constitute advice nor is it to be used as a substitute for specific advice from a licensed
professional. You should not act (or refrain from acting) based upon the information without
_ independently verifYing the information and. as necessary. obtaining professional advice
regarding your particular facts and circumstances. "
(2) In various places in our packet we received testimony that a parcel our size is very small
/ to be considered a 'commercial forest of long-tenn significance.' Estimates were made that it
r might produce an annual revenue of about $5000, not counting expenses such as clearing,
thinning, maintaining, fees and taxes, etc. Therefore, we hired a forest manager consultant to
compute our annual/average revenue return taking into consideration two options: A) with the
land as it now is (as is), and B) a hypothetical analysis as if the land was fully stocked with
merchantable timber. This was submitted in the record in Sept. 2008, but was lacking the costs
involved in yearly clearing of acreage and preparing that acreage for planting; our labor; and
other incidental expenses.
We have subsequently obtained three written estimates for this clearing and prep work and
have now submitted this for the record. The result is an updated calculation that shows our rate
of return (income), in both scenarios is zero ($0) income. That is, our 120 acre parcel,
whether computed on an annual basis or by averaging, is a money losing activity.
..
Cronin F orestr.'!
) 71 Hidden Trails Road
Fort T ~wnsend, WA98)68
)60-)85-5+5+
cron; n@broadstripe.net
. .
To: James E. Jackson
From: Mike Cronin CF
Date: October 27, 2008
RE: Acreage oflow productivity soil on parcel 901132002
Mr. Jackson,
Review of the Soil Survey of Jefferson County W A compiled by USDA Soil
Conservation Service in 1975 indicates that approximately 84 acres of your 120 acre
parcel is comprised of Sinclair gravelly, sandy loam.
The Sinclair soil is in woodland group 4d2 with a listed 100 year site index for Douglas
fir (OF) of95-124 feet.
The Cassolary-Kitsap soil is listed as woodland group 3d2 with a 100 year OF site index
of 125- 154 feet. Approximately 36 acres of your parcel are mapped as Cassolary-Kitsap
Complex.
Site index refers to the total height as dominant, free to grow Douglas fir will reach in the
noted time. For example a SI 100 soil (using the 50 year table) can be expected to grow
DF to 100 feet at age 50.
The first letter of the group indicates the forest productivity class using 5 classes with 1
being the best productivity and 5 being the poorest.
Using the midpoint of the range given, the Sinclair soil averages 109.5 at 100 years.
Converted to 50 year OF site index this soil is approximately 79 which is just under the
80 point marking the lower limit of site class 4. This puts the Sinclair soil into the site
class 5 group.
The CK complex is better at 50 year SI of97 it falls into the upper end of Site class 4.
This method of determining forest productivity is b~~q QIl a f~w sample plots taken for
each soil series and assuming that the soil has similar growth potential wherever it is
found. It is very general info.
Mike Cronin CF
~ t5i~
. .
Cronin Forestry
;'71 Hidden Trails Road
fort Townsend, WA 98;,68
;, 60-;'8 5-5+5+
croni n@broadstr;pe.net
To: James E. Jackson
From: Mike Cronin CF
Date: September 22, 2008
RE: soil type and productivity on parcel 901132002
s .
(\c..~ 'M.(lJ k
1,,-\. ,()./'W'
~ ~
Mr. Jackson, ~
Review of the Soil Survey of Jefferson County ,om iled by USDA Soil
Conse~ation Service in 1975 in.dic~tes t~at th~~ of your parcel is comprised of
Sinclarr gravelly. sandy loam WIth mcluslOns ~E and SE parcel comers of
Cassolary-Kitsap Complex soil series. This complex is made up of 50% Cassolary Sandy
Loam and 50% Kitsap silt loam.
The Sinclair soil is in woodland group 4d2 with a listed 100 year site index for Douglas
fir (DF) of95-124 feet.
The Cassolary-Kitsap soil is listed as woodland group 3d2 with a 100 year DF site index
of 125- 154 feet.
Site index refers to the total height as dominant, free to grow Douglas fir will reach in the
noted time. For example a SI 100 soil (using the 50 year table) can be expected to grow
DF to 100 feet at age 50.
The first letter of the group indicates the forest productivity class using 5 classes with I
being the best productivity and 5 being the poorest.
Using the midpoint of the range given, the Sinclair soil averages 109.5 at 100 years.
Converted to 50 year DF site index this soil is approximately 79 which is just under the
80 point marking the lower limit of site class 4. This puts the Sinclair soil into the site
class 5 group.
The CK complex is better at 50 year SI of 97 it falls into the upper end of Site class 4.
This method of determining forest productivity is based on a few sample plots -1lifclr
each soil series and assuming that the soil has similar growth potential whereveElff IS
found. It is very general info. My observations in Eastern Jefferson County indicate that
the Sinclair soil usually grows a little better than predicted.
ifb-'
::;\).
1).'1/ e
[0
Mike Cronin
, 'Porestech LLC
260 Old Fort Townsend Road
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 27]-4779
www.Jittleforest.org
October 31, 2008,
Jim Jackson
Chimacum Heights LLC
PO Box 1105
Port Hadlock W A 98339
Re: Jefferson County Parcel #901 132 002
Estimated number of acres rated as Site Class 5,
Dear Mr. Jackson:
Based on the information available today, my best estimate as to the number of acres
rated as "Site Class 5" is 79 acres, This estimate is based on the fact that the higher slopes
on the property are the lowest productivity classes, The west 1300 feet was rated as "Site
Class 5",
"Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington", ] 975, United States Department of
Agriculture. This publication is currently the accepted reference manual with regards to
soils.
Sincerely
F. F(
L.__,,;.:."~ / /Cc
7
Earl Kong
Forester
www.co.jefferson.wa.uslidms/mapserver.shtml
Interactive Mapping Home Page Disclaimer:
The data available on this website including all maps, tables, numbers, graphics, and text
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "information"), is provided on an "AS IS", "AS
A V AILABLE" and "WITH ALL FAULTS" basis. Neither Jefferson County nor any of
its officiaJs and employees~akes any warranty of any kind for this information, express
or implied, including but not limited to any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a
particular purpose, nor shall the distribution of this information constitute any warranty.
The information on this website is collected from various sources and will change over
time without notice. Jefferson County and its officials and employees assume no
responsibility or legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, reliability, timeliness, or
usefulness of any information available on this website nor do they represent that the use
of any information will not infringe privately owned rights.
Information on this site is not intended to constitute advice nor is it to be used as a
substitute for specific advice from a licensed professional. You should not act (or refrain
from acting) based upon information in this site without independently verifying the
information and, as necessary, obtaining professional advice regarding your particufar
facts and circumstances.
References to any specific commercial product, process, service by trade name,
trademark, or manufacturer do not constitute or imply endorsement, recoinmendation, or
favoring by Jefferson County and its officials and employees.
Copyright
Jefferson County reasonably believes that this information available for your inspection
on this website is not an infringement or other violation of any intellectual property
rights. To the extent copyright in said information is held by Jefferson County, you are
hereby permitted by Jefferson County to copy, distribute, and otherwise use the
information with one exception. No one is permitted to sell this information except in
accordance with a written agreement with Jefferson County.
Provided, however, the information made available on this website contains material for
which others may assert a copyright or other property interest. Jefferson County and its
officials and employees make no warranty or guarantee as to the ownership of any
intellectual property or other property interest contained in the information. Furthermore,
Jefferson County expressly disclaims any responsibility to defend or indemnify you
against claims which others may assert based on your copying, distribution, or other use
of any of the information.
~ A..J -+^-< IO)I~/2c6'if I Oc...D/PiIJ.YlY>i\"!C6''nlh''!~'i)"' n'ui<'0
'\'L,,^-'~\ Cl.. 'Vo+< ~} C.6'l'f){) 'f71tv'^ CvYl1,cl,.\.-\''I.--'l{,'_1, j\..tf(.,,-II)'i.1.1
CYh. \~:,:,01' P<1,"4~ "(, Dc /) LF....',. 1)./'.
, '/1 'f'
\-'\' .\' ~'JL . "
. Cll" ~.: ''''J' rrS IS i"f(,QV\~~+"", -k. s;f\{
Lv~" V.
SO'.) '2J".u 5
j<r (vi L A -0"; -'1~,
"~ " i-ler Glll\o-l-c)
<l,.',WSS)P1 JV! (jo,J.,..;.i
i,jY 5""", ()I(Jf2
D_N.R
D\sc-~\VIeQ..
LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT - READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS DIGITAL DATA.
THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THIS
DIGITAL DATA TO YOU ON THE CONDITION THAT YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS STATED HEREIN. THEN DNR IS NOT WILLING TO
LICENSE THE DIGITAL DATA TO YOU AND YOU MUST RETURN THE DIGITAL DATA TO
DNR.
This License Agreement is between the State of Washington acting through the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and the user (referred to as "licensee" or "you") and gives you certain
limited rights to use the digital data. By accepting the terms of this License Agreement and using
this digital data you warrant you are an authorized agent or the principal and have the capacity to
enter into this Agreement on behalf of the entity you represent.
PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
The Licensee acknowledges that pursuant to this Agreement it obtains only the right to use the
data consistent with this Agreement and that no right, title, or interest in or to any copyrights,
trademarks. or other proprietary rights relating to the data is transferred or licensed from DNR to
Licensee. .
Licensee shall not remove. alter, cover, or disguise any acknowledgements. copyright notice.
trademark, or other proprietary rights notice placed by DNR on the data or any portion thereof.
Licensee shall comply with directions submitted by DNR from time to time regarding the form and
piacement of proprietary rights notices on the product. or any portion thereof.
1. Disclaimer
This digijal data and meladata, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "information"). are
provided on an "AS IS". "AS AVAILABLE" and "WITH ALL FAULTS" basis. Neither Department of
Natural Resources nor any of ijs officials and employees makes any warranty of any kind for this
information. express or implied. including but not limited to any warranties of merchantability or
fitness for a particular purpose, nor shall the distribution of this information constitute any
warranty .
The information is collected from various sources and will change over time without notice. DNR
and its officials and employees assume no responsibility or legal liability for the accuracy,
completeness. reliability. timeliness, or usefulness of any of the information provided nor do they
represent that the use of any of the information will not infringe privately owned rights.
The information is not intended to constitute advice nor is it to be used as a substitute for specific
advice from a licensed professional. You should not act (or refrain from acting) based upon the
information without independently verifying the information and. as necessary, obtaining
professional advice regarding your particular facts and circumstances.
References to any specific commercial product, process, and service by trade name, trademark,
or manufacturer do not constitute or imply endorsement. recOmmendation, or favoring by DNR
and its officials and empioyees.
2. Grant of License
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73 . oV"
Updated November] 2, 2008 and submitted prior to the 12/] /08 BOCC meeting ~r \ r'"
t\'
Return On Investment Computation G.\'- \)~V""t(\ \ 9~() r-
f- \t.J-l?~
Footnotes: continued from page 2 of orestech estimated timber value report
~-.,
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.050(4) and RCW 79.10.310, Chimacum Heights, LLC
retained Forestech to make the above timber value computation in order to make a best
case estimate as to the average annual return on investment for timberland in an effort to
determine if our site meets the legal standard to be classified as commercial forest (CF).
The elements of the computation for Return on Investment are:
I. Principle: the cost of the land................................... ....$360,000
DNR goal of annual return on investment for timberland............... ..05%
Annual target/goal return................................... ...................18,000
II. Hypothetical value of fully stocked 120 acres of timberland after
the specified 60 year growth cycle................................ ..$578,887.24 - 60
Divided by 60 year cycle equals annual return........................ 9,648.00
Less estimated annual Chimacum Hts LLC costs for thinning,
clearing, road maintenance, labor, etc (2 acres per year) ...... .11,118.00
Annual return, AS IF fully stocked......................minus.......(-$1,470.00).
III. Annual estimated rate of return on current land in AS IS status...... $5,000 (see
record for derivation of this amount as estimated by several sources)
Less estimated costs for planting, thinning, clearing, etc........... .11,118.00
Annual return, AS IS......... .................. ............minus......(-$6,1l8.00).
IV. Both the hypothetical return and the 'as is' return on investment is below zero, far
less than the "5% or better" rate of return called for at DNR policy.
Findings and Facts
Chimacum Heights LLC 120 acre parcel with approximately 70% (82 acres) land
grade S, with some land grade 3 and 4 soil index, in an 'as is' or in a hypothetical
fully stocked condition, cannot meet the legal standard of commercial forest
classification.
./
r
,
\flb'\V-\.\...cJ>i. ~~lr1-
To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request: MLA08-73
Submitted for the Record prior to December I, 2008
Definition of Forest Land found at RCW 36.70A.030 (8) and (10)
(8) "Forest land" means land primarily devoted to growing trees for long-term
commercial timber production on land that can be economically and practically managed
for such production, including Christmas trees subject to the excise tax imposed under
RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140. and that has long-term commercial significance.
In determining whether forest land is primarily devoted to growing trees for long-term
commercial timber production on land that can be economically and practically managed
for such production, II" following factors shall be considered:
(a) The proximity of the land to urban, suburban, and rural settlements; (b)
surrounding parcel size and the compatibility and intensity of adjacent and nearby land
uses; (c) long-term local economic conditions that affect the ability to manage for timber
production; and (d) the availability of public facilities and services conducive to
. conversion offorest land to other uses. "
(10) "Long-term commercial significance" includes the growing capacity, productivity,
and soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production, in consideration
with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of more intense use of
the land. "
And from the Jefferson County Code at 18.15.020 (2) (a)
(a) "Commercial Forest (CF-80). "The purpose of the commercial forest district is to
ensure large tracts offorest lands of long-term significance are protectedfrom
incompatible uses thereby sustaining the ability of forest resource extraction activities to
be maintained as a viable commercial activity. "
In addition to the factors (a) through (d) listed in the RCW (8) definition above there are
key words to consider as these are further amplified by other GMA and DNR definitions
and policies.
The key words which pertain to this comprehensive plan amendment request are found in
the definitions noted above and a common dictionary.
Commercial; long-term commercial significance: meaning growing capacity,
productivity, soil composition; having profit as a chief aim (dictionary).
Large tracts of land: often thousands of acres, see Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) report to the State legislature publication 'Evaluating property for Acquisition'
(Jan 2002), Appendix A; and see Mason and Thurston counties Comprehensive Plan
definitions.
,/
;
Economically and practically managed; viable: These words refer to the concept of
making a living; continued financial success; Return on Investment (ROI); see dictionary
and DNR policy on sustainability.
Suslainable: meaning average annual return on investment (ROI); see DNR 'Policy on
Sustainable Forest.' (12/06) and RCW 79.10.310.
Growing capacily, productivily, and soil composilion: meaning grades of soil as
pertaining to this particular parcel, the size of this parcel to determine its capacity to be a
viable productive commercial enterprise.
*
*
*
Definition of Rural Lands: Rural Residential 1 :10 at Jefferson County Code 18.15.015 (b)
"This district provides a transitional area between the rural residential one per five-acre
district and the rural residential one unit per 20-acre district. Its intent is to preserve open
space, protect critical areas, provide for the continuation of small-scale agricultural and
forestry, and preserve and retain the rural landscape and character indigenous to Jefferson
County."
Key words: provides a transition, preserves open space, protects critical areas, provides
for small-scale forestry and preserves/retains rural landscape and character.
All of these words and phrases are consistent with GMA and Jefferson County laws,
policies, goals and stated community objectives.
,WAC 365-195-200: Statutory definitions.
,
D;J1L-
Page 10f2
./ 365-195-070 << 365-195-200>> 365-195-210
,
WAC 365-195-200 No ajlency filings affecting this section since 2003
Statutory definitions.
For the convenience of persons using these criteria the definitions contlfl!; Jt ~W 36. 70A.030 are set forth below:
(1) "Adopt a comprehensive land use plan" means to enact a new comp.~ive land use plan or to update an
existing comprehensive land use plan.
(2) "Agricultural land" means land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticunural. viticultural,
floricunural, dairy. apiary. vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain. hay, straw. turf, seed. Christmas trees not
subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140. or livestock and that has '<mg-tenn commercial
significance for agricultural production.
(3) 'City" means any city or town. including a code city.
(4) "Comprehensive land use plan: 'comprehensive plan: or "plan" means a generalized coordinated land use policy
statement of the goveming body of a county or city that is adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(5) "Critical areas' include the following areas and ecosystems:
(a) Wetlands;
(b) Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used fot potable water,
(c) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(d) Frequently flooded areas; and
(e) Geologically hazardous areas.
(6) "Department" means the department of community development.
(7) "Development regulations" means any controls placed on development or land use activilies by a county or city,
including. but notlimiled to, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances. and binding site plan ordinances.
(8) "Forestland" means land primarily useful for growing trees. including Christmas trees subject to the excise tax
Imposed under RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140. for commercial purposes, and that has long-tenn commercial
significance for growing trees commercially.
(9) "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion. sliding, earthquake. or
other geological events, are not suited to the siling of commercial. residential, or industrial development consistent with
publiC health or safety concems.
5;)-< so; I,
(10) "Long-tenn commercial significance" includes the growing capacity. productivity, and soil col]Jposition of the land
for long-term commercial production. in consideration with the land's proximity to population areas. e,:;, nd the possibility of
more intense uses of the land. T
(11) "Minerals" include 9ravel. sand. and valuable metallic substances. ~
~~(12) ."Pu~!i. . ities" inCIUd..rs;;;;,ee~t'i(.r~,~,a_dS'";~~:~YS' si<!ew~!ks, stree,t a,ndroad li~hti.ng SYS,t!lms~."a ffi,'C Sign,'als.~ o...t~J:~l\ 'J"
omestlc water syste s. stonn-~ianlta:sewer systems~~d recreational f~~~t.'~~: a~. .___--. ! I )'Vl'. ic
(13) "Public services" include.!re protectiOn and suppreSSiO";!.; enforce~(public heal\J:1:' education: recrea,~tiqn. /
nvironmental protection, and other'governmental services. '------..-.. "..-. ,./ ""--' ./ '- -~/
(14) "Urban growth' refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures. and
impenneable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of
food, other agricunural products. or fiber. or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide
areas. urban growth typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land
having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be
appropriate for urban growth.
(15) "Urban growth area" means those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110.
(16) "Urban governmental services" include those governmental services historically and typically delivered by cities,
and include stonn and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems. street cleaning services, fire and police
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defaulLaspx?cite=365-195-200
10/27/2008
WAC 365-195-200: Statutory definitions.
Page 2 of2
, .
protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and nonnally not
associated with nonurban areas.
(17) "Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or satur..rface water or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support. and that under normal circu . do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally indiU swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas. Wetlands do not indude those artificial wetlands intentionally created(;)m nonwetland sites. induding, but not
limited to. irrigation and drainage ditches. grass-lined swales. canals, detention facil~ies, wastewater treatment facilities.
farm ponds, and landscape amen~ies. However. wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from
nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands, if permitted by the county or city.
[Statutoty Authority: RCW36.70A.190 (4)(b). 92-23-065, ~ 365-195-200, filed 11/17/92, effecti"" 12118/92.]
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=365-195-200
10/27/2008
RCW 36.70A.030: Definitions.
Page 1 of3
RCW 36.70A.030
Definitions.
C Vl'l A
/
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions In this section ap'll'f1hrOughout this chapter.
(1) "Adopt a comprehensive land use plan" means to enact a new comprehensive land use plan or to update an
existing comprehensive land use plan.
(2) "Agricultural land' means land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticu~ural, viticultural,
florlcu~ural, dairy. apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay. straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not
subject to the excise tax imposed by "RCW 84.33.1 00 through 84.33.140, finfish In upland hatcheries, or livestock, and
that has long-term commercial significance for agricultural production.
(3) 'City" means any city or town, including a code city.
(4) "Comprehensive land use plan," "comprehensive plan," or "plan" means a generalized coordinated land use policy
statement of the goveming body of a county or city that Is adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(5) "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging
effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas;
and (e) geologically hazardous areas.
(6) "Department" means the department of community, trade, and economic development.
(7) "Development regulations" or "regulation" means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a
county or city, including. but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs,
official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together
with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit
application, as defined in RCW 36.708.020. even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of
the legislative body of the county or city.
(8) "Forest land" means land primarily devoted to growing trees for long-term commercial timber production on land
that can be economically and practically managed for such production, including Christmas trees subject to the excise
tax imposed under "RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140. and that has long-term commercial significance. In determining
whether forest land is primarily devoted to growing trees for long-term commercial timber production on land that can be
economically and practically managed for such production, the following factors shall be considered: (a) The proximity of
the land to urban. suburban, and rural settlements; (b) surrounding parcel size and the compatibility and intensity of
adjacent and nearby land uses; (c) long-term local economic conditions that affect the ability to manage for timber
production; and (d) the availability of public facilities and services conducive to conversion of forest iand to other uses.
(g) "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or
other geological events. are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with
public hea~h or safety concems.
(10) "Long-term commercial significance" includes the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land
for long-term commercial production, in consideration with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of
more intense uses of the land.
(11) "Minerals" include gravel, sand, and valuable metallic substances.
(12) "Public facilities" include streets. roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals,
domestic water systems, stann and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.
(13) "Public services" include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public hea~h, education, recreation.
environmental protection, and other governmental services.
(14) "Recreational land" means land so designated under -RCW 36.70A.1701 and that, immediately prior to this
designation, was designated as agricu~uralland of long-term commercial significance under RCW 38.70A.170.
Recreational land must have playing fields and supporting facilities existing before July 1. 2004, for sports played on
grass playing fields.
(15) "Rural character" refers to the pattems of land use and development established by a county in the rural element
of its comprehensive plan:
(a) In which open space. the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment;
(b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles. rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas;
http://apps.leg. wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36. 70A.030
10/27/2008
H.CW 36.7UA.U3U: Uetlnitions.
Page 2 on
,
(c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities;
(d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
(e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development;
(I) That generally do not require the extension of urban govemmental services; and
(g) That are consistent with the protection of naturai surface water flows and groundwater and surface water recharge
and discharge areas,
(16) "Rural development' refers to development outside the urban growth area and outside agricultural. forest, and
mineral resource lands designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. Rural development can consist of a variety of uses and
residential densities. including clustered residential development, at levels that are consistent with the preservation of
rural character and the requirements of the rural element. Rural development does not refer to agriculture or forestry
activities that may be conducted in rural areas.
(17) "Rural governmental services" or "rural services" include those public services and public facilities historically and
typically delivered at an intensity usually found in rural areas, and may include domestic water systems. fire and police
protection services, transportation and public transit services, and other publiC utilities associated with rural development
and normally not associated with urban areas. Rural services do not indude storm or sanitary sewers, except as
otherwise authorized by RCW 36.70A.110(4).
(18) "Urban growth" refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and
impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of land for the production of food.
other agricultural products, or fiber. or the extraction of mineral resources. rural uses, rural development. and natural
resource lands designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. A pattem of more intensive rural development, as provided in
RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), is not urban growth. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires
urban govemmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land having urban growth located on it. or to
land located in reiationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth.
(19) "Urban growth areas" means those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110.
(20) "Urban governmental services' or "urban services" include those public services and public facilities at an
intensity historically and typically provided in cities, specifically including storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic
water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services. public transit services. and other public
utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with rural areas.
(21) "Wetland' or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support. and that under normal circumstances do support. a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including. but not
limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities.
farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1. 1990, that were unintentionally created as
a result of the construction of a road, street. or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally
created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
[2005 c 423 ~ 2; 1997 c 429 ~ 3; 1995 c 382 ~ 9. Prior: 1994 c 307 ~ 2; 1994 c 257 ~ 5; 1990 lstox.s. C 17 ~ 3.J
Notes;
Reviser's note; *(1) RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.118 were repealed or decodified by 2001 c 249 ~~ 15 and 16.
RCW84.33.120was repealed by 2001 c249 ~ 16 and by 2003c 170 ~ 7.
**(2) RCW 36. 70A.1701 expired June 30, 2006.
Intent - 2005 c 423: "The legislature recognizes the need for playing fields and supporting facilities for sports
played on grass as well as the need to preserve agricuituralland of long-term commercial significance. With thoughtful
and deliberate planning, and adherence to the goals and requirements ofthe growth management ael, both needs
can be met.
The legislature acknowledges the state's interest in preserving the agricultural industry and family farms, and
recognizes that the state's rich and productive lands enable agricultural production. Because of its unique qualities
and limited quantities, designated agricultural land of long-term commercial si9nificance is best suited for agricultural
and farm uses, not recreational uses.
http://apps.leg.wa.govlrcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.030
10/27/2008
IU::W 36.70A.030: Detinitions.
Page 3 of3
.'
.
The legislature acknowledges also that certain local governments have either failed or neglected to properly plan
for popuiation growth and the sufficient number of playing fields and supporting facilities needed to accommodate this
growth. The legislature recognizes that citizens responded to this lack of planning, fields, and supporting facilities by
constructing nonconforming fields and facilities on agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. It is the
intent of the legislature to permit the continued existence and use of these fields and facilities in very limited
circumstances if specific criteria are satisfied within a limited time frame. It is also the intent of the legislature to grant
this authorization without diminishing the designation and preselVation requirements of the growth management act
pertaining to Washington's invaluable farmland." [2005 c 423 ~ 1.]
Effective date - 2005 c 423: "This act is necessary for the immediate preselVation of the public peace, health, or
safety, or support oflhe state government and ils existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 12.
2005]." [2005 c 423 ~ 7.]
Prospective application -1997 c 429~!i 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability -1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Finding - Intent - 1994 c 307: "The legislature finds that it is in the public interest to identify and provide long-
term conselVation of those productive natural resource lands that are critical to and can be managed economically
and practically for long-term commercial production of food, fiber, and minerals. Successful achievement of the natural
resource industries' goal set forth in RCW 36.70A.020 requires the conselVation of a land base sufficient in size and
quality to maintain and enhance those industries and the development and use of land use techniques that
discourage uses incompatible to the management of designated iands. The 1994 amendment to RCW 36.70A.030(8)
(section 2(8), chapter 307, Laws of 1994) is intended to clarify legislative intent regarding the designation of forest
lands and is not intended to require every county that has already complied with the interim forest land designation
requirement of RCW 36. 70A.170 to review its actions until the adoption of its comprehensive plans and development
regulations as provided in RCW 36.70A.06O(3)." [1994 c 307 ~ 1.]
Effective date -1994 c 257 ~ 5: 'Section 5 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1994." [1994 c257 ~ 25.]
Severability - 1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270.
http://apps.leg. wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36. 70A.030
10/27/2008
W At.: 50::>-1 ~U-UOU: rorest lana resources.
Page l ot l
365-190-050 << 365-190-060>> 365-190-070
J '. ~';' ~ j,.._
,.
WAC 365-190-060 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003
Forest land resources.
In classifying forest land. counties and cities should use the private forest land grades of the department of revenue
(:NAC 458-40-530). This system incorporates consideration of growing capacity, productivity and soil composition olthe
land. Forest land of long-term commercial significance will generally have a predominance of the higher private forest
land grades. However, the presence of lower private forest land grades within the areas of predominantly higher grades
need not preclude designation as forest land.
',1\:;'. s~;'
rto.in -:.
.~
.."..i_.,.~
Each county and city shall determine which land grade constitutes forest land of long-term commercial significance,
.5' ..' ;."" based on local and regional physical, biological. economic. and land use considerations.
Counties and cities shall also consider the effects of proximity to population areas and the possibility of more intense
uses of the land as indicated by:
(1) The availability of publiC services and facimies conducive to the conversion of forest land.
(2) The proximity of forest land to urban and suburban areas and rural settlements: Forest lands of long-term
commercial significance are located outside the urban and suburban areas and rural settlements.
(3) The size of the parcels: Forest lands consist of predominantly large parcels.
(4) The compatibility and intensity of adjacent and nearby land use and settlement patterns with forest lands of long-
term commercial significance.
(5) Property tax classification: Property is assessed as open space or forest land pursuant to chapter 84.33 or 84.34
RCW.
(6) Locai economic conditions which affect the ability to manage timberlands for long-term commercial production.
(7) History of land development perm~s issued nearby.
(Statutory Authority: RCW 36.70A.050. 91-07-041, ~ 365-190-060, filed 3115/91, effective 4/15/91.)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=365-190-060
10/27/2008
RCW 36. 70A.\ 00: Comprehensive plans - Must be coordinated.
Page 1 of \
RCW 36.70A.100
Comprehensive plans - Must be coordinated.
The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.040 shall be coordinated with.
and consistent with, the comprehensive plans adoptedJ'ursuant to RCW 36. 70A.040 of other counties or cities with
which the county or city has, in part. common borde~elated regional issues.
[1990 1st ex.s. C 17 ~ 10.]
how.ttel..
'.'
[)
h"':)'l c.. O'vl S.I'Sk>~...l :....vi ill.
-0"" -' hl'.)
/"/\!15 c....\
Clo.l'\il,'''^-
0' \ \\-1 j\{('~'t\/\J 1 i) C tassICc",--{,rv-, ().[ C'Jy.V~"f,.-Vt_C{"".f... '+r)n~'v,..-1 Ld~
"' J\l "
" lu
/ N
peruj 5;~.(
.sO'l\ jr0o.0';
~/;o-D' 'i'l~~)
http://apps.leg. wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36. 70A.\ 00
\ 0/27/2008
KCW JO.1UA.U5U: UUldelmes to classlty agnculture, torest, and mineral lands and critica... Page I of]
RCW 36.70A.050
Guidelines to clasalfy agriculture, forest, and minerai lands and critical areas.
(1) Subject to the definitions provided in RCW 36.70A.030. the department shall adopt guidelines. under chapter 34.05
RCW. no later than September 1. 1990. to guide the classification of: (a) Agricultural lands; (b) forest lands; (c) mineral
resource lands; and (d) critical areas. The department shall consult with the department of agriculture regarding
guidelines for agriculturai lands, the department of natural resources regarding forest lands and mineral resource lands,
and the department of ecology regarding critical areas.
(2) In carrying out its duties under this section, the department shall consult with interested parties, including but not
limited to: (a) Representatives of cities; (b) representatives of counties; (c) representatives of developers; (d)
representatives of builders; (e) representatives of owners of agricu~urallands, forest lands, and mining lands; (I)
representatives of local economic development officials; (g) representatives of environmental organizations; (h)
representatives of special districts; (Q representatives of the governor's office and federal and state agencies; and OJ
representatives of Indian tribes. In addition to the consultation required under this subsection, the department shall
conduct public hearings in the various regions of the state. The department shall consider the public input obtained at
such public hearings when adopting the guideiines.
(3) The guidelines under subsection (1) of this section shall be minimum guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions, but
also shall allow for regional differences that exist in Washington state. The intent of these guidelines is to assist counties
and cities in designating the classmcation of agricultural lands. forest lands. mineral resource lands. and critical areas
under RCW 36.70A.170.
(4) The guidelines established by the department under this section regarding classification of forest lands shal not
be inconsistent with guidelines adopted by the department of natural resources.
[1990 1st ex.s. C 17 ~ 5.]
DJJ R
eo\..iVI S
Ilt., K Q. ~ IF" :r r, VJ.-vi/YV~...-1
d"fi,<~
\/:0 b', \', \')
i:-O(,])1-( L~ Ov.rr,q,',
...if -f;,~,J
, (" ...
;.) ~ -; l ,~~, 'I<
http://apps.leg.wa.govIRCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.050
10/27/2008
,KCW 76.UlJ.U:W: lJetinitions.
Page 1 of3
.f
RCW 76.09.020
Definitions.
Drvv
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Adaptive management" means reliance on scientific methods to test the results of actions taken so that the
management and related policy can be changed promptly and appropriately.
(2) "Appeals board' means the forest practices appeals board created by RCW 76.09.210.
(3) "Aquatic resources" includes water quality. salmon, other species of the vertebrate classes Cephalaspidomorphi
and Osteichthyes identified in the forests and fish report, the Columbia torrent saiamander (Rhyacotriton kezeri), the
Cascade torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae), the Olympic torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton olympian). the
Dunn's salamander (Plethodon dunni). the Van Dyke's salamander (Plethodon vandyke). the tailed frog (Ascaphus tl1Jei).
and their respective habitats.
(4) "Commissione(' means the commissioner of public lands.
(5) "Contiguous' means land adjoining or touching by common corner or otherwise. land having common ownership
divided by a road or other right-of-way shall be considered contiguous.
(6) "Conversion to a use other than commercial timber operation" means a bona fide conversion to an active use
which is incompatibie with timber growing and as may be defined by forest practices rules.
(7) "Department" means the department of natural resources.
(8) "Fish passage barrie(' means any artificial instream structure that impedes the free passage of fish.
(9) "Forest land" means all land which is capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber and is not being
actively used for a use which is incompatible with timber growing. Forest land does not include agricultural land that is or
was enrolled in the conservation reserve enhancement program by contract if such agricultural land was historically used
for agricultural purposes and the landowner intends to continue to use the land for agricultural purposes in the future. As
it applies to the oparation of the road maintenance and abandonment plan element of the forest practices rules on small
forest landowners. the term "forest land" excludes:
(a) Residential home sites. which may include up to five acres; and
(b) Cropfields. orchards. vineyards, pastures. feedlots, fish pens, and the land on which appurtenances necessary to
the production. preparation. or sale of crops, fruit, dairy products, fish, and livestock exist.
(10) "Forest landowner" means any person in actual control of forest land. whether such control is based either on
legal or equitable title. or on any other interest entitling the holder to sell or otherwise dispose of any or all of the timber
on such land in any manner. However, any lessee or other person in possession of forest land without legal or equitable
title to such land shall be excluded from the definition of "forest landowne(' unless such lessee or other person has the
right to sell or otherwise dispose of any or all of the timber located on such forest land.
(11) "Forest practice" means any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land and relating to growing,
harvesting, or processing timber. including but not limited to:
(a) Road and trail construction; C (5""'(""'" +" ::s." \.(" I.. "....' eo""" I, !.-o/<<o' , P Lh
I W'w\c" +"" ~ ,.;,~" .... Lh~ b1.o<1<. <-l, C;:O 0-\
3, )" t>. _ '" \.V. c" W..." do Pop" \W.O'W'"'{4....
(b) Harvesting. final and intermediate;
(c) Precommercial thinning;
(d) Reforestation;
(e) Fertilization;
(I) Prevention and suppression of diseases and insects;
(g) Salvage oftrees; and
(h) Brush control.
"Forest practice" shall not include preparatory work such as tree marking, surveying and road flagging, and removal or
harvesting of incidental vegetation from forest lands such as berries, fems, greenery, mistletoe. herbs, mushrooms, and
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=76.09.020
10/27/2008
RCW 76.09.020: Definitions.
Page 2 of3
./ other products which cannot normally be expected to result in damage to forest soils, timber, or public resources.
(12) "Forest practices rules" means any rules adopted pursuant to RCW 76.09.040.
(13) "Forest road," as it applies to the operation of the road maintenance and abandonment plan element of the forest
practices ruies on small forest landowners, means a road or road se9ment that crosses land that meets the definition of
forest land, but exdudes residential access roads.
(14) "Forest trees" does not include hardwood trees cultivated by agricuitural methods in growing cydes shorter than
fifteen years if the trees were planted on land that was not in forest use immediately before the trees were planted and
before the land was prepared for planting the trees. "Forest trees" indudes Christmas trees, but does not include
Christmas trees that are cultivated by a9ricultural methods, as that term is defined in RCW 84.33.035.
(15) "Forests and fish report" means the forests and fish report to the board dated April 29, 1999.
(16) "Application" means the application required pursuant to RCW 76.09.050.
(17) "Operato/" means any person engaging in forest practices except an employee with wages as his or her sole
compensation.
(18) 'Person" means any individual, partnership, private, public, or municipal corporation, county, the department or
other state or local governmental entity. or association of individuals of whatever nature.
(19) "Public resources" means water. fish and wildlife. and in addition shall mean capital improvements of the state or
Its political subdivisions.
(20) "Small forest landowne(' has the same meaning as defined in RCW 76.09.450.
(21) "Timber" means forest trees, standing or down. of a commercial species. including Christmas trees. However,
"timbe/" does not include Christmas trees that are cultivated by agricultural methods, as that term is defined in RCW
84.33.035.
(22) "Timber owner" means any person having all or any part of the legal interest in timber. Where such timber is
SUbject to a contract of sale, "timber owne(' shall mean the contract purchaser.
(23) "Board" means the forest practices board created in RCW 76.09.030.
(24) "Unconfined avulsing channel migration zone" means the area within which the active channel of an unconfined
avuising stream is prone to move and where the movement would result in a potential near-term loss of riparian forest
adjacent to the stream. Sizeable islands with productive timber may exist within the zone.
(25) "Unconfined avulsing stream" means generally fifth order or larger waters that experience abrupt shifts in
channel location. creating a complex floodplain characterized by extensive gravel bars, disturbance species of vegetation
of variable age, numerous side channels, wall-based channels. oxbow lakes, and wetland complexes. Many of these
streams have dikes and levees that may temporarily or permanently restrict channei movement.
(2003c311 p; 2002c 17!i ,. Prior: 2001 c 102!i 1;2001 c97!i2; 1999 sp.s. c4 !i 301; 19740x.s. c 137!i 2.]
Notes:
Findings - 2003 c 311: "(1) The legislature finds that chapter 4, Laws of 1999 sp. sess. strongly encouraged the
forest practices board to adopt administrative rules that were substantially similar to the recommendations presented
to the legislature in the form of the forests and fish report. The rules adopted pursuant to the 1999 legislation require
all forest landowners to complete a road maintenance and abandonment plan, and those rules cannot be changed by
the forest practices board without either a final order from a court, direct instructions from the legislature. or a
recommendation from the adaptive management process. In the time since the enactment of chapter 4, Laws of 1999
sp. sess.. it has become ciear that both the plannin9 aspect and the implementation aspect of the road maintenance
and abandonment plan requirement may cause an unforeseen and unintended disproportionate financial hardship on
small forest landowners.
(2) The legislature further finds that the commissioner of public lands and the governor have explored solutions
that minimize the hardship caused to small forest landowners by the forest road maintenance and abandonment
requirements of the forests and fish law. while maintaining protection for public resources. This act represents
recommendations stemming from that process.
(3) The le9islature further finds that It is in the state's interest to help small forest landowners comply wl1h the
requirements of the forest practices rules in a way that does not require the landowner to spend unreasonably high
and unpredictable amounts of money to complete road maintenance and abandonment plan preparation and
http;//apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=76.09.020
10/2712008
,RCW 76.09.020: Detinitions.
Page 3 00
['
implementation. Small forest landowners provide significant wildlife habitat and serve as important buffers between
urban development and Washington's public forest land holdings_" [2003 c 311 9 1.]
Effective date - 2003 c 311: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health. or
safety. or support of the state government and its existing public institutions. and takes effect immediately [May 14.
2003]: [2003 c 311 913_J
Part headings not law -1999 sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW77.85.180_
http://apps.leg. wa.gov/rcw/defau]t.aspx?cite=76.09 .020
10/27/2008
RCW 79.1 0.31 0: "Sustained yield plans" defined.
Page I of1
RCW 79.10.310
"Sustained yield plans" defined.
"Sustained yield plans. as used in RCW79,10.070, 79,44,003, and this chapter shall mean management ofthe foreslto
provide harvesting on a continuing basis without major prolonged curtailment or ~sation of harvest.
(2003 c 334 ~ 536; 1971 ex,s, c 234 ~ 3, Fonnerly RCW 79,68,030,) ../'~
/',/
Notes: /'
Intent - 2003 c 334: See note following RCW 79:62.010.
/
/
/
/
/
r:5-.{ DlvR boorCiJ..f C-o.Au,iw:ltJ
0Lt.il1/J.N;'" A h c.,. / f1A,4f Ef J\.t-h.-tJ\A~ p,
0"") VI ~.{ Oil':, (
C(v;
ov..,~
f)"', ^ 4.tl I,d .hf!
.j i./t..v,l 0'-'...'/ Ii" <<.,.'" ;.-'
JLt-L(....,..P'-.,\.<.........t" '
~
http://apps.leg.wa.govIRCW Idefault.aspx?cite=79.1 0.31 0
10/27/2008
5u. \~I . '2.cOl..
DC 0
f" AcI :s'tl'El:T
1-'1
, Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations'
. .' . ,..,' '. '.' '.' ',':
Land Use Current Gross ' Potential Future . potential Future Gross
Designation/Zoning . Acreage . Gross Acreage . ;:\creage Un~er Stille
District (2005 Plan) Under Applicant Recommendatiol!
.' . . . Pro;'osals . :.' "
Rural Residential . ". .
RRI:5 29,168 29,212 (+44 annrox,)' 29.212 (+ 44 aoorox,)
RRI:I0 9,886 9,874 (-12,5 aoorox,) 9,8741-12.5 aonrox.)
RR 1:20 51,474 51,444 1-30 annrox,) 51,444 1-30 a""rox..
lncornorated UGA. '.' . '"
Port Townsend UGA 4,466 I No chanoe I No chan!!e
LAMIRDs . " . ., .
Rural Village Centers 242 No change No change
(Hadlock, Bnnnon,
Ouilcene)
General Crossroads 96 No chanoe No chan!!e
Convenience 10 11 (+,72 approx,) II (+.72 approx.)
Crossroads
Neighborhood 122 No change No change
Crossroads
Master Planned Resort ' . .
MPR - Village 43 No change' No change
Co=ercial Center
MPR - Resort Complex 57 No change No change
10:1
MPR - Multiple Fl\IDily 75 No change No change
10:1
MPR - Single Family 1,431 No change No change
4:1
MPR - Single Family 114 No change No change
Tracts 1 :2.5
MPR - Recreation Area 259 No chaIloe No chanee
MPR - Open Space 356 No change No change
ReseIVe
Parks & National Forest '.'
Parks, Preserves, 2,859 No change No change
Recreation - Not MPR
Olvrnnic National Forest 57,299 No chanee No chanee .
Olvrnnic National Park 139,463 No chanee No chanee
Forestlands ..
Rural Forest 8,645 No chanee No chanee
Commercial Forest 310,327 No chanee No chanee
Inholding Forest 7,228 No chanee No chanee
Resource Based 152 No change No change
Industrial Zone
Aoricultural
Commercial Aoriculture 4,296 No chanee No change
Agricultural Lands of 3,220 No change No change
LocalSierilficance
.
, MLA06-87 a proposed MPR would potential change the future gross acreage RR by '" 253 acres,
'Potential Gross Acreage under applicant proposal with MLA06-87 increase for MPR categories by 253 acres (approx,),
]-9
I.
T.
~---
.~
~
L,,~AL.cl< ~ \\.\\' \ ",.);
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For the September 17, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
CONTENT SUMMARY
c:...~
\1-t jlI\.~ '(V'l ~+e.~
Washington State Laws Pertaining to Classifying Forest Land
Following is a list of some state laws pertaining to classifYing forest lands/commercial
forest/resource lands. This list is not exhaustive. The ones listed below are mandatory
(using the words shall, must, will).
Reference (I): James E. Jackson dialogue on indicated state laws.
Reference (2): RCW 36.70A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, mineral and forest
lands and critical areas (especially RCW 36.70A.050 (4)). Two issues are discussed:
size/block of land and sustained yield/financial returnlROI.
Reference (3): WAC 365-190-060 Forest Land Resources. Especially (7) permits issued
nearby.
Reference (4): RCW 36.70A.IOO Comprehensive plans must be coordinated.
Note: Shall be consistent with border counties and counties with regional issues. Two
issues are discussed: size of parcel and soil/land grades.
Reference (5): WAC 365-195-200 Statutory definitions especially (10) and (14).
Reference (6): RCW 76.09.020 Definitions. Especially (10) - definition of "Forest
Landowner".
. Washington State Laws Pertaining to Comprehensive PlanlGMA goals
Reference (7): RCW 36.70A.020 Planning goals. Especially (6). Arbitrary,
discriminatory actions and implementation of planning goals in a balanced manner.
Washington State Laws Pertaining to "Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings
of Private Property"
Reference (8): Text of Speech provided by James A. Jackson to Planning Commission
on September 17, 2008.
Reference (9): RCW 36.70A.370 and RCW 36.70A.040. See also Advisory
Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property, December 2006,
from the Office of the Attorney General, State of Washington. Note the sections on
"Regulatory Takings" and "Warnings to Look for".
GCI-'"TE't-lT
"-UHMAi2'1
......
~.
.'"
HLA ()~-13
Other Reference Material
Reference (10): Text of Speech provided by Carole Pickett to Planning Commission on
September 17,2008.
Reference (11): Correction to Map provided by DCD on 9-03-2008 in reference to
adjacent parcel sizes and DCD comments regarding Open Space and Ridge Line policy.
Reference (12): Summary of Meeting with Ian Hanna, Director - Northwest Certified
Forestry, Northwest Natural Regional Group regarding the viability of commercial
forestry on 120 acres. Confirmation of meeting minutes received via email from Ian
Hanna on August 11, 2008.
Reference (13): Email sent to Ryan Hunter, Assistant Long Range Planner, Jefferson
County DCD requesting an evaluation of our petition taking into consideration the
viability of commercial forestry on 120 acres. Email sent August 11, 2008.
CON'i~NT
SU.MMAr<-'!
....
,
-'
For the Record:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request MLA08- 73
For the September 17, 2008, Planning Commissioners meeting
On Sept. 3, 2008, I stood before this Planning Commission and stated I was discouraged upon
hearing DCD staff recommend a preliminary denial of our MLA08-73 request to reclassify our
120 acre parcel which was erroneously designated as commercial forest to rural residential I:] O.
It was especially confusing because, upon reading the denial comments, we could not
ascertain why DCD didn't follow their Director's instructions on how to evaluate these
site specific requests. Those instructions were given to you at the Aug. 6, 2008, Planning
Commission meeting held in this room: reference item B on that agenda entitled: Comp
Plan Amendment Criteria for Review. Joel Peterson listed the criteria on the chalkboard
in the order of importance as follows:
U.S. Constitution
Washington State Constitution
Title 36: Counties: RCW and WAC
Planning Enabling Act... ... ..36.70
GMA...........................36.70A
Regional Review...... .........36.70B
LUPA............. ........ .......36.70C
In their preliminary denial of our petition, I further mentioned on 9/03/08, I could find
no state law (RCW/W AC) or any other legal citation justifying their position. Then I said
I would email you several pertinent state laws for your review. Instead of email, I have
prepared a hard copy for you to have in hand at this meeting. I've listed several laws for
your evaluation. The list is not exhaustive. The laws presented, here in, contain the
words 'must' and 'shall' which according to JCC and state definitions are mandatory
words, meaning DCD staff, and this commission, must evaluate our petition in respect to
these criteria. For example, in this list:
+ You will find at RCW 36.70A.050 guidelines to classify forest land. DCD and Compo Plan
guidelines shall not be inconsistent with DNR forest land classification criteria.
+ You will find WAC 365- 190-060 giving further instructions for classifying forest land.
"Counties and cities shall consider...." and the criteria is listed.
+ Then, RCW 36.70A. I 00 states Comprehensive Plans must be coordinated and shall be
consistent with border and regional counties with the same issues.
More are in your packet.
For example, in the packet before you, one will find specific State policy regarding
how to calculate rate of return on forest land investments. This criteria will demonstrate
to you we have never met that commercial standard. The fonner owners have never met
that standard, and, in fact, it is impossible for this small size of a parcel to meet that
standard.
Again, before you, one will find other laws and other examples, anyone of which will
provide justification to grant our request.
Therefore, I will close as I did last time: please evaluate our request based on the laws
of the State of Washington in a legal and fair minded manner.
Respectfully submitted,
James E. Jackson
Chimacum Heights LLC
12e+ere"(~ (I)
)
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For September 17,2008 Planning Commissioners Meeting
Subject: State Law
RCW 36.70A.050 and RCW 76.09.020 (I 0)
"Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, and mineral lands and critical
areas."
(4) "The guidelines established by the department under this section regarding
classification of forest lands shall not be inconsistent with guidelines adopted by the
department of natural resources."
i
"
,
The DNR Forest Practice Book, page ]43 (Glossary) defines 'Forest
Landowner':
"Any person in actual control of forest land, whether such control is based either on
legal or equitable title, or any other interest entitling the holder to sell or otherwise
dispose of any or all of the timber on such land in any manner....."(also RCW 76.09.020
(10).
Jefferson County DCD staff have recommended in their September 3,
2008, Report Addendum, to the Planning Commission that our MLA 08-73
request be denied, in part, because our total of 120 acres "is part of a forest
land Block of at least 320 acres in size." See staff recommendation
2.3.3.1.3, page 2-41
Question: How, in a legal definition, are we a 'part of a Block of forest
land'?
Findings and Facts:
According to the DNR definition of forest landowner, Chimacum Heights
.
LLC 120 acres has no legal title to our neighbors land.
+ We have no equitable title to our neighbors land.
+ We have no entitlement to any timber located on our neighbors land.
+ We have no legal part or interest in our neighbors land.
+ We have no legal or equitable interest in any other forest land or
acreage in this state or any other state.
It is our opinion that the Jefferson County Comp. Plan guideline of making us a part of
some other persons/companies forest land is inconsistent with the DNR definition of
forest landowner, is arbitrary (in violation ofRCW 36.70A.020 (6) and is invidious (in
violation of Attorney Generals Advisory Memo on 'Takings' of Private Property).
Further, it is our opinion that Jefferson County can remedy this action by approving
our Compo Plan Amendment request.
12~+~r"n(e.- ('-)
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For the September 17,2008, Planning Commissioners Meeting
Subject: State Law
RCW 36.70A.050
"Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, and mineral lands and critical
areas."
(4) "The guidelines established by the department under this section regarding
classification offorest lands shall not be inconsistent with guidelines adopted by the
department of natural resources."
A. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 'Policy for Sustainable
Forest' (12/06), provides the 'Definition of Sustain ability for the
Sustainable Harvest Calculation.' RCW 79.10.310 defines sustained yield
plans to "mean management of the forest to provide harvesting on a
continuing basis..." (p. 28). Further, "The department will express the
sustainable harvest level for a given unit as mean annual timber volume for
a planning decade." (p. 29). The goal is for "the average annual sustainable
harvest level to remain constant...." (p. 30).
"
.
Jefferson County DCD staff have made a preliminary recommendation to
deny our Compo Plan Amendment request (Sept. 3, 2008 Report), declaring,
in part, that our total of 120 acre parcel is Commercial Forest (CF).
B. The DNR report to the legislature publication entitled: Evaluating
Property for Acquisition (Jan. 2002). Appendix A outlines DNR criteria for
Evaluating forest Land Characteristics and the DNR method for
Determining IJlvestment Valuation/Calculations for forest land as an
investment; and return on investment.
This two page guideline addresses location of potential resource lands to
be acquired, physical conditions, financial return, etc.
Financial:
"Properties should meet investment return requirements (5 percent or
greater return)" (p. 2) Appendix; with the "assumed management parameters
of a 60 year rotation age for timber age" for timber growth/harvest. (p. 29 of
Report). The full report gives further guidance on how to calculate rates of
return by establishing the assessed value of the land (principal); any timber
value at raw land status and at fully planted status; costs involved and net
return. DNR then compares this rate of return to other types of investment,
such as bonds (CD's), commercial real estate, etc.
I(..+e r~ n (<2.. (.;;t)
C\f ~t\~.'Jio~
Findings and Facts:
Chimacum Heights LLC/Jackson family has followed this DNR policy and
concludes our rate of return on investment is far below the 5% or greater
figure.
1. Chimacum Heights LLC's cost basis is $360,000 (principle). A 5%
return on this investment (not counting the investment required to bring the
land up to fully stocked status) is $18,000 annual return. However, our rate
of return has been computed to be a continual annual return of zero to
minus return.
A) Forest-tec consultant estimation was about $5000 annually, not
counting expenses of clearing land for planting: $9,165.00 annually, and not
counting our own labor throughout the year. We're already at zero, and
minus return. See attached estimates for annual clearing expenses. We
averaged the three respondents.
B) This same general figure was confirmed by Ian Hanna, Director,
Northwest Natural Resource Group. (attached for record)
C) And the same was confirmed by a local DNR forest practice manager
(already in the record)
D) Two local loggers who walked the property and viewed the state of
timber on site, came to the same annual figure.
2. Chimacum Heights LLC went a step further and hired Earl Kong, a local
Forest Management Plan consultant to calculate our rate of return based on
current best science and as if our land would be fully stocked. His
computation shows, even if fully stocked, our annual mean rate of return
would be less than $10,000 per year (about 2 v,% rate of return). Again, not
counting the LLC's annual costs of planting and maintenance. His report is
attached for the record. After expenses for clearing, etc. we are at zero
return.
Findings and Facts:
The Chimacum Heights LLC sole parcel of 120 acres cannot meet the
DNR criteria for rate of return. We cannot meet the RCW definition of
viable, sustainable, economically practicaL.... ...as a commercial forest
industry.
It is our opinion that Jefferson County can remedy this misclassification
by approving our Compo Plan amendment request MLA08-73.
/"
;,/
1./
Forestech LLC
~.-l-y R",'-iJ"'-" ,\\nlb'/.', e.Urv7p P\a." Cl.vN.~w-.~",~ \'\lI<bu..'.Y
MLA 0 >>-1) Vi(c"",~} CoyY)~"<,,,,-, M~,
260 Old Fort Townsend Road
Port Townsend, W A 98368
(360) 271-4779
www.littleforest.org
TIMBER CRUISE AND APPRAISAL
Sept.10 2008
Name: Chimacum Heights Acres 120
Site Index 100, fully stocked 26.797 MBFper acre
Location: S13 T29N R01W
NET NET MARKET GROSS
SPECIE GRADE SORT MBF TONS PRICE VALUE
Maple Sawlog Hardwood Saw $
Pulp Pulp $
Douglas fir 2 Saw Export C $
3 Saw Studlog $
2-3 Saw Domestic 3215 $ 400.00 $ 1,286.000.00
2 Saw Export J $
3 Saw Export K $
Pulp Pulp $
3 Saw Export SJ $
Red Alder Sawlog Hardwood Saw $
Peeler Peeler $
Pulp Pulp $
Western Red Cedar 2-3 Saw Cedarsaw 3 Saw $
Western Hemlock 3 Saw Studlog $
2-3 Saw Domestic $
Willow Pulp Pulp $
Total Volumes and Gross Revenue 3215 0 $ 1,286,000.00
(After a 60 year growing cycle)
12.,,+e re n (f:.. (:L)
Forestec,h
Name:
Appraisal. page 2.
Chimacum Heights
Total Volumes and Gross Revenue
Less Expenses:
MBF
3215
Tons
o
$1,286,000.00
Logging Costs
MBF
Ton
$
100.00 $ 321,500.00
$
Haul Costs
MBF
Ton
Administration @ 10% of Gross
Reforestation @$175.00 per acre
$
63.00 $ 202.545.00
$
$ 128,600.00
$ 24,000.00
Subtotal Expenses
Excise tax @ 5%
Total Expenses
Deducton for Stream Protection
Net Stumpage Value
(After a 60 year growing cycle)
$ 676,645.00
$ 30,467.75
$ 707,112.75
$ 578,887.25
Sources:
Empirical yield tables for the Douglas fir Zone. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
USDA Technical Bullitin # 201.
FDtA- Note'?'
\ 1>-51 S,'t,'il ,J.S
,
'1, GL (..yi>,
'f'
.~. 2R1U> .to
M" 1'111 ')
_ & 0 0,1 ttv DYV urhI = js '7) '1.\ S bo~.-", ",,,,,v..u.c i Welt':;;
I ,j";J c^ \w~.
v"",'.,,\,l5 5s+;I-y-"d-<d. A-Yw,,,,d c-vSij -tv ChlYl,uLu', IJ-.l) LL( ~~~
,:~,V\-lo"'l l~ 11-(", \ I ~ ';Iv (lU.A 0,~,^ O'i/lr".v LAbo,: fAK.) S/lt'v '
L-;;. 4 (,) II b -i- 5 coo _~ _ -";> --':> II J tl b
M'-i- v"-t~ _ AS iF 'riALL'i ~;IOt.l<Et)
--t
'-t' s,"-..( FuJI d.tA.tcLIJ of f0~l-Vv> <Y>'\.J-l1I/e.;,,1~ C-/fYYIp"M,"'> AlBer pA[j€.
LAf ~t 1.)O,L\J,).DC't; \JJ.-\~
~.
'3 ..l:tCf'""Nlr,\ Bf-V,,--i<'Q., b"dJ c,*,<Avl~d, W,-" u.u a" QVM~:Y o-JVci 11Me.,
,/ <:It''^''''d '}. Au-<o. (lM ':::Y' .~ :j;(.,1I D , to
v U..elWi'd '3 ,/\'<"",- l"-''''a - il9 .I~\. Ct'
12.e-{~ren(<'.. (.-::t.)
1 ,I I. I I" ;.) oS .
,.j V ,""i(;, '".4 ('::
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
Updated November 12,2008 and submitted prior to the 12/1108 BOCC meeting
Return On Investment Computation
Footnotes: continued from page 2 of Forestech estimated timber value report
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.050(4) and RCW 79.10.310, Chimacum Heights, LLC
retained Forestech to make the above timber value computation in order to make a best
case estimate as to the average annual return on investment for timberland in an effort to
determine if our site meets the legal standard to be classified as commercial forest (CF).
The elements of the computation for Return on Investment are:
I. Principle: the cost of the land................................... ....$360,000
DNR goal of annual return on investment for timberland............... ..05%
Annual target/goal return......... ......... ............... .....................18,000
11. Hypothetical value of fully stocked 120 acres of timberland after
the specified 60 year growth cycle........... ..................... ..$578,887.24 - 60
Divided by 60 year cycle equals annual return........................ 9,648.00
Less estimated annual Chimacum Hts LLC costs for thinning,
clearing, road maintenance, labor, etc (2 acres per year) .... ...11,118.00
Annual return, AS IF fully stocked......................minus.......(-$l,470.00).
111. Annual estimated rate of return on current land in AS IS status..... .$5,000 (see
record for derivation of this amount as estimated by several sources)
Less estimated costs for planting, thinning, clearing, etc........... .11,118.00
Annual return, AS IS................................... ....minus......(-$6,118.00).
IV. Both the hypothetical return and the 'as is' return on investment is below zero, far
less than the "5% or better" rate of return called for at DNR policy.
Findings and Facts
Chimacum Heights LLC 120 acre parcel with approximately 70% (82 acres) land
grade 5, with some land grade 3 and 4 soil index, in an 'as is' or in a hypothetical
fully stocked condition, cannot meet the legal standard of commercial forest
classification.
IIJ'~ir'i vL'eeLe,'"
(-~
l {) y
01
l'
,
J, ,.,it
To: Mark Stewart Excavating
You've been on our 120 acre parcel #901132002, located near Port Hadlock
and Chimacum, Washington.
."f
I am writing to ask what (approximately) you would charge to clear 3 acre's
of land on that site so we could prepare it for planting Douglas Fir trees for
future harvest.
What would be your per hour excavator fee?
.t 00
'F/3,) -~
About how many hours would the three acre task take?
21
How much would the cost be for arranging the debris into bum piles,
and then burning the piles? $-;z.., { I b ~
What would be the move in and move out charge for the excavator? .::CW~()L)c?--Dat-e-
Total estimate
$~f~3b ~
Signature:7~ ~......::;/ Date / (-- 9 ~ of;
,k 'Two ACWl LyjJ...t1\h.iL.. t.UDid11 k 2-/-s .J; % 10iat Or 41j'tdLj,
(~
Ave, ~ (71 1t, \' (':d,
Ij' ) VJ
/" i<
',~-
( , <",
-J 'il 1'; - "'I')
./. .~, ....
To: Matt Baker Excavating
You've been on our 120 acre parcel #901132002, located near Port Hadlock
and Chimacum, Washington.
I am writing to ask what (approximately) you would charge to clear 3 acre',f
of land on that site so we could prepare it for planting Douglas Fir trees for
future harvest.
What would be your per hour excavator fee?
J'; f:) S-. C> 0
About how many hours would the three acre task take? ~ j)~ ~ ~
[//IlL-Lv-M5 5,ow\( ls-l.\llJ,\ GY\~ o.r1"U"\'\~JNV\.u\h+-\1
How much would the cost be for arranging the debris into ~piles,
and then burning the piles? $' d 000. () 0
What would be the move in and move out charge for the excavator~--2 S-O, D<'>
Total estimate
<$ Id \ S-o < e:,.:::;,
,
/(J{J~M
Signature.' =.' A
! I
, I
Date f I /Ie I/)g
,
'* ---rWO ACI.R.-IL 0; ~rtI~ LV oJ--l tr 73 ~ 'fak J OR it- <t; j i 00
3p,
-2. f'. A Vel c ~.' ,i <;;'
To: Earl Woodley Excavating
You've been on our 120 acre parcel #901132002, located near Port Hadlock
and Chimacum, Washington.
How much would the cost be for arranging the debris into bum piles,
and then burning the piles? 0~a ,,~
What would be the move in and move out charge for the excavator? /1" t' e1t1l~
Total estimate
??..fO.~
FtJ~
(! L 6A/I//V4' "f gt/,Ii'4///&p
/ ./"
Signature: ~/ M <. /4 Date
ij- /tJ -f)$
,
.,jf 'flU c) Au\.C4. 0",,, D 1'vI1H.t.. 1'1 J I 1. 21. ,J)
~TI~'v~ INOWd.~ /3 'i4-0W OJ-- J;s:;g3~
/_ I+. L/(\ ';" C1 ! :~\ ;),)
. /'
,
"
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA 08-73
For the September 17, 2008, Planning Commissioners meeting
Subject: State Law WAC 365-190-060
At WAC 365-190-060 in ClassifYing Forest Land "Counties and cities shall also
consider the effe.cts of proximity to population areas and the possibility of more
intense. uses of the land as indicated by:"
(2) The oroximitv offorest land to urban and suburban areas and rural settlements:
Forest lands oflong-term commercial significance are located outside the urban and
suburban areas and rural settlements.
(4) The comoatibilitv and intensity of adjacent and nearby land use and settlement
patterns with forest lands oflong-term commercial significance.
(7) History ofland development permits issued nearby.
Findings and Facts:
Since the inception ofGMA in Jefferson County there has been significant change/growth
on land both near and in the immediate vicinity of our MLA 08-73 request. (Vicinity
"means, in rural and resource lands, the area generally within one mile of the exterior
boundary ofa given parcel." JCC 18.10.005 definitions)
Residential: Since 1998, there have been approximately 66 rural residential housing
permits issued nearby..... . from adjacent out to Y:z mile to I Y:z miles from our parcel.
About 28 of these have been issued in the last 18 - 24 months; on all sides, north, east,
south and west. Many of these are within y, mile!
Commercial: Since I 998 Jhere have been about 33 new businesses established within
the vicinity of .pur parcel. Approximately 11 of these new commercial activities have
been established tvith the past two years!
Note: There are about 100 commercial enterprises in the immediate ChimacumlPort
Hadlock area (not counting Rhody Drive). Because Jefferson County has only proposed
some of this area as a UGA, we are herein demonstrating the reality of the area: many
urban type activities are evident: schools, fire department, PUD, Sheriff/jail, three
churches, two banks, stores, medical, retail of many kinds, etc.
In our opinion the above facts demonstrate that our parcel is clearly in
proximity to population areas and there has been a definite pattern of more
intense use via residential permitting all around ours; and even much
commercial activity in the vicinity: and these facts alone, in light of GMA
law, provide justification to reclassifY our parcel per our MLA 08-73
request.
12e '+:Ue(He. (-"3)
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For the September 17,2008, Planning Commissioners meeting
Subject: State Law RCW 36.70A.100
At RCW 36. 70A.l 00 State Comprehensive plans must be coordinated:
"The comprehensive plan of each county.. ...shall be coordinated with,
and consistent with, the comprehensive plans... ..of other counties with
which the county has, in part, common borders or related regional issues."
According to JCC 18.10.005, the words, shall and must, are always
mandatory. Therefore, if words have meaning, Jefferson County's Compo
Plan must be consistent with border counties or counties with similar
regional issues. All of the Olympic Peninsula share the same issue
regarding resource lands.
We will zero in on only one aspect of Resource Lands, namely the
classification criteria for commercial forest (CF) land, and specifically the
size of a parcel to be noted as 'commercial forest'.
State law says to be classified as commercial forest, the land should be
predominantly large parcels. WAC 365-190-060 (3)
1. "For Thurston County, this means parcel sizes of predominantly 640
acres or larger."
2. Mason County declares a minimum block size of 5000 acres, and allows
for smaller parcel ownership if the parcels have Douglas Fir Site Index
I & 2. Chiniacum Heights LLC parcel has no Index I & 2 land.
.
3. Clallam County allows a smaller parcel designation (80 acres) but gives
several allowances to be exempt: see their compo plan at 31.02.140 (8 e,g)
(14) (23) and (23-b) where the landowner can "demonstrate they cannot
generate a reasonable return on investment."
,
,
Findings and Facts:
It is our opinion that if Jefferson County were to follow the mandatory
Jaw regarding consistency of comprehensive plans in respect to the
classification of commercial forest land, then our parcel would be exempt
from said designation.
Further, it is our opinion that Jefferson County can remedy this
inconsistency by approving our MLA 08-73 request.
1<-"+ uen (<'- ( y)
\..l (? l J' I.~ \" I,',:::
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
Updated and corrected page submitted prior to 12/01/08 BOCC meeting
Subject: State Law
RCW 36.70A.100
At RCW 36.70A.I00 State Comprehensive plans must be coordinated:
"The comprehensive plan of each county.....shall be coordinated with. and consistent with,
the comprehensive plans .....of other counties with which the county has. in part, common
borders or related regional issues. "
According to JCC 18.10.005, the words, shaH and must, are always mandatory.
Therefore, if words have meaning, Jefferson County's Compo Plan must be consistent
with border counties or counties with similar regional issues. All of the Olympic
Peninsula share the same issue regarding resource lands.
We will zero in on one aspect of Resource Lands, namely the classification criteria for
commercial forest (CF) land: forest land grades.
At WAC 365-190-060, we read "in classifying forest land, counties and cities should
use the private forest land grades of the department of revenue" (WAC 458-40-530).
At WAC 458-40-530 one finds the land grade-site index for classifying forest land of
long-term commercial significance.
+ "Thurston County initially identified those areas where forest land grade 2
predominates" (11-10-03, page 3-11 compo plan).
+ Mason County declares "50% or more of an ownership parcel shall be Grade 2 or
better, but if land owners have more than 4000 acres, then it is OK to have land grade 3 or
better.
+ Clallam County accepts land b'fade I through 4, but leaves room for being
reclassified: 31.02.140 8(g), 14,23, and 23(b).
+ JeffersQn County says: "The land should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades I -
4." j
Findings and Facts:
We've attached for the Record letters from two professional forest management
consultants showing:
+ We have no class I land grades (favorable)
+ We have no class II"" (average)
+ We have less than 23% class III (difficult)
+ We have some class IV soil (i:",tri:t:Illt
+ We h~ve ail average of79 acres (70%) soil class grade V
Grade V is beyond the scale for any county in this region including Jefferson County.
(~
/ ) I
) )
')
(
",
In our opinion these facts alone are sufficient justification to approve our MLA08-73
Compo Plan Amendment request to reclassify our land, as it does not meet the detinition
of commercial forest.
\
/
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
Corrected and updated version submitted prior to the 12/01/08 BOCC meeting
CORRECTION NOTICE
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, Chimacum Heights LLC retained Earl Kong of Forestech to develop a forest
management plan for our 120 acre parcel #901132002 located in Jefferson County,
Washington. This was the first in a series of steps to ascertain if this parcel could be an
economically viable timber producing enterprise for our family as the land had been
classified by this same county as commercial forest land (CF).
As a second step in this process we again retained Mr. Kong, this time in February
2008, to give us in writing a break down of the types and classes of soil (land grade
analysis) on this same parcel. See attached 2/13/08 fmding.
Then, in September 2008, we retained Mr. Kong to develop a timber cruise appraisal
for this same land, based on a hypothetical fully stocked condition. We took this step to
ascertain our return on investment potential per DNR policies for evaluating return on
investment for timber land. This is to be based on an average annual return (also DNR
policy). See attached Forestech computation.
We are going through these steps to determine if our parcel meets the state GMA
definition of a 'parcel of predominately large size' capable of producing an economic
return (along with other classification criteria listed elsewhere in this, for the record
packet).
ERROR ALERT:
While completing this (Sept. 2008) computation, Mr. Kong called us to state that back
in 2007, and in February 2008, he had made an error in determining our soil land site
class. He said he had used outdated reference material.
CORRECTION:
Mr. Kong then completed a corrected soil land index class, which is attached for the
record and dated September 16, 2008.
The corrected land grade lowers the overall productivity of this parcel in that we now
have 77% site class IV and V grades.
Oftbis 77%, approximately 79 acres (70%) is in class 5 soils. We hired a second
forester to double check this, and his similar findings are a part of the record.
Site class V is not considered for commercial forest land in Jefferson, Clallam, Mason
or Thurston counties.. . ... ...... ..all sharing common borders or the same issue (resource
land classification).
.
11'}~
C' '} ~<AJ "'.-lc:0'...)} rLf' qvJV~;-~_j:l}~-f~~'
ttwv,~.:;, l..)-~'...." Pi f\r/.. \_~) \-tk (VI
,
..}hrit'-t\'v-C;-~~- fL~
""'--..."1>
i-I vA.-;fli!~
,.
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For the September 17,2008, Planning Commission meeting
CORRECTION NOTICE
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, Chimacum Heights LLC retained Earl Kong of Forestech to develop a forest
management plan for our 120 acre parcel #901132002 located in Jefferson County,
Washington. This was the first in a series of steps to ascertain if this parcel could be an
economically viable timber producing enterprise for our family as the land had been
classified by this same county as commercial forest land (CF).
As a second step in this process we again retained Mr. Kong, this time in February
2008, to give us in writing a break down of the types and classes of soil (land grade
analysis) on this same parcel. See attached 2/13/08 finding.
Then, in September 2008, we retained Mr. Kong to develop a timber cruise appraisal
for this same land, based on a hypothetical fully stocked condition. We took this step to
ascertain our return on investment potential per DNR policies for evaluating return on
investment for timber land. lbis is to be based on an average annual return (also DNR
policy). See attached Forestech computation.
Weare going through these steps to determine if our parcel meets the state GMA
definition of a 'parcel of predominately large size' capable of producing an economic
return (along with other classification criteria listed elsewhere in this, for the record
packet).
ERROR ALERT:
While completing this (Sept. 2008) computation, Mr. Kong called us to state that back
in 2007, and in February 2008, he had made an error in determining our soil land site
class. He said he had used outdated reference material.
CORRECTION:
Mr. Kong then completed a corrected soil land index class, which is attached for the
record and dated September 16, 2008.
ted land grade lowe~ the overall productivity ofthis parcel in that we now
ave77%siteclassIV~~gi1;des. ~)\O\,)5 7q f'r C 10%) ~ ~ r; .s~'\ I
Site class V . 'consi red for commercial forest land in Jefferson, Clallam, Mason
or Thurston counties...... ..... ..all sharing common borders or the same issue (resource
land classification).
" \ c-_
cLwJvr c
, ^'1JR"VI.
0Jl H-".
... ,
c LvIJ'"
\0\ '>11 0'<. f~ r C (hi'.!r"'rr
.".\ p~ ~
":'1-;""-
{"..,'1
"v
~e+~r<!M€- (LJ)
.
'.!Forestech LLC
260 Old Fort Townsend Road
Port Townsend, W A 98368
(360) 271-4779
www.littleforest.org
September 16, 2008,
Jim Jackson
Chimacum Heights LLC
PO Box 1105
Port Hadlock W A 98339
Re: Management plan for Parcel # 901 132002, dated August 20 2007.
Dear Mr. Jackson:
There is an error in the above-mentioned management plan.
On page 2 of the plan in the paragraph labeled Productivity, there is the following
erroneous statement, "This index is based on the expected height the dominant trees
should reach in 50 vears".
The information was gathered from "Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area,
Washington". Page 55 of that soil survey states, "the site index of Douglas fir and
western hemlock is based on the height the dominant and codominant trees attain at 100
vears of age". In about I 980 the I 00 year site index was replaced by a 50 year site index
in most publications. The Jefferson county soil survey was written in 1975.
The USDA Technical Bulletin 201. Provides a table for converting the 100-year site
index to the now used 50-year site index. Following are the adjusted site index.
The Sinclair series occupies 88 acres and was placed in site index 80 to 103.
This places that soil series in Site Class I V and V.
The Tukey series occupies 5 acres and was also placed in site index ranges 80 to 103.
This places that soil series in Site Class IV and V.
The Casolary series occupies 27 acres and was placed in site index ranges 105 to 122.
This places that soil series in Site Class I I I and IV.
In summary, 93 acres of the parcel ofland is Site Class] V and V (77%)
And 27 acres of the parcel ofland is Site Class I I I and I V (23%)
12e.(~,"n<-"'- (y)
-----
Foreste~)l_
"
Due to a recent review of the subject property as well as a review of the management
plan I can confirm that all other aspects of the management plan is correct.
The timber stand is not fully stocked but natural regeneration is occurring. The timber
will likely become fully stocked ultimately but it will be a mixed aged stand.
As you requested, I have enclosed an appraisal of the fmancial return that could be
achieved under the best circumstances for this parcel of timber. The enclosed appraisal is
based on a fully stocked stand of Douglas fir timber, grown to sixty years of age and then
harvested.
Please feel free to contact me for any questions or clarifications.
Sincerely
~-./K~
Earl Kong I
Forester
)2", -?" ((! n((~_ (4)
"
,-::F"ol"estech
260 Old Fort Townsend Road
Port Townsend, W A 98368
(360) 271-4779
www.littleforest.org
February 13, 2008
Jim Jackson
Chimacum Heights LLC
PO Box 1105
Port Hadlock W A 98339
Re: Parcel # 901 132002, Site Class designations.
Dear Jim:
As you requested, I have gathered information on the "Site Class" designations for the
above-mentioned parcel ofland.
Using the "Jefferson county soil survey" as published by the Soil conservation service in
1975, I located the perimeter of the property onto the soil maps in order to determine
what soil series occupy the site. There are three soil series.
The Sinclair series occupies 88 acres and was placed in site index ranges 95 to 124.
This places that soil series in Site Class IV.
The Tukey series occupies 5 acres and was also placed in site index ranges 95 to 124.
This results in Site Class 1 V.
Casolary series occupies 27 acres and was placed in site index ranges 125 to 154.
This results in Site Class III.
In summary, 93 acres of the parcel ofland is Site Class IV (77%)
And 27 acres of the parcel ofland is Site Class III (23%)
This letter reflects information provided by the landowner, public documents,
background research, and my best professional judgments. Please feel free to contact me
for any questions or clarifications.
Sincerely
';kl
" -/' '- <--1
c.cl
Earl Kong
Forester/Biologist
Re+uf' nee- (Y)
WAC 365-195-200: Statutory definitions. FDn-t\.{ fuL'<d- o./11JP'i r\l\LA DZ--1J
Gh:",.c""" 1+t:l~LLC Cbyryp. pl,,~
365-195-070 << 365-195-200>> 365-195-210 .",""''''''"....eJVT ~"'H"
WAC 365-195-200 No Washington State Register filings since 2003
Statutory definitions.
For the convenience of persons using these criteria the definitions contained in RCW 36.70A.030 are set forth below:
(1) "Adopt a comprehensive land use plan" means to enact a new comprehensive land use plan or to update an
existing comprehensive land use plan.
(2) "Agricultural land" means land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural,
floricuftural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay. straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not
subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, or livestock and that has long-term commercial
significance for agricultural production.
(3) "City" means any city or town, including a code city.
(4) "Comprehensive land use plan," "comprehensive plan," or "plan" means a generalized coordinated land use policy
statement of the governing body of a county or city that is adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(5) "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems:
(a) Wetlands;
(b) Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water;
(c) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(d) Frequently flooded areas; and
(e) Geologically hazardous areas.
(6) "Department" means the department of community development.
(7) "Development regulations" means any controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city,
including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances.
(8) "Forest land" means land primarily useful for growing trees, including Christmas trees subject to the excise tax
imposed under RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, for commercial purposes, and that has long-term commercial
significance for growing trees commercially.
(g) "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or
other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with
publiC health or safety concerns.
v' V' v'
(10) "Long-term commercial significance" includes the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land
for long-term commercial production, in consideration with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of
more intense uses of the land.
(11) "Minerals" include gravel, sand, and valuable metallic substances.
(12) "Public facilities" include streets, roads. highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals,
domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.
(13) "Public services" include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation,
environmental protection, and other governmental services.
(14) "Urban growth" refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings. structures, and
impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of
food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide
areas, urban growth typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land
having urban growth located on it. or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be
appropriate for urban growth.
(15) "Urban growth area" means those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110.
(16) "Urban governmental services" include those governmental services historically and typically delivered by cities,
and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police
http://apps.leg.wa.govIWAC/default.aspx?cite=365-195-200
Retue.n(L (5)
9/1 4/2008
KC W /tl.U'I.ULU: UeI1mtJons.
h,Q;th.-i rcE<-DR.D 9 1/7) 0 ~ M L.k O'j, '-15
Ch ;""""'" H.b LLc co,-" P pl"-.,
.!:\Wl""<!-"".......i- fU'l>~ot
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
RCW 76.09.020
Definitions.
(1) "Adaptive management" means reliance on scientific methods to test the results of actions taken so that the
management and reiated policy can be changed promptiy and appropriately.
(2) "Appeals board" means the forest practices appeals board created by RCW 76.09.210.
(3) "Aquatic resources" includes water quamy. salmon, other species of the vertebrate classes Cephaiaspidomorphi
and Osteichthyes identified in the forests and fish report, the Columbia torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton kezerii. the
Cascade torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae). the Olympic torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton olympian), the
Dunn's salamander (Plethodon dunni), the Van Dyke's salamander (Plethodon vandyke). the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei),
and their respective habitats.
(4) "Commissione~' means the commissioner of public lands.
(5) "Contiguous" means land adjoining or touching by common corner or otherwise. Land having common ownership
divided by a road or other right-of-way shall be considered contiguous.
(6) "Conversion 10 a use ofher than commerciai timber operation" means a bona fide conversion to an active use
which is incompatible with timber growing and as may be defined by forest practices rules.
(7) "Department" means the department of natural resources.
(8) "Fish passage barrie~' means any artificial instream structure that impedes the free passage of fish.
(9) "Forest land" means all land which is capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber and is not being
actively used for a use which is incompatible with timber growing. Forest land does not include agricultural land that is or
was enrolled in the conservation reserve enhancement program by contract if such agricultural land was historically used
for agricultural purposes and the landowner intends to continue to use the iand for agricultural purposes in the future. As
it applies to the operation of the road maintenance and abandonment plan element of the forest practices rules on small
forest landowners. the term "forest land" excludes:
(a) Residential home sijes. which may include up to five acres; and
(b) Cropfields, orchards, vineyards, pastures, feedlots, fish pens, and the land on which appurtenances necessary to
the production, preparation, or sale of crops. fruit, dairy products. fish, and livestock exist.
(10) "Forest landowne~' means any person in actual control of forest land, whether such control is based either on
legal or equitable title. or on any other interest entitling the holder to sell or otherwise dispose of any or all of the timber
on such land in any manner. However, any lessee or other person in possession of forest land without legal or equitable
title to such land shall be excluded from the definition of "forestlandowne~' unless such lessee or other person has the
right to sell or otherwise dispose of any or all of the timber located on such forest land.
(11) "Forest practice" means any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land and relating to growing,
harvesting, or processing timber, induding but not limited to:
(a) Road and trail construction;
(b) Harvesting, final and intermediate;
(c) Precommercial thinning;
(d) Reforestation;
(e) Fertilization;
(I) Prevention and suppression of diseases and insects;
(g) Salvage oftrees; and
(h) Brush control.
"Forest practice" shall not include preparatory work such as tree marking, surveying and road flagging, and removal or
harvesting of incidental vegetation from forest lands such as berries, ferns, greenery, mistletoe, herbs, mushrooms, and
http:// apps.leg. wa.gov Irew I default.aspx ?eite=7 6.09.020
Refer<? nt L [(.,)
9/14/2008
PLAAJNftJCc> GOALS
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA 08-73
For September 17, 2008, Planning Commissioners Meeting
Subject: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and "Balance"
On page 1-9 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan--Introduction--is a list of 13
goals required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Compo Plan on this page
states:
"Local plans must implement these goals in a balanced manner."
Recently Chimacum Heights LLCIJames Jackson, owner, asked Jefferson County
Department of Community Development (DCD) staff to pull from archives all Compo
Plan Amendment requests dating back to the inception of GMA. We could find no
approvals for site specific requests where the petitioner was asking for their' commercial
forest' land to be classified in a different designation. As near as we could ascertain, all
were denied.
This finding was consistent with our prior meetings, going back a few years with DCD
staff: Mo Chi (sp ?), Brent Butler, Al Scalf, and last year Joel Peterson. It was our
understanding these staff could not recall any such approvals.
1. In our opinion, this trend may point toward an imbalanced application of GMA goals
which is contrary to the mandate noted above.
2. DCD staff have consistently written in their past denials (and ours) that approving this
type of request could set a precedent for rezoning commercial forest land to rural
residential. Taken cumulatively this could result in a significant loss of the county's
commercial forest/resource lands.
Ifwords have meaning, how could a case by case change of designation (based on
legal criteria for designating such land) result in a significant loss of the county's forest
land?
Jefferson County's same Compo Plan at page 3-1: acknowledges that "over 77% of
Jefferson County's total land area is within the Olympic National Park, Olympic National
Forest, and State Forest Land...." Add to this the large private commercial forest
landowners, such as Rayioner, Pope Resources, etc. and you come up to about 85% to
90% resource land...........the majority of which cannot be changed to another
(residential) designation.
Findings and Facts:
It is our opinion, the DCD staff comments regarding a significant loss of resource
land when viewed on a case by case basis is an unfounded fear and unreasonable caution
which may, in fact, lead to arbitrary denials, which is a violation ofRCW 36.70A.020(6).
The facts simply do not correspond with the allegation, and this view tends to an
unbalanced approach to forest land conversion requests; and further, is in violation of
RCW 36.70A.050 (4). More importantly, it is our opinion our 120 acre parcel does not fit
the legal GMAlDNRJState definition of commercial forest, thus the reason for our MLA
08-73 request.
Keterence (,)
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For the September 17, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
Speech Provided by James A. Jackson, Member of Chimacum Heights LLC regarding MLA08-73.
Text of Speech below:
My name is James A. Jackson, a member of Chima cum Heights LLC. I have attended many of the
Jefferson County planning commission meetings this year and spoke for the first time to the planning
commission on September 3", 2008. I previously spoke about the legislative responsibilities of the
planning commission versus the administrative functions of the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development (DCD) as well as the legislative foundational pyramid that Al Scalf, Director of the DCD,
provided to the planning commission as the legal precedents that must be used to arrive at a decision (
Federal constitution, Washington State constitution, and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the
associated Growth Management Act (GMA) sections).
As we continue to research the GMA and associated legislative matters and court precedents regarding our
petition to reclassil)< our 120 acres from Commercial Forest (CF 1:80) to Rural Residential (RR 1:10), we
have discovered an advisory memorandum issued by the State of Washington Office ofthe Attorney
General in December 2006 entitled "Advisory Memorandum and Recommended Process for Evaluating
Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property".
To quote the introduction of the memorandum "The Office of the Attorney General is directed under RCW
36.70A.370 to advise state agencies and local governments on an orderly, consistent process that better
enables government to evaluate proposed regulatory or administrative actions to assure these actions do not
result in unconstitutional takings of private property. This process must be used by the state agencies and
local governments that plan under RCW 36.70A.040 - Washington's Growth Management Act. "
"Ultimately, the statutory objective is that state agencies and local governments carefully consider the
potential for land use activity to "take" private property, with a view toward avoiding that outcome."
In thoroughly reading the preliminary DCD staff recommendation of denial on our petition and the reasons
stated by the DCD staff. it appears the required analysis and review as detailed in this advisory
memorandum is NOT being followed. I strongly urge each member of the planning commission to read this
advisory memorandum fully to ensure decisions are made in accordance with the law. Failure to fully
analyze the facts and frudings of each petition (including ours) to the law may result in a conclusion oflaw
that causes a taking of private property or a violation of substantive due process.
Our petition and the evidence that we have provided in our original petition as well as in subsequent oral.
electronic, and written submittals of additional facts and findings indicates that our request is clearly within
GMA and Jefferson County Code (ICe) legislative requirements and guidelines. Our 120 acre parcel could
never and can never be operated as a commercial forest to provide a viable economic return. Our intention
is to obtain 12 10 acre parcels that can then be distributed to the members of Chimacum Heights LLC to
provide an economic return to each member over time as well as protect the habitat for the animals and
birds that we all love.
I understand that each of us have our own religious leaning (or none at all), political philosophy, likes and
dislikes,etc. That is what makes each of us unique. But each member of the planning commission as well
as the 3 members of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCe) must put aside these personal beliefs and
must make conclusions of law on these comprehensive plan amendments based solely on the law and
established court precedents. We therefore request that solely the law be used in evaluating our petition. It
is our belief that this analysis will result in our petition being Approved.
Thank you for your consideration once again.
\2(' +.. ,e n CL ('6 )
ROB MCKENNA
ATTORNEY GENERAL
h,( -+- hL Record; C()J'l1p(chetls~v~ fl",,, AM(ncl.vwr+ R.."/",,,
M LA os- t 3
r:O( -t\-1t S(ptef\'lbu i"7, 200S 'Pltlnn,".J (om(\'\,ss;'on H(e-k~
ADVISORY MEMORANDUM:
AVOIDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
J2,-,tu..nCL (9)
PREPARED BY:
MICHAEL S. GROSSMANN, SENIOR COUNSEL
ALAN D. COPSEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
KATHARINE G. SHIREY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON BEHALF OF:
THE TAKINGS WORK GROUP,
OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
12 e +~ re n ie'. (9)
"
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
~
Advisory Memorandum and Recommended Process for Evaluating
Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions
to Avoid Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property
December 2006
. lntroduction
The Office of the Attorney General
is directed under RCW 36.70A.370 to
advise state agencies and local governments
on an orderly, consistent process that better
enables government to evaluate proposed
regulatory or administrative actions to
assure that these actions do not result in
unconstitutional takings of private property.
This process must be used by state
agencies and local governments that plan
under RCW 36.70A.040 - Washington's
Growth Management Act. The
recommended process may also be used for
other state and local land use planning
activities: Ultimately, the statutory
objective is that state agencies and local
governments carefully consider the
potential for land use activity to "take"
private property, with a view toward
avoiding that outcome.
. RCW 36.70A.370 'Protection of Private
tpn;ik.J.fy}~~{0; :~%~,?~~'.,':7i:~ig~~~-- :!iY;:,.o ~S~!~:~!;~;;-_,' ,~'~~,.
~'''!:: (1) Thi/~te~~it;~ gedd;;~~" blish_'~
~~~n orderlY," Consistent process, 'IOCIJdinfJ a ~:~.~,.~
~checklist i( aPt=pri.<!te;that, better ~b(es 'State ,
,agenaes and local govemments to evaluate<.. .;
:PfOposfx:J regulatory or administrative actions to . ;
",: .,., ," : _ ,,,, ",,",' ' :, ',,:,.y -.. .6';'_,',.. ',_', ~,_"..A
;' ,!ssur~ that 5i!t:h a,ctiOf!;; do not result,jn an ll;li;.,-" "
. unconfli.!!!!f~~!t;!/fJZ ot priv~te P,[f~::';':~':'
(2/Local gp~em,!!ents that are required 0[" ,}
I }?oSf!. to Plan, undt;[RFW 3Ff?1.040 c:nd state " '
lagef!~ shall '!,alize thrt rx:o:r;ess,_~blishf!dby,~1~i
; SU/,>sectlon (1) C?f th,/{ secti0l11o assure that l'~!"fif:;,
, prqposed regulatory or administraave actions do Ii i:
. nOt reiult in an unconstitutiOnal toki bf Private y;~
~re ':;;i;A;t~", 'll
Purpose of This Document
This Advisory Memorandum was developed to provide state agencies and local
governments with a tool to assist them in the process of evaluating whether proposed regulatory
or administrative actions may result in an unconstitutional taking of private property or raise
substantive due process concerns. Where state agencies or local governments exercise
regulatory authority affecting the use of private property, they must be sensitive to the
constitutional limits on their authority to regulate private property rights. The failure to fully
... The process used by state agencies and local governments to assess their activities is protected by
attorney-client privilege. Further. a private party does not have a cause of action against a state agency or local
government that does not use the recommended process, RCW 36.70A.370(4).
Advisory Memorandum December 2006
Refuent<'- (9)
consider these constitutional limits may result in regulatory activity that has the effect of
appropriating private property even though that outcome may not have been intended. If a court
concludes that private property has been "taken" by regulatory activity, it will order the payment
of just compensation equal to the fair market value of the property that has been taken, together
with costs and attorney fees. In other cases, a government regulation may be invalidated if it is
found to violate constitutional substantive due process rights.
This Advisory Memorandum is intended as an
internal management tool for agency decision makers. It
is not a formal Attorney General's Opinion under RCW
43.1 0.030(7) and should not be construed as an opinion
by the Attorney General on whether a specific action
constitutes an unconstitutional taking or a violation of
substantive due process. Legal counsel should be
consulted for advice on whether any particular action
may result in an unconstitutional taking of property
requiring the payment of just compensation or may
result in a due process violation requiring invalidation of
the government action.
Prior editions of this document were published in February 1992, April 1993, March
1995, and December 2003. Those editions are superseded by this document.
Organization of This Document
This Advisory Memorandum contains four substantive parts. The first part outlines a
Recommended Process for Evaluating Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to
Avoid Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property utilizing the other substantive portions of
the Advisory Memorandum.
The second part, General Constitutional Principles Governing Takings and Due
Process, presents an overview of the general constitutional principles that determine whether a
government regulation may become so severe that it constitutes an unconstitutional taking of
private property or violates substantive due process rights. This discussion is derived from cases
that have interpreted these constitutional provisions in specific fact situations.
The third part is a list of Warning Signals. This section provides examples of situations
that may raise constitutional issues. The warning signals are useful as a general checklist to
evaluate planning actions, specific permitting decisions, and proposed regulatory actions. The
warning signals do not establish the existence of a problem, but they highlight specific instances
in which actions should be further assessed by staff and legal counsel.
The fourth part is an Appendix, which contains summaries of significant court cases
addressing takings law.
Advisory Memorandum
2
December 2006
12 e .{" fe n ( e (9 )
. Part One: Recommended Process for Evaluating Proposed
Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional
Takings of Private Property
1. Review and Distribute This Advisory Memorandum. Local governments and
state agencies should review this Advisory Memorandum with their legal counsel and distribute
it to all decision makers and key staff to ensure that agency decision makers at alI levels of
government have consistent, useful guidance on constitutional limitations relating to the
regulation of private property. Legal counsel should supplement this document as appropriate to
address specific circumstances and concerns of their
client agency or governmental unit.
2. Use the "Warning Signals" to
Evaluate Proposed Regulatory Actions. Local
governments and state agencies may use the Warning
Signals in part three of this Advisory Memorandum
as a checklist to determine whether a proposed
regulatory action may violate a constitutional
requirement. The warning signals are phrased as
questions. If there are affirmative answers to any of
these questions, the proposed regulatory action should
be reviewed by staff and legal counsel.
3. Develop an Internal Process for
Assessing Constitutional Issues. State agency and
local government actions implementing the Growth
Management Act should be assessed by both staff and
legal counsel. Examples of these actions include the
adoption of development regulations and designations
for natural resource lands and critical areas, and the
adoption of development regulations that implement
the comprehensive plan or establish policies or
guidelines for conditions, exactions, or impact fees
incident to permit approval. A similar assessment, by
both staff and legal counsel, should be used for the
conditioning or denial of permits for land use
development. Other regulatory or administrative actions proposed by state agencies or directed
by the Legislature should be assessed by staff and legal counsel if the actions impact private
property .
4. Incorporate Constitutional Assessments Into the Agency's Review Process.
A constitutional assessment should be incorporated into the local government's or state agency's
process for reviewing proposed regulatory or administrative actions. The nature and extent of
the assessment necessarily will depend on the type of regulatory action and the specific impacts
on private property. Consequently, each agency should have some discretion to determine the
extent and the form of the constitutional assessment. For some types of actions, the assessment
might focus on a specific piece of property. For others, it may be useful to consider the potential
impacts on types of property or geographic areas. It may be necessary to coordinate the
assessment with another jurisdiction where private property is subject to regulation by multiple
jurisdictions. It is strongly suggested, however, that any government regulatory actions which
Advisory Memorandum
3
December 2006
1?e-?erence... ('1)
involve warning signals be carefully and thoroughly reviewed by legal counsel. The Legislature
has specifically affirmed that this assessment process is protected by the normal attorney-client
privilege. RCW 36.70A.370(4).
5. Develop an Internal Process for Responding to Constitutional Issues
Identified During the Review Process. If the constitutional assessment indicates a proposed
regulatory or administrative action could result in an unconstitutional taking of private property
or a violation of substantive due process, the state agency or local government should have a
process established through which it can evaluate options for less restrictive action or-if
necessary, authorized, and appropriate--{lonsider whether to initiate formal condemnation
proceedings to appropriate the property and pay just compensation for the property acquired.
. Part Two: General Constitutional Principles Governing Takings
and Substantive Due Process
A. Overview
"Police Power." State governments have the authority and responsibility to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare. This authority is an
inherent attribute of state governmental sovereignty and
is shared with local governments in Washington under
the state constitution. Pursuant to that authority, which
is called the "police power," the government has the
ability to regulate or limit the use of property.
Police power actions undertaken by the government may involve the abatement of public
nuisances, the termination of illegal activities, and the establishment of building codes, safety
standards, and sanitary requirements. Government does not have to wait to act until a problem
has actually manifested itself. It may anticipate problems and establish conditions or
requirements limiting uses of property that may have adverse impacts on public health, safety,
and welfare.
Sometimes the exercise of government police powers takes the form of limitations on the
use of private property. Those limitations may be imposed through general land use planning
mechanisms such as zoning ordinances, development regulations, setback requirements,
environmental regulations, and other similar regulatory limitations. Regulatory activity may also
involve the use of permit conditions that dedicate a portion of the property to mitigate
identifiable impacts associated with some proposed use of private property.
Regulatory Takings. Government regulation of property is a necessary and accepted
aspect of modern society and the constitutional principles discussed in this Advisory
Memorandum do not require compensation for every decline in the value of a piece of private
property. Nevertheless, courts have recognized that if government regulations go "too far," they
may constitute a taking of property. This does not necessarily mean that the regulatory activity
is unlawful, but rather that the payment of just compensation may be required under the state or
federal constitution. The rationale is based upon the notion that some regulations are so severe
in their impact that they are the functional equivalent of an exercise of the government's power
of eminent domain (i.e., the formal condemnation of property for a public purpose that requires
the payment of "just compensation"). Courts often refer to this as an instance where regulation
Advisory Memorandum
4
December 2006
12e+e,enc<
(9 )
goes so far as to acquire a public benefit (rather than preventing some harm) in circumstances
where fairness and justice require the public as a whole to bear that cost rather than the
individual property owner.
When evaluating whether government action has
gone too far, resulting in a taking of specific private
property, courts typically engage in a detailed factual
inquiry that evaluates and balances the government's
intended purpose, the means the government used to
accomplish that purpose, and the financial impact on the
property. Severe financial impacts, unclear government purposes, or less intrusive means for
accomplishing the identified purpose are factors that can tip the scale in favor of a determination
that the government has taken property. The mere presence of these factors does not necessarily
establish a taking of property, but may support a taking claim if they are significant enough,
either individually or collectively. They should be carefully considered and evaluated, along
with the Warning Signals in part three of this Advisory Memorandum, to determine if another
course of action would achieve the government's purpose without raising the same concerns.
In some limited cases, courts may find that a taking has occurred without engaging in the
detailed factual inquiry and balancing of interests discussed above. For example, where
government regulation results in some permanent or recurring physical occupation of property, a
taking probably exists, requiring the payment of just compensation. In addition, where
government regulation permanently deprives an entire piece of property of all economic utility,
and where there is no long-standing legal principle such as a nuisance law that supports the
government regulation, then a taking probably has occurred, requiring the payment of just
compensation.
Substantive Due Process. Washington courts have applied principles of substantive due
process as an alternate inquiry where government action has an appreciable impact on property.
A land use regulation that does not have the effect of taking private property may nonetheless be
unconstitutional if it violates principles of substantive due process. Substantive due process is
the constitutional doctrine that legislation must be fair and reasonable in content and designed so
that it furthers a legitimate governmental objective. The doctrine of substantive due process is
based on the recognition that the social compact upon which our government is founded provides
protections beyond those that are expressly stated in the United States Constitution against the
flagrant abuse of government power. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).
Courts have determined that substantive due process is violated when a government
action lacks any reasonable justification or fails to advance a legitimate governmental objective.
To withstand a claim that principles of substantive due process have been violated, a government
action must (I) serve a legitimate governmental objective; (2) use means that are reasonably
necessary to achieve that objective; and (3) not be unduly oppressive. Violation of substantive
due process requires invalidation of the violating government action rather than the payment of
just compensation.
B. Constitutional Principles Relating to the Regulation of Private Property
Courts have used a number of constitutional principles to determine whether a given
government regulation effects a "taking" under the federal or state constitutions and whether it
violates principles of substantive due process. The following paragraphs summarize the key
legal and procedural principles.
Advisory Memorandum
5
December 2006
K e {e re nt e.. (9)
1. Constitutional Provisions
United States Constitution - Takings Clause and Due Process Clauses. The
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that private property shall
not be taken for public use without the payment of just compensation. Accordingly, the
government may not take property except for public purposes within its constitutional
authority and must provide just compensation for the property that has been taken. The
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also provide that no person shall be deprived of
property without due process oflaw.
Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Section 16. Article 1, section 16 of the
Washington State Constitution provides, in
part, that "[n]o private property shall be taken
or damaged for public or private use without
just compensation." In other words, the
government may take private property, but
must pay just compensation for the private
property that is taken.
Article I, Section 16 also expressly prohibits state and local governments from
taking private property for a private use with a few limited exceptions: private ways of
necessity and drainage for agricu]tural, domestic or sanitary purposes. This provision
goes beyond the United States Constitution, which does not have a separate provision
expressly prohibiting the taking of private property for private use. As discussed below,
this clause has been interpreted to prevent the condemnation of property as part of a
government redevelopment plan where the property is to be transferred to a private entity.
2. The Exercise of Eminent Domain - Condemnation Proceedings.
Through the exercise of eminent domain, government has the power to condemn
private property for public use, as long as it pays just compensation for the property it
acquires. Taking land to build a public road is a classic example of when the government
must provide just compensation to a private property owner for its exercise of the power
of eminent domain.
Government historically acquires property and compensates landowners through a
condemnation proceeding in which the appropriate amount of compensation is
detennined and paid before the land is taken and
used by government. The property generally may
be condemned only for public use. Washington's
Constitution has been interpreted narrowly in this
regard and prohibits condemnation actions that
are part of a plan to transfer property to private
developers for redevelopment projects that involve private ownership of the developed
property. The only exception to the public use requirement is that private property may
be taken for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the
lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes.
The Legislature has enacted a number of statutes specifYing which state and local
government agencies possess authority to acquire property through condemnation and
Advisory Memorandum
6
December 2006
12e.[uen(L (9)
setting forth the procedures that must be followed during condemnation. See Title 8
RCW. Washington law provides that, in some cases, property may be taken immediately
with compensation being determined and paid in a subsequent judicial proceeding or by
agreement between the government and landowner. See RCW 8.04.090.
3. Inverse Condemnation.
There may be times where the government does not intend to acquire property
through condemnation, but the government action nonetheless has a significant impact on
the value of property. In some cases, the government may argue that its action has not
taken or damaged private property, while the property owner argues that a taking has
effectively occurred despite the fact that a formal condemnation process has not been
instituted. This dispute may lead to an "inverse condemnation" claim, and the filing of a
lawsuit against the government, in which the court will determine whether the
government's actions have damaged or taken property. If a court determines that the
government's actions have effectively taken private property for some public purpose, it
will award the payment of just compensation, together with the costs and attorney fees
associated with litigating that inverse condemnation claim. Inverse condemnation cases
genemlly fall into two categories: those involving physical occupation or damage to
property; and those involving the impacts of regulation on property.
a. Physical Occupation or Damage. The government may be required to
pay just compensation to private property owners whose land has been physically
occupied or damaged by the government on a permanent or ongoing basis. For example,
if the construction of a public road blocks access to an adjacent business resulting in a
significant loss of business, the owner may be entitled to just compensation for "damage"
to the property.
b. Regulatory Takings. In general, zoning laws and related regulation of
land use activities are lawful exercises of police powers that serve the general public
good. However, the state and fedeml
constitutions have been interpreted by
courts to recognize that regulations
purporting to be a valid exercise of
police power still must be examined
to determine whether they unlawfully
take private property for public use
without providing just compensation.
This relationship between takings law
and regulation is sometimes explained
as looking at whether a regulation has
the effect of forcing certain
landowners to provide an affirmative
benefit for the public, when the
burden of providing that benefit is one
that should actually be carried by
society as a whole.
The issue is how to identify just when a specific regulation may exceed
constitutional limits. When there is a question of regulatory taking, the inquiry often
focuses on the nature and purpose of the government regulation, the means used to
Advisory Memorandum
7
December 2006
ke+....-€ n( L (9)
achieve it, and the effect of the regulation on legitimate and established expectations for
the use of private property.
To better explain when a regulation unlawfully takes property, this section briefly
describes three major types of regulatory takings challenges: (I) challenges alleging a
categorical taking; (2) challenges that require a court to balance the governmental interest
against the effect on particular private property; and (3) challenges to pennit conditions
that exact some interest in property.
(1) Challenf!es Allef!inf! a Catefwrical Takinf!. Certain fonns of
government action are characterized as "categorical" or "per se" takings. In these
circumstances the government action is presumptively classified as a taking of
private property for public use for which the payment of just compensation is
required. The court does not engage in the typical takings analysis involving a
detailed factual inquiry that weighs the utility of the government's purpose
against the impact experienced by the landowner.
Physical occupations of property are the most well-understood type of
categorical taking. When the government pennanently or repeatedly physically
occupies property, or authorizes another person to do the same, this occupation
has been characterized as such a substantial interference with property that it
always constitutes a taking requiring the payment of just compensation, even if
the amount of compensation is small.
A regulation that deprives a landowner of all economic or beneficial use of
property or that destroys a fundamental property right (such as the right to possess
the property, the right to exclude others, or the right to dispose of the property) is
the second fonn of categorical taking, requiring the payment of just compensation
without further takings analysis. However, a regulation that prohibits all
economically viable or beneficial use of property is not a taking if the government
can demonstrate that the proposed use of the property that is being denied is
prohibited by laws of nuisance or other long-standing and pre-existing limitations
on the use of property.
Courts have emphasized that these "categorical" forms of taking arise in
exceptional circumstances and that the tests are narrowly tailored to deal with
these exceptional cases.
(2) Balancinf! the Governmental Interest Af!ainst the Effect on
Particular Private Provertv. Ascertaining whether a government regulation goes
so far as to take private property usually requires a detailed factual investigation
into the purpose of the government regulation, the means used to achieve the
government's purpose, and the financial impact on the individual landowner.
This analysis is often referred to as the "Penn Central balancing test," because it
was set forth in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104
(1978). The majority of regulatory takings cases will be evaluated using this
traditional multi-factor analysis - weighing the impact of government regulation
against the government's objectives and the means by which they are achieved.
If government has authority to deny a land use, it also has authority to
condition a permit to engage in that use. For example, a local government may
Advisory Memorandum
8
December 2006
\2." .te rt' n ( E-
(9 )
.
condition a development permit by requiring measures that mitigate identifiable
adverse impacts of the development. However, a permit condition that imposes
substantial costs or limitations on the use of property could amount to a taking.
In assessing whether a regulation or permit condition constitutes a taking
in a particular circumstance, courts weigh the public purpose of the regulatory
action against the impact on the landowner's
vested development rights. Courts also consider
whether the government could have achieved the
stated public purpose by less intrusive means.
One factor used to assess the economic impact of
a permit condition is the extent to which the
condition interferes with a landowner's
reasonable investment-backed development
expectations.
Most courts apply this balancing analysis
using a case-by-case factual inquiry into the
fairness of the government's actions. Economic impacts from regulation are
usually fair and acceptable burdens associated with living in an ordered society.
The federal and state constitutions do not require the government to compensate
landowners for every decline in property value associated with regulatory activity.
However, government action that tends to secure some affirmative public benefit
rather than preventing some harm, or that is extremely burdensome to an
individual's legitimate expectations regarding the use of property, or that employs
a highly burdensome strategy when other less burdensome options might achieve
the same public objective, raises the possibility that the action may be a taking of
private property. A useful way to approach this principle is to consider whether
there is any substantial similarity between a proposed regulatory action and the
traditional exercise of the power to condemn property. When government
regulation has the effect of appropriating private property for a public benefit
rather than to prevent some harm, it may be the functional equivalent of the
exercise of eminent domain. In those
cases, the payment of just compensation
will probably be required.
Washington's rather detailed test
for evaluating takings claims was set out
by the Washington State Supreme Court
in Guimont v. Clarke, ]2] Wn.2d 586,
854 P.2d ] (1993). See the Appendix in
part four of this Advisory Menwrandum
for a discussion of that case.
Note: Until recently, the takings
analysis also asked whether the
regulation of property substantially advanced a legitimate government interest. In
Lingle v. Chevron. 544 U.S. 248 (2005), summarized in the Appendix, the United
States Supreme Court explained that this question is not relevant to a claim of
taking by regulation. Instead, the issue of whether a regulation substantially
advances a legitimate government purpose is better evaluated under principles of
Advisory Memorandum
9
December 2006
\2e.(ue n(~ ("1)
substantive due process (discussed below). Washington courts have not yet
considered whether or how to modify the state's takings analysis in light of this
recent United States Supreme Court precedent.
(3) Challenf!es to Permit Conditions That Exact Some Interest in
ProtJertv. Sometimes a permit condition will attempt to extract some interest in
property as mitigation for the adverse public impact of the proposed development.
Courts have referred to these types of conditions as exactions. While such
exactions are permissible, government must identify a real adverse impact of the
proposed development and be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed exaction
is reasonably related to that impact. The government also must be prepared to
demonstrate that the burden on the property owner is roughly proportional to the
impact being mitigated.
The limitations that are placed upon property exactions are further
discussed in the Appendix, in the case note relating to the United States Supreme
Court decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 5]2 U.S. 374 (1994), and in the case
notes discussing some of the more recent Washington cases following Dolan.
4. Substantive Due Process.
Under Washington law, even if a government action does not effect a taking, it
may be unconstitutional if it violates principles of substantive due process. Substantive
due process invokes the due process provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States. Constitution to invalidate flagrant
abuses of government power - actions that authorize some
manifest injustice or that take away the security for
personal liberty or private property that our government
was formed to protect. Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).
While the remedy for a government action that works a
taking is just compensation, the remedy for a government
action that violates substantive due process is invalidation
of the violating government action.
a. Substantive Due Process in Land Use Cases. Washington courts
frequently consider both takings claims and substantive due process claims as alternative
claims in the same case. In contrast, federal courts sitting in Washington have dismissed
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims where a remedy is available by
bringing a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. See Armendariz v.
Penman, 75 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. ]996) (en bane).
Our State Supreme Court's approach to substantive due process in a land use
regulation context was first developed in Orion Corp. v. State, 109 Wn.2d 62], 747 P.2d
]062 (1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. ]022 (]988), and Presbytery of Seattle v. King Cy.,
] ] 4 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907, cert. denied, I]] S. Ct. 284 (1990), and refined in
Guimont v. Clarke, ]2] Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d ] (1993), and Margola Assoc. v. Seattle,
]2] Wn.2d 625, 854 P.2d 23 (1993). These decisions are summarized in the Appendix in
part four of this Advisory Memorandum. ]n assessing whether a regulation has exceeded
substantive due process limitations and should be invalidated, the court considers three
questions. First, is the regulation aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose? There
must be a public problem or "evil" that needs to be remedied for there to be a legitimate
Advisory Menwrandum
]0
December 2006
K e .(e re n (e. (<1)
public purpose. Second, is the method used in the regulation reasonably necessary to
achieve the public purpose? The regulation must tend to solve the public problem.
Third, is the regulation unduly oppressive on the landowner? Failing to consider and
address each of these questions may lead to a substantive due process violation.
The "unduly oppressive" inquiry, which has been the decisive inquiry in most
Washington substantive due process cases, involves balancing the public's interests
against those of the regulated landowner. Factors to be considered in analyzing whether
a regulation is unduly oppressive include (a) the nature of the harm sought to be avoided;
(b) the availability and effectiveness of less drastic protective measures; and (c) the
economic loss suffered by the property owner.
In assessing these factors to determine whether a land-use regulation should be
invalidated as a violation of substantive due process, the Washington Supreme Court has
directed trial courts to the following considerations:
On the public's side - the seriousness of the public problem, tbe extent to
which the owner's land contributes to it, the degree to which the proposed
regulation solves it, and the feasibility ofless oppressive solutions.
On the owner's side - the amount and percentage of value loss, the extent
of remaining uses, the temporary or permanent nature of the regulation,
the extent to which the owner should have anticipated such regulation, and
how feasible it is for the owner to alter present or currently planned uses.
b. Substantive Due Process and Retroactive Legislation. A statute or
regulation may attempt to impose new standards for previously-authorized conduct or
may attempt to remedy newly-discovered impacts from conduct that was previously
legal. The requirements of substantive due process do not automatically prohibit such
retroactive legislative action so long as it serves a rational purpose. However, retroactive
legislation is generally not favored because "elementary considerations of fairness dictate
that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their
conduct accordingly; settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted." Landgraf v.
USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994).
In light of the substantive due process principles discussed above, Washington
courts tend to apply a stricter standard of rationality to retroactive legislation than to
prospective legislation. The fact that legislation may be rational when applied
prospectively does not mean it will necessarily be rational when applied retroactively.
There must be some independent rational basis for the retroactivity itself. Some of the
additional factors to consider when evaluating the retroactivity of legislation include the
following:
Whether there is a direct relationship between the conduct of the landowner and
the "harm" that is being remedied.
Whether the imposed "cure" is proportional to the harm being caused.
Whether the landowner could have generally anticipated that some form of
retroactive regulation might occur. It appears this factor is of greater importance
where there is a weak link between the landowner's conduct and the "cure" being
imposed by the government.
Advisory Memorandum
11
December 2006
Re +e re n (e.
(9 )
These standards are not individually determinative; they operate together to paint a
picture that speaks to the "fairness" of retroactive regulation. See Rhod-A-Zalea & 35th
Inc. v. Snohomish Cy.. 136 Wn.2d 1,959 P.2d 1024 (1998).
5. Remedies.
In the usual condemnation case, the government must pay just compensation to a
property owner before the property may be taken and used for a public purpose.
Compensation usually is based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the
taking.
In an inverse condemnation case, the payment of just compensation is due the
property owner if a taking has occurred without compensation first having been paid.
Compensation usually is based on the fair market value of the property actually taken, at
the time of the taking. The government may also be liable for the payment of interest and
the property owner's ]egal expenses incurred in obtaining just compensation.
If a court determines there has been a regulatory taking, the government generally
has the option of either paying just compensation or withdrawing the regulatory
limitation. However, even if the
regulation is withdrawn, the government
might be obligated to compensate the
property owner for a temporary taking of
the property during the period in which
the regulation was effective.
If a court determines a regulation
has taken private property for private use,
the court probably will invalidate the
regulation rather than ordering
compensation. See Manufactured
Housing Communities of Washington v.
State. ]42 Wn.2d 347, 13 P.3d 183
(2000).
If a court determines there has
been a substantive due process violation,
the appropriate remedy is invalidation of
the regulation. See Guimont v. Clarke,
12] Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d ] (1993). A prevailing landowner who also proves that the
government's actions were irrational or invidious may recover damages and reasonable
attorney fees under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. S 1983.
In addition to the causes of action and remedies discussed above, under
Washington law, a property owner who has filed an application for a permit may also
have a cause of action for damages to obtain relief from government actions that were
arbitrary, capricious, or made with the knowledge that the actions were in excess of
lawful authority. See RCW 64.40. This statute also provides relief for failure to act
within the time limits established by law.
Advisory Memorandum
t2
December 2006
12e.{",enu_ (9)
6. Burdens of Proof and Prerequisites to the Filing of a Claim.
A person challenging an action or ordinance generally has the burden of proving
that the action or ordinance is unconstitutional. However, in a challenge to a government
exaction of land to mitigate for adverse impacts from a proposed land use activity, the
burden is on the government to identify a specific impact that needs to be mitigated and
demonstrate that the exaction is roughly proportional to the identifiable impact.
A claim that property has been taken may not be brought until the landowner has
exhausted all administrative remedies and explored all regulatory alternatives. This
means that the landowner generally must submit an application and pursue available
administrative appeals of any action that the
landowner contends is erroneous. Furthermore,
the landowner must allow the planning or
regulatory agency to explore the full breadth of
the agency's discretion to allow some
productive use of property. This may include
seeking variances and submitting several
applications to determine the full extent to
which the regulatory laws may allow or limit development. However, the landowner
should not be made to explore futile options that have no practical chance of providing
some meaningful use of the land. Once the government comes forward with evidence
that there are regulatory options which might provide for some use of the land, the
landowner has a heavy burden to show that pursuing these options would be futile. See
Estate of Friedman v. Pierce Cy.. ] 12 Wn.2d 68, 768 P.2d 462 (1989).
In some cases a landowner may pursue a "facia] challenge" to a law, claiming that
the mere enactment of legislation results in a taking or violates due process. These are
difficult cases to make because legislation is presumed constitutional and the landowner
must demonstrate that under every conceivable set of facts the challenged legislation is
constitutionally defective. See Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington v.
State, ]42 Wn.2d 347, 13 P.3d 183 (2000).
. Part Three: Warning Signals
The following warning signals are examples of situations that may raise constitutional
issues. The warning signals are phrased as questions that state agency or local government staff
can use to evaluate the potentia] impact of a regulatory action on private property.
State agencies and local governments should use
these warning signals as a checklist to determine whether a
regulatory action may raise constitutional questions and
require further review.
The fact that a warning signal may be present does
not mean there has been a taking or substantive due process
violation. It means only that there could be a constitutional
issue and that staff should carefully review the proposed action with legal counsel. If property is
subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of multiple government agencies, each agency should be
sensitive to the cumulative impacts of the various regulatory restrictions.
Advisory Memorandum
13
December 2006
12e +U<' nc~ ('1)
1. Does the Regulation or Action Result in a Permanent or Temporary Physical
Occupation of Private Property? Government regulation or action resulting in a permanent
physical occupation of all or a portion of private property generally will constitute a taking. For
example, a regulation requiring land]ords to allow the installation of cable television boxes in
their apartments was found to constitute a taking, even though the landlords suffered no
economic loss. See Loretta v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).
This is one of two "categorical" forms of property takings. It does not require any
investigation into the character of or justification for the government's actions. It is premised
upon the belief that a permanent physical occupation is such an unusual and severe impact on
property that it will always be treated as an action that requires the payment of just
compensation. However, because this is such a strict and narrow test, it applies only when the
government physically occupies the property or provides another person the right to do so.
2. Does the Regulation or Action Deprive the Owner of All Economically Viable
Uses of the Property? If a regulation or action permanently eliminates all economically viable
or beneficia] uses of the property, it will likely constitute a taking. In this situation, the
government can avoid liability for just compensation only if it can demonstrate that the proposed
uses are prohibited by the laws of nuisance or other pre-existing limitations on the use of the
property. See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Courl., 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
This is the other narrow categorical form of taking that does not balance the
government's interests in regulation against the impact of regulation. However, in this
circumstance, unlike the permanent physical
occupation analysis, it is necessary to evaluate the
regulation's economic impact on the property as a
whole, and not just on the portion of the property being
regulated. Accordingly, it is important to assess
whether there is any profitable use of the remaining
property available. See, e.g., Florida Rock Indus., Inc.
v. United States, 791 F.2d 893 (Fed Cir. 1986). The existence of some economically viable use
of the property will preclude the use of this categorical test. Furthermore, the remaining use does
not necessarily have to be the owner's planned use, a prior use, or the highest and best use of the
property. However, the fact that some value remains does not preclude the possibility that the
regulatory action might still be a taking of property under other takings tests that balance
economic impact against other factors.
Regulations or actions that require all of a particular parcel ofland be left substantially in
its natural state should be reviewed carefully.
In some situations, pre-existing limitations on the use of property could insulate the
government from takings liability even though the regulatory action ends up leaving the property
with no value. For example, limitations on the use of tidelands under the public trust doctrine
probably constitute a pre-existing limitation on the use of property that could insulate the
government from takings liability for prohibiting development on tidelands. See Esplanade
Properties. LLC v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2002); Orion Corp. v. State, 109
Wn.2d 621, 747 P.2d 1062 (]987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022 (1988). A proposed land use that
is precluded by principles of nuisance law is another example. However, the United States
Supreme Court has made it clear that this principle does not apply simply because the property
was acquired after a regulation prohibiting some land use was enacted. See Palazzolo v. Rhode
Advisol}' Memorandum
14
December 2006
R e -C? Ie n c "-- C 9 )
Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001). A pre-existing limitation on the use of property must be a long-
standing property or land use principle before it will effectively insulate the government from
takings liability in those rare cases where the property is left with no value. The pre-existing
nature of any regulation that limits the use of property may be an important consideration for
other takings tests, however, because it may demonstrate whether the landowner had a
reasonable expectation of using the property in some manner. This issue should be carefully
evaluated with legal counsel.
3. Does the Regulation or Action Deny or Substantially Diminish a Fundamental
Attribute of Property Ownership? Regulations or actions that deny or impair a landowner's
ability to exercise a fundamental attribute of property ownership are potential takings which
should be analyzed further. The fundamental attributes of property ownership are generally
identified as the right to own or possess the property, the right to exclude others from the
property, and the right to transfer the property to someone else. See Guimont v. Clarke, 121
Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d 1 (1993). For example, regulations that prevent property from being
inherited have been found to destroy a fundamental property attribute.
4. Does the Regulation or Action Require a Property Owner to Dedicate a Portion
of Property or to Grant an Easement? Regulation that requires a private property owner to
formally dedicate land to some public use or that extracts an easement should be carefully
reviewed. The dedication or easement that is required from the landowner must be reasonable
and proportional - i.e., specifically designed to mitigate adverse impacts of a proposed
development. Ultimately, the government must demonstrate that it acted reasonably, and that its
actions are proportionate to an identifiable problem. Usually, the burden is on the government to
identifY the problem and demonstrate the reasonableness and proportionality of is regulation.
5. Does the Regulatory Action Have a Severe Impact on the Landowner's
Economic Interest? Courts have acknowledged that regulations are a necessary part of an
ordered society and that they may limit the use of property, thereby impacting its value. Such
reductions in value do not necessarily require the payment of compensation under either the
federal or state constitutions. Nor do they necessarily violate substantive due process. However,
if a regulation or regulatory action is likely to result in a substantial reduction in property value,
the agency should consider the possibility that a taking or a violation of substantive due process
may occur. If the regulation or regulatory action acts more to provide a public benefit than to
prevent a public harm, it should be evaluated using the takings analysis discussed below. If it
acts more to prevent a public harm, it is probably not a taking, but should nonetheless be
evaluated using the substantive due process analysis discussed below. Because government
actions often are characterized in terms of overall fairness, a taking or violation of substantive
due process is more likely to be found when it appears that a single properly owner is being
forced to bear the burden of addressing some societal concern, when in all fairness the cost ought
to be shared across society.
a. Factors to Consider in a Regulatory Takings Analysis. Regulatory
action that deprives property of all value constitutes a taking of that property. Where
there is less than a complete deprivation of all value, a court will evaluate whether a
taking has occurred by balancing the economic impact against two other factors: (I) the
extent to which the government's action impacts legitimate and long-standing
expectations about the use of the property; and (2) the character of the government's
actions--is there an important interest at stake and has the government tended to use the
least intrusive means to achieve that objective?
Advisory Memorandum
15
December 2006
R~.(er..n(e. ("'1)
Other factors to consider include the presence or absence of reciprocal benefits
and the manner in which the costs and benefits of regulations are shared. For example,
zoning regulations may eliminate some profitable uses of property while simultaneously
preserving or enhancing property value by limiting development activities (e.g.,
preventing industrial operations in residential neighborhoods).
As with other analyses of economic impact where a taking is alleged, this
evaluation of economic impact and balancing of other factors is normally applied to the
property as a whole, not just the portion subject to regulation.
b. Factors to Consider in a Substantive Due Process Analysis. Substantive
due process principles require the government to ensure that its actions are reasonably
designed to advance a legitimate state interest. To determine whether the government
action is reasonable, a court will consider the relation between the government's purpose
and the burden on the landowner. To what extent does the landowner's land contribute to
the problem the government is attempting to solve? How fur will the proposed regulation
or action go toward solving the problem? A court will also want to know if less
oppressive solutions are feasible.
Often a key question is the amount by which the value of the owner's property
will be decreased by the government's action. In evaluating this loss in property value, a
court will look at both the absolute decrease in value of the property and the percentage
this decrease comprises of the total value of the property.
Another factor to consider is how the owner's plans for the property are affected
by the proposed government action. What uses remain after the proposed action? Is the
regulation temporary or permanent? Should the owner have
been able to anticipate the regulation? How feasible is it for
the owner to alter present or planned uses?
Conclusion
Ultimately, the people of Washington State are best served
when state and local governments aspire to adopt the fairest
possible approaches for accomplishing important public purposes.
We therefore encourage government decision-makers to seek
effective regulatory approaches that fairly consider both the public
interests and the interests of private property owners, while using
these guidelines to avoid unconstitutional regulation.
App<znd,)<. A +ol\ow,'nj C<Zt1 be +ound
~+; hHp://wwV\J. o..+j' w"'.5ov)-+~k''jsrnemo.o.spx
Advisory Memorandum
]6
December 2006
1212 +e re nc~ (<1)
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For the September 17, 2008, Planning Commissioners meeting
My name is Carole Pickett. James Jackson of Chima cum Heights LLC is
my father. I am part owner. Apparently, DCD staff per their preliminary
recommendation to deny our reclassification petition have stated, in part,
that a change from CF to RR 1: 1 0 would have a negative impact on
Jefferson County by not preserving and protecting natural resources (trees).
The facts point to the opposite. We believe our request would produce a
very favorable natural resource outcome.
Our request is for a Rural Residential 1: I 0 designation. May I please
read that definition found in the Jefferson County Code at 18.15.015(b)?
quote.. ..."This district provides a transition area between the rural residential one
per five acre district and the rural residential one unit per twenty acre district. Its intent is
to preserve open space, protect critical areas, provide for the continuation of small scale
agriculture and forestry, and preserve and retain the rural landscape and character
indigenous to Jefferson County."
If words have meaning, how will preserving, providing and retaining, as
defined in RR 1 : I 0 result in the taking away of our natural environment?
Now compare that definition to the Commercial Forest classification that
DCD recommends we remain locked into. By its very definition and
commercial requirement we must have a forest management plan which
requires a constant activity of clearing land, planting trees, then cutting
down these same trees and on and on.
This is a system of clear, plant and cut; clear, plant and cut. This plan
mandates a continual disturbing of the soils year after year, disturbing ofthe
birds, disturbing of the animals and their habitat, not to mention logging
activity up and down the new residential streets ]eading to our land.
Contrast that continual logging activity to the RR I: 1 0 criteria and goal
which preserves the land and critical areas. We don't even want to be a
commercial operation. We don't like cutting trees. We want to preserve and
enhance our rural landscape and let the trees grow to a large size without the
fear of cutting.
Lastly, ourforest management consultant included this comment and
suggestion in our original petition packet: "A positive impact" would result
from this 10 acre parcel request.
Please evaluate our petition based on state law, professional third party
evaluations and unbiased common sense.
121' fe re rH~ (\ 0)
~
,
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
For September 17, 2008, Planning Commission meeting
CORRECTION NOTICE
I. This document is added to the verbal comments we made at the 09-03-2008, Planning
Commission meeting regarding the Map attached to the DCD recommendation document
on all the compo plans for 2008; specifically the Map entitled Jackson, on page A-5:
There are numerous small acreage parcels from 1.69 acres to 5 acres to 10 acres and also
the Queen Ann Plat of 140 small lots, all of which an observer would not be aware by
viewing the referenced map A-5.
2. Upon reading the DCD comments and recommendation to deny our request, I further
find cause for a correction. On page 2-39 of the DCD document noted above (9-3-08), in
the first large box, right hand column, two thirds down, staff state: "The Comprehensive
Plan's Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Policy 1.2(t) calls on
the county to evaluate proposed development projects to preserve and protect open space
areas, including forested ridges and hill tops that can be viewed from public areas and
public roads. The subject property is a forested ridge visible from public areas in
Chimacum. The development of which will result in the loss of some open space."
Findings and Facts:
Please look at our attached hand drawn map or study the aerial view map in your
packet (A-5) upper right. Our attached map shows what 12 ten acres parcels would look
like. Please observe there are other property owners with heavily vegetated property
between our land and the ridge view line. Should one of our adult children or some
other person some day build a house on one or all of our requested 10 acre parcels with
the remote exception of lot identified as # I, there would be a zero chance that a person
traveling on a public road in the Chimacum area would see any residence.....at all!
Our land slopes eastward. It would be impossible to be seen from the public road.
Further we are much further back (inland) than either Totem Ridge (west) or Sugar Hill
(south); and Jefferson County has already (apparently) issued II residential permits
(several within the past 2 years), so DCD comments above referenced are irrelevant to
our request and are, in fact, a direct contradiction to DCD staff comments on page 1-10 of
same report: "No significant adverse environmental impacts identified."
12€+He nee..- (ll)
.
fD<:o -k.t f2~llo . q Ir'1/os
..1 G-hi""""-Uw- ~T; u,c
,~ eurnw"'~ ()laW\~J~
Ii' "\ \) .. {VI L- ,4- Ci1l ~ 13.
I \(\r, , II. i) d-lQ'r'''-''''''\ 1m "r III "'5+~ f hd- ,0 cO
I y'( //j~~/).../ c.; h-lion of - os P "L Lfl ) f3' (,,-[4 J 1M. ~
I \:::J ~ '~l . ~.:v.~ ~,.o cfb Dl.c\ .M1.ru:~ . q /3/01> , P;}-s't
t '" .'" ,k'Y. I...,.... .' \ CiS ^!!'1 ~L\U_d/l<uLt 'S-k4-e.~.nvv<\ oJl ~
i~ \.\J \\f /~\ \:xi \ ~ /VD ax+- ~ ~-C.dV\ ~ Vl~.R...e
! ~ / / . 'I rWl<. I'4'Yl (.t,bLtc Oc.d 5 . *.-j
~ '"..~
I jJS{_' \/!
4 ~ l~ N(Z~
:t:.\ ("'- \1... / './ \.1
1-1 K. ..' ~
~ i ' '.!\( k:z - ~ - "-::::>1- ~ - "" - -
~ rv) c::;;;/ '\' ~ -t i ';~~,~;. ~ ()
! /~ ~~.. ,'~\ J -...
~ f'.. --J K it - -\,--7 - -- ~- -.:>;,---
~i (.. . . ~ ~.! ,s \.uQ~)I..e tNv1
~I : / '(Z y i ell ,..,-
E' ~ v
A a.. -? _ L>_ _"7__
(} '::; _ S \C'r,'Cl1.k.tlj t
I ~ N \)0
III ~..~ - ~ ~ -'7->-
_ --:.' ... SL.:P'r- 0C'5)-
f*- .. r-
-..('" v \
C
J
...
- -> - +\ - '>- 'r- -
"S 1.0 ~ '.0 ,,-<<-,0\-
rJ
b
G
O~~
\.,(\
~
--
'"
~
'\~
.~ ,.-~~~ 1~
'(i 5) 10/ 1 [) ~(L \
j ,{ 0 () l,'...
C \\:t.fnf s\\ lL I
, . 'JCj / c:::a ,\~)--
:r ~A.{ cw f IUpe~ Dlu~lv~ . ( L/
~1Q)'V1 ~ PU.Ul (k'[0J a-<- OL1.A .
pro p.e~ ' ~ Cf o{N>'\. ~\1i p.v...!;, t) (VI.!
~-<\,\)\~ VI2(~-k>kd
l
.'-.,./
'\
\
\
\
.:;\
f
~.
12e+erenc,,- ell)
~
RE: Jackson's 120 acre's of raw land - Y,,1.vv! M.dil '!2-EF EI21=U L /::; ^/1f"rTErJ--1 f\l..
~+lt \ltev"", .qf,}o, MLA- Db--T3
t".",..~""",", H-\) L-LC. termr. plllY' ~l>>d-vn<~+
~HOO!. MAIL fU'b'"<"'\'-
..K...I\: .~" Class;c
P.dg, 1 [2
RE: Jackson's 120 acre's of raw land
Monday, August 11, 2008 7:19 AM
From: "Ian Hanna" <:ian@nnrg.org>
To: pmb4jej@yahoo.com
Jim,
You should be commended, either for a good memory, good note taking or both. That's spot on.
Cheers.
Ian Hanna
Director.. Northwest Certified Forestry
Northwest Natural Resource Group
360-379-9421 x 2
@Il@nnrg.org WWW.nnr.g,Qf9
_NORTHWEST
.. i CERTIFIED..
" FORESTRY
From: James Jackson [mailto:pmb4jej@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:S1 PM
To: ian@nnrg.org
Cc: pmb4jej@yahoo.com
Subject: Jackson's 120 acre's of raw land
Ian Hanna, Director
Northwest Natural Resource Group
P.O. Box 1067
Port Townsend, WA 98368
August 10, 2008
Dear Mr. Hanna,
As promised, I am v.Titing a brief note summarizing our meeting with you on August 8, 2008.
On behalfofmy son and myself, we very much appreciate the time you took to explore with us potential ways to
gain a livelihood from our 120 acres of 'commercial forest land' located near Port Hadlock, Washington.
In reading about the mission of your organization, we appreciate the vision, goals and innovation you provide
small forest owners to attempt to attain a sustainable, envrionmentally friendly, yet commercially sound natural
resource based business.
Regarding the specifics of our ] 20 acres (no streams. lakes and no planted trees....only natural revegatation) it
was my understanding:
You were in basic agreement with Earl Kong, Forest Management Counsultant. Ross Goodwin DNR Forester and
local loggers whom have studied our site. that our J 20 acres is simply too small a block of land to produce an income
of any significant amount on a sustainable. yearly basis. The $5000~00 netfper year figure is a fair number in
. I
\'lD1 CJ'.}.~ (Ltht<l'.rv il--y () ,. '. if )
hup:/ /us.mc561.maiJ.yahoo.comlmc/showMessage?fid=lnbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=O&.ran... 8/1 1/2008
12 (' +e ;e:+ (0 ~j'~( ~;"1'l)W \lUu-,,<.,,( ",of,
RE: Jackson's 120 acre's ohaw land - Yahoo! Mail
Page 2 01'2
today's dollars.
I did understand you to say there are current innovative methods ('multi-pronged') which could be explored to
enhance that dollar amount. Such methods might be to fell our own trees, have our O\'.TI sawmill, kiln and locating a
speciality market/speciality wood product. This, however, requires specific skills and a sizeable startup investment.
Other innovative ideas include growing a 'certified forest' (a 5% gain); cost share; govermnent grants;
conservation stewardship (currently $18.00 per acre per year) and conservation easements.
However, if! understood you correctly, the bottom line is: the enhancement approach is still small (economically)
for a parcel of our limited size..........and still would not result in a viable yearly income. As I recall from my notes,
you said:
"this is a tough one."
Lastly, you volunteered that "your land might be a good choice to do a subdivide"............and then you explained
what you had in mind, namely the McKenna, Washington small forestry lot subdivision, where buyers/owners are
encouraged and guided on how to have a small environmentally friendly forest (10 - 20 acres) on the property where
they live (not for the income/livelihood, but for pleasue and to enhance the rural landscape ).
I then shared with you that this (above) concept was our vision and that Jefferson county codes have a Rural
Residential 1 : I 0 district which embraces this vision (small forestry, rural character). Actually, this is a vision we
would like to see come to pass, and one in which we would ask for your expertise on how to guide future land
owners. Of course this will require working with the County, and will be some time in the future.
I think this pretty much covers the essence of our meeting. You have confirmed what other professional have
shared with us.
If! have misunderstood you in anything above, please let me know by August 20, 2008.
Thank you sincerely,
James E. Jackson
Chimacum Heights, LLC
http://us.mc561.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=O&.ran... 8/11/2008
12e {-ere n<.~ (1;;2..)
Jetterson ~ounty Code: Chimacum Heights LLC - 'r 1
: r laa
~2l:::::lt:::1tt:;IVL-C- If lIT / L...t:-l T\l--
-'
.--
i'
0>fL.h,{ R.e"""L '1/ll/"kDD'? NlLA ocg -73
C-~;"'H,""", 1+1) L~C c'/JrY)p. pilL"'.. A-r,-;~.-d-W\.lMJI-
~..u y4-
"YAHOO! M~!.~
Jefferson County Code: Chimacum Heights LLC
From: "James Jackson" <pmb4jej@yahoo.com>
To: rhunter@co.jefferson.wa.us
Cc pmb4jej@yahoo.com
Monday, August 11, 2008 10:09 PM
Ryan Hunter, Assistant Long Range Planner
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County Washington
August 11, 2008
Dear Mr, Hunter,
Hopefully this will be my last email to you, at least for awhile.
Background: This letter is prompted by comments I've heard from several Long Range Planners over a period extending back
a few years when I first began to explore the route to follow to get our 120 acres (MLA 08-73) rezoned from CF 1:80 to RR
1: 1 O. Some of those same comments were reflected in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held 7116/08. I was
out of town during that time, so I appreciate the recorded minutes. At that meeting DCD staff gave a recap of the Planning
Commissions field trip to MLA 08 sites (on 7109/08).
Where rezones are considered, there is apparently much discussion among DCD staff. This is understood. Also, apparently,
according to the minutes, DCD staff discuss or share concerns about such things as 'the 50% rule of thumb;' 'established
patterns;' 'fear of a domino effect;' 'drawing population growth away from urban areas;' 'the number and variety of buildable
lots;' '20 year visions;' etc.
Further, I understood from the 8/06/08, PC meeting that DCD staff are even now discussing this years Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and hope to give a preliminary finding to the PC in the near future.
My specific concern regarding MLA 08-73: Since I am not allowed (procedurally) to sit in on DCD staff discussions when
deliberating our petition, I am concerned that much effort will be expended by staff debating predetermined mindsets (such as
'domino effect,' 'number of buildable lots,' etc) rather than the bold and hard facts of our request. I am aware that our request is
one that staff and Commissioners have hoped to avoid in the past, ie: changing CF to RR.
However, in our particular case, and also in the Brown petition (MLA 08-56), our two are somewhat unique. Both properties are
family owned, neither have a record of being 'commercial' foresters and both are too small a track of land to be a viable fiber
producing industry.
Bottom line: Ours, I believe, is a very simple Comp Plan request. We were erroneously designated (in the 1990's) as a
Commercial Forest. Why? Probably because there was no Rural Residential 1:120 (RR 1:120) designation. The problem,
however, is that 120 acres cannot meet the GMA (RCW) definition of Commercial Forest Industry nor it's legislative intent. One
hundred twenty acres is simply too small to be a viable, economic, productive commercial timber enterprise. This is why our
request is simple and straightforward.
Since this land was erroneously designated CF, staff now have the opportunity
to correct the error (via the case by case Amendment process) and designate
this parcel as rural residential, which in fact it is.
The fact that our petition does not fit the CF designation is further substantiated in the Jefferson County Code in the UDC
section at Chapter 18.15.020 2(a): Definitions of Resource Land's.
http://us.mc56J.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=O&.ran... 8/12/2008
12e(~r-en(€... (/3)
Jefferson County Code: Chimacum Heights LLC - Yahoo! Mail
Page 2 01'2
.
"Commercial Forest (CF-80). The purpose of the commercial forest district is to ensure large tracks of forestlands of long-
term significance are protected from incompatible uses thereby sustaining the ability of forest resource extraction activities to
be maintained as a viable commercial activity."
May I respectfully ask DCD staff to ask the following question when evaluating our petition?
Is the Chimacum Heights 120 acre parcel (MLA 08-73) a large track of forest land capable of sustainin9 (year by year)
extraction activities as a yiable> commercial (to make a living wage) activity?
Note: All the forest professionals I have met with: Forest Management Consultant, DNR staff, Private Forest Management
Group and local loggers, have verified that 120 acres is far too small to be a viable commercial forest industry.
In closing, I send my appreciation to you and your peers for giving this JCC definition and GMA legislative intent your thoughtful
consideration.
Respecfully,
James E. Jackson
Chimacum Heights LLC
http://us.mc561,mail.yahoo,com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=O&.ran... 8/12/2008
Re+ere.nL<L. (\3)
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA 08-73
Submitted to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners prior to 12/01/08
Subject: Christmas Tree Farm
In the event the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, the Jefferson
County Planning Commission or the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
would suggest or compel Chimacum Heights LLC (the Jackson family) to consider
raising Christmas trees on their parcel #901132002, referenced above in a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment request, as a commercial forest enterprise:
We, the owners, would reject such a proposal or requirement totally and completely on
religious grounds. James E. Jackson, manager/owner of Chimacum Heights LLC has a
sixty plus year record of being an active fundamentalist Christian; and has strong beliefs
regarding the Christian faith. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, we hold a Christian belief
system that December 25th is not, in reality the date of the birth of Christ. We believe
December 25th was a pagan holiday which was incorporated into some Christian faiths,
but not ours; and further we believe that the Christmas tree is a I) a pagan symbol of that
event, 2) is a commercialization of that event.
Because of these long held religious beliefs it is against our conscience and in violation of
our religious rights to be compelled to grow and make merchandise of this pagan symbol.
?)~ (fe1:~
A"I '
'I )-7'1) IA if
lAme Pt L:l'f'
,~
10
DC P
"'1/3) 1>7
nc..()lf:rrt/'lVli~r!2~)!>,t-1'~~
10 dR" COWl F.e>ilj., <\", .
For the Record: Comprehensive Plan Amendment request MLA08-73
Submitted to DCD prior to the October 3, 2008 deadline
Summary of Chima cum Heights LLC Amendment request to date:
This is a summary of Chima cum Heights LLC (Jackson family) request for a site-specific
amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, docket item MLA 08-73, Our original
request was accepted by DCD prior to the March I, 2008, deadline and entered into the 2008
amendment review cycle.
Our request was/is to ask that our 120 acre parcel (#901132002) of undeveloped land located
near Chimacum and Port Hadlock be reclassified from commercial forest (CF) to rural residential
(RRI:IO).
The essence of our petition is that in our opinion this parcel does not meet the legal definition
of commercial forest.
At the September 3, 2008, Planning Commission, DCD staff submitted their preliminary
recommendation. Regarding our MLA08-73, the DCD preliminary recommendation was to deny
our request, DCD have entitled their (9/03/08) denial findings as "Cumulative Impact Analysis",
found on pages 2-38 through 2-42. The analysis lists a number of 'indicators' as follows:
Part One:
I. Have circumstances in the area of the site substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan?
DCD staff mention in their analysis that there is a recent nearby development called Oak
Hills where lots are selling to our east
Our response is that DCD stafffailed to address WAC 365-190-060(7) and evaluate the fact
that there have been about 66 new rural residential housing permits on lots to the north, east,
south and west of our parcel, all since the adoption of the compo plan In addition, there have
been about 33 new commercial businesses established within the vicinity of our parcel in that
same time frame. Many of these in the past two years! This is about a 33% increase since the
Compo PlanlGMA inception Isn't a 33% Increase a substantial change?
2, Is there new or changed information which was not considered during the adoption
process of any annual amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan?
DCD staff state that 'population growth is occurring slower' than was projected in the
Compo Plan.
Our response is in the form of a question. What relevance does the DCD comment have in
regards to our specific request? Our site specific petition/claim is that we have been
misclassified as a commercial forest. Ours is a legal (classification) question
We don't know why the population growth in Jefferson County is slow. We do know,
however, that in just the past 12 - 24 months there have been about 28 new residential building
permits and about 11 new businesses established in the vicinity of our parcel indicating the
population growth in our area is growing, and this is relevant to our request because of the fact
our growing area is more suited to rural residential activity than commercial forest activity and
thisfit's the legal criteria to change classification.
3. Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents
of Jeffersoll County?
DCD staff state that in Jefferson County there is a widely held value to preserve forest lands
and that our proposal would remove 120 acres of forest land.
Our response is to draw attention to the fact that about 85% or more of Jefferson County is
already dedicated to natural resource lands: Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest,
State Forest Lands... ....and large private corporate forests such as Pope Resources, Rayioner,
etc., all of which cannot be reclassified by DCD, County Commissioners or any Jefferson County
ordinance.
Then we draw attention to the definition of Rural Residential I : lOin the Jefferson County
Code:
"This district provides a transition area between the rural residential one per five acre
district and the rural residential one unit per twenty acre district. Its intent is to preserve open
space, protect critical areas, provide for the continuation of small scale agriculture and forestry,
and preserve and retain the rural landscape and character indigenous to Jefferson County. "
If words have meaning, how would preserving, protecting, providing, and retaining rural
forestry result in a taking away of these same resources or these same widely held values?
4. Does the proposal meet concurrency requirements?
DCD comments there would be no adverse impacts in this respect.
We concur with DCD staff.
5. Is the proposed site-specific amendment consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
OeD offered several comments regarding this section of their evaluation.
A) Staff state the compo plan emphasizes the need to protect natural resources.
Our first response is to point out that our request is for an evaluation based on state law
evaluating whether or not we meet the legal criteria and classification of commercial forest. In
other words, are we consistent with state law especially in light of the fact local policies cannot
be more restrictive than state law.
Then, as noted above in item 3, ifwords have meaning how does our requested RR 1:10
take away, in any manner. from the protection of natural resources?
B) OeD state our parcel meets the forest land classification with land Grades 3 & 4.
Our response: actually new data has been entered into the record indicating over 3/4ths
of our parcel is land grade 4 and 5. See our 9/17/08, report to DCD. Also, it is our opinion,
DCD comments are in violation of RCW 36.70A.IOO (see our 9/17/08. packet submitted to the
Planning Commission and DCD, reference 4 for details).
C). Next DCD declare our parcel "is a part of a Forest Land Block of at least 320 acres in
size."
It is our opinion this arbitrary designation is a violation of several state laws: RCW
36.70A.050, RCW76.09.020 (10), RCW 36. 70A.020 (6), RCW 36. 70A.100, WAC 365-190-060
(3).
D) DCD declare our parcel is further than Y, mile from a proposed nearby Urban Growth
Area.
Our response is the Y, mile designation is arbitrary and in violation of RCW 36. 70A.020
(6) and is contrary to the Jefferson County Code at JCC 18.10.005 showing we are clearly within
the vicinity of much rural residential and commercial urban activity.
E) DCD correctly note we are in a tax status because Jefferson County has classified us as a
commercial forest.
It is our opinion this is irrelevant to our reclassification request. Ifwe are reclassified as
we have petitioned, then we will be in a rural residential tax status.
F) OeD state we have a Forest Management Plan.
Our response is yes, see #5 band e above. In addition, it was the process of developing this
forest management plan that brought to light we cannot fit the definition of commercial forest
because a parcel size of only 120 acres is not capable of being a sustainable, viable, economical
timber producing industry as defined by RCW 36. 70A. 050(4), RCW 79.10.310 and Department of
Natural Resources policies outlining how to evaluate Return on Investment for timberland. This
is fully explained in our 9/17/08, packet issued to the Planning Commission and DCD staff of
that date.
Question: Why did DCD staff quote only one part of our Forest Management Plan and not
quote this same managers letter (a part of our original petition) that points out our parcel is too
small to be economically viable as a forest industry, but would be an enhancement to small scale
family residential forestry if divided into 10 acre parcels? Also see Ian Hanna letter (Northwest
Natural Resource Group) in our 9/17/08, packet.
G) Next, DCD staff state "the subject property is a forested ridge visible from public areas
and development could be in violation of the County's compo plan Open Space, Parks and
Recreation and Historic Preservation Policy."
Our response is fully explained in our 9/17/08, report/packet to DCD and Planning
Commission where we illustrate the majority of our land is far away from being visible from
public roads and is also separated from public roads by in-between property owners, and the
majority of our land slopes eastward and downward away from said ridge area making it further
impossible to be. viewedfrom public roads.
6. Will the site-specific proposed amendment have a prohable significant adverse impact
to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities....etc.?
DCD said there would be no significant impacts.
Our response is to agree with DCD that there would be no significant adverse impacts.
7. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land use map, is the parcel physically
suitable for the requested land use designation....regarding provision of utilities, etc.
DCD declare that our parcel is physically suitable.
Our response is to agree with DCD.
8. Will the site-specific amendment request create pressure to change land use
designations of other properties..........?
Upon reading all the compo plan amendment requests for the past several years, we have
noted that DCD staff have consistently been fearful that reclassifying commercial forest land to
rural residential 'could result in a significant loss of the county's commercial forest lands.' This
same fear is listed in their preliminary recommendation to deny or request. Emphasis is ours.
Our response is two-fold: each case should be evaluated on its own merit. If a site does not
fit the legal definition/designation of commercial forest, irregardless if the result is a loss of
forestland, then that parcel should be reclassified. This is a legal issue, not afear issue.
Secondly, we believe the words significant loss are very misleading and unfounded, as
according to the same Jefferson County Compo Plan, at least 77% of our county is already
dedicated to natural resource/forestlands. And this does not take into account large commercial
forestlands such as Pope Resources, etc. See #3 above.
9. Does the site-specific amendment request materially affect land nse and population
growth projections that are the basis of the compo plan?
DCD staff state that our proposed amendment request 'could cumulatively affect the land
use and population growth projections...............'
Our response is to again ask that our petition be based on a legal analysis: do we meet the
state required RCW/WAC legal standardfor being classified as commercialforest or do we not
meet that classification standard? Further, we've already demonstrated that there has been and
currently is much residential permitting around at least Y, 's of the vicinity surrounding our
parcel, meaning the population growth has already surrounded us. The pattern has already
been established!
10. Is the site within a Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
DCD staff correctly note the site is not within a UGA.
Our response is to agree with DCD staff. We do note, however, that our parcel is within the
vicinity (one mile) of much rural residential and commercial (urban) activity. ("Vicinity means,
in rural and resource lands, the area generally within one mile of the exterior boundary of a
given parcel." Jefferson County Code 18.10.220
11. Is the proposed amendment consistent with GMA, Countywide Planning Policies and
other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies....?
DCD staff refer to RCW's requiring the County to assure the conservation of natural
resources and declare our petition would not be consistent with this goal.
Our response is to respectfUlly ask DCD staff, Planning Commission members, the Board of
County Commissioners and the Public to read the Jefferson County Code definition of Rural
Residential I : I O. If words have meaning, then how can preserving, protecting and retaining our
natural resources (as defined by RRI: I 0) be viewed as 'a taking GW0" of these same resources?
More to the point: if our parcel does not meet the legal definition/designation of commercial
forest, then we should be reclassified to rural residential.
Part Two:
On page 2-40 of the Sept. 3, 2008, DCD Preliminary Recommendation to the Planning
Commission, DCD staff continue their evaluation process with a series of questions entitled:
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?
DCD staff indicate our proposal would not likely lead to a significant increase of the issues
noted.
Our response is to agree with DCD staff regarding our proposal to be reclassified as rural
residential I : I O. In fact, the above question is another good reason to approve our request,
because locking us into a commercial forest and logging enterprise could and would produce
times of intense noise, be a hazard to the local residents as logging trucks roll through their
residential streets, not to mention emissions of exhaust fumes from equipment and trucks, and the
potential of toxic material being spread among the surrounding community during spr0'ing
activities for forest disease control.
Question #2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
DCD staff relate that our proposal may result in land clearing and development that could
potentially affect native plants and animals. It is not, however, likely to result in a significant
"lllllI
impact.
Overall, we agree with the DCD comments. Infact, their comments are another strong
argument for approving our RR I: I 0 request as this rural residential district calls for protecting
and preserving the plants and habitat. See above comments at 3 and elsewhere. By contrast, a
continuous year after year logging activity would result in a never-ending disruption of the
environment.
Question #3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
DeD staff state our proposal may contribute to the depletion of energy resources through
increased residential energy use and will result in the loss of 120 acres of forest resources.
Our response: Any person who would, perhaps someday, build a house on one of our sites,
that person is already using energy some place (where they now live). Is the DCD staff
suggesting there should be no more new housing permits issued in Jefferson County? Regarding
the loss of 120 acres of forest land, we have addressed this issue already at several elements
above. Ours is a legal classification question not afear of loss question.
Question #4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas.................. ......... ..etc.
DeD staff declare our proposal would not likely have a significant impact... ... ...
Our response is to agree with DCD comments.
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?
DeD staff noted a concern that our proposal would convert forest land to rural residential
development, resulting in the loss of forest resource lands........... .and a loss of forest cover in
watersheds affects ecosystem processes that support shoreline functions and resources.
Our response: It seems DCD staffpreliminary recommendation to deny our requestfor
reclassification from CF to RR 1: 1 0 would create the very problems just mentioned by staff
above, which they are trying to avoid. Specifically, by locking us into a commercial forest year
after year logging activity, there is an obvious loss of forest cover because trees are cut down,
leaving the land barren for several years while newly planted trees take hold, with the added
adverse affect of disrupting the whole ecosystem that DCD wants to protect. Again, we ask the
reader to study the RR 1: 1 0 definition which calls for preserving, retaining and protecting the
very ecosystem process. If words have meaning, isn't it clear that our proposal would have the
least impact on the environment?
Question #6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
oeo staff state our proposal would unlikely have a significant impact.
We agree with staff comments.
Question #7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
OeD staff indicate there are no expected conflicts.
We agree with staff comments.
~
Key Words
The key words which pertain to this comprehensive plan amendment request are found in the
definition of commercial forest (CF) as defined at GMA-RCW 36.70A.030 (8) and the Jefferson
County Code 18.15.020 (2-a).
Commercial; long-term commercial significance
See RCW 36.70A.030 (10) and WAC 365-195-200 (10); meaning growing capacity,
productivity, soil composition; having profit as a chief aim (dictionary).
Large tracks of land: often thousands of acres
See Department of Natural Resources (DNR) report to the State legislature publication
'Evaluating property for Acquisition' (Jan 2002), Appendix A.
Economically and practically managed; viable
These words refer to the concept of making a living; continued financial success; Return on
Investment (ROI): see dictionary and DNR policy on sustainability.
Sustainable: average annual return on investment (ROI)
See DNR 'Policy or Sustainable Forest.' (12/06) and RCW 79.10.310
*
*
*
Chimacum Heights LLC (the Jackson family) has introduced into the record numerous
State laws indicating our 120 acre parcel #901132002 (MLA 08-73) does not meet the
legal standard to be classified as commercial forest. (See our 2/22/08, Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Request: Sept. 17, 2008, Reference Packet, and this Summary Packet
submitted prior to the October 3,2008 deadline).
In addition, we have placed into the record numerous testimonies from professional
third party sources further indicating that our parcel does not, ahd carmot, meet the State
RCW/WAC standard of what constitutes a commercial forest.
In light of these laws, third party opinions, findings and facts we respectfully ask that
DCD staff reconsider their Sept. 3,2008, preliminary recommendation to deny our
request to reclassifY our parcel from commercial forest (CF) to rural residential (RR
1:10).
'- C('~ ~c -:; t \ \;1.5 )0'8"
:tJc'\) c)
jeffbocc c
Page 1 of 1
From: Jessica D. Roper Uroper@GordonDerr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4: 14 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: MLA 08-93; Burnett/Pope Resources MRLO Application - Comment from Applicant
Attachments: 1112508.jcbcc. pdf
Attached is a comment letter for the above matter. Hard copy to follow by mail. A copy was also
faxed.
Jessica Roper
Legal Assistant
Jessica Roper I GordonOerr LLP 12025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98121-3140
jrop~r@GoI<:tonDerr.com I Phone: 206-382-9540 I Fax: 206-626-0675 I www.GordonDerLcom
This e-mail isintendedonlyfortheuseoftheindividualorentitytowhomitisaddressedandmaycontainconfidential.privileged
information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-
mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please call (206)382-9540 and return this e-mail to GordonDerr at
the above e-mail address and delete from your files. Thank You.
11/25/2008
'-
I I I .
AnORREYS ~t LAW
".,..:'
November 25, 2008
.) ~. 1,-):-, ':":'1 {jfJ
~ {..un
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: MLA08-93; Burnett/Pope Resources MRLO Application
Comment from Applicant
Dear Commissioners:
We request on behalf of the applicants, Jim Burnett and Pope Resources (Burnett/Pope),
that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the Mineral Resource Land Overlay
(MRLO) application, MLA08-93. County Planning Staff recommended approval of this MRLO
application based on a clear and thoughtful application of the MRLO review criteria. As the
Staff concluded, the application meets each of the applicable criteria and should be approved in
order to preserve this important mineral resource area for future use. Consistent with that
recommendation, we request that the BOCC approve this application.
We acknowledge that the Planning Commission has recommended denying this
application. As you will find in reviewing the Planning Commission record, however, that
recommendation was based on two fatal misconceptions. First, the Planning Commission
condemned this application for not providing project level detail. This is a MRLO application,
DOt a project permit application. The County does not require applicants to provide project level
detail at the MRLO application stage. Furthermore, as we have explained previously, no mineral
resource extraction activities will continue on the subject site until there has been a project level
review. At that time, Burnett/Pope will provide project level details regarding the proposed
extraction plan. The County may not deny this application at this preliminary MRLO stage for
failing to provide proj ect level detail. The County recognized this distinction last year in
reviewing Broders' application for an MRLO, MLA07-90. As part of that review, the County
did not require project level detail to approve the MRLO application. Instead, the County
conditioned the approval to ensure that any project level issues were addressed at the time of
permit application. Jefferson County Ordinance 02-0128-08. That is what the Staff has
recommended regarding the Burnett/Pope application as well. We request that the BOCC
continue this valid and effective approach.
Second, the Planning Commission apparently failed to review in detail the permit
application materials submitted by Bumett/Pope. Had the Planning Commissioners reviewed the
application materials, including the SEP A checklist, the Planning Commissioners would have
found answers to many of their questions regarding the mineral extraction operations proposed
Y-\WP\IMQ'IIm[RSON CO\JNTYIMRLO APPUC~TION\BOCC L Tlt. 112501 DOC
2025 first Avenue, Suile 500, Seattle, WA 98121-3140 206-381-9540 lax 206-626-0615 www.GordonOerr.com
~.
Jefferson County
Board of County
Commissioners
-2-
November 25, 2008
for the site. For example, these application materials explain the proposed transportation route
(over SR 104, and not via a bargelboat of any kind), as well as the estimated number of vehicular
trips that the project will generate per day. If you review the complete application, together with
the Planning Staff's recommendation, you will find that the application meets each applicable
MRLO criteria and should be approved.
Finally, BurnettJPope acknowledge that there is citizen opposition to their application.
But at this point, the subject property is still far enough from the Port Ludlow area that it can be
mined without significantly impacting Port Ludlow. As a result, under the County's MRLO
designation criteria, this is the critical time to designate the subject property for mineral resource
use. See Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Table 4-3 (Matrix for Assessing Lands for
designation as Mineral Resource Lands), p. 4-36 - 4.37. The County should not wait. If the
County fails to designate this area now, it is very likely that Port Ludlow will continue to expand
toward this property, That will make it all the more difficult - if not impossible - to protect and
utilize the important mineral resources that are abundant on this property in the future. That is
contrary to the Growth Management Act's mandate to designate and protect for future use
important resource lands. RCW 36.70A.170.
We will not be at the hearing on Monday, December 1,2008, due to scheduling conflicts,
but we ask the BOCC to follow its own precedent and approve the Burnett/Pope application.
(Please see our October 3, 2008, letter requesting revisions to the Staff's proposed conditions of
approval, enclosed herewith.) Burnett/Pope will provide project level detail at that time that they
submit a project level application. Until then, it is critical that the County take steps to protect
the significant mineral resource present on the subject property for future use. We acknowledge
that designating resource lands can be controversial, but that is why the State Legislature placed
it amongst the highest priorities of the GMA.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have questions or comments
prior to or during the December 1st hearing.
Very truly yours,
~c
Molly A. Lawrence
MAL:ma1
cc: Jim Burnett, Iron Mountain Quarry
Joel Peterson, Jefferson County Long Range Planning
Y -'WP\IMQlJEfFERSON COlNN\MRLO APPUCA"JION'lBOCC LTR. IllSOI.DOC
'-
C1: '1)c1) I I !J.& 108'
TO: Board of Commissioners I! rtr
From: David Goldsmith, B.G. Brown Trust (}!{)
Subject: Testimony for Public Hearing, December 1,2008
Date: November 25, 2008
Enclosed is written testimony concerning MLA 08-56. I will be returning from Pasco on
the day of your hearing, my flight arrives Sea-Tac at 3:30 P.M. I respectively ask that
you move MLA 08-56 to the end ofvour agenda in order that I may verbally testify on
behalf of this Amendment and to supplement the written testimony provided herein. If I
am unable to get to the hearing by the time you have received all verbal testimony, then
this written testimony is submitted as part of the record.
I thank you in advance for your consideration.
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Port Townsend, W A 98368
November 25, 2008
RE: B.G. Brown Trust MLA 08-56, Testimony
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
I represent the estate of the late B.G. Brown in the matter of a comprehensive plan
amendment to properly classify land held in the family trust. The land in question
contains some 116 acres, currently classified as commercial forest. Of the 116 acres,
approximately 36 acres does not meet the criteria established in the Comprehensive plan
for forest resource land designation and has actively been in use for agricultural purposes
since the late 1920's. The remaining portion does meet the criteria to be included as part
of the forest land base ofthe county.
There are two parts to this issue. The first part of the issue is one ofform and not
substance, as a mapping error was created when the classification of commercial forest
was applied to that agricultural portion of the property. A complete description of this
mapping error is found in the testimony presented to the Planning Commission at their
hearing and is part of the record. The Planning Commission has recommended correcting
this error.
The second part is more substantive and asks the question what classification should be
applied to the residual forest land parcel: commercial forest or rural commercial forest?
Both classifications make up the forest land base held for the long term sustainability of
this resource in the county. Again, returning to the criteria provided in the
comprehensive plan it would appear a rural commercial forest classification would be the
proper classification of the property when placed in context with surrounding adjacent
properties. The property is bounded on its four sides by agriculture, rural residential
1/20, rural residential 1/10 and rural commercial forest. (see the enclosed map)
We respectfully request the County Commissioners, in recognition of the initial mapping
error, to review the land to be classified as forest and apply the criteria found in the
comprehensive plan (Section 4, pages 3-4) for forest resource land classification;
particularly in light of the forest land grade of the property (forest grade 3), and the land
use classifications currently surrounding the property (agriculture, rural residential 1120,
rural residential 111 0 and rural commercial forest), and the property being part of a forest
land block of 360 acres or greater. Given the above criteria we hold that the proper
classification should be rural commercial forest.
On behalf ofthe B.G. Brown estate, I thank you for your time and consideration of this
request.
@~~
David GOl~
DRG Sound Solutions
536 Foster Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
".--"
I' ,.,
1'lliiiiliU.
1~llln'!11 'llf:l':C
lr1bl!11i ,I '
I H'
.
i. ! "[
IJ II "pi!
IIIIII,II!I!II"li1j;
11111 11If 1/1
D~QDD DDDgDIOI~D
,H II '11111
l!flillllfllllll
DDOODOODrnIO~gO~D
I, IlId!lh
11/!llll'!Il!111
IOU.. 00 ..". :u;;Ll
. II
'1IIli-! II
111"".1.....11
JO u IIIDII ~IJ
..~':f;1~,:.,~1
'ilW,~;I.
~i'-i.JPL
~~:~!_,~/~\,
~,; ~!'#~
,~.~..~:.:;~' ,I: 1 ~
.ui,:~:r~''') J '~ a:;
i}.- 'e l. '$~
~',!'.~ ;'~j. (! .~ ,,)~~:
~.;~,~ . ,./ ....~.,.' ~~:";:~'7" 1 ~./ r ':i:'P
...,.. ,", t. .'~~,.tt"',:'? .4>."""" ,', ,..1-,"';.' r """\.~.' .... '. ''"...
c'" ::.,;),-' "~,.hTP'" ,J, "., J:."",W ,'T,'
. ti.... '.)1;'" .-,: ~~~';~, '1'4;,~ -' ~ ~j,~l;,fll\~ "..
"j;lF"':' . .~,. ..;;1<(:/;\0;/:,"':" ~,,'~.- '.
~:"i ..' J. 2 ~>"'rJ.':,:&a~r.;j~~~'>' '..~ . ;j:,
fJ>'i; ,r,L':l .. ~~'PJ 1,-"l9'''(~~-Si'l'~~. ,.' ''IT ~i~
...',1[. ..J~" ,.,~;~''?J\l~4~tif1,t t.:t .:" 1it.
~...,,'.," '" '. .~.,'l;&""'" ~'I'<~." ~." '.
"'4r'~ "".~~ o.j .' ~,', .z, w, .. i ' ," JI':.
.... 'iO",-~ t..,: -....-;..' ~';r-?t-..: I. ~"'. r.. "'I.:;;:
,~"~~~t,'.~'r- :r~~~~::.':~;i:~; f. ~ .~.
I~;:j$' ' ,"c' ,,'" ~-:".,~~~..::..;,i'~J" ~~"'
;;.tr; ;;-~ 11, ~7-' ''';' . \,!.~J.':,.~,l..;, L"
....~\;;.~~~.#...".'...}~f~~~lJ.;{.~~.~ :
"", .~:'."F.:l-...,'., ,'~~"'.~:{: .,.
. .' :if""'1j,~:HN.V: 'H~ . ""
~;:j~..{A~ '. ,:Y'f:"'..." . .....~., ."~'
'.Jw~.',?""tY. ; .~fti.~> I'''' ....... <~,..""- j:
'''':'';;f~~.r:?t~'o;.. ':,; ~~j) ,-,t,;. "n ..t,. '. .'
'r _. ~ "'''' ,.... r ',. _ ',' ,~ '~-1
'f:.::;r., 'I "tr."'j' _. ~ ^,' ". ~..: ...:0.-
~~ ~.", 'rr :Y';;', ' , . , t,...
'./r,}p""'J>~~l.'
~ ~, r.~~
. ~,< ,.
,
'-Ci
r (
,
,
,,"""-- ....<~. "
./
~UI
cu
~
<
.. .
.J"
~.-J-, .'
f\.. ./0
. -r,....; ·
'...
-
cu
(.)
;:;.:
"i:
"-
I':N
~ '
0-0::
.....
~\Q
If')
,
00
o
~
....
~
~f
..
~ei
~~~
-"',~' "~~ ",,'....::,~
~
-
= -;;
(; e
u. i~ 0
:;; ...
l! "<1li!I>.."^,tll. ;;
. 'ii~f~;.~\,' :;
E rr:
E ..~ 0
0 :!
',,+ U ',-. ....jC
0 rr:
'I'
...
u
...
. '"
.
~
l!
"
rr:
:;! eounm II
ct
rr:
&. ..
1 ~ 'I
! ,-
,
c II
-!l 1 Q-
0;; .
. J !!
OJ rr: :; \~
C i! u' \-
" 'Cll....;,t!
.- rr: ~ ~ l!1"
C 0 u etf.yD:: -
0 '"I o:,l' 0
rr: u ~.
rr: . u.
, .. rr:
10
l!
o
...
;;
,," ,~
+, ;leE
t,E
0'1-
..~
~ cp
u.
U
""
I':
o:l l:::
.... 0
c. .~
~ ...
:> 13
.f'"'I .f'"'I
(J) ....
l::: C.
~ P<
..t:::-o::
~
..... ...
P<I':
S ~
o.g
U I':
00 ~
~~
eli
".
rr:.
0""
N-
, .
----.....~----'!"~&
~
cx>~ DC:-l) I~ ld-Ict?
Testimony on Iron Mountain Quarry Request for a Mineral Resource
Land Overlay (MRLO)
by
Bruce Schmitz
December 1, 2008
I;
I strongly request the Board of County Commissioners (SOCC) accept the
recommendation of the Jefferson County Planning Commission and reject
the request of Iron Mountain in MLA08-00093 to rezone designated parcels
of land from Designated Commercial Forest Land (CF) to Mineral Resource
Land Overlays (MRLO). The Planning Commission thoroughly analyzed
the request and has reached the conclusion that it should be rejected for
several reasons contained in my letter of November 12, 2008 to the County
Commissioners. In the interest of time I will not repeat those reasons here.
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Stephen Caussaux, in his decision of
the appeal of MLA08-Q0239, stated that Iron Mountain has the right to mine
in the subject parcel under the existing CF zoning classification. Section
18.15.040 of the JCC authorizes mineral extraction activities in the CF zone
classification as an outright permitted use. However, HE Caussaux also
ruled that all sections of JCC 18.20.240 apply to surface mining operations
whether conforming or nonconforming. JCC Section 18.20.240(1)(b) limits
disturbed areas of mineral extraction to a maximum of 10 acres for those
mines located in the CF classification and not covered by a Mineral
Resource Land Overlay District. Thus, as currently zoned, the parcel
proposed for mining is subject to the 10 acre limit. Even though authorized
outright for mining, such mines must also comply with JCC 18.20.240(2)(g)
and apply for and receive a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if a mine
expansion, intensification, or modification increases offsite impacts. These
provisions of the JCC are critical to the Port Ludlow community as they
require Iron Mountain and the County to thoroughly analyze mining impacts
to the community and to put in place measures that negate any significant
impacts. If the land is rezoned as a MLRO designation, the Port Ludlow
community will loose these protections as the entire 142 acre parcel can be
mined without any further review and subject only to SEPA review.
There is no question that the proposed mining activities by Iron Mountain
will cause severe environmental impacts to the Port Ludlow community.
Mining by Iron Mountain will significantly decrease the quality of life in Port
Ludlow, result in increased noise and dust within the community, negatively
impact transportation and road safety within the surrounding area, and
decrease the property values in the community resulting in lower tax
revenues to Jefferson County. A CUP is mandatory to the thorough
evaluation of these impacts. I have personally walked around a large part
of the parcel proposed for mining. The mining has line of sight directly into
the Port Ludlow community. The mountain ridges proposed for mining are
in many cases higher than surrounding ridges. Additionally, valleys
between the ridges allow sound and dust to be transmitted directly into the
Port Ludlow community.
Iron Mountain attorney Keith Moxom has taken wording out of context from
court cases McGuire and Rod-AZalea, and argued that under the
diminished asset right, Iron Mountain has a right to mine and does not have
to comply with all of the JCC regulating mining operations. However, HE
Caussaux ruled "Neither McGuire, supra., nor Rhod-A-Zalea, supra., limit
the authority of Jefferson County to require a conditional use permit for its
nonconforming mine. To the contrary, Rhod-A-Zalea, supra, Anderson's
American Law of Zoning, supra, and Settle, Washington Land Use and
Environmental Law and Practice (Section 2.7) all support Jefferson
County's authority to apply not only its mining standards to a
nonconforming mine, but also its procedural requirements.
Keeping the zoning designation as CF allows mining to be limited to 10
acres at a time and after mining of a 10 acre site, Iron Mountain can apply
for additional area of mining. This will allow the County and the community
to further evaluate the impacts from the mining in real time and to take
action where necessary to avoid adverse impact to the community. Such a
step-wise approach is a logical approach when the mining will take place
so close to residential and commercial areas.
Bruce Schmitz
150 Mt. Constance Way
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
'1iJ-I-rm?J ~ ~.J- P~clf:j'
CL. Uu i:.l/;;t)Ot
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW.. Suite 9500
Washington, D. C. 20001
Apri] to, 2008
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
l\I)MINISTRl\.TION (MSHA),
Docket No. ""VEST 2008-350-1"vf
AC. No.45-03175-127980
IRON MOUNTAlN QUARRY, LLC
i'
..,.....
BEFORE: Duffy, Chainn~ Jordan and Young, Commissiom:rs
ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
This xnutter arises under tl1e Fedt,.'ml Mlne Safely and Ht:'4lih Ad of 1977,30 U.S.c. * 801 et~. (2000) ("Mine
Ad") On JanllllI;l 23, 2008, the Commission received ITom Iron 1\Anuntain Quarry, LL-C.("lron Mountain") a letter by
counsei to reopen a penaity assessment that had become a finai ord(,"[ of the COmIl1ission pursuant to section I 05( a) of
ule Mine Ad, 30 US.C. ~ 8]5(a).
Under :-iel.:Lion 105(a)of Ult': Mine Ad, em operator who wishes to l.:onlesl a proposW penalty mlL':ilnotify Ute
Secretary of Labor no later t.~a.1130 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify
the Secretary, the proposed penalty asses.5ment is deemed a final order ofrhe Commission. 30 U$~C, ~ 8i 5(a)
On October 30, 2007, the Department of Laber' , Mine Safcty and Health Ad,n;n;stration ("MSHA") issued
proposed~alLy asst:s.'irnenl No. 000130280' 10 Iron Mounlain propo~lng t;IVl1 pt:naHies fi.)[ six citations lhat had ret:n
issued to !ron Mmmtam on August 23, 2007. Iron Mountain asserts Ll-tat it timely contested those proposed penalties.
The operator states that it subsequently received a notice from lviSIlA s.tating thai Iron Mountain was delinquent in
payi.1.g the civil penalty associated 'with proposed penalty assessment No. 000127980. The operator states ttillt, upon
fluther inve~tigation, it discovered that PL1.liilty Assessment No. 000127980 set forth a prupo~~d civil penalty for
Citation No. 79:'H3U7, also issued on AUgtlst 23, 2007: It submits that it intended to contest Citation No. 7981307 but
that it has no record ofhavjng received Proposed Assessment No. 000127980. Iron Mmmtam explains that if it had, in
fact, received: the proposed penulty assessment, its failure to contest the penalty associated with Citation No: 7981307
was due: to a mistake. 'TIll: Scctetary states that she docs not opposeh'on Mountain's ICquest to reopen. Fm- clarity, the
Secreta."). attached a copy of Proposed Assessment No. {)OO 127YSO (dated October 2, 20(7), and a tracking report
showing delivery. '
Vie have held that in appropriate crrcUIIllilances,. \ve possess jurisdiction to reoP"il uncontested .assessments that
have bccomefinal Commis~;on orders under sedion 105(a), Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 fMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May
1993) ("JrVR') In evaluating rcque~is to reopen final section 1 05( a) orders, the Commission has tlltmd guidance in
Rule 60(b) lmder ",.'bieh, for ex<:unple, a party couidbe entitled to relief from a fmal order of the Commission on the
basis of ~n:lovertence or mistnke. See 29 CF.R. ~ 2700.1(b) ("the Commi<isionand.its Judges shall be guided so far as
pract.ic(:Ihlt::: bylhc Federdl Rld~s ofCivilProctxlure"); JrrRp 15 FMSHRC al 7&7. We have also observcd thul defuuIt is
a harsh remedy and that, If the defaultingpa.1iy can make a shO\\IDg of-good cause for a tailure to timely respond, the
case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted, Sl!l! Coal Prep. Servs., Inc" 17 FlvlSHRC
1529, 153Q (Sept. 1995).
Having revie\ved IrOli Mountain's request, in the itd.L1'csts of justice, we remanu tlris matte!' to the Chief
~A~dministratlve Law Judge tor a determination of\vhether good cause exists for!ron Mountain's failure to timely
contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the tLnal order should be granted. If iT is determined that such
rehef is appropriate, this case ~lWl proceed pursuant to the 1'.1ine Act and the Commission's Procedural Rules, 29
C.F.R. Paft 2700.
c-c.1)c'D t,?-Id-\oO"
f^
,,~ "'<1;,_
~-;~;'
'.~
TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
fROM: Carol Katuzny. 124 Sea Vista Terrace. Port Ludlow. WA
SUBJECT: IMQ Meeting
This is in regards to IMQ's continuing request to manipulate this
county. its commissioners. and residents.
Please hold firm on your original decision! IMQ will try to
pressure you and the community until they get their way.
We do not want to become another victim as other communities
have become via IMQ!
Thank you.
Carol Katuzny
360-437--57
~
~
~c ,DeD
i.;2\~IDg
~'~ l'-"-
.r-'-
December 1, 2008
Good evening gentlemen,
1 have appeared before you on several occasions to address the Iron Mountain Quarry issues and
its relationship to and impact upon Port Ludlow. I would like to reiterate several ofthe points,
hopefully without horing you to tears.
1. Y 00, the county, were in no small part responsihle for our community and how it was market
to the lacger world. You foresaw that having a protected community would invite homeowners
to move to the connty and a potential increased in tax revenues, and you were right. Today
Port Ludlow represents approximately 15% of the tax base for the county. The Brinnon
project is an extension ofthat concept. We the citizens of Port Ludlow look to you, the county,
to protect our way of life and your investment into a vision for this county to grow and
prosper. I would also remind you of the children's story, that cautioued ns all, that the goose
that laid the golden eggs can be ldlIed.
2. Highlight remarks from the Plannin!!: Commission meetin~ where they voted 8 to 0 to denv the
amendment.
.
The existing Shine Quarry has sufficient resonrces to meet the county needs for 15 to 20
years. There has heen uo need shown, by the county, why these mineral resources are
needed.
.
In all likelihood, if approved, these mineral resources would be shipped out of county -
thus depriving the county of any financial benefit now or in the future.
.
There would be substantial damage to roads and infrastructnre, caused by the truck
traffic, and it will would fall to the citizens ofthe county to pay for the repairs.
.
Given current economic conditions who would repair the resultant damage to the state
highways - not the State - they can't fund the list of projects they have now.
.
Land use conflict with the surrounding community - Port Ludlow
.
Pope Resources and Iron Mountain Quarry have attempted to circumvent the planning
effort by resorting to the courts. These actions would suggest that they will not be
sensitive to the connty and/or homeowners' issues, which could result in higher
enforcement cost.
3. I indicated to you that on an average day the Shine Quarry ships approximately 2,000 tons of
rock, with an average retail value of $18.00 per ton. This translates into % million tons per
year with a retail value of $9,000,000. The counties share of the sales tax is 1.6 cents per dollar
of retail sales, or in the case of Shine, $144,000. But, 75010 of Shine sales are out of county, so
the county, at best, only realizes $36,000. (As an aside Fred Hill Quarry intents to only
operate a skeleton crew with the Hood Canal bridge closure. What does that tell you about
where most ofthere material goes?) Now Iron Mountain Quarry is asking you to approve the
removal of between 12 and 20 million tons of material. You have to ask what is this great need
for this material. This amount of material represents a potential income to the county of
.
between 3.50 and 6.6 million dollars. That will be lost income if the material is shipped out of
the couuty. You only get one kick at the can, once these resources are gone - they're gone. You
also might want to weigh the potential income, from an Iron Mountain Quarry, against the lost
of income from au eroding tax base in Port Ludlow.
4. Iron Mountain Quarry has the right to mine 16 acre parcels today and that right is not being
questioned or challenged. What is the specific economic advantage to the county that would
result from issuing au Minerals Overlay of 145 acres? At most there will be addition 10 johs,
assuming that the Shine Quarry does not lose business to the competing quarry, else there we
be no uet gain in employment. We do not know that if any new jobs will be filled with people
who live in the county. There will be increased truck traffic and again we do not know that the
county will receive any substantial financial gain.
5. The advantage that Iron Mountain Quarry enjoys from having the 142 acre overlay is one
permit. If they prove to be not good neighbors, the county is very limited in what police
powers it can bring to bear and does not have the advantage of refusing to grant additional
permits. The Penny Creek Quarry in Quilcene represents a current problem for the county
with higher cost to enforce compliance, enraged citizens and potential legal actions should the
county fail in it's responsibility to enforce compliance. Do you really want two communities
screaming at you? Given the current economic state of the county the risk to the county would
seem to outweigh any advantage to granting a minerals overlay.
I urge the you to not grant the minerals resource overlay requested.
RespeetfuDy,
G. David Armitage
141 Mt. Constance Way
Port Ludlow,
e-c.."DC\) Id-\d-.\O({
Statement for the record concerning GMA Docket Request #MLA08-73, Jackson
Dated 12-1-08
Kevin Coker
814 Garfield 8t
Port Townsend
i
.
r
~
I am a local designer specializing in the area of "green," sustainable design and building
methods for over 20 years. I have been visiting Port Townsend since the early 80's and
lived here for the last 1 0 years.
I have attended several of the planning commissions meetings and I've read most of the
Jackson's public records file.
I have become more aware and concerned over the last few years with what I recognize
as a lack of understanding in our community towards growth. As it pertains to the
Jackson request there was not, in my opinion, a thorough review of the issues by either
the DCD or the planning commission as a whole. Instead, there was a prejudged opinion
that this request was harmful to our local natural environment and as a result state law
and the GMA have been ignored.
As the property has been deemed unsuitable by two independent foresters to sustain a
commercially viable forest, the property owners should not be hindered by sentiment or
philosophical ideals. Instead sound reasoning and examination of the facts on record
should be used to determine the best use of the land. The minority report by the
planning commission recommends just such an approach.
Growth is not a bad word or a yes or no question. Growth is inevitable. The question is
how do we grow responsibly even sustainably so that we improve our economy and the
environment we live in, both the natural environment and the built environment.
To build a single family residence on 10 acres of land can be done in a way that brings
economic growth to our community and protects even improves our natural environment.
Instead of broad general decrees of "no growth" we should be incentivizing "smart
growth" and development that improves our community and natural surroundings. They
are not mutually exclusive.
There is strong documentation supporting the Jackson's request and I recommend that it
be approved.
Sincerely,
Kevin Coker
--
~C'- Del) 1d.\~\()'6
L
r."
I"
i! ~,,:'
4., .
\','i')
!">t
!
Commissioners Austin, Sullivan and Johnson, My name is Eric Pickett. I am part owner
of Chima cum Heights LLC with my father-in-law, James Jackson. I work as a Juvenile
Probation Officer and my wife works a Maternity Support Specialist with at risk pregnant
women. We are blessed enough to share 10 acres ofland with my brother-in-law Jim
who is also part owner of Chimacum Heights LLC. As land owners, we know the
importance of preserving the integrity of the property and being good stewards of the
land and wild life who call it home. We are especially proud to see our population and
variety of wildlife and plant life grow each year.
Mr. Jackson is a retired DSHS worker and his wife Vicki is currently employed by
DSHS. The Jackson family goes back 100 years and four generations have resided in the
greater Port Townsend area. We hope to be a fixture in this community for many
generations to come.
I tell you all of this because it is important that you understand our commitment to the
community and environment and how it relates to our request. We have provided you
with overwhelming evidence that the 120 acre parcel in question does not meet the
criteria for its current designation of Commercial Forest Land. Our information is based
solely on the parcel in question and does not set a precedent for other parcels designated
to commercial forest land that fit the legal definition,
We are requesting RRIO designation because we believe that it reflects the widely held
values of county residents to preserve, not only the land but the integrity of the
community and wildlife in it. We believe that the designation also provides for the
counties vision for a transition area between one per 5 acre and one per 20 acres
designation. RRIO is heavily under represented accounting for only about 10,000 acres
verses RR5 at 29,000 acres and RR20 at 51,000 acres.
Finally, we believe that this commission has a unique opportunity to protect and preserve
the integrity of the community and environment by locking in the RRIO designation for
this parcel and therefore eliminating the possibility of future commissions and parcel
owners from using the evidence we have provided to allow a less favorable designation.
I have lived my whole life in a community whose character has over the past few years
been dramatically changed from quiet pristine village to one of big box stores, strip malls
and cramped quadrant home style neighborhoods. That is not the type of place I want to
show my children and grandchildren as we drive into the greater Port Townsend area and
I believe the RRIO designation for our parcel protects one more portion of the community
from that fate.
On behalf of Chimacum Heights LLS, thank you for your time and consideration of our
request.
Respectfully submitted
Eric Pickett
5\A\~1.'U:O(.. . DC 0
r ACl '5 ttE1!fT
1- Cf
, Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
. . . .'.'.: , . ..".'.' ...... '., '.:" '. ....:
Land Use Current Gross Potential Future . p!>tentialJlutureGl:oss
Designlition/Zonlng . Acreage. GroSs Acreage . . ~.treageUn~eJ. Stalf .
District (200S Plan) llnderApplic.In 1l.eeoDimenillltio~
, ProDoSlils . ". .."."
Rural Residential .' . .'. . .... . '. .
.. ~ 29,212 (+44 annrox.)' 29 212 (+ 44 annmx.
, ~~. ',:- '. ,'. 9,8741-12.5 amrrox.) 9874 (-12.5 annrox.
RR 1;20 . 51,474 51,444 (-30 approx) 51 444 (-30 aoorox.
Incornorated UGA. '. . .,. . .
Port Townsend UGA I 4,466 I No chan2e -r No chan""
LAMlRDs' . , " . . '. .' ". ' <., .
Rural Village Centers 242 No change No change
(Hadlock, Brinnon,
Ouil~ene)
General Crossroads 96 No chan2e No chan2e
Convenience 10 11 (+.72 approx.) 11 (+.72 approx.)
Crossroads
Neighborhood 122 No change No change
Crossroads
Master Planned Resort , . . .
MPR - Village 43 No change' No change
Commercial Center
MPR - Resort Complex 57 No change No change
10:1
MPR - Multiple Fl\IlIily 75 No change No change
10:1
MPR - Single Family 1,431 No change No change
4:1
MPR - Single Family 114 No change No change
Tracts 1:2.5
MPR - Recreation Area 259 No chan~e No chanoe
MPR - Open Space 356 No change No change
Reserve
Parks & NatioilalForest . .
Paries, PreseIVes, 2,859 No change No change
Recreation - Not MPR
Olvrnnic National Forest 57,299 No chan~e No chanee .
OlvmDic National Park 139 463 No Chanee No chaD"e
Forestlands
Rural Forest 8645 No chan"" No~';e
Commercial Forest 310327 No chan~e No Chanee
lnholdine Forest 7.228 No chanl!e No change
Resource Based 152 No change No change
Industrial Zone
Arncultural .
Commercial Aericu1ture 4,296 Nochan2e No chan~e
AgricuJtural Lands of 3,220 No change No change
Local Sie:nificauce . ,
, MLA06-87 a proposed MPR would potential change the futllre gross acreage RR by " 253 acres.
4 Potential Gross Acreage under applicant proposal with MLA06-87 increase for MPR categories by 253 acres (approx.),
1-9
~.
CC'. \)cD ld-\~\ot
Del & Dianne Ridgley
386 Camber Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
December 1, 200S
David Sullivan John Austin, Phil Johnson
Jefferson County Commissioners
62f Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368;
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Regarding: Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO request.
We are writing to urge you to uphold the decision made by the Jefferson County planning committee to deny
the Iron Mountain request to re-zone.
If!ron Mountain were planning anything that would benefit anyone in Jefferson County (except Pope
Resources), they would have told us what these benefits would be rather than keeping their whole plan a huge
secret. Since they are not torthcoming with a plan, we must assume that what they have in mind is detrimental
to Jefferson County as a whole and to Port Ludlow in particular.
An MRLO designation would curtail further housing development in that area. The housing in and around Port
Ludlow has been a lucrative part of the tax base in Jefferson County and this designation would cut off the
potential for expanding that tax base.
Iron Mountain has acknowledged that they would be using SRI04, but they have not ruled out using other roads
nor has it ruled out the use of the Mats Mats Docking area. Since these have not been ruled out, we must
assume that they will most likely be used.
Noise and truck traffic will drive away potential home buyers throughout Port Ludlow. This will harm the real
estate business and decrease the value of local homes. This in turn will lower the tax dollars that Jefferson
County now receives from these homes and businesses.
Since there is no demand for more gravel in Jefferson County than what is already being supplied by local
mines, it appears that the material from the Iron Mountain project will be sold outside the county and will give
Jefferson County VERY LITTLE TAX REVENUE. So while their trucks are destroying our roads at a record
rate, Iron Mountain will not contribute to their maintainance. The Iron Mountain project will increase our
expenses while it decreases our revenue.
A huge mine of 142 acres with up to 350 trucks a day running over our roads will destroy the tourism industry,
Particularly in jeopardy are the Port Ludlow Harborside Inn and Restaurant and the Port Ludlow Golf Course.
However, other local tourist attractions will also be impacted. The noise ofthe trucks and the blasting will be
enough to drive away anyone planning to visit this area.
It is even doubtful that there will be local jobs generated by this mining company. In most cases large
companies bring in their O\'.TI outside employees. So once again Jefferson County residents will lose much and
gain nothing with the addition of this mine.
Please deny the MRLO request and protect Jefferson County,
::5~~
( ,J~7N ~ ::E-1 ';'t-
ce". DcD /d.\d-\OQ'
<'. "..;
230 CAMBER LN
PORT LUDLOW, WA 98353-8782
FaxlPhone (360) 437-8220
ausimpson!a),msn.com
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
December 1, 2008
Re: Hearing on 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Item MLA08-93 Pope Resources (POPE)
Request for a Zoning Change by Mineral Resource Land Overly (MLRO)
Dear Sirs:
We ask that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners uphold the County Planning Commission's
unanimous decision to deny the application by POPE and Iron Mountain Quarry (iMQ). We ask that
you do not accept demands for premature approval. Failure to take adequate time for due diligence
disclosure of quarries' hidden agendas can too easily lead to massive long-term transportation
problems and huge county expenses. (See details of problems in the attachments.) We must know
their long-term plans, constraints, and legal limits on growth before initiating a project, which, once
started, is irreversible.
The principal issue we address here is the Primary Processing part of the MRLO designation process
and the incomplete nature of POPE/IMQ's MRLO application. In particular, we focus on the steps
following quarry extraction but preceding delivery to the ultimate customer.
POPE/IMQ has insisted that they must mine the entire 140 acres. We must take them at their word.
This means that they will have additive production capacity roughly equal to 3)1, times that of POPE's
40-acre Shine Quarry.
Shine Quarry meets the peak local demand-it is currently operating at half its maximum capacity.
The obvious question is what would POPE/IMQ do with their huge excess production? POPE and IMQ
are astute businesses that operate for their stockholders' profit and keep their operating plans secret.
For example, residents of Port Ludlow's master planned community were surprised to learn that POPE
has intended to start this new quarry for 28 years (see page 4). Trucking beyond about 25 miles is
prohibitively expensive and will be even more costly in the future. Therefore, POPE/IMQ will
ultimately need to use sea transportation, which is far less expensive.
Fred Hill Materials (FHM) admitted upfront the need for a conveyer and transshipping sea dock as an
integral part of their quarry. To circumvent the licensing delays and problems encountered by FHM,
IMQ have taken an incremental approach by seeking mining zoning rights through a forceful legalistic
approach while deferring transportation and shipping zoning.
We argue that POPE/IMQ transportation and shipping must be an integral part of a zoning change
application for a quarry. To grant POPE/IMQ's zoning changes incrementally would be an abuse of the
zoning procedure, would deny legal protection rights of Jefferson County residents, and would be an
inconsistent application of process that rewards IMQ for misleading shortcuts. Why should IMQ get
an incremental zoning change concession omitting transportation/shipping when FHM readily
disclosed their transportation/shipping plans and their impacts with their application?
For example, once POPE/IMQ starts quarrying, they or their surrogates can acquire, lease, or build a
dock-for example at Mats Mats Bay. The recently proposed Department of Natural Resources land
exchange will grant to POPE the missing pieces of their jigsaw (see page 13). This information
postdates the Planning Commission and Planning Department's studies. It will provide POPE with
actual and close sea access at points around Port Ludlow. In time, Port Ludlow could easily become
the center of an extended industrial plant by several scenarios.
The initial application plan that starts a quarry is usually of a minimal and nonintrusive scope; it is
silent about what the quarry will not do. The real problems are in the quarries' hidden agendas that
guide their evolution over time. We know from IMQ's impact on Granite Falls that their increasing
transportation through populated areas is disastrous for the residents. Granite Falls is about to install
a $30,000,000 bypass to mitigate partially the impact of heavy trucks-at no cost to the quarries (see
pages 5-8). Other Washington State communities have similar long-term transportation problems as
their nearby quarries evolve (e.g., Sultan, Index, North Bend, and Maury Island, see pages 9-12).
Residents are often surprised to learn that the County receives only 1.6 percent sales tax on quarry
sales in the County and no sales tax for quarry product sold outside the County. Nevertheless, public
funds must repair, maintain, and develop roads, bridges, acceleration lanes, and other infrastructure
to accommodate the quarries' ultra-heavy truck/trailer rigs. Moreover, the entire County population
must absorb the loss oftaxes due to declines in taxable value of properties affected by the quarry.
Port Ludlow has a taxable property value of $687 million-almost fifteen percent of the entire County
taxable property. We believe that this is a permanent valuable County asset worth many times more
than any quarry. We trust that you will not risk deterioration of this County asset and your residents'
well-being by a decision lacking all the pertinent facts and adequate time for their evaluation. In
contrast, the quarry's reserves will not deteriorate with time, building growth at Port Ludlow is at a
standstill, and POPE has patiently waited 28 inactive years without claiming any harm.
We therefore respectfully ask that you support the County Planning Commission's negative decision.
Further, we hope that you find a way to require top officers of POPE and IMQ to declare bindingly
their long-term quarry, transportation, and shipping plans-what they will not do-before the County
reconsiders their MRLO request.
y,;:J~~ Cj
Anthony U. Simpson and Sally A. Simpson
Attachments (5), pages 3-13
-
Page 2 of 13
Attachment 1
..
p;.::::m
hpeResaln:es
A Umit~d Partmm;hip
May 21, 20\)7
,..-,
'1:" ,,:;;;;.
-~ '
. I
MAY 23 2007 iU'
...J
.:rtTY
Ofvtl.QPMEtiT
19245 rooll1 Avenue Northeast
PWSbo, Washirlgron 98a7M456
13601697.6626
{360l697~1156 FAX
/.ok AI Scalf, Director
Jefferson County Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Mineral Resource Issues
Dear ft~r. Scalf.
Pope Resources has entered into an agreement with Iron Mountain Quarry to lease an
area of approximately 140 acres for hard rock mining. This lease area is sho"", on the attached
drawing prepared by Layton & Sell. Tbe arca in question is located immediately adjacent to and
south and east ofthc existing Shine Quarry on the 110M side ofSR 104 about 4 miles west of the
Hood Canal bridge. This lease area lies mostly within Section 29, T28N, RIE, W.M., but the
lease area includes small partions of Sections 30, 31, and 32. The lease area is on land
designated Commercial Forest in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is covered by a
mineral resource designation for the bard rock mineral deposit in this location.
The purpose of this letter is to clarify that all of the arca proposed to be leased to Iron
Mountain Quarry is within an area of knO\\i11 mineral deposits that Pope Resources and its
predecessor, Pope and Talbot, ovmed and intended to be used for hard rock mining from tbe time
the first mining occurred at this location in the 1970~s. Attached to this letter are aerial
photographs from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources showing the history of
mining at this Incation. The 1979 aerial photo shnws mining activity at the original Shine quarry
location, which is south of the CU!Tent Shinc quarry and is within Ille area to be leased to lron
Mountain Qnarry. In fact, tllis original Shine quarry site has been nsed continuously for mining-
related activities until recently when the lease agreement was signed with lron Mountain Quarry.
We understand that you met with Jim Burnett and his attorney on May tl, 2007, to
discu..'iS the status of mineral extraction rights at this location. Pope Resources wants to be sure
that Jefferson County understands that Pope Resnurces considers all of the Iron Mountain Quarry
lease area to be part of the area of non-conforming mineral extraction rights that have been
associated with this property since the 1970's. Pope Resources believes that "the "diminishing
asset doctrine" adopted by the Washington Supreme Court in 2001 (City of University Place v.
Mcl)u;re. 144 Wn.2d 640) applies to all of the mineral resources located in the 140 acres to be
leased to Iron Mountain Quarry.
- ',;".-'. '-<;'~"'..-.. .... .~~" '..
......,,,w.<
LOG ITEM
# I
PaQeL oft{
Page 3 of13
Mr. AI Scalf
May 21,2007
Page 2 of2
Pope Resources strongly supports Iron Mountain Quarry's effOlts to proceed with
mineral resource mining operations within the 140-acre proposed lease area, which has been
owned and intended for mineral resource mining operations since at least 1979. We understlmd
that the "diminishing assct doctrine" as applied to this 140 acre area would confirm the right of
Pope Resources alId its lessees to continue mineral resource oper'dtions in this area but would not
eliminate the need for permits and approvals to mCL'l clwironmental requirements such as air
quality, storm water management) and noise,
We appreciate Jefferson County's attention to our request for confirmation that the
"diminishing asset doctrine" applies to the 140-.cre mineral resource area that has been owned
and intended for mining and processing.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this infonnation.
Very truly yours,
'7--.. ,-r:?~ ~~
David L. Nunes,
President and CEO of
Pope MOP, Inc., Managing Partner of
Pope Resources, a Delaware limited partnership
Enc.
DLN/sgs
co: Mr. James Burnett wlout encl.
Mr. Tom Kametz wlout enel.
Mr. Keith Moxon w/out end.
Mr. Patrick Raymond w/encl.
LOG ITEM
#_1
Page. o<_of .Lf-
~.r> 1''' n~ f/ Wi .~. I
I.t I;: ll,f 1,(:11 I ,1
,_. ,.
I ^,
';""\ ;
'''' MAY232007 iu
I ~"~
DEVELOPMENT
Page 4 of 13
Attachment 2
m,eSeattltlbnes
~""
~~..
Wednesday, February 5, 2003 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call
206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
Quarries, city clash over plans for detour
By Peyton Whitely
Times Snohomish County bureau
Making repairs on Granite Falls' main drag is expected to cost a half-million dollars and could take months.
Repairing relations between the city and nearby 9ravel-mining operations could take even longer.
That was made clear durin9 a meeting last week to discuss an improvement project for East Stanley Street, the main
east-west road through Granite Falls. The project likely will require rerouting more than 1,000 gravel trucks that drive
through the city daily.
Therein lies the rub.
Granite Falls officials want to close the street completely, to finish the project as soon as possible, and reroute the trucks
out of the city. The 9ravel quarries would prefer an alternate route that traveled through the city over several residential
streets.
The disagreement sparked a heated exchange between Granite Falls officials and quarry representatives at last week's
meetin9. About 30 representatives from the city, Snohomish County, the state and trucking and quarry companies
attended the session at the county Administration Building in Everett.
Granite Falls Mayor Floyd "Butch" DeRosia said the quarries' preferred route would disrupt neighborhoods and
represented an unwillingness to compromise.
"I don't feel the city should take the full brunt of this project," DeRosia said. "I think everyone should join in and not
completely choke off Granite Falls."
City Councilman Matt Hartman said the city was being asked to do too much.
"I have not heard one thing from the quarries that might consider reduced output" to cut traffic loads, Hartman said. "Is this
a compromise from that standpoint?"
But Jim Burnett, owner of the Iron Mountain quarry, said such restrictions would be unacceptable.
"No, those kinds of constraints shackle our business," he said. "We're 90in9 to eat thousands of dollars a day as an
industry."
"Given that, I'm really curious as to how you expect us to compromise," Hartman said.
"It's your project," said Burnett.
"It's not my problem how you get your product to market," Hartman responded. 'We have to accommodate an industry
that over the past five years has done absolutely nothing."
Page 5 of 13
If the street can be closed completely, the work probably can be done in about six weeks, starting in spring. If one lane is
kept open for traffic, the work probably will stretch to three months or more and into the summer tourist season.
The quarry operators presented a detour plan that would send the trucks on other streets through the city. They would
move along South Alder Avenue, then onto East Pioneer Street, then onto South Granite Avenue, then for a block along
West Galena Street and then onto Cascade Avenue to be reconnected to West Stanley Street.
The city has proposed a route that would take the trucks out of Granite Falls, sending them onto Robe-Menzel Road and
south to Carpenter Road, then west to OK Mill Road toward Machias.
Burnell said such a circuitous 15-mile route would be intolerable for the companies. County officials expressed concerns
about a narrow bridge on OK Mill Road being unable to handle the weight of the gravel trucks and having to put a signal
on the bridge to restrict it to one-lane traffic if truck use increased.
Other suggestions included having empty and loaded trucks use different routes, with loaded trucks moving on city streets
and empty trucks moving along county roads.
The quarry operators offered to restrict their operations by one hour In the mornin9 and one hour In the afternoon.
But no solution was immediately reached.
DeRosia eventually moved the meeting into executive session, excluding members of the public, citing possible litigation
- meaning the parties might end up going to court to try to resolve the differences - as the justification.
DeRosia said the decision will be up to the Granite Falls City Council, with some action needed within about two weeks if
the road project is to start in spring.
Peyton Whitely: 206-464-2259 or owhitelv(ij)seattletimes.com.
Page 6 of 13
Attachment 3
Questions?
Please contact:
. Crilly Ritz, Environ-
mental Review,
Snohomish County
Public Works,
425-388.3488
ext. 4586; emoll:
Crilly.ritz@
co.snohomish.wo.us
. Eric Nordstrom,
Design, Snohomish
County Public Works,
425.388-3488, ext.
4649; email:
eric.nordstromi@
co.snohomish.wa.us
~~
.....
W
U.S.D.O.T.
Fed. Hwy. Admin.
WAS....
Department of
Transportation
'*' Snohomish
County
II Granit. Falls
The co.lead agencies ensure fL'1I
complionce with Titho VI
of the Civil Rights Act of
1987 o0d "$10'00 stolvles by
prohibiting discrimination bared
on roes, <:0101, rlOtionQI origin
and gender in the pro'iisior' of
bane~ts oDd services, For mono
Informat:On -on Title VI, please
call WSDor Title VI Coordinator
at 360. 705~7098.
Granite Falls Alternate Route
August 2007
!:i:!~~~!!~"ijim~~i~ij;!~I~~::~ij~~~!il~~!~~~1
. NEPA Env. As.essment Issued on August 8
. Public Hearing Scheduled for August 22
. Comments Due September 7
You ore invited Ie on informal open
house environmental public hearing on
August 22 to leorn about the proposed
Granite Falls Alternate Route and to
review and comment on the Environmen-
tal Assessment (EAI. Come anytime from
6-8 p.m.; there is no formal presentation.
The EA was prepared to meet Notional
Environmental Policy Ad (NEPA) require-
ments and was issued August 8, 2007
initiating a 30~day comment period that
ends on September 7 f 2007.
The co-lead agencies on the prOtect are
the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the Washington Stote Deportment
of Transportation (W5DOT), Snohomish
County Public Works ond the City of
Granite Falls. Comments received by
September 7 will be considered by FHWA
in its review of the project.
The proposal is to construct 0 1.9,mile
alternote route to divert truck traffic away
from downtown Granite Falls and serve as
a strategic freight corridor for the region.
The new road would run north from SR 92
west of Granite falls, then curve north ond
east a round the town on d connect to the
Mountain loop Highway just north of
Gun Club Road.
The roadway would have two 12-foot
wide roadway lanes in each direction with
8-foot wide shoulders. Three roundabout
intersections have been designed to convey
traffic flow and accommodate the large-
sized trucks that would pass through them.
(Conlinued on bock)
Page 7 of 13
Timeline
Construction is expected to toke two
years and may begin os soon os
2009. However, depending on
permit approval and funding avail-
ability may not begin until 2010.
Funding
Construction cost is estimated to
totol S24 million. Federol, Stote of
Washington, Snohomish County and
Cily of Gronite foils funds will be
used to construct the alternate route.
Environmental Review
An Environmentol Assessment (EA)
was issued on August 8f 2007. The
EA describes potential environmental
impacts that could result from the
proposed project and suggests
mitigation measures that could
prevent or minimize these impacts.
The EA is avoilab!e for public review
and comment at the Granite Foils
Cily HolI and Library, Snohomish
Counly Public Works, and Counly
website (www.snoeo.org, search
"Granite Foils Alternate Route").
0(; I 'ON l~tUJed
'\fM'.uaJSA3
OJ'fd
-afh?J'SOQ SO
OlS lllSMd
You may submit written comments:
. at fhe meeting on August 22,
. by emoil: crilly,ritz@
co.snohomish.wo.us, or
. by moil: Crilly Ritz, Snohomish
Counly Public Works, 3000
Rockefeller Ave., MIS 607, Evereff,
WA 98201
All commenfs received in writing and
verbally at the August 22 hearing will
become part of the hearing record.
A written response and a copy of
the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) document will be sent to
each person who comments on
the EA.
Comments ore due
by Sept. 7, 2007.
Accommodation and Accessibility
The meeting site is accessible to
persons with disabilities. Individuals
requiring reasonable accommoda-
tion moy request written materials in
alternative formats, sign language
interpreters, physical accessibility
accommodations or other
Page 8 of 13
reasonable accommodation by
calling Tina Hokanson, Communico*
tions Speciolist, at 425-388-3789, or
by emailing her at tino.hokanson@
cO.snohomish.wo.us. People with
hearing impairments may call the
County's text telephone line at
425-388-3700 or the Woshington
Relay Center ot 711.
The co-lead agencies ensure full
compliance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1987 and related
statutes by prohibiting discrimination
based on race, color, national origin
and sex in the provision of benefits
and services" For more information
on Title VI, pleose coil WSDOT Title VI
Coordinator ot 360-705-7098.
Serio un tradutor en eJ reunion e/ 22
de Agosto. 5i tiene preguntas, por
fovor contado Diono WilJiams,
Snohomish County, (425) 388.3488,
x3584 01) diana.wjJIiams@
co.snohomish, wo.us
This paper is recycled & recyclable.
IOcS6 >JM 'U6JaA3
LOS S/I'l 'J6116j6""08 0008
S~JOM O!lqnd
$^nn~X3 ..(IUOO:) 'UOpJeaH UOJU'd
AJunOO 4SIW040US
~
Attachment 4
~tattlt 'ost-Jnttlfilltnctr
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/ 5 9671_region25. shtm I
Rapid arowth makes sand and aravel ever more precious
Residents are digging in, resisting attempts by state's gravel miners to increase output as population rises
Monday, February 25, 2002
By GORDY HOLT
SEATTLE POST-INTELLlGENCER REPORTER
It's the region's most valuable geologic resource -- dumped here 10,000 years ago by the glaciers ofthe last ice
age.
It still lies thick over much of the landscape.
It isn't silver or gold.
It's sand and gravel, and it is becoming more precious than ever.
Over the next 20 years, more than 2 million people are expected to arrive in Washington state. By 2050, some
predict that growth will amount to 29 new Tacomas.
Where will the sand and gravel for all ofthis construction come from?
"Good question," says state geologist Ron Teissere. "We'll either have to drill it out with tunnels, or bulldoze
houses out of the way. In either case, it won't be pretty."
That's because access to much of the material is no longer a short drive away.
As the suburbs have expanded, sand and gravel have been sealed beneath cul-de-sacs and homes with three-car
garages.
Mining sites are being pushed farther away from construction projects -- raising the costs.
As mining companies try to expand and search for new sources around the Puget Sound area, they are meeting
resistance n from North Bend to Sultan, from Maury Island to Mats Mats Bay.
Here are their stories...
Mats Mats Bay: 'Do they really need 24 hours a day?'
From their front porch, Rae and Harold Belkin can watch workers crush, grind
and truck basalt from the water's edge.
The couple moved here in 1991 knowing they would live near a mine,
knowing that dynamite would be part of their daily lives.
Despite battles over dust and noise, however, the Belkins and their neighbors
got along with the series of owners who have tapped the quarry over the years.
Until now.
Glacier Northwest, a Japanese-owned mining company with facilities
throughout the Northwest, is seeking permission from Jefferson County to
deepen the 65-year-old Mats Mats quarry to a point 60 feet below sea level
and to work around the clock.
The Belkins and their neighbors fear a mine that deep would allow seawater to
infiltrate their drinking-water wells, and they object to the 24-hour-a-day proposition.
"Do they really need 24 hours a day?" Rae Belkin asked. "You want to say to them, 'Can't we just do lunch?'
But nobody wants to do lunch, yet."
Page 9 of 13
$EATIU I'O$T-INTELUOENCU
The Belkins' concerns are echoed across the state as the demand for sand and gravel increases as more and more
houses are built.
Complicating matters is the way resource planning is managed in this state.
When the state's Growth Management Act went into effect 12 years ago, it directed county governments to
make way for a population that would jump by more than a million people. This is to be done while protecting
the environment and setting aside farms and such natural-resource areas as gravel mines.
But each of the 39 counties makes its own rules.
A Growth Management Act mandate requires "early and continuous public participation" in the decision-
making process.
But it hasn't always worked.
Sultan: 'We don't need more grief
The traffic through this growing community is already bumper-to-bumper on
U.S. Route 2.
"Everybody has lost someone to that roadway," said Mark Raney, a family
physician and member of the Sultan City Council. "We don't need more grief."
Raney pointed to the traffic problems in another Snohomish County
community, Granite Falls, where Florida-based Rinker Materials survived an
eight-year permit battle to open a 400-acre mine.
Because Rinker has to run its trucks right through town, a traffic bypass may
now have to be built, and that prospect has not been missed by the people of
Sultan,
Within an urban boundary of only 4 square miles, Sultan has a population of3,344, up 50 percent since 1990 --
and it's still expanding.
"To put an open-pit mine in a neighborhood already suffering from growth problems gave us all heartburn,"
said Merlin Halvorson, the local fire chief.
Trouble began when the state Department of Natural Resources identified a mountain of state-owned gravel just
north oftown and planned to lease it to the highest bidder.
"We had to learn about this through the Tulalips," said Bruce Meaker, resource manager with the Snohomish
County Public Utility District. "The tribes sent us an e-mail saying, 'Oh, by the way, maybe you want to pay
attention to this.'
"When we did," Meaker said, "we found it to be quite disturbing. There'd been virtually no public notification."
Of particular importance to Meaker's utility was the mine's location. The mine's ground zero would be near a
powerhouse that generates 10 percent of the PUD's electricity.
Some wondered what a gravel mine would do to the landscape's stability; to the high-pressure line that brings
water to the turbines; and to the powerhouse itself.
Would an accident put the facility in jeopardy?
There were few answers, and the uproar put the auction plans on hold.
But prospects of a Sultan mine remain.
The Department of Natural Resources' decision awaits finalization of Snohomish County's new land-use plan.
$t SNOHOMISH I
\ COUNTY
Monroe i
',. I
........1~1
E!lI!m I
KING
............~. COUNTY .j
SEAm. /'OST-INn1.I.IC.NW
Page 10 of 13
From a strip mine on Maury's east shore, Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher
Randy Johnson might well skip a flat rock all the way to Sea- Tac Airport.
NO~Ott4\1t,
MaurYmJi~~
the airpOrl"(sthird
To do this, however, Glacier plans to expand its mine from 40 acres to 200,
increasing the material taken from 10,000 tons a year to more than 7.5 million.
Although the area was zoned for mining 60 years ago, a suburb known as
Gold Beach grew around the mine, and therein lies the problem.
Glacier Northwest manager Ron Summers is moving his permit application
through the clutter of local, state and federal agencies that must sign off on the
project. But the going has not been easy.
On one side are the neighbors; on the other is the Department of Natural Resources and a handful of
environmental agencies.
Last year, the DNR listed Maury Island's shoreline as a marine reserve to protect endangered wild salmon as
well as herring and the shoreline's eel grass.
Glacier then sued to overturn that designation, and now is trying to negotiate a settlement.
"We're not suing because we want to," Summers said. "That's not how we try to do business. But we have to
protect our rights."
North Bend: 'Their mistake'
.
Maury Island: 'We have to protect our rights'
A proposal for a strip mine here began to take shape in 1998, when county and
state officials signed a memorandum of agreement with Weyerhaeuser Co. and
the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust.
Weyerhaeuser wants its German-owned partner, Cadman Inc., to extract sand
and gravel from a 260-acre site just east of Edgewick Road beyond North
Bend's city limits.
The agreement came with an important caveat: Protect the ridge's forested
flank to preserve the Greenway Trust's mission, a blemish-free corridor along
1-90.
SEAm!: l'O$T.INTnUCENC!:ll.
Snoqualmie
~.~ R~
Once the gravel is gone, Weyerhaeuser agrees to reclaim and replant the
mined property, and deed it to King County as public open space.
Sounded good on paper.
But as Cadman's plan took shape, it began to sound bad to residents in North Bend.
A mile-long conveyor belt down that forested flank would be installed to move material from the ridge to a
processing plant on the valley floor.
Cadman's trucks would use Edgewick Road and Exit 34 to and from the freeway, a route already crowded with
cross-state truck traffic to and from Ken's Trucktown.
Some fear that the purity of North Bend's aquifer might be compromised; others suspect mining will continue
far beyond the 25-year limit outlined in the plan.
So Jeff Martine and 782 of his closest neighbors are raising money to fight Cadman's plan, in court, if
necessary.
"If everyone had played by the rules and followed the process early on," Martine said, "we wouldn't be at each
other's throat right now."
Page 11 of13
..~Jacoma
SEATl1E 1'O$T.lNTEU.lCENCER
A key to the protest is the residents' demand that Cadman take the pressures off Exit 34 by using the ramps at
Exit 38 three miles into the 1-90 canyon.
Exit 38 has a storied past.
Thirty years ago, when 1-90 was under design, a federal highway engineer compared the cost of building that
exit against the value of the gravel and timber in the area. Those resources would not justify construction costs,
he concluded.
Weyerhaeuser's timber holdings were later re-evaluated, however, and the interchange was finally built.
"Now they ought to use it," Martine insists. "It's the only sensible, balanced way to solve this controversy.
"Weyerhaeuser lobbied hard to get it built," Martine said ofthe exit. Cadman "should be using it now for its
gravel operation."
With a final environmental-impact study now in county hands, Cadman's project manager, Robin Hansen, isn't
worried.
"We think it's a go," she said.
Martine and his associates aren't giving up.
"They've treated us as if we all lived in double-wides and kept old Kelvanators in the back yard," he said. "Their
mistake."
P-I reporter Gordy Holt can be reached at 425-497-0907 or gordyholt@seattlepi.com
!Q 1998-2008 Seat/Ie Post-Intelligencer
Page 12 of 13
Attachment 5
"
!
j;;m~"'~"~>,~W;';c_'~Jkc.-=~
V.llo';<l 3(. :curremP'QP.land$
OrangeJY) ,mith.p.cir~elsth&y WillgZlli1fr,~m
the sWIlP
Page 13 of 13
~
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4450
Planning Commission Recommendations:
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications
The Board of County Commissioners placed eight (8) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments on
the 2008 Final Docket. The Planning Commission reviewed and is recommending action on the
following Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the 2008 planning cycle.
The Planning Commission specifically reviewed each proposal during deliberations using the Growth
Management Indicators found at JCC 18.45.050 and JCC 18.45.080. Comments highlighting Planning
Commission findings and conclusions are included in this report.
Incorporated by reference in this recommendation report are the meeting minutes and audio recordings
from Planning Commission meetings held on October 15, 2008, and on November 5, 2008, during which
deliberations took place and the recommendations were formulated.
Recommendations
MLA08-32; Dave Holland/Davos Capital LLC (Jim Graf, authorized agent for property owner); corner
of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue, Port Townsend, WA; 14.02 acres (Assessor's parcel number 001-
064-002).
Applicant request: to rezone from RR I: 10 to RR 1:5.
Findings: the Planning Commission found that the rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and was in character with the adjoining lots, and further, that the proposal meets concurrency
requirements and does not affect adopted levels of service.
Recommendation: Approval. Vote 7-1-0 (7 in favor, I opposed, 0 abstaining, 1 excused).
MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown Trust (David Goldsmith, authorized agent for property
owner); one mile west of the intersection of Eagle mount and Center Roads, Chimacum, W A; 116 acres
(Assessor's parcel number 801-091-0 I 0; application under parcel number 801-091-002).
Applicant request: for 80 acres, to rezone from CF 1 :80 to RF I :40; for 36 acres, to rezone CF 1 :80 to RR
1 :20 or AL 1:20.
Findings: the Planning Commission voted unanimously to "split-zone" the parcel, re-designating existing
pasture land as Agriculture of Local Significance (AL 1:20), an area comprising nineteen and a half
(19.5) acres; and further, recommended retaining zoning of forest land currently designated CF 1:80.
Recommendation: Approval with modifications. Vote: 8-0-0.
"
'.
MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472 South Edwards Road, Port Townsend, W A; 20 acres
(Assessor's parcel number 001-191-002).
Applicant request: to rezone from RR 1:20 to RR 1:10.
Deliberations: during discussion there was no consensus reached as to whether the proposal is consistent
with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies ofthe various Comprehensive Plan elements; also,
there was no consensus as to whether the proposal will create pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties.
Recommendation: Tied (no recommendation). Vote: 4-4-0.
MLA08-73; James Jackson/Chimacum Heights LLC; near Chimacum, WA; 120 acres (Assessor's parcel
number 901-132-002).
Applicant request: to rezone from CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
Findings: the Planning Commission found that:
. the proposal is not consistent with the goals, policies, and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan;
. there is difficulty reaching consensus as to whether the proposal reflects current widely-held
values of Jefferson County residents;
. the proposal would create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties; and the
proposal is inconsistent with GMA regarding conversion of Commercial Forest to Rural
Residential.
Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 5-3-0,
MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR Partnership; Cleveland St., Chimacum; approximately 38 acres
(Assessor's parcel number 901-121-001)
Applicant request: to rezone from RR I :20 to RR 1 :5.
Findings: The Planning Commission found that:
. the proposal is not consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan;
. the proposal is not consistent with RCW 36.70A, the County-Wide Planning Policies, any other
inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state, and federal laws.
Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 6-2-0.
MLA08-93; Burnett/Pope Resources; approximately three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge,
immediately north of SR 104; 142 acres (Assessor's parcel numbers 821-324-002, 821-311-001, 821-
291-002, and 821-302-001)
Applicant request: to apply a Mineral Resource Lands Overlay (MRLO) to CF 1:80.
Findings: The Planning Commission found that:
. the proposal is not consistent with widely-held values of Jefferson County residents;
. the proposal was not completely vetted at the planning level of review;
. the proposal requires considerably more detail in order to be adequately reviewed, particularly
with respect to truck volume on SR 104;
. land use conflicts should be minimized, and the proposal as submitted renders information
insufficient to gauge effects; the proposal will or could result in adverse impacts or place
2
. .
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities, or could affect the
County's ability to provide adequate levels of service;
. the parcel is physically suitable for the proposed use, but is incompatible with surrounding uses;
. the proposal could create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, which
mayor may not be in the interests of the County as a whole;
. the natural and built environments may not be adequately mitigated as a result of the proposal:
while a non-project level of SEP A review was conducted, the Planning Commission does not
concur with staff that a finding of Mitigated Determination of No Significance (MDNS) is
correct, but rather, that the proposal would involve probable significant adverse environmental
impact.
Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 8-0-0.
MLA08-96; Michael HollandIBlue Moon Investments; intersection of Shine Road and SR 104; .50 acres
(Assessor's parcel number 821-333-001)
Applicant request: to rezone RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial, Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads.
Findings: The Planning Commission found that:
. the proposal concerns an existing retail establishment that qualifies as a legal non-conforming
use since 1977;
. traffic has increased on SR 104, and the project-level proposal would require transportation
review.
The Planning Commission included in its recommendation the provision that the Limited Area of More
Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) created by approval of this proposal be designated
Convenience Crossroads.
Recommendation: Approval with modification. Vote: 8-0-0.
MLA08-101 (and associated UDC amendment MLA08-389); Catherine Hendy; 5411 Center Road,
Chimacum; 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres (Assessor's parcel numbers 801-102-004 and 801-102-002).
Applicant request: to rezone a portion of parcel number 801-102-004 from Resource-Based Industrial
Zone (RBIZ) to Light Industrial.
Findings: the Planning Commission found that the rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and was in character with the adjoining lots, and furthermore, that the proposal meets concurrency
requirements and does not affect adopted levels of service. Planning Commission recommends
modification of the original application by clarifying that the re-designation applies to a portion of less
than four (4) acres of parcel # 801-102-004, and furthermore, includes the associated UDC amendment
already specified.
Recommendation: Approval with modification. Vote: 8-0-0. (Vote identical on accompanying UDC
Amendment # MLA08-389.)
~~
Peter Downey, Cn Irman
Jefferson County Planning Commission
//- 6' CJ g
Date
3
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4450
Planning Commission Minority Report:
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications
On October 15 and November 5, 2008, the Jefferson County Planning
Commission deliberated on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments submitted for 2008.
There was one member absent at each session. There were eight amendments under
consideration. The following table shows the amendments requested, the Department
of Community Development (DCD) recommendation, and the Planning Commission
Recommendation:
Amendment
PC
Recommendation
A rove
Tie Vote
Den
A rove Partial
Den
Den
A rove
A rove
MLA08-32-D.Holland
MLA08-69-Geor e
MLA08-84-Broders
MLA08-56-Brown/Goldsmith
MLA08-73-Jackson
MLA08-93-Po e Resources
MLA08-101-Hend
MLA08-96-M.Holland
A minority of Planning Commission members, Thomas Brotherton and Michael
Whittaker, believe the tie vote on MLA08-69-George, the denials of MLA08-84-Broders,
MLA08-73-Jackson, and the partial denial of MLA08-56-Brown/Goldsmith were contrary
to the purposes and requirements of the Growth Management Act as codified in RCW
36.70A; were not in accord with enacted public policy as stated in the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan; and were arbitrary and discretionary.
This minority report has been written largely because the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan (JCCP) is incomplete. The JCCP lacks any discussion or map
showing where future rural growth should be approved or denied. Although discussed
several times in Planning Commission meetings with DCD staff, the reason for this
omission remains unclear. However, whether the reasons are clear or not, the
omission means that approval or denial recommendations are free to be made at the
whim of DCD and the Planning Commission.
For publication on County Web site
In addition, DCD recommended approval with modifications of MLA08-93 from
Pope Resources while the Planning Commission recommended denial of this proposal.
While the minority agrees the proposal must be denied because the proponent did not
provide sufficient information for a reasonable evaluation, we also suggest the nine
modifications identified by DCD are insufficient. The minority recommends, should the
BOCC decide to approve this proposal that the following additional conditions be
imposed:
10. Terrain. Mining activities within the MRL Overlay shall not lower nor change the profile of existing
terrain as viewed from the boundaries of the overlay.
II. Noise.
a. Mining activities within the MRL overlay shall not cause noise levels at the MRL overlay
boundary to exceed 60 dBA during daylight hours, e.g., after sunrise and before sunset, and shall
not exceed 50 dBA during nighttime hours, after sunset and before sunrise.
b. Noise levels shall be measured by an independent testing laboratories under contract to Jefferson
County. All Noise measurements and reports shall be funded by the proponent Noise
measurements shall be taken within 10 days of commencing construction, commencing mining
operations, changing the nature or location of any mining or processing operation, any changes in
equipment or transport routes.
c. In the event of a disputed noise violation, the complainant shall be responsible for additional noise
measurements unless the mining operator is fOWld to be in violation, in which case the mining
operator shall be liable for the measurement cost.
d. Mining operations are permitted only when the noise conditions are met.
12. Particulate Matter.
a. Standards.
i. PMIO-Annual 20 uglm3
ii. PMIO-24 Hour 50 uglm3
iii. PM2.5-Annual 12 uglm3
tv. PM2.5-24 Hour None
PMIO-Annual is an EPA standard test procedure for 2.5 to 10 micron particles
PMIO-24Hour is an EP A standard test procedure for 2.5 to 10 micron particles
PM2.5-Annual is an EP A standard test procedure for 0 to 2.5 micron particles
PM2.5-24Hour is an EP A standard test procedure for 0 to 2.5 micron particles
b. Mining activities within the MRL overlay shall not cause particulate matter levels at the MRL
overlay boundary to exceed Particulate Matter Standards.
c. Particulate matter levels shall be measured by an independent testing laboratories under contract to
Jefferson County. All Particulate matter measurements and reports shall be funded by the
proponent. Particulate matter measurements shall be taken within 10 days of commencing
construction. commencing mining operations, changing the nature or location of any mining or
processing operation, any changes in equipment or transport routes.
d. In the event of a disputed particulate matter violation, the complainant shall be responsible for
additional particulate matter measurements unless the mining operator is found to be in violation,
in which case the mining operator shall be liable for the measurement cost.
e. Mining operations are permitted only when the particulate matter conditions are met.
13. Mining operations, including site preparation and construction, shall not commence Wltil a Jefferson
COWlty Mining Health and Safety organization is available to monitor such operations. Proponent
agrees not to protest the formation of, or proponent's participation in, a Mining Health and Safety
District.
Because Jefferson County does not currently have a Mining Health and Safety
organization, the minority recommends that Jefferson County immediately establish a
Mining Health and Safety District chartered to:
1. Monitor mining operations for compliance with state and county health
and safety requirements, standards and conditions
2. Formulate mining operation policy recommendations
3. Establish procedures for mining regulation
4. Provide trained mining specialists for support of other county functions
5. District operations to be funded by regulatory fees and assessments
levied on mining operators.
Lack of Public Policy. An ordinance is unconstitutionally vague if it regulates
action in terms so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its
meaning. Anderson v. Cityoflssaquah, 70 Wash.App. 64, 75, 851 P.2d 744 (1993). In
the land use area, we look not only at the face of the ordinance but also at how it
applies to the person who has sought to comply with the ordinance and/or who is
alleged to have failed to comply. Anderson, 70 Wash.App. at 75,851 P.2d 744. Zoning
ordinances must be specific enough to limit arbitrary and discretionary enforcement of
the law. Anderson, 70 Wash.App. at 75,851 P.2d 744.
Currently, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (JCCP) does not state any
goals or direction for placement or restriction of rural growth. For this reason, the JCCP
does not meet the requirements of WAC 365-195-300: Mandatory Elements because it
does not have a county-wide Future Land Use Map. The JCCP contains a Future Land
Use Map only for the proposed UGA. In effect, the comprehensive plan uses the
current zoning map for the future map, Le., there is no plan for future change save no
change. This leaves the public and staff without any statutory guidance for growth in
the rural areas of the county. Because there is no plan to follow, staff analyses on
proposed rural land use changes could not be shown to follow a legally enacted public
policy as required by the Growth Management Act. Denying proposed JCCP
amendments that act to align parcel land use classifications with their neighbors; are
not contrary to valid public policy; and that are not based on the parcel's unique
physical properties are likely discriminatory. Such discrimination violates both the state
and federal constitutions.
WAC 365-195-300 Mandatory elements. (1) Requirements. The comprehensive plan
shall consist of a map or maps and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and
standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally
consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.
De-facto Rural Land Use Plan. Jefferson County has several rural areas which
contain most of the rural population in its eastern zone: Brinnon, Quilcene, Cape
George, lrondale-Port Hadlock, and Chimacum. A major principle of land use planning
and a goal of the GMA is that growth should be concentrated to maximize efficiency.
Since the county has not stated any rural growth plan the de-facto plan is to locate
future growth near one of these relatively dense centers.
MLA08-69-George
The proposed amendment was to change the land use designation from RR1 :20
to RR1 :10.. The parcel is 20 acres in size and the redesignation would permit one
additional dwelling to be placed on it. The RR1 :20 designation was placed on the
property in 1998 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The owners requested
. the designation be changed in 1999 but the County Commissioners determined the
application should be submitted as a Comprehensive Plan amendment rather than a
map correction. There are several parcels adjoining the parcel's southern boundary
that are 5 acres in size, but zoned as RR1 :20. The properties to the west are zoned
RR1 :5. See attached map 1. Most of this parcels neighbors are actually 5 acres in
size, some zoned accordingly and some grandfathered.
The staff recommendation showed they determined there was no impact from
this proposal but that it should be denied because it might place pressure on the sole
remaining RR 1 :20 parcel in the area to also want to rezone in the future. This parcel is
in the Cape George area, it is surrounded by 5 acre parcels in an area that is
predominantly zoned RR1 :5. In the absence of a Future Land Use Plan precluding the
requested change, with no unique physical disabilities of the property, denying this
proposal is clearly discriminatory. This proposal should be approved.
MLA08-84-Broders
The proposed amendment was to change the designation from RR1 :20 to
RR1 :5. This is a 38 acre site in the Oak Bay area with a large wetland in the middle. It
is surrounded by RR1:5 zoning. There is a fish-bearing stream on the property. See
attached Map 1. If RR1:5 zoning is granted it is very unlikely that the full density can be
realized due to the required setbacks.
ltis clear from the many RR1:5 lots in Oak Bay that this is an area the
Comprehensive Plan has determined should take a larger proportion of growth than the
rest of the rural area of the county. A different soil type, transportation access, utility
availability or any other land use factor does not justify this island of lower density
zoning. This zoning is clearly discriminatory and may constitute spot zoning.
In Save Our Rural Env't v. Snohomish Cy., 99 Wn.2d 262,368,662 P.2d 816
(1983) (citing Anderson v.81 Wn.2d 312, 325, 501 P.2d 594 (1972), the Washington
Supreme Court held that a zoning decision challenged as spot zoning would be
overturned only when it:
[G]rants a discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to the
detriment of their neighbors or the community at large without adequate public advantage
or justification.
This parcel is entirely surrounded by 5 acre parcels, all zoned RR1 :5. In the
absence of a Future Land Use Plan precluding the requested change, with no unique
physical disabilities of the property, denying this proposal is clearly discriminatory. This
proposal should be approved.
MLA08-73-Jackson
The proposed amendment was to change the land use designation from CF1 :80
to RR 1: 1 O. The parcel is 120 acres located % mile from the Jefferson County Sheriff's
Office and % mile from Chimacum. The proposal would allow 11 additional dwellings to
be built on the property. The Department of Community Development analyzed this
proposal and concluded it should be denied. Their report lists the reasons for denial as
loss of open space, preservation of natural resource lands (the parcel is currently
designated Commercial Forest), and there is a forested ridge on the southwest corner
that is visible from Chimacum. There is PUD water available at the parcel.
The recommendation for denial primarily rests on the foundation that the county
should preserve Commercial Forest land. The flaw here is that the parcel does not
meet the state definition for Commercial Forest and is thus improperly designated by
Jefferson County. The land fails to meet the definition in two ways: first, the land is not
in commercial forest use as required by the state; and, second, the soil quality does not
meet Jefferson County standards for Commercial Forest.
Commercial Use. Jefferson County uses the state Department of Natural
Resources definition of Commercial Forest that requires that such land has to be
"primarily devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber: This land is not now
and has not been used for growing timber in many years. It is covered with brush and
scrub growth that is unusable commercially. Apparently it was logged many years ago
and never replanted. This land did not meet the requirements for Commercial Forrest
when the Comprehensive Plan was first developed in 1998 and it still does not qualify to
be designated Commercial Forest; therefore it is not covered by a valid public policy for
preservation. The original designation was incorrect and this error should be repaired.
WAC 458-40-530 Property tax, forest land -- Land grades - Operability classes
...Forthe purposes of this rule and WAC 458-40-540, the term "forest
land" is synonymous with timberland and means all land in any contiguous
ownership of twenty or more acres which is primarily devoted to and used
for growing and harvesting timber and means land only.
Land Quality. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, page 4-3; Guidelines
for Classification of Forest Resource Lands in Jefferson County; specifies that "Any
parcel. ..should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one( 1) through four( 4) as
mapped by the Departmenf of Natural Resources." Mr. Jackson provided a report from
Cronin Forestry which indicates an analysis of the DNR mapping shows that 84 acres of
the 120 acre parcel are class 5 soil and only 36 acres are class 4 soil. For this reason,
the parcel is improperly designated as Commercial Forest and the redesignation should
be approved.
Lots varying in size from 1 acre to 5 acres surround this parcel. See attached
map 3. In the absence of a Future Land Use Plan precluding the requested change,
with no unique physical disabilities of the property, denying this proposal is clearly
discriminatory. This proposal should be approved.
MLA08-56-Brown/Goldsmith
The requested amendment was in two parts: change a part of a parcel which
was designated CF1 :80 to AG 1 :20 where the land was pasture and had been in
pasture when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; change a parcel from CF1 :80 to
RF1 :40. The change to Ag 1 :20 was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission and recommended for denial by the DCD staff. We support the Planning
Commission recommendation for approval because the designation of existing pasture
land as Commercial Forest was an obvious error at the time it was done, the conditions
have not changed and the owners are entitled to have the error repaired.
The Planning Commission majority and the DCD staff both recommend denying
the redesignation of the CF1 :80 portion to RF1 :40. We believe the current designation
is incorrect because the land does not meet the definition of Commercial Forest. It is
not being used for timber growing or harvesting now nor has it been so used for the
recorded past.
The Department of Community Development analyzed this proposal and
concluded it should be denied. Their report lists the reasons for denial as loss of open
space, preservation of natural resource lands (the parcel is currently designated
Commercial Forest).
The recommendation for denial primarily rests on the foundation that the county
should preserve Commercial Forest land. As in Jackson, above, the flaw here is that
the parcel does not meet the state definition for Commercial Forest and is thus
improperly designated by Jefferson County. Jefferson County uses the state
Department of Natural Resources definition that requires that such land has to be
"primarily devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber." This land is not now
and has not been used for growing timber in many years. It is covered with brush and
scrub growth that is unusable commercially. Apparently it was logged many years ago
and never replanted. This land does not qualify to be designated Commercial Forest;
therefore it is not covered by a valid public policy for preservation.
Lots varying in size from 1 acre to 5 acres surround this parcel. See attached
map 3. In the absence of a Future Land Use Plan precluding the requested change,
with no unique physical disabilities of the property, denying this proposal is clearly
discriminatory. This proposal should be approved. /'
LJ/L ;)J/d-- . 1 tj, / ~i ."
- . ,/1/ 1'\ i / .
///~~/" .it'
// .." .- " "- .
1'/ , v --.
v .
Thomas Brotherton . hael Whittaker
I( /6/ () 8
, .
December I, 2008
To: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
From: Jeanie Orr, Planning Clerk -Long Range Planning
Here are additional comments letters received since the close of the Planning
Commission public comment period on October 3, 2008.
0'111 n
./1:t, .
V..,p" '0.cu..
~~
November 10,2008
00u..-
Y>.A\VAI't~
2sc.p-.... )
rn. Gf\ 0'<;-1 ~
JAMES E JACKSON
PO BOX 1105
PORT HADLOCK WA 98339-1105
STATE OF WASHINGTON . f";'";-'-;:'-"'-,_,...
DEPARTMENT OF REVENU iQJ ~ t IE II Wi ~ [URl" "-
. . lflll NOV J 4_ lllJ
DEf't JEFFEASO~ COU~TY
. OF COMMU~ITY DEVELOPMF.~T
RE: Summary of 11/612008 conversation.
Mr. Jackson;
This letter summarizes the telephone conversation We had on the afternoon of
. Thursday, November 6, 2008. You asked several questions about the Soil Overlay
Maps that the counties use to determine Land Grade and Operability Class on
Designated Forest Land (DFL) and Current Use Timberland. These questions arose
because you are contesting the Land Grade on a large piece of DFL you own within
Jefferson County (parcel # 901132002).
You stated that the County overlay maps classified the parcel as predominately Land
Grade 3, which means it hasa Site Index of between 99-117 feet. You stated thatthe
parcel's land grade needed to be a Land Grade 5 ($1 under 84 feet) or higher for the
new land use. I have never heard of a county requiring a decrease in land grade for a
particular change in use. Two forestry consultants walked the property to conduct
separate on-site soil analysis and site index determinations. Both on-site inspections
yielded similar results, reducing the site index to about 84, which is a land grade 5.
It was not clear to me what methodology or data the foresters used to determine the site
index. The standard method that I have used numerous times is to take a series of
plots and randomly select dominant and co-dominant trees that have been free to grow.
These trees must be without any visible damage that may have potentially reduced
height growth. Each of these trees is then cored to obtain their breast height age and
they are measured for total height. From this data I can determine the site index for the
area. All of the soil surveys and data I found show that parcel # 901132002 is
predominately a Site Index 105 or a land grade 3.
As we discussed the DNR overlays were developed from the 1980 soil survey maps,
and were developed over large areas. The predominant soil and vegetation types were
used to create maps that show a site class rating and vegetation type for each area.
Each soil has a different potential to grow trees. A Site Index is the average height, in
feet, that dominant or co-dominant trees of a given species could attain in a specified
number of years. In western WaShington site indices are usually based on 50-years. A
Site Class is a group of site indices. Site Classes are usually represented as I thru V,
~.
o
Jackson Letter
Page 2
where I is the best growth potential'and V is very low growth potential or "Marginal
forest Productivity" (MFP).
In surveys, Site Indices are usually recorded as three values low to high to indicate the
range of. the attributes for the soil component. The mid-range value is used to indicate
the expected value for that soil component. The site classes used in the overlay maps
are general and some averaging is used. I have found that properly collected and
analyzed specific, on-site data yields more accurate results.
The Dept. of Revenue Land Grades correspond closely to Site Classes I through V, by
species. Land Grade 6 is primarily in eastem Washington and 7 and 8 are MFP and
non-commercial.
The Operability Classes are based on the intrinsic characteristics of the predominant
soil and its' geomorphic features. These are such things as overall slope, erosion
potential, slope instability, and the impacts of forest operations. I have found that site
specific information is more reliable to make operability decisions.
I think this covers all that we discussed and explains how the overlays were generated.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
c;fi{;;:;J-
Chris Westwood
Revenue Forester
Cc: Sherrie Shold, Property Operations, Jefferson County
Jefferson County Planning
GnlA , s..s.'h~( "\e Dee, I ?J.,(/" HrJ l2c-eccrcC,
ALIS~ ,~ 0-, 2.co'2;"" boce:.~../:
(>;17(';(, 1-5 y:)-?
Com~ Speech Provided by James A. Jackson, Member of Chima.um Heights LLC regarding MLA08-73. m UT 0 ~-l3
11/17/2008 to BOCC
Text of Speech below:
My name is James A. Jackson, a member of Chimacum Heights LLC. I have attended many of the
Jefferson County planning commission meetings this year while my father has attended nearly all of the
planning commission meetings even when the comp plan amendments were not a topic of discussion.
While we have done exhaustive legal analysis to ensure our petition meets the GMA and other state laws,
rulings, and court case$, it appears that both the planning commission and the DCD have failed to review
the legal bases of our petition and the evidence that we have provided. They have failed to provide legal
evidence to refute the evidence that we have provided. Failure to follow state law by Jefferson County will
have legal ramifications and potential costs that will be borne by the residents of Jefferson County. The
recommendation to deny our petition by both the planning commission and the DCD is putting Jefferson
County at legal risk which the BOCC must take into account and minimize. The BOCC therefore must
make a decision that follows state laws including the GMA and that minimizes legal risks. The only
decision that has the most legal foundation based on all the evidence on record is an approval of our
petition.
The evidence that we have submitted over this last year and which to date has been ignored by the Planning
Commission and the DeD in summary is:
I. The soils of our parcel do not qualiJY the parcel to be classified as a commercial forest.
2. The size of our parcel does not qualify the parcel to be classified as a commercial forest.
3. The economic viability of a commercial forest operation on this size of property CANNOT provide a
return on investment which is required under state law.
In addition, I spoke to the planning commission members and DCD staff who were in attendance at the
September 171h public input meeting about a State of Washington Attomey General Memorandum on
Takings (see packet in our petition) that REQUIRES all local agencies which includes the DCD, the
Planning Commission and the BOCC to be advised by their legal counsel and to ensure the warnings of
possible takings be reviewed on EVERY ruling that may have a takings issue. All comp plan amendments
have a potential takings issue if a denial is issued which has been recommeuded by the Planning
Commission and the DCD on our specific petition and the majority of the other 2008 comp plan amendment
requests. The planning commissiou and DeD have to date failed to take into account this memorandum
from the Attorney General. Failure to follow the requirements of this memorandum also places Jefferson
County at legal risk with the potential costs again being borne by the residents of Jefferson County.
As we have consistently requested over this past year, we wish our petition to be reviewed on its own
merits, on the evidence we have submitted and based solely on the law. The two recommendations of
denial from the Planning Commission and the DCD have not followed these review procedures. It is our
belief that our petition follows all requirements of the GMA and other associated state legal laws and
precedents. It is requested the BOCC review our entire petition with all the supporting evidence provided.
It is anticipated the BOCC will approve our petition based on this review.
Thank you for your consideration once again.
9-..;tF)~
-pO Box IYa S-
fi;,,+ [+ad locI::- WA 1&33 '1-1'-105'"
emlt
'/k4IS~'cV"'} o-ti
.-bIKe.
AA7Ylt~
Jeanie Orr
Page 1 00
2..J;u').-g
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:54 AM
To: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Joel Peterson
Subject: FW: Comprehensive plan - MLA08-93
Vh Lft tJ Ir -q3
FYI
Ji<:anilZ Orr
bong 'R.anglZ planning CIlZrk
'VlZpt of Community 'VIZVlZlopmlZnt
jorr(8:)co.jeJferson.wa.us
360-379-4488
360-379-4451 (fax)
All email sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County amail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter
42.56 RCW
From: jeffbocc
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:06 AM
To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; John Austin; Philip Morley; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: Comprehensive plan - MLA08-93
From: Dan & Soozie Darrow [mailto:desdarrow@olypen.com)
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 12:40 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comprehensive plan - MLA08-93
We are writing to reinforce our support ofthe Jefferson County Planning Commission Recommendation by a vote of 8-0-0 to
deny the proposed Iron Mountain Quany (IMQ) from Commercial Forest (CF) to Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO)-
(item MLA 08-93 Burnett/Pope Resources).
. The reasons stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law make it clear that there is no reason to grant a
MRLO.
. Iron Mountain Quarry has not, to our knowledge, submitted a plan that would justifY the zoning change.
Below are copies of our previous comments that were submitted to support denial of a modification of the Comprehensive
Plan zoning.
Dan & Esther Darrow
110 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
360-437-9208
desdarrow@olypen,com
copies of previous submissions:
submitted - October I, 2008
Atten: DCDlPlanning Commission
11/24/2008
Page 2 on
.
Below are additional comments against changing the zoning for the site of the proposed Iron Mountain Quarry (IMQ) from
Commercial Forest (CF) to Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO) - (item MLA 08-93 BumettIPope Resources). This
supplements our comments that were submitted on Septemher 20, 2008.
. The Office of the Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County issued a Report and Decision on September 24, 2008
denying the appeal of Iron Mountain Quarry (IMQ) regarding the requirement of a Conditional Use Pennit(CUP).
o This affinns the right of Jefferson County to require a CUP and limit the potential impact to 10 acres.
. The Hearing Examiner's Findings state that the present Commercial Forest (CF) classification authorizes mineral
extraction activities.
o Thus, retaining the CF zoning does not restrict IMQ from mining activities.
o Changing the zoning to MRLO could allow extended mining without the CUP requirements,
. Jefferson County sbould retain all oversight capabilities to assure that IMQ does not detrimentally affect
the surrounding environment and residential areas.
. IMQ is a new business operator that would be opening up a new area. As such, it is our view that they should be
required to obtain any and all permits required. Maintaining the CF zoning will allow Jefferson County to retain its
oversight responsibilities.
. Because this is a new area, we seriously question whether l!1!Y-mining should be permitted.
Dan & Esther Darrow
110 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
360-437-9208
desdarrow@olvpen.com
submitted - September 20, 2008
Atten: DCDlPlanning Commission
After attending the meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission and the Jefferson County Dept. of Community
Development Sept. 17, 2008, we are writing hoping to deter the Planning Commission from recommending in favor of the
mineral resource land overlay proposal on agenda item MLA 08-93 Bumett/Pope Resources as the DCD has done. There still
remain too many questions that we feel should be cleared up before that - i.e.
. how are tbe rocks to be transported and to where?,
. will the removal of the ridge create noise problems for the MPR beyond what should be allowed?,
. will the water use of the mine deplete the already problematic aquifers that are currently being used by the MPR?
. will the wildlife, though perhaps not on any endangered list, have somewhere to go besides the backyards of the
residents of the MPR?
The county roads in and around the MPR are not built to the standards required for transporting large, heavy loads. The MPR
is a walking community and heavy truck traffic would create potentially dangerous situations for the many walkers,
particularly since the roads do not have wide shoulders. The cost of repairing, widening, or other necessary costs should not
be on the shoulders ofthe
County Transportation Dept. The mining company has not, as yet, revealed their transportation plans in the event that the
mine becomes a reality.
We believe that removal of the ridge will create noise as well as weather problems for the MPR as it is now a buffer from the
southerly winds and from the traffic sounds ofSR104.
OWSl already has problems drilling viable wells for MPR consumption. Disturbance of the aquafer and large use of the
water by the mine could create more problems.
We already have bearsl cougars, bobcats, and coyotes roaming our backyards, many because of the recent logging activities
11/24/2008
Page 3 of3
.'
on the Pope property. These animals need a home and should not be forced to be killed by cars or seek food from humans.
The Planning Commission Members should all have the opportunity to visit the site, if they have not already done so,
. it appears that IMQ is attempting to ride on the coat tails of the existing operation at Shine Quany. However, IMQ is
requesting to mine a separate and additional area that has not been mined in the recent past - if at all. IMQ is a !!!m'
business operator that would be opening up a new area. As such, it is our view that they should be required to obtain
any and all permits required - including the Jefferson County Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
. Further supporting the requirement to obtain all permits, including the CUP, is the fact that, to date, IMQ has
not submitted any planning documents nor been open to discussing and working with the greater Port Ludlow
residential community to develop a mutually beneficial arrangement to preserve the natural living environment.
. Note that the land land in question is in close proximity to the "Gateway to the Olympic Peninsula". Will this scar on
the land make a good impression on visitors to the Peninsula?
The DCD staff study and recommendation details many issues and cautions regarding the Mineral Resource Land Overlay.
In fact, reading the analysis presents more reasons not to approve the MRLO.
These questions and issues have not been resolved or completely addressed and should be before any approval is given.
Dan & Esther Darrow
110 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
360-437-9208
desdarrow@olypen.com
11/24/2008
lC>r I' 11'
-,/f;7()C6 _
II' f'r/..A c,.tp,.(A-( I Jo-& /P;u[(,..
vCc~
Jeanie Orr
Page I of2
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:46 AM
To: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Joel Peterson
Subject: FW: Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO request
2SY )~i
fV1clt rx~q3
FYI
JlZanilZ Orr
bong 'RanglZ planning CllZrk
'f>lZpt of Community 'f>iZVlZlopmlZnt
iorr(8)co. jeffer$on. wa.U$
360-379-4488
360-379-4451 (fax)
All email sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County email system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter
42.56 RCW
From: jeffbocc
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Phil Johnson; John Austin; David Sullivan; Philip Morley
Cc: Jeanie Orr
Subject: PN: Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO request
From: D. Ridgley [mailto:baywatchers@gmail.com)
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:30 PM
To: jeffbocc
SUbject: Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO request
Del & Dianne Ridgley
386 Camber Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
theseehawks@gmail.com
November 15, 2008
David Sullivan
John Austin
Phil Johnson
Jefferson County Commissioners
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, W A 98368;
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Regarding: Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO request
We are writing to urge you to uphold the decision made by the Jefferson County planning committee to
deny the Iron Mountain request to re-zone.
If Iron Mountain were planning anything that would benefit anyone in Jefferson County (except Pope
Resources), they would have told us what these benefits would be rather than keeping their whole plan a
huge secret. Since they are not forthcoming with a plan, we must assume that what they have in mind is
11/17/2008
Page 2 of2
detrimental to Jefferson County as a whole and to Port Ludlow in particular.
The areas of concern include: damage to the tourism industry and the real estate industry, damage to
local roads, decreased home values, the expense of dealing with extra traffic and congestion, few, if any
local jobs generated, and other related issues.
A huge mine of 142 acres with up to 350 trucks a day running over our roads will destroy the tourism
industry. Particularly in jeopardy are the Harborside Inn and Restaurant and the Port Ludlow Golf
Course. However, other local tourist attractions will also be impacted. The noise of the trucks and the
blasting will be enough to drive away anyone planning to visit this area.
Noise and truck traffic will also drive away potential home buyers. This will harm the real estate
business and decrease the value oflocal homes. This in turn will lower the tax dollars that Jefferson
County now receives from these homes and businesses.
Since there is no demand for more gravel in Jefferson County than what is already being supplied by
local mines, it appears that the material from the Iron Mountain project will be sold outside the county
and will give Jefferson County VERY LITTLE TAX REVENUE. So while their trucks are destroying
our roads at a record rate, Iron Mountain will not contribute to their maintainance. The Iron Mountain
project will increase our expenses while it decreases our revenue.
It is even doubtful that there will be local jobs generated by this mining company. In most cases large
companies bring in their own outside employees. So once again Jefferson County residents will lose
much and gain nothing with the addition of this mine.
Please deny the MRLO request and protect Jefferson County.
Del & Dianne Ridgley
11/17/2008
tOI.lM
1\-1... StJ..CU ,Jr&
t(}rrl.. tw.M:h
Jeanie Orr
\.,,:bucc....
?-'J '-(S~'6
From:
'Sent:
ro:
Subject:
Jeanie Orr
Thursday, November 13, 20084:59 PM
AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Joel Peterson
FW: MLA08-00093
~t-19- D8.:' t'J 3
II
BOCC Letter on
IMQ.doc (27 KB)...
Attached is a comment letter emailed to the BoCC on IMQ. Leslie forwarded to
me. I will add it to the public record.
Jeanie Orr
Long Range Planning Clerk
Dept of Community Development
jorr@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-3?9-4488
360-379-4451 (fax)
All email sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County email system and
may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW
-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Locke
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:49 PM
To: Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: MLA08-00093
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:41 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: MLA08-00093
-------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Schmitz[SMTP:BRUCE_SCHMITZ@MSN.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:36:55 PM
To: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan
Subject: MLA08-00093
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear County Commissioners,
Attached you will find a letter requesting that you approve the
recommendations of the Jefferson County Planning Commission to reject the
subject proposal when it comes before the commission.
sincerely I
Bruce Schmitz
150 Mt. Constance Way
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
1
November 12, 2008
(
,
Jefferson County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
1820 Jefferson St
Port Townsend, WA 98368
SubjectMLA08-00093- Iron Mountain Quarry
Dear Commissioners,
My understanding is that proposed amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan will be presented to the Commission at the meeting of November
17,2008. I further understand that the Jefferson County Planning Commission could
not reach consensus on one of the proposed amendments so that a public hearing must
be held and that all amendments must be open to further comment and review. This
meeting is to be held on December 1, 2008 starting at 5:00 PM. I do not understand
why every proposed amendment must be further reviewed when only one is in dispute
but I assume that is the rule that applies.
I strongly request that you accept the recommendation of the planning commission
regarding MLA08-00093 that is a request from Iron Mountain Quarry to rezone
designated parcels of land from Designated Forest Land to Mineral Resource Overlays.
I sat in on the planning commission meeting wherein the request was brought before
the commission by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. I
believe that the planning commission commissioners did a very though job of reviewing
this application and after their review voted 8-0 to reject the proposal. I cannot believe
that there is any reason why you would overturn their unanimous decision. There were
several reasons why the planning commission rejected the proposal and I am sure that
they will present them to you when this proposed amendment comes before you. For
summary the following are my understanding of the major reasons for the rejection of
the proposal:
(1) A total of 48 public comments were received on the proposal with 47 against and
one to approve with modifications. The comments stated significant impacts to the
Port Ludlow community including reductions in the quality of life, excessive noise,
negative impacts to transportation including safety issues, decrease in property
values in the surrounding communities, and significant environmental impacts.
(2) The proposal is lacking in key items necessary for the planning commission to fully
evaluate. The items lacking include the market for the rock, where will the rock be
sold, how will the rock be transported to the point of sale, and where is the need for
the rock.
(3) There has not been shown a need for the rock. Within Jefferson County Shine
Quarry can provide all rock needed for at least the next 10 years. Shine is currently
only operating at 1/3 capacity and with the economic downturn the building within
Jefferson County is likely to remain low minimizing the need for rock.
comA-
v L.-t<f' .
v DO fY\~t"'S
Page 1 of2
~C0
J
Q9-r<:;;- -g
yY\.l-+t og -q3
Jeanie Orr
i
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:09 AM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: FW: Nov 17 amendments to the comprehension plan
Jizani~ Orr
bong 'Rang~ planning Q~rk
'f)~pt of Community 'f)~wlopm~nt
iorr(8ico,iefJer$on. Wa.U$
360-379-4488
360-379-4451 (fax)
All email sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County email system and may be subject to PUblic Disclosure under Chapter
42.56 RCW
From: jeffbocc
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:29 AM
To: Jeanie Orr
Subject: PlY: NOV 17 amendments to the comprehension plan
FYI
Leslie
From: Dave [mailto:gd.arrnitage@gte,net]
Sent: Friday, October 31,2008 1:09 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Nov 17 amendments to the COmprehension plan
October 27, 2008
TO: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Subject: MLA08-93 ( Burnett / Pope Resources)
Several weeks ago I spoke to you gentlemen about an amendment MLA 08-93
(Burnett/Pope Resources), a.k.a. Iron Mountain Quarry to the Comprehensive Plan. I
asked you to consider what, if any, economic advantage existed for the county should
you adopt the proposed amendment. At that time, I suggested to you that there were
none and it would, in all probability, be a net negative for the county.
In the intervening time, your Planning Commission has voted on this amendment 8 to 0
to deny the amendment. It was instructive to hear some of their reasoning:
The existing Shine Quarry has sufficient resources to meet the
county needs for 15 to 20 years. There has been no need shown, by
the county, why these mineral resources are needed.
11/3/2008
Page 2 of2
In all likelihood, if approved, these mineral resources would be
shipped out of county - thus depriving the county of any financial
benefit now or in the future.
There would be substantial damage to roads and infrastructure,
caused by the truck traffic, and it will would fall to the citizens of the
county to pay for the repairs.
Given current economic conditions who would repair the resultant
damage to the state highways - not the State - they can't fund the list
of projects they have now.
Land use conflict with the surrounding community - Port Ludlow
Pope Resources and Iron Mountain Quarry have attempted to
circumvent the planning effort by resorting to the courts. These
actions would suggest that they will not be sensitive to the county
and/or homeowners' issues, which could result in higher
enforcement cost.
To further illustrate the point, we know that on an average day the Shine Quarry ships
approximately 2,000 tons of rock, with an average retail value of $18.00 per ton. This
translates into 'h million tons per year with a retail value of $9,000,000. The counties
share of the sales tax is 1.6 cents per dollar of retail sales, or in the case of Shine,
$144,000. But, 75% of Shine sales are out of county, so the county, at best, only realizes
$36,000. Now Iron Mountain Quarry is coming along and asking you to approve the
removal of between 12 and 20 million tons of material. You have to ask what is this
great need for this material. This amount of material represents a potential income to
the county of between 3.50 and 6.0 million dollars. That will be lost income if the
material is shipped out of the county. You only get one kick at the can, once these
resources are gone - their gone.
On November 17th, you will be asked to approve the modifications to the counties
comprehensive plan. that your Planning Commission has submitted. I would urge you
to adopt the Planning Commissions recommendations as submitted. There is no need
for a public hearing and these are the recommendations of those folks you have
appointed to review and advise you on the course of action to take in the best interest
ofthe county.
Thank you for your consideration. .
Respectfully,
G. David Armitage
141 Mt. Constance Way
Port Ludlow, WA
360-437-0347
11/3/2008
~
1C;4c;-~
: cc>vc:\)Tq the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Regarding
r; IV1A ID/$lo"6 Jefferson County's Financial Impact f\ALft 0 ~Al 0
LJ from the Proposed Iron Mountain Quarry Project
c..omrnM-s ,hcrCc., October 27, 2008
Iron Mountain Quarry proposes to mine 142 acres near Port Ludlow. They will create a new
production capacity 3Yz times bigger than the adjacent 40-acre Shine Quarry, i.e., about 350
trucks per day. They will also establish legal precedents for subsequent expansions.
Shine Quarry easily meets the local demand. The obvious question is what will Iron Mountain
do with this huge excess production? They keep their operating plans secret; residents and
County must defensively infer the worst motives. (By comparison, Fred Hill Materials had to
reveal their plans to use a conveyer, dock, and barges!) Because trucking beyond about 25
miles is prohibitively expensive, Iron Mountain must also use sea transportation.
Mats Mats Bay is the closest dock to the quarry-it is only 6Yz miles along Oak Bay Road
through the center of Port Ludlow. In effect, Port Ludlow will be the middle part of an
extended industrial plant.
We know from Iron Mountain's environmental effects in Granite Falls that this is disastrous for
residents. Granite Falls is spending $30,000,000 to build a bypass to reduce the impact of
heavy truck noise, safety, dust, and vibration on their community-attachments one and two
locument this. The Bypass costs are borne entirely by government; the quarry pays nothing.
Moreover, road damage caused by the 105,500 Ib truck/trailer rigs-the heaviest trucks
allowed in Washington State-will create very expensive road maintenance for Jefferson
County.
Now, a reasonable person would expect the quarry to bring major benefits that more than
offset the County's damages and losses. However, with Iron Mountain that is not the case.
Costs and inconveniences of road repairs and improvements will be the responsibility of all
Jefferson County residents. Additionally, Port Ludlow's retirees will incur disastrously
negative environmental, health, and financial impacts from Iron Mountain's operation.
Profits go to Iron Mountain in Bothell, royalties go to Pope Resources in Poulsbo, taxes go
the product destination counties, and jobs go to a few employees primarily in Kitsap County.
Masses of technical details and legalese can often hide these overriding issues. Residents
hope you will keep them in mind.
Respectfully submitted by
Tony Simpson
BO Camber Ln
0rt Ludlow, WA 98365
Attachments-four pages
Attachment I
.
m,eS~(!hues
~
Wednesday, February 5. 2003 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint orcopy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call
206-464-3113 or e-mail resa/e!filseattletimes.com with your request.
Quarries, city clash over plans for detour
By Peyton Whitely
Times Snohomish County bureeu
Making repairs on Granite Falls' main drag is expected to cost a half-million dollars and could take months.
Repairing relations between the city and nearby gravel-mining operations could take even longer.
That was made clear duririg a meeting last week to discuss an improvement project for East Stanley Street, the main
east-west road through Granite Falls. The project likely will require rerouting more than 1,000 gravel trucks that drive
through the city daily.
Therein lies the rub.
Granite Falls officials want to close the street completely, to finish the project as soon as possible, and reroute the trucks
out of the city. The gravel quarries would prefer an alternate route that traveled through the city over several residential
streets.
The disagreement sparked a heated exchange between Granite Falls officials and quarry representatives at last week's
.Ieeting. About 30 representatives from the city, Snohomish County, the state and trucking and quarry companies
attended the session at the county Administration Building in Everett.
Granite Falls Mayor Floyd "Butch" DeRosia said the quarries' preferred route would disrupt neighborhoods and
represented an unwillingness to compromise.
"I don't feel the city should take the full brunt of this project," DeRosia said. "I think everyone should join in and not
completely choke off Granite Falls."
City Councilman Matt Hartman said the city was being asked to do too much.
"I have not heard one thing from the quarries that might consider reduced output" to cut traffic loads, Hartman said. "Is this
a compromise from that standpoint?"
But Jim Burnett, owner of the Iron Mountain quarry, said such restrictions would be unacceptable.
"No, those kinds of constraints shackle our business," he said. 'We're going to eat thousands of dollars a day as an
industry"
"Given that, I'm really curious as to how you expect us to compromise," Hartman said.
"It's your project," said Burnett.
s not my problem how you get your product to market," Hartman responded. "We have to accommodate an industry
that over the past five years has done absolutely nothing."
Eventually, the give-and-take did result in possible solutions, but the exchange illustrated what meeting participants
described as years of ill will that has developed over gravel trucks in Granite Falls.
More than 1,000 tnucks from quarries outside the city - about one every 30 seconds on average - go through Granite
Falls every day, using the only allowable route along Stanley Street.
If the street can be closed completely, the work probably can be done in about six weeks, starting in spring. If one lane is
kept open for traffic, the work probably will stretch to three months or more and into the sUmmer tourist season.
The quanry operators presented a detour plan that would send the tnucks on other streets through the city. They would
move along South Alder Avenue, then onto East Pioneer Street, then onto South Granite Avenue, then for a block along
West Galena Street and then onto Cascade Avenue to be reconnected to West Stanley Street.
The city has proposed a route that would take the trucks out of Granite Falls, sending them onto Robe-Menzel Road and
south to Carpenter Road, then west to OK Mill Road toward Machias.
Burnett said such a circuitous 15-mile route would be intolerable for the companies. County officials expressed concerns
about a narrow bridge on OK Mill Road being unable to handle the weight of the gravel trucks and having to put a signal
on the bridge to restrict it to one-lane traffic if truck use increased.
Other suggestions included having empty and loaded tnucks use different routes, with loaded trucks moving on city streets
and empty trucks moving along county roads.
The quanry operators offered to restrict their operations by one hour in the morning and one hour in the aftemoon.
But no solution was immediately reached.
DeRosia eventually moved the meeting into executive session, excluding members of the public, citing possible Iitigatior
- meaning the parties might end up going to court to try to resolve the differences - as the justification.
DeRosia said the decision will be up to the Granite Falls City Council, with some action needed within about two weeks if
the road project is to start in spring.
Peyton Whitely: 206-464-2259 or pwhitelv@seattletimes.com.
,
Attachment 2
Questions?
Please contad:
. Crilly Ritz, Environ-
mental Review,
Snohomish County
Public Works,
425.388-3488
ext. 4586; email:
Crilly.ri1z@
co.snonomish.wo.us
. Eric Nordstrom,
Design, Snohomish
County Public Works,
425-388-3488, ext.
4649; email:
eric.nordstromi@
co.snohomish.wa.us
t~
.....
W
U.S.D.O.T.
Fed. Hwy. Admin.
WAState
Department of
Transpor1lltlon
^^^ Snohomlsh
.........- County
III <;ranlle F.ns
The co-lead agencies ensure full
compjiance with Tltl. V1
of the CIVil Righb Act of
1987 and related sklMe$ by
prohibiting diacriminotion bosed
on roce, color, notional origin
and gendo!( in the prtui$ion of
b$nefits and $ervi<es. for more
information on Title VI, please
call WSDOT Title V1 Coordinator
<;It 360.705.7098.
Granite Falls Alternate Route
AU9ust 2007
. NEPA Env. Assessment Issued on August 8
. Public Hll(Iring Scheduled for August 22
. Comments Due September 7
You are invited to on informal open
house environmental public hearing on
August 22 to learn about the proposed
Granite Falls Alternate Route and to
review and comment on the Environmen-
tol Assessment (EA}, Come anytime from
6.8 p.m.; there is no formal presentation.
The EA wos prepared to meet National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require-
ments and was issued August 8, 2007
initiating a 30-day comment period that
ends on September 7, 2007.
The co-lead agendas on the project are
!he Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA}, the Washington State Deportment
of Transportation (WSD01), Snohomish
County Public Works and the City of
Granite Falls. Comments received by
September 7 will be considered by FHWA
in its review of the project.
The proposal is to construct a 1.9-mile
alternate route to divert truck troffic away
from downtown Granite Falls and serve as
o strategic freight corridor for the region.
The new road would run north from SR 92
west of Granite Falls, then curve north and
east around the town and connect to the
Mountain loop Highway just north of
Gun Club Road.
The roadwoy would have Iwo 12-1001
wide roadway lanes in each direction wifh
8-loot wide shoulders. Three roundabout
intersections have been designed to convey
traffic flow and accommodate the large-
sized trucks that would pass through them.
(Continued on back)
Tim<!line
Construction is expected to lake two
years and may begin as soon os
2009, However, depending on
permit approval and funding avail-
abilily may not begin until 2010,
Funding
Construction cost is estirnoled to
tatal $24 million. Federal, State of
Washington, Snohomish County and
City of Granite foils funds will be
used to conslruclthe alternate route.
Environmenlal Review
An Environmenlal Assessmenl (EA)
was issued on AugustS, 2007. The
EA describes potential environmental
impacts thot could result from the
proposed project and suggests
mifigation measures Ihat cauld
prevent or minimize these impacts.
The EA is availoble for public review
and comment at the Granite Falls
City Hall and Ubrary, Snohomish
County Public Works, and County
webslle (www.snoco.org, search
"Granite Falls Alternate Route').
Oll 'ON I!UUE\l
VM 'jj&J9^3
OIVd
96DjSOd sn
illS ~~SlId
You may submit wrillen comments:
. at the meefing on August 22,
. by email: crilly.ritz@
co.snohomish.wo.us, or
. by mail: Crilly Ritz, Snohomish
Counly Public Works, 3000
Rockefeller Ave" MIS 607, Everell,
WA 98201
All comments received in writing and
verbally at the August 22 hearing will
become pari of tI1e hearing record.
A wrillen respanse and 0 copy of
the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) document will be sent 10
each person who comments on
the EA.
Comments are due
by Sept. 7, 2007.
Accommodalion and Accessibility
The meefing site is accessible to
persons witl1 disabilities. Individuals
requiring reasonable accommoda-
tion may request written materials in
alternative formats, sign longuage
interpreters, physical accessibility
accommodations or other
-.
reaoonable accommodalion by
calling Tina Hokanoon, Communica-
tions Specialisl, 01425.388.3789, or
by emailing her attina.hokonson@
co.snohomish.wa.us. People with
hearing impairments may coli the
County's text telephone line at
425.388.3700 or the Washington
Relay Center at 711 ,
The co-lead agencies ensure full
compliance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1987 and related
stalules by prohibiting discrimination
based on rcH;e1 color, natiom:J1 origin
and sex in tI1e provision of benefits
and services. For more information
on Tille VI, please call WSDOT Tille VI
Coordinator at 360.705-7098.
Serio un tradu/oten el reunion eI 22
de Agosto. Si tiene preguntos, par
favor confaclo Diana Williams,
Snohomish County, (425) 388.3488,
x3584 au diana.williams@?
cO.snohomish. wo.us
This paper is recycled & recyclable.
~OGS6 '1M '>>8J8^3
L09 Sill, 'J811"18~OOl; oooe
SlI,aM ollqnd
"^llI1oax3 Ajunoo 'uop,rB&lj uo'e"
AJunQO lJS!WOlJOUS
~
'- -0 )>
~g~. ~ ]
~CX)mCJ:;
::IOQ ~....
0..0 :" :'l ~
3m...
3 3! ... ..
"'''0 ~ n
=:s '"1 :J :r
rtro -. Q)
>-:r' ~ _~.
"::l '" () '-
-::l _ ()
"rn m
=-:' """0 ~ :g
n < Q)
~ (';l. ;:,
...., "
_. 3"
o _. to
::I ~ ()
, 0
~ 3
3
~.
o'
"
[~
.
fti
.~
'"~ ~~
''l',
".?<{
,.~:.
<it) '~'"'~;."'."e'-
.. ,
\\~- ..
Z
\ 51
3::0 ~
r:I: 0"
>0 ~
0_ :'\.. N
CXl~ :--, g
";"0 '" ex>
DD~ ~D_,
;0 ;0 b ;,y i
c: c: ..... .., _
.., w 0 _.
n1 !!. - !t ~
i ::0 ;g (I) ;a.
m m:1. "'C
~. a: g ~
c. CD;:; 0
CD :J s:::: CD
a !:t. CD ;:::::
e!: a!. ~
~
-:.: ~
~ .!:!! 'i';!ihWl .'
~ iH!I!IIIH! ,',
o mlf!!llll
g :'11"-;1 iU
t h '.
8 ""! II
Ii.
I i
8 " I
I ..... ~
...... I
. -..~
, ,
~~'-' .
'.
>
>NO l;; CD" ~
.., III _ .;::
~ 0 ::::) CD -
~ CO CD' ~ a f~
:: () 0 5' ~ !!..:.
~o ."l ~ Q. !o
~ a J:! CD !l ..~!.
::"0 III :< .. !!.
f"t ""f 5 C1
> ~ -. "'"
:r cS ~.
totj ~ -"""
"0::12<-
_ 00 CD n
nO:t ;. "0
~ n Qi
'" :J
2'r :s 2.
:: ~'- r~
(')
o
, 3
3
in'
l/l
. S'
:J
'"
.
e.
it
.
'"
!.
z
3:: 51
r' ~
>~ ~ CT
0l"'1 . ~
~Sl ~ t'..)
V1<: . 0
0-:: ~ ~
~!)DDD~ 0
" '" I '" '" r " ;.,
~.l; ~cR.~
il.. ~.. t !i
)0."'" ;:tI;:tI:>.. Q
c2 ~~o :I
~ :! i ~ ll: ~ :;
a-""g~~ !!!:
~ O~~~ !i
i a lit. I!t. It .....
!!:. -:: -:: ..!.
;.;, :..0.
.g ..9
'-
>t--l '"
3 8 ~
~ 00 (5'
::l () 0
p.. 0 .=l
3 3 ]I
~"O ~
;:;.., "
>~ ~.
"0 ~ C)
"O:l m
:=-~. ~
n <
~ ~
p. "'O~...
o _
:l ~
'"0
'"
~
o
~
'"
':<
C)
".
II>
:;-
...p..""
z
o
s:: s:: <1i
-- 3
>~ ~ ~
00_ .,
"'. '"
00 S"" "':\ 0
':l ~ 0
iD 0-
r;u'"Oi;'
)> l:: m '0
s: OJ il =:
- - ctI (')
;::0 ::0 Ul ~
o '" _
O!!!. "'0
() g. QJ
o a 2
o 0)"
:J - :E
< ~
'" ~
~. ~
"
(")
'"
C)
a 0
III
III
a til
II>
lj} ~
'!<i'.
~
~.'
[iPlihlUl
[hti!l!f'f!
1i!llfll'llil
~H[i!jl I.H
I'll I I fi
! t
1 I
I
.
!
~
4
fl
Pl
~: ""'., ",.~'
""-,-",-,..,,,*,, ,",,',
....~;::;;.;---~~l:",'f-~
. '~O'&'~
$'.... - ."
..:.-;">0;
,"
~
5:.,.
0_
cor-:
':l
-0-
:3,<:
'"
.
l!.
~
"
!.
'il"-! "flI
1[1' II:! 0
I II[lfl1r!F
o Ii{ r,II' I 'f
~ J 'r 1 J c ,~
~ ltif,iij II!
Ii t".j, I'
I. l il
I I
~ .
; -.1
. ,
'ti
";\I
~.
\.i
'j,"j"~ 1f:!'
Ii~. ..
, ..~.1i
:<<~ '';'''~;''.~
~~;"'..Ct:~iJ~<-
~~.; -..-
~J<it\~,. _"
,:jt~t':$' ';::'~j ~_1,
-'~:' _ _ :'-
"Ii. . '~
,:{..,' -,. ,t'-'"
lit
.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT DOCKET
.
I
STAFF REPORT AND SEPA ADDENDUM
Preliminary Staff Recommendation
with Environmental Analysis
for the Adoption of Amendments
to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and Unified Development Code
September 3, 2008
INTEGRA TED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT/
STA TE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENT
Environmental Review of a Non-Project Action:
Addendum to Existing Environmental Documents
Principal Contributors/Authors
Department of Community Development
Long-Range Planning
.
AI Scalf, Director
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner
Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner
Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner
Ryan Hunter, Assistant Planner
Technical Contributors
Department of Central Services
Doug Noltemeier, Senior GIS Analyst
Logistical Contributors
Department of Community Development
Rose Ann Carroll, Office Coordinator
Jeanie Orr, Planning Clerk - Long Range Planning
...
.
TRANSMITTAL MEMO
To:
General public and all interested parties
From:
DCD Long Range Planning
Date:
September 3, 2008
Subject:
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle and associated UDC Amendment Documents
It is important to note that in order to fully review documents related to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket's eight (8) proposals and one (1) Unified Development Code amendment proposal, one
document is provided:
. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Staff Report and SEPA Addendum with
appendices
The document is available to the public and other interested parties in several formats:
. Free Download - Accessible online from the Jefferson County homepage
htto:llwww.co.iefferson.wa.us
. Free Reference Copy - For in-house review at:
. DCD main office in the Castle Hill Mall at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,
WA 98368;
. Jefferson County Public Library, 620 Cedar Avenue, Port Hadlock, WA 98339
. Hard Copy - For purchase at DCD main office for a cost of $0.15 per page;
. Compact Disc - For purchase at a cost of$1.10 paid in advance at DCD main office.
Page 1 of1
~ . -,-,
Table of Contents
Page
1 Environmental Summary & Fact Sheet .......................................................................1-1
1.1 Fact Sheet ........................................ .................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Environmental Summary ..................................... .............................................. 1-5
1.2.1 Introduction & Process........................................................................... 1-5
1.2.1.1 Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents ..................... 1-5
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference............................... 1-6
1.2.1.3 Level of Environmental Analysis............................................... 1-6
1.2.1.4 Process & Public Involvement.................................................. 1-7
1.2.2 Major Conclusions .............................,................................................... 1-9
1.2.2.1 Summary Matrix of Impacts & Mitigation Measures ................. 1-9
1.2.2.2 Comparison of Current & Proposed Land Use Designations 1-12
1.2.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .............................. 1-14
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty............................,..... 1-14
1.2.4 Issues to be Resolved ......................................................................... 1-18
1,2.4.1 Environmental Choices to be Made............. ..................... ....1-18
1.2.4.2 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures.......... ..................... ....1-18
1.2.4.3 Main Options to be Preserved or Foreclosed by the Action... 1-19
2 Concise Analysis of the Proposals.............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Overview..., ,....,..................... ,......................... ....... ................. .......... ............ ......2-1
2.1.1 Individual & Cumulative Impact Analysis, & Staff Recommendations... 2-1
2.1.2 Growth Management Indicators ...... ........ .. .... ..................... ......2-1
2.2 Final Docket .......................................................................... ................ ......2-4
2.2.1 Staff Recommendation Summary ............................ .................... .......2-5
2.3 Staff Reports: Site-Specific Amendments ................................ ................ ......2-6
2.3.1 Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (3).. ............... .......2-7
2.3.1.1 MLA08-32 (D. Holland)..................................................... .......2-9
2.3,1.2 MLA08-69 (George)............................................................... 2-14
2.3.1.3 MLA08-84 (Broders) .............................................................2-19
2.3.1.4 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Rural
Residential Density ..................................................... ............ 2-25
2.3.2 Request for Change from Commercial Forest Resource Land
Designation to combination of Rural Forest, Agriculture of Local
Significance, or Rural Residential Densities (1) .......... ....................... 2-25
2.3.2.1 MLA08-56 (Brown/Goldsmith) . .............................................. 2-32
~ ,. , . '
2.3.2.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change of Forest Resource
Land Designation to combination of Rural Forest, Agriculture of
Local Significance, and Rural Residential.............................. 2-26
2.3.3 Request for Change from Commercial Forest Land Designation to Rural
Residential (1) ... ,.................................................... ....................... ..__..2-37
2.3.3.1 MLA08-73 (Jackson) .............................................................. 2-38
2.3.3.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Forest
Resource Land Designation to Rural Residential................... 2-42
2.3.4 Request for Application of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay to an
Underlying Commercial Forest Land Designation............................... 2-42
2.3.4,1 MLA08-93 (Pope Resources)................................................. 2-48
2.3.4.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Application of the Mineral
Resource Land Overlay Designation to an Underlying Forest
Resource Land Designation ................................................... 2-54
2.3.5 Request for Change from Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
Designation to Light Industrial (1)....................................................... 2-54
2.3.5.1 MLA08-101 (Hendy) ............................................................... 2-59
2.3.5.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from
Resource-Based Industrial Zone RBIZ) to Light Industrial.... 2-62
2.3.6 Request for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural
Commercial (1) ................................ .__..........__.. .....2-62
2.3.6.1 MLA08-96 (M. Holland) ____. .........2-66
2.3.6.2 Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Rural
Residential Designation to Rural Commercial..................... .. 2-69
3 Supporting Record, Analysis, & Materials .................................................................. 3-1
4 Distribution List ..,......................................................................................................... 4-1
5 Appendices ............................................................................................................... 5-1
A. Location Maps of Proposed Amendments.....................................................A-1
A-1 MLA 08-32 (D. Holland) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone.................A-2
A-2 MLA 08-56 (Brown/Goldsmith) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone.......A-3
(MLA08-59 (Guise) was withdrawn on August 27, 2008)
A-4 MLA08-69 (George) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone .....__..............A-4
A-5 MLA08-73 (Jackson) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone ................... ..A-5
A-6 MLA08-84 (Broders) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone.......................A-6
A-7 MLA08-93 (Pope Resources) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone.........A-7
A-7a MLA08-93 (Burnett/Pope Resources) - Viewshed Map.........__..........................A-8
A-8 MLA08-96 (M. Holland) - Map of Proposed RedesignationlRezone ..................A-9
A-9 MLA08-101 (Hendy) - Map of Proposed RedesignationlRezone .................__.A-10
8. Legal Notice published September 3, 2008....................................................8-1
ii
',- 'r-
C. MLA08-101 (Hendy) - Comprehensive Plan Line.inlLine-out Changes......C.1
D. MLA08-389 - Unified Development Code Line-inlLine-out Changes ...........0-1
E. Jefferson County Resolution No. 55-03, September 22, 2003...................... E-1
iii
, r ~ r
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 eight (8) individual amendment proposals
to the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
and one (1) amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC). All eight (8) are site-specific amendment
proposals (one of which is for a Mineral Resource
Land Overlay (MRLO), that comprise the 2008
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, which is the
"Final Docket" for this year's annual amendment
cycle,'
This document is a combined Staff Report and State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum for the
eight (8) site-specific proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments and one (1) UDC amendment. 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 eight (8)
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
and one (1) UDC amendment that are the subject of
this notice. Each case has a Master Land Use
Application (MLA) file number and Assessor's Parcel
Number (APN) for reference:
Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1. MLA08-32; Dave HollandlDavos Capital LLC;
corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue,
Port Townsend, WA; 14.02 acres (APN 001-
064-002); RR 1: 1 0 to 1 :5.
2. MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown
1 The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket was established by the Board of County Commissioners
(BoCe) on July 7, 2008 following consideration of a Preliminary Docket containing thirteen (13) items.
1.1
j1 "
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehel1$ive Plen Amendment Steff R~ & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Trust (David Goldsmith, agent); one mile west
of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center
Roads, Chimacum, WA; 116 acres (APN 801-
091-010, application under number
801091002); for 80 acres, request is CF 1 :80
to RF 1 :40; and for 36 acres, request is CF
1:80 to RR 1:20 or AL 1:20.
3. MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472
South Edwards Road, Port Townsend, WA; 20
acres (APN 001-191-002); RR 1:20 to 1:10.
4. MLA08-73; James Jackson/Chimacum
Heights LLC; near Chimacum, WA; 120 acres
(APN 901-132-002); CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
5. MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR
Partnership; 0.3 miles down Cleveland Street,
off Oak Bay Road near Port Hadlock, WA; 38
acres (APN 901-121-001); RR 1:20to RR 1:5.
6. MLA08-93; James Burnett/Pope Resources);
three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge
immediately north of Highway 104, and
adjacent to the Shine Quarry, Port Ludlow,
WA; 142 acres (APNs 821-324-002,821-311-
001, 821-291-002, and 821-302-001); CF 1 :80
to Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO).
7. MLA08-96; Michael Holland/Blue Moon
Investments; intersection of Shine Road and
Highway 104; 0.50 acres (APN 821-333-001);
RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial (Neighborhood
Visitor Crossroads (NC)).
8. MLA08-101; Catherine HendylGerard
Company; 5411 Center Road, Chimacum,
WA; 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres (APNs 801-102-
004 and 80H 02-002 respectively); request is
to rezone less than 4 acres on the first parcel
from Resource Based Industrial (RBIZ) to
Light Industrial.
Suggested UDC Amendment:
1. MLA08-389: Removing specific identification of
locations from Industrial zoning references and
changes reflecting the re-designation of the
Center Valley Resource Based Industrial Zone
to Light Industrial.
Proponent
The Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BoCC) on behalf of the applicants for
the eight (8) site-specific amendment proposals.
Lead Agency
Jefferson County Department of Community
Development (DCD)
Long-Range Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
SEPA Responsible Official:
Stacie Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager
1-2
" r,+
Authors and Principal
Contributors
Date of Staff Report & SEPA
Addendum
Date Comments are Due
Past Related Actions and
Future Anticipated Actions
Tentative Adoption Date
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amemiment Staff Reporl & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
(360) 379-4463
Contact Person(s):
Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4482
or
Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4472
or
Ryan Hunter, Assistant Planner
DCD Long-Range Planning
(360) 379-4464
Jefferson County Department of Community
Development Long-Range Planning
September 3, 2008
For all eight amendment proposals:
. Oral comments are welcome at the Planning
Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at the
Washington State University (WSU) Extension
Office, Spruce Room, Port Hadlock, WA.
. Written comments will be accepted by DCD on
behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30
p.m. on Friday, October 3, 2008. Send to:
Department of Community Development, 621
Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at
6:30 PM, Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at the
WSU Extension Office, Spruce Room, Port Hadlock,
WA. In mid-November, DCD expects to transmit to
the BoCC a final DCD Staff Recommendation together
with the Planning Commission Recommendation for
all proposals on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket and the one related UDC
amendment.
A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the
eight (8) Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals
and the one UDC amendment under consideration is
expected sometime prior to the end of the second
week in December 2008. The meeting schedules and
agendas for the Planning Commission and BoCC with
regard to this Docket are available on a Jefferson
County web page dedicated to the 2008
Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle
process. This web page can be accessed from the
1-3
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Pian Amendment Staff Reporl & SEPA Addandum
September 3, 2008
"1' I'
Appeal Information
Location of Background
Material and Documents
Incorporated by Reference
Relation to Other Documents
Cost to the Pu blic
Jefferson County website:
htto:llwww.co.iefferson.wa.us.
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 (i.e., a
legislative decision by the BoCC) are heard first by the
Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board.
Background material and documents used to support
development of the Addendum are available for
inspection from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through
Friday, at the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port
Townsend WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. Appointments
are welcome.
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.
Copies of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum, or selected pages thereof, are available at
no cost from the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development (DCD) and are also
available for free on Compact Disk. The documents
can be downloaded in PDF format from the DCD web
page dedicated to the 2008 annual amendment cycle
(htto:l/www.co.iefferson.wa.us). Copies of this
document are also available for inspection at DCD and
the Jefferson County Public Library at Port Hadlock.
1-4
'. ,{
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Steff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 updated the Plan on December 13, 2004. 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 in
December 2000 to guide the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan. The 2008 "Preliminary
Docket" included thirteen (13) proposed amendments (ten (10) site-specific amendments and three (3)
suggested amendments.) Consistent with JCC ~18.45, all site-specific amendments (formal applications
submitted in conjunction with a fee) automatically qualified for the "Final Docket." Two site-specific
amendment applications, MLA08-87 and MLA08-59, were withdrawn in writing by the applicants. MLA08-
87 was withdrawn on May 9, 2008, and MLA08-59 was withdrawn on August 27, 2008 (leaving eight (8)
site-specific amendments). The Jefferson County Planning Commission heard testimony on three (3)
suggested amendments on the Preliminary Docket and formulated a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners (BoCC) regarding the composition of the Final Docket. The BoCC then
established the Final Docket, declining to docket the three (3) suggested amendments and establishing
the eight (8) site-specific amendments as the total number of amendment proposals on the Final Docket.
One (1) UDC amendment is also associated with this amendment process as it amends the Development
Regulations relating to one of the proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 GMNSEPA 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 through legal notice published in the
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader newspaper on September 3, 2008 (Appendix A):
. 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, dated February
24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, examined the potential cumulative environmental
impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan;
. The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2004 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 22,
2004;
1-5
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plen Amendmen! S/aff Report & SEPA Addendum
Seplember 3, 2008
. The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on August 3, 2005;
. The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on July 19, 2006;
. The Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum prepared for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket by the Department of Community Development, issued on September 5,
2007.
1.2.1.2 Incorporation of Documents by Reference
The eight (8) Comprehensive Plan amendment applications and one (1) UDC amendment application,
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.
Moreover, to the greatest extent possible this document includes descriptions of, and references to, the
content of the eight (8) individual proposals, but these descriptions do not include all the information from
each Comprehensive Plan amendment application. For a more thorough understanding of the discussion
presented here, the Comprehensive Plan amendment applications themselves should be consulted to
supplement the information in this document.
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 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket proposals and
associated UDC amendment proposal. 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).
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 SEPAl.
Jefferson County is employing the phased review concept in its environmental review of grow1h
management planning actions. The analysis in this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum will be used to
review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and UDC. 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
1-6
'. 'r
Jeff""on County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
evaluation and as additional information becomes available. Future project action environmental review
for development applications that are not categorically exempt from SEPA could occur in the form of a
supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
1.2.1.4
Process and Public Involvement
The following Is a description of the anticipated review and public involvement process for the 2008
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, related UDC amendment, and associated Staff Report and
SEPA Addendum.
This 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum is available
to agencies and interested parties pursuant to GMA and SEPA rules. Comments on the merits of the
proposals shall be accepted as outlined below under "Public Comment Period."
1.2.1.4.1 Preliminary Public Outreach - Docketina 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, 2008 deadline
for applications set forth in JCC 18.45.040 (2) (a).
On April 9, 2008, the Planning Commission and BoCC held a joint workshop to gather information and
review both site-specific and suggested 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 16, 2008, to receive public comment on
the suggested amendments of the preliminary docket.
On April 16, 2008, the Planning Commission transmitted its final docketing report and recommendations
to the BoCC.
On June 9, 2008, after timely and effective public notice, the BoCC held an open-record public hearing on
the three suggested amendments on the preliminary docket.
On July 7, 2008, the BoCC adopted the 2008 Final Docket of eight (8) proposals for review.
1.2.1.4.2 Review of Final Docket - Plannina Commission Public Hearina - Public Comment
Period
The Jefferson County Planning Commission is scheduled to hold at least one (1) public hearing to take
testimony on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that comprise the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket (2008 Docket) and the associated UDC amendment. Formal notice will appear
in the newspaper of record, the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, prior to the public hearings.
The issuance of this Staff Report and SEPA Addendum on Wednesday, September 3, 2008, initiates a
public comment period. For the eight (8) site-specific amendment proposals comprising the final docket
and the associated one (1) UDC amendment:
. Oral comments are welcome at the Planning Commission public hearing, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday,
September 17, 2008, at WSU Extension Office, Spruce Room, Port Hadlock.
. Written comments will be accepted by DCD on behalf of the Planning Commission through 4:30 p.m.
on Friday, October 3, 2008.
Please submit any written comments to DCD at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via
email toplanninQtCv.co.iefferson.wa.us. Comments submitted prior to the close of the comment period will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration during that advisory body's deliberations.
1-7
. F j F
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plen Amendment SI.ff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Please note that the Planning Commission may elect at its discretion to schedule an additional date and
time for oral comments, and/or extend the period in which written comments may be accepted.
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 hold a public hearing before taking tinallegislative 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 Availabilitv of Documents
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 DCD
Long-Range Planning at the mail or email addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the
2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where many relevant documents and maps are
available in Portable Document Format (PDF). The 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle
webpage can be accessed through the County homepage: httD:!/www.co.iefferson.wa.us.
1.2.1.4.4 Plannina Commission and Board of County Commissioners Deliberation
Following the public hearing(s) 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 September 17, and may continue deliberating on the proposed
amendments during its regularly scheduled meetings of October 15, 2008, and November 1, 2008. It is
anticipated that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation and transmittal document to the
BoCC on all proposed amendments by Wednesday, November 19, 2008.
The Planning Commission generally meets the first and third Wednesdays of any given month at the
WSU Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock, It is possible that
the Planning Commission will hold one or more special meetings outside of the meeting schedule outlined
above. Additional meetings will be properly noticed in the legal section of the Leader. Following the
completion of the Planning Commission recommendation on the 2008 Docket, DCD will formally transmit
the Planning Commission recommendation to the BoCC along with the DCD final staff recommendations,
any comments submitted during the public comment period, and the record of the Planning Commission
deliberations. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission and DCD recommendations wiil be
presented to the BoCC in late November 2008.
In making a final legislative decision on the 2008 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 2008 Docket.
A legislative decision from the BoCC on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals under
consideration is expected prior to the end of the second week in December 2008 (Monday, December 8'h
has been tentatively identified as a likely adoption date). The meeting schedules and agendas for the
Planning Commission and BoCC with regard to the 2008 Docket are available on a Jefferson County
webpage dedicated to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle process. This webpage
can be accessed from the Jefferson County website: hllD:llwww.co.iefferson.wa.us.
1-8
. ,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff RepoiI & SEPA Addandum
September 3, 2008
1.2.2 Major Conclusions
The summary conclusions andlor 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).
1
MLA08-32; Dave
HollandlDavos
Capitai LLC; corner
of Arabian Lane and
Hastings Avenue,
Port Townsend, WA;
14.02 acres (APN
001-064-002); RR
1:10 to 1:5.
No significant adverse
environmental impacts
identified.
Approve.
1-9
.. I'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Reporl & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2 MLA08-56; Gloria No significant adverse Deny.
Brown, Trustee, BG environmental impacts
Brown Trust (David identified.
Goldsmith, agent);
one mile west of the
intersection of
Eaglemount and
Center Roads,
Chimacum, WA; 116
acres (APN 801-091-
010, application
under number 801-
091-002); for 80
acres, request is CF
1 :80 to RF 1 :40; and
for 36 acres, request
is CF 1:80 to RR 1:20
or AL 1 :20.
3 MLA08-69; Jeffrey No significant adverse Deny.
and Tamara environmental impacts
George; 472 South identified.
Edwards Road, Port
Townsend, WA; 20
acres (APN 001-
191-002); RR 1 :20
to 1:10.
4 MLA08-13; James No significant adverse Deny.
JacksonlChimacum environmental impacts
Heights LLC; near identified.
Chimacum, WA; 120
acres (APN 901-132-
002); CF 1 :80 to RR
1:10.
5 MLA08-84; Richard No significant adverse Deny.
Broders/CMR environmental impacts
Partnership; 0.3 miles identified.
down Cleveland
Street, off Oak Bay
Road near Port
Hadlock, WA; 38
acres (APN 901-121-
001); RR 1 :20 to RR
1:5.
1-tO
'l 'f
Je~rson Ccun/y 2008 Ccmprehensive Plan Amendment St.ir Repolt & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
6 MLA08-93; James Yes. SEPA Mitigated Approve with with modifications and
BurnetVPope Determination of Non- mitigating measures as conditions of
Resources); three Significance (MONS). The approval.
miles west of the Hood Mineral Resource Land
Canal Bridge Overlay (MRLO) is a The following reports would need to
immediately north of zoning/planning tool with full be prepared:
Highway 104, and expectation that mining may
adjacent to the Shine occur within the overlay zone, Visual impact analysis;
Quarry, Port Ludlow, within the standards and Habitat Management Plan;
WA; 142 acres (APNs guidelines in Jefferson Stormwater Pollution Plan;
821-324-002,821- County Code and applicable Report on existing noise levels and
311-001,821-291-002, state and federal laws. Supplemental Noise Report for Iron
and 821-302-001); CF Approval of the MRLO would Mountain Quarry (IMQ) mine
1 :80 to Mineral Increase the likelihood of operation;
Resource Land wetland impacts, water Mine site illumination report: light and
Overlay (MRLO). quantity & quality concerns, glare analysis;
noise, light, 9lare, dust and Transportation report with
traffic impacts. Complying Transportation Impacts Analysis;
with Conditions for approval Hydro-geological report: groundwater
can mitigate these impacts. supply and water quality of recharge;
Wetland Invento
7 MLA08-96; Michael No significant adverse Approve with modification.
HollandlBlue Moon environmental impacts
investments; identified.
intersection of Shine
Road and Highway
104: 0,50 acres (APN
821-333-001): RR 1:5
to Rural Commercial
(NeighborhoodNisitor
Crossroad (NC)).
8 MLA08-101 (and No significant adverse Approve with modification.
associated UDC environmental impacts
amendment MLA08- identified. The property has been identified as
389); Catherine potentially needing environmental
Hendy/Gerard remediation as part of any new
Company; 5411 development.
Center Road,
Chimacum, WA; 9.5
acres and 1.2 acres
(APNs 801-102-004
and 801-102-002
respectively); request
is to rezone less than
4 acres on the first
parcel from Resource
Based Industrial
(RBIZ) to Light
Industrial.
1.11
-t. t'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
1.2.2.2
Comparison of Current and Proposed Land Use District Designations
The following table displays the (approximate) current number of acres within each land use district (from
the Comprehensive Plan, County Geographic Information System database, and other sources), and the
proposed change in the approximate number of acres under each district under the proposals. Increases
in gross acreage are indicated with "+" and decreases are indicated with "-". The reader should
understand that these numbers are approximations for planning purposes only, and most figures have
been rounded. They do not necessarily represent the actual numbers of acres on the ground. They are,
however, the best approximation available at this time. The purpose of the table is to set a context for the
legislative decision before the Board of County Commissioners for this year's amendment cycle.
All acreage figures in the following table are in gross acres, including road rights-of-way and some water
features. The net developable acreage would be lower.
RR 1:5
29,244
9,689
51,341
RR 1:10
RR 1:20
Rural Village Centers
(Hadlock, Brinnon,
Quilcene
General Crossroads
Convenience
Crossroads
Neighborhood
Crossroads
96
11
No chan e
No change
No chan e
11.5
+.5
No change
122
MPR - Village
Commercial Center
MPR - Resort
Com lex 10:1
MPR - Multiple Family
10:1
MPR - Single Family
4:1
MPR - Single Family
Tracts 1 :2.5
43
No change
No change
57
No change
No chan ge
75
No change
No change
1,431
No change
No change
114
No change
No change
2 MLA08-56: applicant requests that 36 acres be rezoned either Agriculture of Local Significance (AL 1 :20), or Rural
Resldentlai (RR) 1 :20. Here tHe assumption Is that the AL 1 :20 designation is used; however, approval could result in
a 36-acre increase in RR 1 :20, and a corresponding 36-acre decrease in AL 1 :20, as represented in this table.
3 Gross Acreage under proposal MLA06-87, addressed throu9h a separate EIS and approved in January 2008,
increased overall MPR areas by 256 acres (approx.) however, zoning within the MPR has not as of this writin9 been
allocated.
1-12
.. ,+
JeffelSOfl County 2008 Comprehensive Plen Amendment Staff RepOlt & SEPA Acklendum
September 3, 2008
Parks, Preserves,
Recreation - Not MPR
Olympic National
Forest
01 m ic National Park
2,859
No change
No change
57,299
No change
No change
56
90
No change
No change
1-13
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
Saptember 3, 2008
" ...
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 (Table 1, Section 1.2.2.1). Many of those conciusions 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). For more information on the relationship of plan and policymaking to future review of
development permit applications, review the discussion on Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures below at
91.2.4.2,
1.2.3 Significant Areas of Controversy & Uncertainty
Table 3 summarizes the key environmental issues and options facing decision-makers:
1 MLA08-32; Dave
HollandlDavos
Capital LLC; corner
of Arabian Lane and
Hastings Avenue,
Port Townsend, WA;
14.02 acres (APN
001-064-002); RR
1:10 to 1:5.
As has been the case since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
1998, that which constitutes "an established pattern of same or
similar sized parcels" (LNPs 3.3.1 through 3.3.3) is somewhat
unclear. In the past, this criterion has been applied in instances
where if more than 50% of the perimeter of a parcel abuts areas
designated andlor divided into parcels of higher density, to permit
up-zoning. Application of the established pattern criteria may be
useful in making decisions about the allocation of future population
grow1h, but in isolation of population grow1h allocation
considerations, the established pattern criteria may have limited
purpose and unintended cumulative consequences.
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? Should one year's worth of proposals
be considered "cumulative analysis," or is a longer time frame
optimal in terms of achieving the goals contained in the GMA and
the Comprehensive Plan?
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. Changing the zoning
of the rural residential 1 :10 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.
1-14
, ~ ' ~.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Reporl & SEPA AcJcJencJum
September 3, 2008
2
MLAD8-56; Gloria
Brown, Trustee, BG
Brown Trust (David
Goldsmith, agent);
one mile west of the
intersection of
Eaglemount and
Center Roads,
Chlmacum, WA; 116
acres (APN 801-091-
010, application
under number 801-
091-002); for 80
acres, request is CF
1 :80 to RF 1 :40; and
for 36 acres, request
is CF 1:80 to RR 1:20
or AL 1 :20.
MLAD8-69; Jeffrey and
Tamara George; 472
South Edwards Road,
Port Townsend, WA;
20 acres (APN 001-
191-002); RR 1 :20 to
1:10.
3
The application states the property is misclassified as Commercial
Forest land, and the property is not part of a Forest Land Block of at
least 320 acres. However, forest land is located south of the property.
When one incorporates the Rural Forest land and the forest land
extending south of highway 104, the properly is part of an uninterrupted
zoned forest land block in excess of 320 acres.
The application states that a portion of the zoned forest land is pasture
land and has been pasture iand for some time. While pasture land does
exist within the zoned forest land, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits
the County from rezoning the zoned forest land to agricultural land. The
appropriate time for protesting the designation of the pasture land as
forest land would have been during the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan in 1998 or 2004. Since the plan was not appealed on this issue at
that time, the zoning is presumed valid and any subsequent
amendments must comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
In the past, the primary approach to assessing rural residential rezone
applications has been the application of LNP 3.3 of the comprehensive
plan, especially with regards to the "an established pattern of same or
similar sized parcels' language. The general approach to applying the
'established pattern' language has been use of at least 50% of the
parcel being bordered by greater residential density, in which a
properly is determined to be part of an established pattern of greater
density. However, application of the established pattern in this way is
somewhat arbitrary and applying this 'established pattern' criterion in
isolation of consideration of the rest of the comprehensive plan is
problematic.
The application of the 50%-bounded established pattem could lead to
unintended long-term, cumulative consequences, including:
. creating a 'domino effect' in which rezones often
trigger the potential for up-zoning adjacent properties
to higher density
. drawing population growth away from urban areas
. undermining the goals of the GMA and
Comprehensive Plan by creating new opportunities for
subdivisions which may create rural residential lots
without consideration of the overall projected 20-year
future population growth and its allocation to rural
areas
. reducing the variety of rural densities that is called for
in the GMA and Comprehensive Plan
. reducing the overall rural character, open space, and
native vegetation the County is called to retain in the
Comprehensive Plan without an adequate level of
visioning, planning, and cumulative effects analysis
1-15
"
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Repori & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
4
MLA08-73; James
JacksonlChimacum
Heights LLC; near
Chimacum, WA; 120
acres (APN 901-132-
002); CF 1 :80 to RR
1:10.
5
MLA08-84; Richard
Broders/CMR
Partnership; 0.3 miles
down Cleveland
Street, off Oak Bay
Road near Port
Hadlock, WA; 38
acres (APN 901-121-
001); RR 1:20 to RR
1:5.
The application refers to the "Guidelines for Classification of Forest
Resource Lands in Jefferson County" in arguing for the rezoning of
this property. However, these guidelines cannot be considered In
isolation of the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, which calls on the
County to classify and designate natural resource lands. The
Comprehensive Plan establishes a number of Natural Resources
Goals (NRG 1 through 5) which encourage conservation of forest
resources, sustainability of forest resources, environmental
compatibility, minimization of land use conflicts and encouraging
the continuation of forestry on commercial lands as well as lands
which are not designated as commercial forest resource lands.
The application states the property has been poorly managed in the
past and it will not provide a primary income for the applicant. Poor
management in the past, as unfortunate as that is, cannot be a
consideration in the County's analysis; to do so could inadvertently
create an incentive for other forestland owners to poorly manage
their land in order to justify a rezone to residential use. Also, the
property's Forest Management Plan states that this property can be
expected to produce high quality timber and that the Douglas firs
and red cedars are growing at an ideal level for the given
conditions. Large scale commercial harvest needs to consider a
typical rotation cycle for commercial forest land of 40-60 years to
assess financial viability. It should be noted that the applicant
purchased this properly in July of 2007, subsequent to the alleged
poor management.
The 38-acre parcel, zoned RR 1 :20, is situated in the middle of the
local promontory or ness. It is immediately surrounded by land
zoned rural residential 1 :5. A broader view of the area reveals
other RR 1 :20 parcels in the immediate vicinity.
The application suggests an error on part of Jefferson County for
not zoning the entire area as RR 1:5 in the 2004 Comprehensive
Plan. However, the zoning of RR1:20 is consistent and reflective of
the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the
Land Use and Rural, Open Space, and Environment elements.
Further, the parcel conforms to the definition and purpose of
RR1:20 in JCC 18.15.015 (1)(c).
The application provides supporting argument for the rezone
request utilizing the aforementioned 50%-bounded established
pattern, noting the surrounding RR1:5 parcels and relating it to the
established pattern criterion. As discussed above in MLA08-69,
this criterion 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.
1-16
"
Jefferson County 2008 Ccmprehensive Plen Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
6
MLA08-93; James
BurnettlPope
Resources); three
miles west of the
Hood Canal Bridge
immediately north of
Highway 104, and
adjacent to the Shine
Quarry, Port Ludlow,
WA; 142 acres
(APNs 821-324-002,
821-311-001,821-
291-002, and 821-
302-001); CF 1:80 to
Mineral Resource
Land Overlay
(MRLO).
7
MLA08-96; Michael
HollandlBlue Moon
Investments;
intersection of Shine
Road and Highway
104; ,50 acres (APN
821-333-001); RR 1:5
to Rural Commercial
(NeighborhoodNisitor
Crossroad (NC)).
8
MLA08-101 (and
associated UDC
amendment MLA08-
389); Catherine
Hendy/Gerard
Company; 5411
Center Road,
Chimacum, WA; 9.5
acres and 1.2 acres
(APNs 801-102-004
and 801-102-002
respectively); request
is to rezone less than
4 acres on the first
parcel from Resource
Based Industrial
(RBIZ) to Light
Industrial.
This proposal raises the issue as to how JCC 18.15.170(6) should
be applied to individual requests for application of the MRL Overlay
designation. Many of the County's most productive resource lands
contain significant fish and wildlife habitat resources, Should the
criterion identified in JCC 18.15.170 (6) be interpreted as precluding
application of the overlay to areas containing designated and
mapped fish and wildlife habitat areas?
If significant adverse impacts are probable in the project-level
analysis as demonstrated in the application, the question arises as
to what level of mitigation should be prescribed in an MRLO.
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort community is located in
close proximity to this proposal and has expressed concern about
potential impacts from the proposed mining activity. GMA gives
preference to natural resources when planning land use. Iron
Mountain Quarry maintains they have existing use rights to mine in
this area and do not need a MRLO. How should these conflicting
land uses be balanced?
In recent years, proposals of this type have raised questions
regarding reconsideration of Local Area of More Intense Rural
Development or "LAMIRD" boundaries. In this case, the
designation criteria have been met. The proposal is consistent with
the criteria for LAMIRDs, set forth at RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). It
would not likely detract from the overall intention of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan.
Subject property qualifies as a limited area of more intensive
development (LAMIRD) with a Convenience Crossroads (CC)
designation, not a designation of NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads
(NC), as requested in the application.
This proposal raises the question as to whether a future light
industrial use will be compatible with the surrounding rural land
uses when compared with the previous use for a sawmill. Because
there is a high level of uncertainty as to what the likely future land
use will be within the limits of the Light Industrial zoning, this
consideration was not a significant factor in this analysis.
1-17
.' f'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff RepoI/ & SEPA Addendum
September3,200B
1.2.4 Issues to Be Resolved
1.2.4.1
Environmental Choices to Be Made
The Comprehensive Plan states that, "a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its
citizens" and further provides four essential components for environmental protection:
. Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy;
. Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review;
. Critical Area Protection Strategy; and
. Public Education and Involvement Strategy.
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 penmit decisions. For more discussion on this process,
refer to 91.2.4.2 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 2008 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 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 at JCC 918.22, et seq. Critical areas are protected through the application of overlay
districts. Examples of such overlay districts include Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded
1-18
"
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Steff Reporl & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 JCC 318.45 Article VI-J. 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 (MONS).
Consideration of mitigation measures that correspond with adoption of anyone 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 iand 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 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 eight (8) of the site-specific proposals and the UDC amendment proposal 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 2004 periodic review. The
County has identified several areas of probable significant adverse impacts from the proposed Iron
Mountain Quarry mining proposal, and has determined that these can be mitigated. This proposal by
Burnett/Pope Resources (MLA08-93) has been assigned a threshold of mitigated determination of non-
significance (MONS).
In deciding when it is appropriate to up-zone lower density rural residential parcels to higher density rural
residential designations, or when it is appropriate to up-zone commercial forest land to 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 2008 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. Denying certain rezone proposals that would
increase pressures to convert commercial forest land andlor rural lands to higher intensity land use
1-19
j. i.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment SI8ff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
designations will likely maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan by reducing present and future
environmental impacts, preventing sprawl, and preserving future planning options.
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 2024. 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.
1.20
'\ ,...
Jefferson Ccunly 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
12 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 JCC 918.45, 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 eight (8) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments on the Final
Docket and the one (1) related UDC amendment; there are no suggested Comprehensive Plan
amendments on the 2008 Final Docket. This document further divides the amendments into sub-
categories,
2.1.1 Individual & Cumulative Analysis, and Staff
Recommendations
Part 2 of this document addresses specific criteria contained in JCC 918.45 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 JCC 918.45.080(1)(b), all proposals regarding amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
must include an inquiry into the seven (7) "growth management indicators" listed at JCC
918.45.050 (4) (b). 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.
2-1
, .
Jefferson Ccunty 2008 Comprehensive Plen Amendment Staff Repari & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
These indicators are not necessarily amendment-specific but rather are meant to provide a
snapshot of Jefferson County's status during this 2008 amendment cycle. This section will serve to
promote consideration and inquiry into these seven growth management indicators (GMls) and is
intended to be a starting point for broader community consideration before the Planning
Commission and the BoCC. While this review of the GMls 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 update
scheduled for completion in 2011.
Jefferson County Code (JCC) ~18.45.050 (4) (b) - GMls
Each of the GMls is discussed in the order listed in JCC ~18.45.050 (4) (b).
(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 (OFM) is the State agency responsible for
compiling population projections under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The April 1, 2008
OFM Population Estimate for Jefferson County for the Allocation of Selected State Revenues,
shows a 2008 population of 28,800. The 1996 "base year" population estimate used in the 1998
Comprehensive Plan (see page 3-3) was identified as 25,754 residents. The 1998 Comprehensive
Plan anticipated a population of 28,482 in 2000, 2,529 less than the 2000 census.
The County passed Resolution #55-03 that adopted the intermediate population projection from
OFM for the period 2000-2024. The population projection anticipates a population of 46,960 in
2024, an annual growth rate of 1.78%. The early 1990s were a time of rapid growth in Jefferson
County, and the population projections that were reflective of the unusual amount of growth at that
"",e. The growth rate of 1.78% is more in line with the historical growth rate of approximately 2%.
That being said, growth trends are difficuit 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 miliion
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).
T
I' T
f
c
able 4. PODU allon rend or Jefferson ountv
YEAR 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2005 2006 2007 2008
County
Population 8300 6420 8346 8918 11618 9639 10661 15965 20406 27600 28200 28600 .28800
Port
Townsend 4181 2847 3970 4683 6888 5074 5241 6067 7001 8745 8820 8865 8925
Percent in
Port 50% 441lfo 47% 53% 59% 53% 49% 38% 34% 32% 31% 31% 31%
Townsend
Jefferson County Population 1910-2008
Source: United States Census, Washington State Office of Financial Management
As Table 4 above indicates, an interesting trend for Jefferson County is an ongoing decrease in the
percentage of residents living in the City of Port Townsend. Since 1950, the percentage of
residents living in the City has dropped from 59% to 31%, with County residential units accounting
for over 70% of the population base. It is not unreasonable to assume that this shift towards
2-2
I. -..
Jefferson County 200B Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 200B
residence in unincorporated areas has resulted in an increased demand for services outside of Port
Townsend.
The Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #55-03 in 2003. This requires the
allocation of growth over a 24 year planning period (2000-2024) as follows:
. 36% to the City of Port Townsend,
. 17% to Port Ludlow MPR,
. 17% to IrondalelHadlock UGA, and
. 30% to the rural areas of Jefferson County.
(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,
with the exception of policy decisions made as a result of economic conditions, 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 Area (UGA) with urban services, specifically sanitary sewer service and stormwater
management.
(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 IrondalelPort Hadlock
UGA, an analysis of vacant lands within the proposed UGA and a build-out analysis were
completed. These studies evaluated the ability to accommodate the allocated population. The
2024 planning horizon scenario accommodated the allocated projected growth of 4,906 people.
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 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, the majority of
assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid. However, county population growth is
occurring more slowly than projected in 1998. Moreover, 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.
(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 and revised in 2004. Updating the Comprehensive Plan in 2011 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
August of 1998. Taken from a broad perspective, these changing circumstances include: issues
2-3
',. ..
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
surrounding affordable housing, specific salmon species listings under the Endangered Species
Act, climate change issues, significantly increased fuel costs, County adoption of final development
regulations which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act,
Growth Management Hearings Boards clarifications through case law reiated to specific provisions
of the GMA, the adoption of Unified Development Code amendments establishing a process for
locating Major Industrial Development, the completion of the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study,
designation of Glen Cove LightlndustriaUCommercial area, and the designation, and then appeal
and non-compliance decision of the Irondale/Port Hadlock area as a UGA Many of these changes
in circumstances were addressed during the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 updates or amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan,
(7) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Polley 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, Portions
of the Comprehensive Plan found to be "non-compliant" by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board are not relevant to these proposed amendments, In 2004, Jefferson
County, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, conducted a review of the Comprehensive Plan
and the UDC to ensure consistency between those documents and the Growth Management Act
2.2 FINAL DOCKET
Following are brief descriptions of each of the eight (8) proposed site-specific amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and the one (1) related UDC amendment Each case has a Master Land Use
Application (MLA) file number and Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) for reference,
Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1, MLA08-32; Dave HollandlDavos Capital LLC; corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings
Avenue, Port Townsend, WA; 14,02 acres (APN 001-064-002); RR 1 :10 to 1 :5,
2, MLA08-56; Gloria Brown, Trustee, BG Brown Trust (David Goldsmith, agent); one mile
west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center Roads, Chimacum, WA; 116 acres (APN
801-091-010 - application under number 801-091-002); for 80 acres, request is CF 1 :80 to
RF 1 :40; and for 36 acres, request is CF 1 :80 to RR 1 '20 or AL 1 :20,
3, MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472 South Edwards Road, Port Townsend, WA;
20 acres (APN 001-191-002); RR 1:20 to 1:10,
4, MLA08-73; James Jackson/Chimacum Heights LLC; near Chimacum, WA; 120 acres (APN
901-132-002); CF 180to RR 1:10,
5, MLA08-84; Richard Broders/CMR Partnership; 0,3 miles down Cleveland Street, off Oak
Bay Road near Port Hadlock, WA; 38 acres (APN 901-121-001); RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
6. MLA08-93; James Burnett/Pope Resources); three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge
immediately north of Highway 104, and adjacent to the Shine Quarry, Port Ludlow, WA;
142 acres (APNs 821-324-002,821-311-001,821-291-002, and 821-302-001); CF 1:80 to
Mineral Resource Land Overlay (MRLO).
7. MLA08-96; Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments; intersection of Shine Road and
Highway 104; 0.50 acres (APN 821-333-001); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial
(NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroad (NC)).
8. MLA08-101; Catherine Hendy/Gerard Company; 5411 Center Road, Chimacum, WA; 9.5
acres and 1.2 acres (APN 801-102-004 and 801-102-002 respectively); request is to
rezone less than 4 acres on the first parcel from Resource Based Industrial (RBIZ) to Light
I nd ustrial.
2-4
. .
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
UDC Amendment:
1. MLA08-389: Removing specific identification of iocations from Industrial zoning references
and changes reflecting the re-designation of the Center Valley Resource Based Industrial
Zone to Light Industrial.
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 eight (8) site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the one (1) related UDC
amendment that are addressed in this Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum are grouped
into six (6) types of proposed actions:
. Rural Residential Rezones (3 proposals)
. Commercial Forest to Rural Residential Rezone (1 proposal)
. Commercial Forest to combination of Rural Forest and Agriculture of Local Significance or
Rural Residential Rezone (1 proposal)
. Resource Based Industrial to Light Industriai Rezone (1 proposal)
. Rural Residential to Commercial Rezone (1 proposal)
. Mineral Resource Land Overlay Designation (1 proposal)
This grouping of proposed actions and detailed discussion is located in Section 2.3 of this report.
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 in part 2.3. The staff recommendations are presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration. In transmitting the Planning Commission recommendation to the
BoCC later this year, 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 the following table:
Table 5. 2008 Comprehensive Plan (and related UDC) Amendment Docket:
Summary of Staff Recommendations
1 MLA08-32
Holland; 001064002
14 acres: RR 1:10 to 1:5 Approve.
2 MLA08-56
Brown; 801091010
(application under #
801091002)
116 acres total: Deny.
80 acres: CF 1 :80 to RF
1:40;
36 acres: CF 1 :80 to RR
1 :20 or AL 1 :20.
2-5
, ,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
3 MLA08-69 George; 001191002 20 acres: RR 1 :20 to RR Deny.
1:10
4 MLA08-73 Jackson; 901132002 120 acres: CF 1:80 to Deny.
RR 1:10
5 MLA08-84 Broders; 901121001 38 acres: RR 1 :20 to RR Deny.
1:5
6 MLA08-93 Burnett/Pope 142 acres: apply MRL Approve with
Resources; Overlay to CF 1 :80 modification and
821324002; conditions.
821311001;
821291002; and
821302001
7 MLA08-96 M. Holland; .50 acres: RR 1:5 to Approve with
821333001 Rural Commercial modification.
NeighborhoodNisitor
Crossroad
8 MLA07 -101 Hendy; 801102004 9.5 acres and 1.2 acres Approve with
(and related and 801102002 respectively: request is modification.
UDC to rezone a portion of
amendment 801102004 from
MLA08-389) Resource-Based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ) to
Li ht Industrial
2.3 STAFF REPORTS: SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
Each of the eight (8) site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals and the one (1)
related UDC amendment proposal evaluated in this document are grouped together below
according to category:
. Three (3) requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (e.g., RR 1 :20 to RR 1 :5);
. One (1) request for Change from Commercial Forest Land Designation to combination of
Rural Forest and Agriculture of Local Significance Densities (e.g., CF 1 :80 to RF 1 :40, or
CF 1 :80 to AL 1:20);), or Rural Residential (e.g., CF 1 :80 to RR 1 :20);
. One (1) request for Change from Commercial Forest Land Designation to Rural Residential
Designation (e.g., CF 1 :80 to RR 1: 1 0);
. One (1) request for Application of an Overlay Designation (e.g., MRL Overlay on CF 1 :80).
. One (1) request for Change from Resource-Based Industrial Zone (RBIZ) Designation to
Light Industrial with necessary concurrent UDC amendment;
. One (1) request for Change from Rural Residential Designation to Rural Commercial (e.g.,
RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial NC); and
2-6
I.. .,
2.3.1
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive PI8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Requests for Change of Rural Residential Density (3)
The three (3) requests 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. Of most relevance is Chapter 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan with particular focus given to pages 3-3 to 3-6 and Land Use Policies (LNP)
3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. These Land Use Policies are copied below.
POLICIES:
LNP 3.1 Identify and encourage diverse rural land uses and densities which
preserve rural character and rural community identity.
LNP 3.2 Establish rural residential land use densities for all lands located outside of
designated Urban Growth Areas. Proposed rural residential densities shall allow for
an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land based upon the County's rural
population projections and needs while maintaining rural character and rural
community identity, preserving rural resource-based uses, and avoiding sprawl.
LNP 3.3 Rural residential densities shown on the Land Use Map shall be
designated by three (3) residential land use densities: one dwelling unit per five (5)
acres, one dwelling unit per ten (10) acres, or one dwelling unit per twenty (20)
acres in size and subject to the following
LNP 3.3.1
LNP 3.3.2
LNP 3.3.3
A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1 :5)
shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (I.e., 5
acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record;
b. parcels of similar size (I.e., 5 acres) or pre-existing smaller parcels
along the coastal areas;
c. parcels immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Rural Village
Centers; and
d. as an overlay to pre-existing developed "suburban" platted
subdivisions.
A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 10 acres
(RR 1:10) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (I.e., 10
acres);
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a "transition" adjacent to Urban Growth Areas;
and,
d. critical area land parcels.
A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 20 acres
(RR 1 :20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with:
a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (I.e., 20
acres) or larger;
b. parcels along the coastal area of similar size;
c. areas serving as a "transition" to Urban Growth Areas or the [Port
Ludlow] Master Planned Resort;
d. critical land area parcels;
e. agriculture resource designated parceis;
f. publicly owned forest lands; and
2-7
" f I
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
Seplember 3, 2008
g. lands adjacent to forest resource land.
The Jefferson County Code defines the term "buildable lor and notes that a lot of two (2) acres in
size or greater will typically be adequate to meet health standards related to on-site wastewater
disposal (i.e. septics) and individual water systems (i.e. well) [JCC ~18.10]. 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 JCC ~18.15 Article VI-M (Planned Rural
Residential Developments or PRRDs).
Aiso, a density exemption provision was introduced in the UDC. The special circumstances to
which it applies is explained in LNP 3.7 and put into effect by JCC 18.30.050(4).
The legal regulatory requirements for lot subdivision are articulated in Chapter 18.35 JCC, Land
Divisions, implementing the State Subdivision Act (RCW 58.17). A "lot of record" is an
undeveloped lot, tract or parcel of land shown on an officially recorded short plat or long plat or a
parcel of land officially recorded or registered as a unit of property and described by platted lot
number or by metes and bounds and lawfully established for conveyance purposes on the date of
recording of the instrument first referencing the lot (JCC 18.10.120). However, this does not mean
that the lot was 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 many can still be developed irrespective of
current zoning standards 50 long as development standards can be met.
A related issue which may influence overall rural housing density is that of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU). An ADU is "accessory" to the primary residence and provides a complete,
independent living facility. Each parcel zoned rural residential is eligible to create an ADU.
The Issues 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.
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.
In Achen v. Clark County 95-2-0067 (Compliance Order, 2-5-98), the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board stated "While rural lands may be the ieftover meatioaf in the GMA
refrigerator, they have vel}' necessal}' and important functions both as a planning mechanism and
as applied on the ground."
The WWGMHB continued, "A secondal}' aspect of proper rural area pianning involves the
preservation of a rural lifestyie. A 'rural sprawl' has the same devastating effects on proper land
uses and efficient use of tax payer doliars as urban sprawl. Uncoordinated development of rural
areas often involves greater economic burdens than in urban areas. Infrastructure costs for rural
development are, by definition, more inefficient than for urban."
The Comprehensive Plan delves into 'rural lifestyle' within Land Use and Rural Element Goals &
Policies 18, 19, 20, and 21, and stresses a long-term perspective toward decisions affecting
environmental quality, rural development intensities and long-term habitability of Jefferson County.
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
2-8
t " ~ ,
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 (Durland v. San Juan County 00-2-0062c, Final decision and
order 5-7-01 and Butler v. Lewis County 99-2-0027c, Final Decision and Order, 6-30-00).
The three proposals for residential density changes 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 MLA08-32 (D. Holland)
Applicant: David HollandlDavos Capital LLC
Assessor Parcel Number: 001064002
Location: Corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue near Port Townsend
2.3.1.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would redesignate approximately fourteen (14) acres from Rural
Residential one dwelling unit per ten acres (RR 1:10) to Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five
acres (RR 1 :5). The subject parcel is located at the corner of Arabian Lane and Hastings Avenue
approximately two miles from the City of Port Townsend in unincorporated Jefferson County. The
parcels adjacent to the east and west of the subject site are designated RR 1: 1 0; the parcel to the
east, while zoned RR 1:10, is five acres in size; and the parcel to the north is designated AL 1:20.
Adjacent to the south lies property zoned RR 1 :5.
The subject site is completely forested and is comprised of moderate slopes (i.e., less than 15%).
The entire parcel is located in an area considered to be a susceptible aquifer recharge area;
however, development may occur in these areas compliant with protection standards in the UDC.
Re-designation and rezoning of the property would create one (1) additional parcel, and permit up
to two (2) primary dwelling units to be constructed on-site. The applicant has expressed a desire to
purchase an additional acre of land in order to create the possibility of three primary dwelling units
on-site.
2.3.1.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analvsis
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.
Whether circumstances related to the proposed The circumstances related to the area have not
amendment and/or the area in which it is changed substantially since the adoption of the
iocated have substantially changed since the Comprehensive Plan.
ado tion of the Com rehensive Pian
Whether the assumptions upon which the Population growth is occurring slower than
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional
valid, or whether new information is available guidance regarding rural densities and
which was not considered during the adoption preservation of rural character have come from
process or any annual amendments to the GMHB decisions as discussed above.
Jefferson Count Com rehensive Plan
2-9
1", ..
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Whether the proposed amendment refiects
current widely held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
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 proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various
eiements of the Comprehensive Plan
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 and revised in 2004. Updating
the Comprehensive Plan in 2011 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. Whether the proposal
reflects current widely held values will be
determined by the extent to which it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and by
the comments and decision made during the
amendment process.
The proposal meets concurrency requirements
for transportation. The proposed amendment
should not adversely impact the level of county
services.
The Comprehensive Plan states that "the
allocation of future population must be
considered when analyzing the overall need for
the creation of additional residential lots and
determining where those lots should be located
to accommodate future growth"
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-6). LNP 3.2 echoes
this point in stating that "proposed rural
residential densities shall allow for an adequate
supply of appropriately zoned land based upon
the County's rural population projections and
needs while maintaining rural character and
rural community identity, preserving rural
resource-based uses, and avoiding sprawl."
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47). This raises the
question as to the ratio of rural residential lot
supply to the 20-year projected population
growth and its allocation to rural areas. Is the
county in need of additional rural residential
parcels at this time to accommodate future rural
growth? By allowing the creation of additional
rural residential lots, could the County weaken
its ability to direct growth to urban areas, as
called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resolution no. 55-03? Moreover, what
2-10
'" ,y
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probabie significant adverse impacts
to the county's transportation network, capital
facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental
features that cannot be mitigeted, and will not
place uncompensated burdens upon existing or
lanned seNice ca abilities
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
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 whoie
The proposed site-specific amendment does
not materially affect land use and population
growth projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan
cumulative impact does annual rural residential
rezones - without the comprehensive long range
planning associated with Comprehensive Plan
updates - have on reducing the variety of rural
residential densities, open space, native
vegetation, and rural character in the area? The
county is called on to preserve these
characteristics at LNP 3.1 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 3-47), LNG 18.0 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 3-61), LNP 20.1 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 3-63), OSG 1.0 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 6-14), and ENG 7.0 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 8-25).
The proposed amendment will not result in
probable significant adverse impacts to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmentai features.
Generally the subject parcel is physically
suitable for the requested land use designation.
Adjacent parcels to the south are zoned at a
higher density, RR 1 :5. Adjacent parcels to the
east and west, while currently zoned RR 1: 1 0,
are 5-acre parcels (to the east), and a 1-acre
parcel (to the west). The parcel to the north,
while zoned AL 1 :20, is just over 6 acres. It is
not anticipated that approval of this specific
request will lead to pressure to rezone
surrounding properties. The change in land use
designation could potentially create pressure to
rezone parcels under similar circumstances in
the county. In order to prevent cumulative
pressure to rezone at a County-wide level, staff
recommends that this analysis shall not be
utilized as justification to support future rezone
a lications.
The proposed amendment could cumulatively
affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more
rural residential parcels than is needed to
2-11
r, r'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 overali 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
accommodate the 20-year projected population
growth and its allocation to rural areas, then
additional rural residential lot creation may
weaken the county's ability to direct growth to
urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of
County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03.
Approving the proposal could set a precedent
that could create pressure in subsequent years
to rezone parcels under similar circumstances,
thus cumulatively adding to the number of
available lots in rural areas of the county which
may exceed projected demand. In order to
prevent cumulative pressure to rezone at a
County-wide ievel, staff recommends that this
anaiysis shall not be utilized as justification to
support future rezone applications.
Although the property is just over a mile from
the Port Townsend UGA, the proposed
amendment is not located within an area that is
currently under review for UGA designation.
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
36.70A020(1, 2, & 9)). The GMA also requires
the County to contain or otherwise control rural
development (RCW 36.70A070(5)(c)(i)) and the
Comprehensive Plan "provide sufficient capacity
of land suitable for development...to
accommodate their allocated housing and
employment growth... and consistent with the
twenty-year population forecast..." (36.70A115).
At what point is the conversion of undeveloped
land into low-density development considered
inappropriate? Under what circumstances might
rezoning rural residential properties affect the
county's ability to encourage development in
urban areas? What does it mean to provide
sufficient capacity of land suitable for
development in ways consistent with the twenty-
year population forecast? Staff reviews of
existing 1998 data and provisional data to 2008
have not been conclusive enough to absolutely
determine the answers to these questions.
Given the analysis and in the absence of
definitive conclusions, it is presumed that the
proposal is consistent with the GMA and other
a licable iaws and re ulations.
2-12
"" ,I
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 of the proposal would be subject to applicable federai, 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 through increased
residential energy use 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.
2-13
. .
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.1.1.3
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The Rural Residential 1 :1 0 parcel meets the criteria of LNP 3.3.1 forthe RR 1:5 designation, it does
not contain significant critical areas, and it will not create direct pressure to up-zone parcels
immediately adjacent to the property. While there remains concern about the number of rural
residentlai lots In relation to the 20-year projected population growth, its allocation to rurai 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 will 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.
2.3.1.2 MLA08-69 (George)
Reference Number: MLA08-69
Applicant: Jeffrey and Tamara George
Assessor Parcel Number: 001191002
Location: 472 South Edwards Road, Port Townsend
2.3.1.2.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located at 472 South Edwards Road, approximately one and a half miles from
Port Townsend. The application proposes a change of land use designation and zoning of the
parcel, approximately 20 acres in size, from RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
The sUbject site is largely forested, and mapped as slight landslide hazard on the western portion of
the parcel. The entire parcel is mapped as critical aquifer recharge area; however, the site is
considered a legal lot of record by current standards and development may occur in these areas
compliant with protection measures in the UDC. Re-zoning of the property would create one (1)
additional parcel, and permit up to two (2) primary dwelling units to be constructed on-site.
2.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analvsis
Pursuant to JCC ~18.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management
indicators. Staff findings, conclusions, and recommendations follow.
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
An application for a map correction (MCR99-2) in
1999 to change the parcel zoning from RR1:20 to
RR1:5 was not approved because the Board of
County Commissioners determined that the
application shouid be submitted as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment rather than a map
correction. The circumstances related to the area
have otherwise not changed substantially since the
ado tion of the Com rehensive Plan.
2-14
~j !.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA ArMendum
September 3, 2008
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or
whether new infonnation is available which was not
considered during the adoption process or any annual
amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and does
I not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other ublic facilities and services
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent
with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies
of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
Population growth is occurring slower than was
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionai
guidance regarding rural densities and preservation of
rural character have come from GMHB decisions as
discussed above.
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect, to the
extent possibie, countywide attitudes about the future
growth and management of the county. The
Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1998
and revised in 2004. Updating the Comprehensive
Plan in 2011 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 pertods. Whether the proposal
reflects current widely held values will be determined
by the extent to which it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and by the comments and
decision made durin the amendment rocess.
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation. The proposed amendment should not
adversely impact the level of county services.
The Comprehensive Plan states that "the allocation of
future population must be considered when analyzing
the overall need for the creation of additional
residential lots and determining where those lots
should be located to accommodate future growth"
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-6). LNP 3.2 echoes this
point in stating that "proposed rural residential
densities shall allow for an adequate supply of
appropriately zoned land based upon_the County's
rural population projections and needs while
maintaining rural character and rural community
Identity, preserving rural resource-based uses, and
avoiding sprawl." (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47). This
raises the question as to the ratio of rural residential lot
supply to the 20-year projected population growth and
its allocation to rural areas. Is the county in need of
additional rural residential parcels at this time to
accommodate future rural growth? By allowing the
creation of additional rurai residential lots, could the
County weaken its ability to direct growth to urban
areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resolution no. 55-03? Moreover, what cumulative
impact does annual rural residential rezones - without
the comprehensive long range planning associated
with Comprehensive Plan updates - have on reducing
the varie of rural residential densities, 0 en s ace,
2-15
I'
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 wiii not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service ca abilities
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested iand use designation and
the anticipated land use development, inciuding but
not limited to access, provision of utiiities and
compatibility with existing and pianned 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 proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
native vegetation, and rural character in the area? The
county is called on to preserve these characteristics at
LNP 3.1 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47), LNG 18.0
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-61), LNP 20.1
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-63), OSG 1.0
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 6-14), and ENG 7.0
Com rehensive Plan . 8-25 .
The proposed amendment would not resuit in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features. The proposal may,
however, result in increased pressure to upgrade
the dirt access road.
The subject parcels are physically suitable for the
requested land use designation and anticipated
development.
The proposal may increase pressure to up-zone an
adjacent parcel to the north (#001-191-002) which is
zoned RR 1 :20, and other rural residential
properties under similar circumstances.
Cumulatively, this is may result in a loss of open
space and native vegetation and divert growth away
from urban areas, and therefore is not in the long-
term best interest of the county as a whole.
The proposed amendment could cumulatively affect
the land use and population growth projections that
are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If there
are currently more rural residential parcels than is
needed to accommodate the 20-year projected
population growth and its allocation to rural areas,
then additional rurai residential lot creation may
weaken the county's ability to direct growth to urban
areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resolution no. 55-03. Approving the proposal could
create pressure to rezone the adjacent parcel to the
north and set a precedent that could create
pressure in subsequent years to rezone parcels
under similar circumstances, thus cumulatively
adding to the number of available lots in rural areas
of the county which may exceed projected demand.
2-16
, ,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
Sepl8mber3,2008
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 proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Planning Poiicies for Jefferson county,
any other appiicabie inter-jurisdictional poiicies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
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"
(36.70A020(1, 2, & 9)). The GMA also requires the
County to contain or otherwise control rural
development (36.70A070(5)(c)(i)) and that the
Comprehensive Plan "provide sufficient capacity of
land suitabie for development... to accommodate
their allocated housing and employment
growth...and consistent with the twenty-year
population forecast..." (36.70A 115). Furthermore,
Jefferson County Code 18.15.015(1)(c) states that
Rural Residential 1 :20 zoning"... protects land from
premature conversion to higher residential
densities prior to an established need." At what
point is the conversion of undeveloped low-density
land into higher-density development considered
inappropriate? Under what circumstances might
rezoning rural residential properties affect the
county's ability to encourage development in urban
areas? What does it mean to provide sufficient
capacity of land suitable for development in ways
consistent with the twenty-year population
forecast? While staff have not been able to
conclusively determine the answers to these
questions, staff has determined that the applicant
has not demonstrated an established need for
conversion of RR 1 :20 to higher residential
densities as called for in JCC 18.15.015(1 )(c).
Furthermore, the GMA and the County Wide
Planning Policies require a variety of rural
. residential land use densities and this amendment
would reduce variety of rural densities in this area
GMARCW 36.70A070 5 band CWPP 8.1,8.4.
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).
2-17
.. ' 1,'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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?
This proposal is not likely to significantly increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
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 potentially affect native plants
and animals. It is not, however, likely to resuit in significant impacts. Project-specific development
that may occur as a result 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 through increased
residential energy use 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, with the exception of the presence of a slight landslide hazard area in the
western portion of the parcel. All development shall comply with the protection standards in the
UDC.
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 significant 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.
The proposal is not expected to conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment.
2-18
. .
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.1.2.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The applicant has not demonstrated an established need for conversion of RR 1 :20 to higher
residentiai densities as called for in JCC 18.15.015(1)(c). Moreover, approving this proposal could
create direct pressure to up-zone the adjacent parcel to the north, potentially resulting in the
reduction of the variety of rural residential densities, open space, native vegetation, and rural
character in the area. There is additional concern about the number of rural 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 has determined, however, that there is not
sufficient data at this time to factor the latter issue into the recommendation.
2.3.1.3 MLA08-84 (Broders)
Reference Number: MLA08-84
Applicant: Richard Broders/CMR Partnership
Assessor Parcel Number: 901121001
Location: Cleveland Street off Oak Bay Road near Port Hadlock
2.3.1.3.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located 0.3 miles down Cleveland Street off Oak Bay Road, about 650 feet
from the proposed lrondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. The request would change the land
use designation and zoning of this thirty-eight (38) acre-parcel from RR 1 :20 to RR 1 :5. The
properties surrounding the subject site are designated and zoned RR 1 :5.
A review of Jefferson County environmentally sensitive area maps reveals the presence of a
wetland in the central and eastern portions of the parcel. Re-designation and rezoning of the
property would theoretically permit up to six (6) dwelling units to be constructed on-site, quadrupling
the current permissible dwelling unit density.
2.3.1.3.2 Cumulative Impact Analvsis
Pursuant to JCC 918.450.80 (1) (b), the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management
indicators. Staff findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Com rehensive Plan
Circumstances related to the proposed amendment
or the area in which it is located have not
substantially changed since the adoption of the
Com rehensive Plan in 2004.
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
annuai amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan
Population growth is occurring slower than
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Lot over-
supply is an issue that must be considered (see
analysis of MLA08-69). Additional guidance
regarding rural densities and preservation of rural
character have come from GMHB decisions as
discussed above.
2-19
~ . '" ..
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
wideiy held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and does
not adversely affect adopted level of service
standards for other ublic facilities and services
The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent
with the goais, policies, and implementation strategies
of the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan
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
and revised in 2004. Updating the Comprehensive
Plan in 2011 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. Whether the
proposal reflects current widely held values will be
determined by the extent to which it is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and by the comments and
decision made durin the amendment rocess.
The proposed amendment wouid not likely have a
significant impact on transportation levels of service.
The Comprehensive Plan states that "the allocation of
future popuiation must be considered when analyzing the
overall need for the creation of additional residential lots
and determining where those lots should be located to
accommodate future growth" (Comprehensive Plan, pg.
3-6). LNP 3.2 echoes this point in stating that "proposed
rural residential densities shall allow for an adequate
supply of appropriately zoned land based upon the
County's rural population projections and needs while
maintaining rural character and rural community identity,
preserving rural resource-based uses, and avoiding
sprawl." (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-47). This raises the
question as to the ratio of rural residential lot supply to
the 20-year projected population growth and its allocation
to rural areas. Is the county in need of additional rural
residential parcels at this time to accommodate future
rural growth? By allowing the creation of additional rural
residential lots, could the County weaken its ability to
direct growth to urban areas, as called for In UGA-P 1.5
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County
Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03? Moreover, what
cumulative impact does annual rural residential rezones -
without the comprehensive long range planning
associated with Comprehensive Plan updates - have on
reducing the variety of rural residential densities, open
space, native vegetation, natural beauty, rural character,
and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas in the
area? The county is called on to preserve these
characteristics at LNP 3.1 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-
47), LNG 18.0 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-61), LNP
19.0 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-62), LNP 20.1
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 3-63), LNP 21.0
(Comprehensive Plan, 3-63) OSG 1.0 (Comprehensive
Plan, pg. 6-14), and ENG 7.0 (Comprehensive Plan, pg.
8-25).
2-20
, ,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 wiil not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
seNice ca abilities
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the iand
use map, that the subject parcels are physicaiiy
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
iand 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 proposed site-specific amendment does not
materiaiiy affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
If within an unincorporated urban growth area
(UGA), the proposed site-specific amendment does
not affect the adequacy or availability of urban
facilities and selYices to the immediate area and
the overaii UGA
The proposed rezone will have an estimated impact
to onsite and off-site environmental features, is in
close proximity to a proposed Urban Growth Area,
and will remove the variety in rural densities, thus
changing the character of the area.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel as
RR 1.20 which is an appropriate residential density.
The request to increase residential density to R 1 :5
to match surrounding densities would not achieve
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands
and other environmental amenities, particularly as
headwater to a fish-bearing stream, are a concern
at this site.
The site-specific amendment would not create
pressure to change land use designation of other
properties in the immediate area. The change in
land use designation could, however, potentially
create pressure to rezone parcels under similar
circumstances in the coun .
The proposed change in zoning would potentially
add up to six (6) additional residential 1 :5 parcels to
this zoning category and affect land use
characteristics provided by a variety of rural
densities. The proposed amendment could also
cumulatively affect the land use and population
growth projections if there are currently more rural
residential parcels than is needed to accommodate
the 20-year projected population growth and its
allocation to rural areas. Additional rural residential
lot creation may weaken the county's ability to
direct growth to urban areas, as called for in UGA-
P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of
County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03.
Approving the proposal could set a precedent that
could create pressure in subsequent years to
rezone parcels under similar circumstances, thus
cumulatively adding to the number of available lots
in rural areas of the county which may exceed
projected demand.
The subject property is not within a UGA, though in
close proximity.
2-21
l T ('
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Pianning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other locai, 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"
(36. 70A.020(1, 2, & 9)). The GMA also requires the
County to contain or otherwise control rural
development (36.70A.070(5)(c)(i)) and that the
Comprehensive Plan "provide sufficient capacity of
land suitable for development... to accommodate
their allocated housing and employment
growth...and consistent with the twenty-year
population forecast..." (36.70A.115). Furthermore,
Jefferson County Code 18.15.015(1 )(c) states that
Rural Residential 1:20 zoning "...protects land from
premature conversion to higher residential
densities prior to an established need." At what
point is the conversion of undeveloped low-density
land into higher-density development considered
inappropriate? Under what circumstances might
rezoning rural residential properties affect the
county's ability to encourage development in urban
areas? What does it mean to provide sufficient
capacity of land suitable for development in ways
consistent with the twenty-year popuiation
forecast? While staff have not been able to
conclusively determine the answers to these
questions, staff has determined that the applicant
has not demonstrated an established need for
conversion of RR 1 :20 to higher residential
densities as called for in JCC
18.15.015(1)(c).Furthermore, the GMA and the
County Wide Planning Policies require a variety of
rural residential land use densities and this
amendment would eliminate variety of rural
densities in this area (GMARCW 36.70A.070(5)(b)
and CWPP 8.1, 8.4).
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 proposed re-zone could allow additional impervious surface and result in increased land
clearing, potentially affecting discharge to water. All development shall comply with the Washington
State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington for
stormwater control.
2-22
. l ...
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Question #2 How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The parcel has a non-fish bearing stream and wetlands which flow into a fish-bearing segment of
the same creek and to Port Townsend Bay. Residential development could potentially change
characteristics such as nutrients, woody debris and water temperature. Rezoning and subsequent
development at RR 1:5 density could directly impact habitat functions and values.
Question #3 How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal may contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased residential
energy use 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 property is a wooded keystone of the immediate area in that ifs a large undivided parcel within
an area of smaller lots. It is midpoint between wetlands and shorelines on either side of the ness or
point where it is situated. One side is a State Park. Residential development at R1:5 densities
would remove the property's significance in this area. Moreover, the parcel has a non-fish bearing
stream and wetlands which flow into a fish-bearing segment of the same creek. Residential
development could potentially change characteristics such as nutrients, woody debris and water
temperature.
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 rezone would allow further densification and intensity of existing land uses. The proposal
removes the variety of rural densities of the area.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The rezone would not have any likely impact on transportation facilities. Public services and utilities
are already in the vicinity.
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 rezone would not likely conflict with laws or requirements for wetland protection, but application
of these laws would depend upon additional information such as the kind of natural resources on
site, wetland type and buffering requirements.
2-23
. < J'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.1.3.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The County's past analyses and past Growth Management Hearings Board decisions have worked
around the edges of the issue of low-density sprawl. There is no single vision. The issue of re-zones
and density changes is often viewed from two perspectives: maintaining rural character and
accommodating population growth with higher densities.
The zoning density of one residence per five-acres has been accepted as the minimum for rural density
(WWGMHB). There are exceptions such as non-conforming lots of record, density exemptions and
accessory dwelling unit policy. However, GMA requires a variety of rural densities (36.70A.070 (5)(b)).
Further GMA guidance on land-use policy is provided by 36.70A.070 (5)(c)(ii) to ensure visual
compatibility, <iii) reduce low-density sprawl, and (Iv) protect critical areas.
Site-specific conditions may well have been a criterion supporting the RR 1 :20 designation in 1998 and
again in 2004. The 38-acre parcel is the "keystone' of the smaller parcels surrounding it. This acreage
is also the keystone between bays, wetlands and fish habitat. Following to the southwest, the parcel is
near other RR 1 :20 parcels and continue into a variety of commercial forest parcels. The designation of
RR 1 :20 fits the variety standard.
The analysis is not wholly a review of consideration of isolated, site-specific conditions. The planning
goals of GMA, the Comprehensive Plan, growth Indicators, and Countywide Planning Policies compose
the body of information to consider when analyzing requests to change established zoning designations.
A common theme among these references is sought to answer the request, but more often a balance is
struck between various disparate goals.
Jefferson County actively participates in planning under the State Growth Management Act and engages
;n active planning with its citizens. The future of the county is embodied in the community vision and
practical planning practices documented in the Comprehensive Plan.
Large-scale expansion of RR 1:5 zoning, and further increasing the same low-density zoning over a
broad area just outside of the Urban Growth Area will thwart the county's efforts to shift growth from rural
sprawl to more cost-effective UGAs where services can be provided more efficiently.
The property is within WRIA 17, Quilcene/Snow watershed planning unit, in the 35 square mile
Chimacum Creek Sub-watershed. Rural residential zoning is found on approximately 8,528 acres (38%
of the sub-watershed). The predominant residential zoning density (4,112 acres) is one residence per 20
acres (Resolution No. 92-99).
The property is located within the Comprehensive Plan's Tri-Area planning area #4. The parcel is
approximately 38 acres in size and zoned RR1 :20, allowing for one dwelling and one Accessory Dwelling
Unit.
The parcel is 650 feet from the boundary of the proposed Irondaie/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area and
less than one mile from the downtown core.
The parcel is adjacent to the small Bay View Estates lots platted in 1890.
The parcel area consists of about 20% wetlands. The amount of buffering required for these wetlands is
not yet determined. The parcel contains a type Np stream. Type Np streams are believed to provide
habitat necessary to support the long-term viability of water conditions that support salmonid species in
downstream Type F (fish-bearing) streams (Palmquist, 2005). Seasonal reaches are critically Important
to the outcome of water conditions in perennial reaches. The stream is fish-bearing below Cedar
Avenue. Cedar Avenue has a culvert which creates a step barrier to fish passage toward the subject
property.
2-24
. t ~.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.1.4 Cumulative Analysis of Requests for Change of Residential
Density
The three (3) proposals for change of rural residential density involve a total of three (3) tax parcels
encompassing approximately seventy (70) acres. Approval of these three amendments, as
proposed by the applicants, would allow the potential for eight (8) additional rural dwelling units
over what is allowed under existing zoning (i.e., from three (3) currently, to eleven (11) if all are
approved). All subsequent subdivision, including the ability to use the clustering provisions of
county code, would be subject to review pursuant to the JCC at the time of application. With
respect to the Holland property, based on this programmatic environmental review, no site-specific
characteristics exist which would preclude the use of the site for higher density rural residential
purposes.
However, approving the proposals may create pressure to up-zone other parcels under similar
circumstances in subsequent years. Such up-zoning may cumulatively result in the diversion of
growth away from urban areas and a reduction In the variety of rural residential densities, open
space, native vegetation, and rural character in the county without the appropriate level of
comprehensive long range planning. The county will analyze future amendment applications on a
case by case basis.
2.3.2
Request for Change from Commercial Forest
Land Designation to combination of Rural
Forest and Agriculture of Local Significance or
Rural Residential (1)
A request for a change from Commercial Forest Land to Rural Forest and Agriculture of Local
Significance or Rural Residential 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. Of greatest relevance are Chapters 3 and 4 of the Comprehensive
Plan. Of particular use for consideration of forest and agricultural lands are pages 4-1 to 4-4, pages
4-8 to 4-11, and Natural Resource Goals & Policies (NRG&P) 1.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 10.0. The most
relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan when considering Rural Residential zoning are
discussed under section 2.3.1 of this document, above, with the exception of LNG 22.0, which is of
particular importance to forest and agricultural lands. LNG 22.0 from Chapter 3 and relevant
excerpts from the Natural Resources Element narrative and goal and policy language are provided
below for convenience:
ChaDter 3: Land Use and Rural Element
GOAL:
LNG 22.0
Foster sustainable natural resource-based industry in rural areas through the
conservation of forest lands, agricultural lands, mineral lands, and
aquaculture lands in order to provide economic and employment
opportunities that are consistent with rural character.
ChaDter 4: Natural Resource Conservation Element
Forest Lands
Classification and Designation of Forest Lands
2-25
., . ~
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Jefferson County's Forest Lands Designation and Conservation strategy was developed based on
an analysis of local conditions and the following guidelines provided by the Washington Department
of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED):
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-1
Guidelines for Classification of Forest Resource Lands in Jefferson Countv
Indicator Comments
1. Availability of public Since lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) are intended to be
services and facilities served by public facilities and services within a twenty-year period,
conducive to the conversion forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be located
of forest lands. outside of UGA boundaries.
2. Proximity of forest land To protect forest lands of long-term commercial significance from
to urban and suburban encroachment by incompatible uses, they should be located outside
areas and rural settlements. the urban and suburban areas and rural settlements.
3. Size of the parcels. Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should consist of
credominantlv laroe carceis.
4. Compatibility and Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should be
intensity of neighboring adjacent to large parcels to allow for adequate buffering and
land uses and settlement setbacks from potential incompatible uses and settiement patterns.
patterns with forest lands of
lona-term sianificance.
5. Property tax Forest lands of iong-term commercial significance should be eligible
classification. for assessment as open space or forest iand pursuant to RCW 84.33
or 84.34.
6. History of land Forest lands of long-term commercial significance should not be
i development permits designated in areas under development pressure that are likely to
nearbv. convert to hinher intensitv land uses.
In order to conserve the forest resource land base in Jefferson County and maintain the forestry
industry while recognizing the diversity of forest landowners, it was determined that Forest Lands
would consist of three classes:
. Commercial Forest Lands (CF-80);
. Rural Forest Lands (RF-40); and
. In-holding Forest Lands (IF) for parcels entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural Forest
Lands unless the parcel is less than twenty (20) acres in size or if a development
application for the parcel is vested. The landowner must submit a written request to have
the parcel removed from Forest Resource In-holding designation.
Any parcel that meets the following criteria will be classified as Forest Land and designated as
Forest Land of Long-Term Commerciai Significance:
. The land should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one (1) through four (4) as
mapped by the Department of Natural Resources.
. Minimum parcel size should be a minimum of nominally eighty (80) acres for Commercial
Forest Lands forty (40) acres for Rural Forest Land, with parcels smaller than the minimum
included when the acres of at least the minimum size are contiguously owned and the land
is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status.
. The parcel should be part of a Forest Land Block at least three hundred twenty (320) acres
in size that meets the designation criteria. The Forest Land Blocks will continue to exist
even though individual parcels may be removed in the future because they no longer meet
the established designation criteria. The Forest Land Block shall apply if the amount of
designated Forest Land in the block falls below three hundred twenty (320) acres, but not if
the acreage of the block falls to zero (0).
2-26
" "
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive PI8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
. No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Urban Growth Area or within one
half (1/2) mile of the three designated Rural Village Centers or within approximately one
half (1/2) mile of the urbanized boundary of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
. The parcel is currently in a deferred forest tax status pursuant to RCW 84.33 or RCW 84.34
or classified or designated Timber Tax land, or State or Federal land outside the National
Forest Service boundary; and
. A majority of the parcel should be located outside any community water system service
area.
Agricultural Lands
Classification and Designation of Agricultural Land
It is Jefferson County's intent to protect and foster opportunities for the successful practice of
agriculture. The land in Jefferson County was examined to assess the long-term commercial
viability of parcels considered for agriculture zoning. While undeveloped land with prime
agricultural soils as identified in the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Soil Survey of
Jefferson County, Washington, clearly must be preserved, additional parcels also have long term
commercial significance for agriculture at the local level. 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. Economically valuable agriculture does not have to be the exclusive
support of a family. Small ventures that simply augment family income are valuable to the land
owner and the community as a whole. The guidelines, listed below, taken as a whole and
interpreted on a parcel by parcel basis, direct which parcels of land are suitable for designation as
Agricultural Lands of Long Term Significance. No single guideline is considered essential for
agricultural designation, nor is there a minimum lot size threshold.
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-2
Guidelines for Classification of Agricultural Resource Lands in Jefferson County
1. Presence of prime agricultural soil
as the Natural Resources Conservation
Service's Soil Survey of Jefferson
County, Washington on a significant
ortion of the arcei.
2. Historic usage for agriculture
3. Parcels of land 10 acres or larger in
size should be given strong
consideration however smaller parcels
may also be highly suitable for
agricultural designation
4. Participation by parcel owner in the
Open Space Tax Program for
A ricultural Land
A significant portion of prime agricultural soils should be
approximately one third or more of the parcel.
Land which has been used for agriculture for a number of years
or can be converted back to active agriculture, even if it is
currently lying fallow, should be given high priority for
a ricultural desi nation
Some types of agriculture are best practiced on parcels ten
acres and larger and they should be given high priority for
agricultural designation. Smaller parcels considered suitable
for agriculture designation, which are adjacent to residentially
designated land, may be subject to increased regulatory
oversi ht for some t es of a ricultural ractices.
Participation in the Open Space Tax Program is not a
requirement for agricultural designation; however, it is a good
indication of uali in land.
2-27
. ( .,
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
5. Located away from existing land
uses that would interfere with
agricultural practices
6. Located outside of areas already
served with "urban governmental
services" which are typically provided
in cities.
7. Location outside of existing Master
Planned Resort (MPR) or Urban
Growth Area (UGA) land use
designations.
8. Currently in commercial agricultural
use
9. Physically and topographically
suitable for the practice of commercial
agriculture
10. If currently designated as Rural
Forest (RF-40) land has already been
r'!dHed into 20 acre or smaller parcels.
11. Is not currently designated as
Commercial Forest (CF-80)
12. Is not currently designated as In-
holding Forest (IF)
Some existing land uses would interfere with agricultural
activities such as uses, which pollute. Residential uses are not
considered uses, which would interfere with agricultural
practices. The possibility that agricultural uses practiced
according to Best Management Practices, may interfere with
residential uses shall not be a reason to deny agricultural
desi~nation of a parcel.
Areas where the public has already made a significant
investment in services suited to urban ievels of development
such as storm and sanitary sewers, street cleaning services,
urban levels of fire and police protection, etc. are no longer
suitable to be classified as a natural resource to be protected
from more intense develooment.
Undeveloped land with prime agricultural soils was not included
in Jefferson County's designated UGA or MPR areas, therefore
any additional undeveloped parcels in those areas should be
preserved for more intensive development and not designated
as aariculturallands of lonn term commercial sianificance.
Land currently being used for any type or scale of commercial
agriculture should be given high priority for agricultural
desionation.
Some land which is excessively steep, wet, unstable, prone to
frequent flooding, primarily rock cliffs, etc. is clearly not suitable
for designation as agricultural land of long term commercial
si~nificance.
A rezone from Rural Forest designation to Agricultural
designation must not result in creating an increase in allowable
residential density. Therefore only those Rural Forest parcels
already platted in 20 acres or smaller lot sizes may be
considered for reclassification to Aariculturai desianation.
Commercial Forest land has been designated based on soil
suitability for forestry and should not be converted to
aoricuitural desi~nation
This land is located within Commercial Forest designation
areas and it has poor soils for agriculture and is not suitable for
a~ricultural desi~nation.
In order to conserve the agriculturai 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:
. Prime Agricultural Lands (AP-20)
. Agricultural Lands of Local Importance (AL-20)
2-28
.. r I
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-2a
Summary of Agricultural Land Designations
Land Use Criteria for Designation Principal
Designation Land Use
Prime Land designated as Prime Agricultural Land shall meet the following criteria: Agricultural
Agricultural . consist, in substantiai proportion, of land with prime agricultural soils as activities
Land (AP-20) defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Soil Survey of and single
Jefferson County, Washington; and family
. be in regions of the county where commercial agriculture is the current residential
and historically predominant use including but not limited to the following
areas:
0 Quimper Peninsula
0 Beaver Valley
0 Chimacum Valley
0 Discovery Bay Valley
0 Quilcene River Valley
0 Tarboo Valley
0 Dosewallips Valley
0 West Jefferson County valleys; and
. is not currently served by "urban governmental services"; 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 Planned Resort (MPR) or
Urban Growth Area (UGA); and
. is in an area where no existing land uses are present, which will
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 In-holdinQ Forest IIF\.
Agricultural In order to preserve and stimulate agricultural diversity and to maintain an Agricultural
Land of Local undeveloped land base for future agricultural use, the owner of a parcel may uses and
Importance petition the County for designation as Agricultural Land of Local Importance. single
(AL-20) When the owner of a parcel or an aggregate of parcels petitions successfully family
for rezone to agriculture the land shall be considered an Agricultural Land of residential
Long Term Commercial Significance and as such, it shall be afforded the
rights and protections of natural resource land. Land designated as
Agricultural Land of Local Importance shall meet the following criteria:
. the owner of the parcel currently utilizes or intends to utilize the land
for long term commercial agricultural purposes; and
. the land is located away from existing land uses that would interfere
with agricultural practices; and
. the land is located outside of areas already served with "urban
governmental services" which are typically provided in cities; and
. the land is located outside of existing Master Planned Resort (PR)
or Urban Growth Area (UGA) land use designations; and
. the land is physically and topographically suitabie for the practice of
commercial agriculture.
. if currently designated as Rural Forest (RF-40), the land is already
platted into 20 acre or smaller parcels; and
. the land is not currently designated as Commercial Forest (CF-80)
or In-holding Forest (IF).
2-29
;, 1.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive PI8n Amend"""'t Staff Report & SEPA ArJrIendum
September 3, 2008
NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 1.0
POLICIES:
NRP 1.1
NRP 1.2
NRP 1.3
NRP 1.4
NRP 1.5
NRP 1.6
NRP 1.7
NRP 1.8
FOREST LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 3.0
POLICIES:
NRP 3.1
NRP 3.2
NRP 3.3
Encourage the conservation of resource lands and the long-term sustainable
use of natural resource-based economic activities throughout Jefferson
County.
Designate lands where the preferred and principal land uses are resource-based
economic activities as Natural Resource lands.
Require land use activities adjacent to resource lands to be sited and designed so
as to minimize conflicts with resource based economic activities.
Provide up-to-date and accurate information to the public concerning the location of
resource lands and the nature of land uses and activities to be expected within
such areas.
Protect resource industry activities that are performed in accordance with
applicable regulations from being subject to legal action as public nuisances.
Support resource-based economic activities that comply with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations.
Support cooperative resource management among natural resource landowners,
environmental groups, state, federal and tribal governments.
Consider incentive programs to support resource-based economic activities in rural
areas.
Locate natural resource-based economic activities throughout rural areas in close
proximity to designated agricultural, forest or mineral resource lands upon which
they are dependent.
Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth
Management Act and the Interim Forest Lands Ordinance for classifying and
designating Forest Lands for long-term commercial significance based on the
quality of the forest environment, the size of the parcel, the tax status, current use,
and distance from populated areas.
Encourage the continued diversity of forestry by designating classes of long-term
commercially significant forest land that allow the continued existence of a range of
approaches to forest management.
Parcels designated as Forest Land in common ownership separated by a public
right-of-way shall be considered as a single parcel.
2-30
. ,_ f.
NRP 3.4
NRP 3.5
GOAL:
NRG 4.0
POLICIES:
NRP 4.1
NRP 4.2
NRP 4.3
NRP 4.4
NRP 4.5
NRP 4.6
NRP 4.7
NRP 4.8
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Allow commercial forest management and harvest, mineral extraction, sand and
gravel operations and those land uses which maintain, enhance, or have no impact
on the long term management of designated commercial forest lands.
Support and facilitate the improvement of state and local environmental regulations
affecting the forest products industry in order to improve operational predictability,
minimize regulatory costs to forest land owners, and encourage protection of the
forest environment and surrounding watersheds.
Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land
use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands.
Prohibit the subdivision of designated Forest Lands for residential purposes except
for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay. Allow one
dwelling unit on each legal lot of record in accordance with State law.
Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Growth
Management Act and the interim ordinance for conditional uses in Forest Lands.
Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing site and design
requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated forest land.
Minimize dangers from natural disasters such as fire, through siting and design
criteria for structures on designated Forest Lands.
Minimize conflict between primary and secondary forest production facilities and
related developments and forest management activities through siting and design
requirements.
Prohibit the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, fire
districts, or sewer, water, or public utility districts into designated Forest Lands
except for lands that have been designated as Forest Transition Overlay.
Address community concerns and land use conflicts which may arise as a result of
forest practices in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, forest landowners, and the generai public.
Facilitate a cooperative process bringing together timber company representatives,
environmental groups, landowners, and other interested parties to address
concerns related to incompatible land uses between parcels existing adjacent to
forest lands at the time of adoption of Ordinance #01-0121-97, the interim Forest
Lands Ordinance.
AGRICULTURE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 10.0
POLICIES:
Conserve and protect the agricultural land base and its associated economy
and lifestyle.
2-31
.. t ...
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
NRP 10.1
NRP 10.2
NRP 10.3
NRP 10.4
NRP 10.5
NRP 10.6
NRP 10.7
NRP 10.8
NRP 10.9
NRP 10.10
Adopt a final Agricultural Lands Ordinance that includes the criteria from the Interim
Agricultural Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Agricultural Lands for
long-term commercial significance based on the class of agricultural land, the size
of the parcel, the tax status, current use, and distance from populated areas.
Minimize conflicts with agricultural activities by developing site and design
requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated agricultural land which
insure that the adjacent activities shall not interfere with the continued use, in the
accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these
designated agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural
products.
Support the conservation of agricultural land through tax incentive programs, the
purchase or transfer of development rights, and other methods developed in
cooperation with agricultural landowners and managers.
Coordinate with state and federal agencies to encourage conservation of
productive agricultural land through best management practices, including soil and
water conservation, drainage, and livestock waste management programs.
Support the continuation of farming as the primary use of Agricultural Lands by
allowing a maximum base density of one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres.
Encourage clustering based upon the characteristics of various types of agricultural
areas and practices in the County, while preserving an overall base density on
Agricultural Lands that does not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres.
Discourage the extension of service areas of utility local improvement districts, or
sewer, or public utility districts into designated Agricultural Lands.
Support agricultural activities such as farmers' markets and roadside stands by
permitting these uses outright on designated Agricultural Lands.
Encourage the preservation of family owned farms by discouraging the conversion
of these lands to other uses.
Support the work of Washington State University Cooperative Extension for
technical and marketing assistance for small-scale commercial farmers.
2.3.2.1 MLA08-56 (Brown)
Reference Number: MLA08-56
Applicant: Gloria Brown/BG Brown Trust (David Goldsmith - agent)
Assessor Parcel Number: 801091010 (application under # 801091002)
Location: One mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount and Center Roads near
Chimacum
2.3.2.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located one mile west of the intersection of Eaglemount Road and Center
Road near Chimacum. The request would change the land use designation and zoning of the
parcel, approximately 116 acres in size, from CF 1 :80 to a combination of RF 1 :40 and AL 1 :20, or
RF 1:40 and RR 1 :20.
2-32
.
>
.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Note: While the amendment application was for tax parcel number 801091002, subsequent
boundary line adjustments on adjoining property resulted in a change of the parcel number to
801091010.
2.3.2.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analvsis
Pursuant to JCC 18.450.080(1)(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Com rehensive Plan
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are no ionger valid,
or whether new information is availabie which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annuai amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Pian
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
wideiy held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted levei of service
standards for other public facilities and services
The circumstances related to the area have not
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Population growth is occurring slower than
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional
guidance regarding rural densities and preservation
of rural character have come from GMHB decisions
as discussed above. I nformation has been
presented that a portion of the subject property is
and has been used as pasture land and not forest
land. It is possible that this information was not
considered during the adoption or amendment
processes.
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 and revised in 2004. Updating the
Comprehensive Plan in 2011 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.
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation. The proposed amendment should
not adversely impact the level of county services.
2-33
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amenoment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
.
. ,
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various eiements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
resuit in probable significant adverse impacts to the
county's transportation network, capitai facilities,
utilities, parks, and environmentai features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service ca abilities
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physicaiiy
suitable for the requested iand 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
The proposed site-specific amendment wiii not
create a pressure to change the iand use
designation of other properties, unless the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the
Ion -term best interests of the count as a whole
The forested portion of the property consists of a
Forest Land Grade 3, is more than 80 acres in size,
is part of a Forest Land Block of at least 320 acres
in size, and meets the other Forest Land
classification criteria of the Comprehensive Plan
(Comprehensive Plan, pgs. 4-3 & 4-4). The
application does not sufficiently demonstrated why
this portion of the property should be reclassified as
Rural Forest Land (RF 1 :40) since, even with
approval of this amendment, it will remain at least
80 acres in size. The remaining portion of the
property cannot be reclassified as Agricultural Land
of Local Importance (AL 1 :20) because the
comprehensive plan prohibits the rezoning of
designated Commercial Forest land to Agricultural
Resource lands (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 4-11).
The comprehensive plan prohibits the subdivision
of designated forest lands for residential purposes
and clearly emphasizes the need to preserve and
protect natural resource lands. A rezone to RR 1 :20
could circumvent this provision and undermine the
integrity of the County Comprehensive Plan
(Comprehensive Plan, LNG 22.0, NRG 1.0 & 3.0
and NRP 4.1, pgs. 3-64, 4-31,4-32, and 4-33).
The proposed amendment would not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capitai facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features that cannot be
mitigated.
New parcels that could result from approval may
require a new access road that crosses fish bearing
Chimacum Creek and associated wetiands.
Portions of the subject properties also include non-
fish bearing streams and wetlands, creating
potential development limitations.
The proposal, if approved, would set a precedent
and create additional pressure for up-zoning
commercial forestland.
2-34
. ~ . ll!
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Ad<iendum
September 3, 2008
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materialiy affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
tf 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 overali UGA
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Pianning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicable inter-jurisdictionai policies or
agreements, and any other local, state or federai
laws
The proposed amendment could cumulatively
affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more
rural residential parcels than is needed to
accommodate the 20-year projected population
growth and its allocation to rural areas, then
additional rural residential lot creation may weaken
the county's ability to direct growth to urban areas,
as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan,
pg. 2-23) and Board of County Commissioners
Resoiution no. 55-03. Moreover, approving this
proposal would set a precedent and create further
pressure to up-zone forest lands, resulting in a
cumulative loss of the county's forest land and thus
impacting the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
RCW 36.70A020(8) and 3670A060(1)(a) require
that the County assure the conservation of natural
resource lands. Re-designating commercial forest
land for rural residential use would not be
consistent with the GMA
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 Environmentai 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?
Reconstruction of an access bridge over fish-bearing Chimacum Creek could affect discharge of to
the creek. All development shall comply with the Washington State Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and bridge construction requires a
Hydraulic Project Approval through Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
2-35
., . ... .
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 significant impacts. Increased discharge of stormwater
resulting from the possible reconstruction of an access bridge over fish-bearing Chimacum Creek
may impact fish species, as well as downstream marine nearshore resources. Project-specific
development that may occur as a result 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 contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased residential
energy use 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.
This proposal may result in land clearing and development that could potentially affect fish and non-
fish bearing creeks and mapped wetlands. Project-specific development that may occur as a result
of the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for critical areas.
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 proposal would result in the re-designation of commercial forest land to either agricultural land
of local significance or rural residential land, which is prohibited under the Comprehensive Plan. No
portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction, aithough the Type F stream feeds into the
lower reaches of Chimacum Creek that are Shorelines of the State.
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 significant 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.
New parcels that could result from approval may require a new access road that crosses fish
bearing Chimacum Creek and associated wetlands. Portions of the subject property also include
non-fish bearing streams and wetlands. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of
the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for critical areas.
2-36
. ! ' ~
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.2.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The forested portion of the property consists of a Forest Land Grade 3, is more than 80 acres in
size, is part of a Forest Land Block of at least 320 acres in size, and meets the other Forest Land
classification criteria of the comprehensive plan (Comprehensive Plan, pgs. 4-3 & 4-4). The
application does not sufficiently demonstrate why this portion of the property should be reclassified
as Rural Forest Land (RF 1 :40) since, even under the proposal, it will remain at least 80 acres in
size. The remaining portion of the property cannot be reclassified as Agricultural Land of Local
Importance (AL 1 :20) because the comprehensive plan prohibits the rezoning of designated
Commercial Forest land to Agricultural Resource lands (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 4-11). The
comprehensive plan prohibits the subdivision of designated forest lands for residential purposes
and emphasizes the need to preserve and protect natural resource lands (Comprehensive Plan,
LNG 22.0, NRG 1.0 & 3.0 and NRP 4.1, pgs. 3-64, 4-31, 4-32, and 4-33). Rezoning to Rural
Residential would in essence circumvent provision NRP 4.1 and be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
If the Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners do choose to approve the rezoning
of the pasture land portion of this proposal, staff recommends that the split zoning occur at the
precise boundary of the pasture land and that a condition of approval be applied requiring the land
owner to obtain a boundary line adjustment which matches the approved split zoning.
2.3.2.2
Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change of Commercial
Forest Land Designation to combination of Rural Forest and
Agriculture of Local Significance or Rural Residential
The proposed amendment could cumulatively affect the land use and population growth projections
that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more rural residential parcels
than is needed to accommodate the 20-year projected population growth and its allocation to rural
areas, then additional rural residential lot creation may weaken the county's ability to direct growth
to urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of County
Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03. Moreover, approvinll this proposal would set a precedent and
create further pressure to up-zone forest lands, resulting in a cumulative loss of the county's forest
land and thus impacting the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan.
New parcels that could result from approval may require a new access road that crosses fish
bearing Chimacum Creek and associated wetlands. Portions of the subject properties also include
non-fish bearing streams and wetlands. Project-specific development that may occur as a result of
the proposal would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local protections for critical areas.
2.3.3.
Request for Change from Commercial Forest
Land Designation to Rural Residential (1)
Requests for a change from Commercial Forest Land to Rural Residential 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. Of greatest relevance are Chapters 3
and 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The most applicable citations for both forest land and rural
residential use are discussed above under sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this document and therefore
will not be repeated here.
2-37
"
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Sfaff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.3.1 MLA08-73 (Jackson)
Reference Number: MLA08-73
Applicant: James Jackson/Chimacum Heights LLC
Assessor Parcel Number: 901132002
Location: near Chimacum
2.3.3.1.1 General Description and Environmental Information
The subject parcel is located one-half mile from Oak Bay Road (via Kingfisher Place), three-
quarters of a mile from the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office, and one-half mile from Chimacum.
The request proposes to change the land use designation and zoning of this one hundred-twenty
(120) acre parcel from CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
2.3.3.1.2 Cumulative Impact Analvsis
Pursuant to JCC 18.450.080(1)(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
Whether circumstances related to the proposed
i amendment and/or the area in which it is located
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Pian is based are no longer valid,
or whether new information is avaiiable which was
not considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Jefferson County
Com rehensive Plan
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
widely held vaiues of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
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 pre-platted Irondale Acre Tracts (Oak Hills
development) to the east of the property (but not
directly abutting the property) are beginning to be
developed at approximately 4 acre lots over 200
acres.
Population growth is occurring siower than was
projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional
guidance regarding rural densities and preservation
of rurai character have come from GMHB decisions
as discussed above.
A widely held value of Jefferson County residents is
the preservation of the county's forest lands, as
reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal
seeks to remove 120 acres from forest land
designation.
The proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation. The proposed amendment should
not adversely impact the level of county services.
The applicant has indicated an Intention to seek an
expansion of the water service area to include the
property.
2-38
. ~. , ...
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive PI8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probabie significant adverse impacts to the
county's transportation network, capital facilities.
utiiities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not piace
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service ca abilities
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 utiiities and
compatibility with existing and planned surrounding
land uses
The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need to
preserve and protect natural resource lands
(Comprehensive Plan, LNG 22.0 and NRG 1.0 &
3.0, pgs. 3-64, 4-31, and 4-32). The property
meets the forest land classification criteria in that it
consists of Forest Land Grades 3 & 4, is more than
80 acres in size, is part of a Forest Land Block of at
least 320 acres in size, is located further than a
half-mile from the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock
Urban Growth Area (UGA), is currently in a
deferred forest tax status, and is located outside a
community water system service area. A
professional forester employed by the applicant
stated in a 2007 Forest Management Plan
submitted to the County Assessor's office that the
property can produce some of the best quality
wood products available in the Puget Sound area
today and that the applicant was committed to a
concentrated effort to produce high quality wood
products through state of the art forest
management techniques. The Comprehensive
Plan's Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and
Historic Preservation Policy 1.2(f) calls on the
county to evaluate proposed development projects
to preserve and protect open space areas,
including forested ridges and hilltops that can be
viewed from public areas and public roads. The
subject property is a forested ridge visible from
public areas in Chimacum, the development of
which will result in the loss of some open space
(Comprehensive Plan, OSP 1.2(f), pg. 6-14).
Finally, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits the
subdivision of designated forest lands for
residential purposes (Comprehensive Plan, NRP
4.1, pg. 4-33). Therefore, this proposal is not
consistent with the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment would not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
The subject parcel is physically suitable for the
requested land use designation and anticipated
development with regard to access, provision of
utilities and compatibility with existing and planned
surrounding land uses.
2-39
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
.. , )0 ~
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properties, uniess the change
of land use designation for other properties is in the
long-term best interests of the county as a whole
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materialiy affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Comprehensive Plan
/f 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 overali UGA
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the
Countywide Pianning Policies for Jefferson county,
any other applicabie inter-jurisdictional policies or
agreements, and any other locai, state or federal
laws
The proposed amendment could set a precedent
for rezoning commercial forest land to rural
residential, creating more pressure to rezone
commercial forest land. Cumulatively, this could
result in a significant loss of the county's
commercial forest lands.
The proposed amendment could cumulatively
affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive
Plan. If there are currently more rural residential
parcels than is needed to accommodate the 20-
year projected population growth and its allocation
to rural areas, then additional rural residential lot
creation may weaken the county's ability to direct
growth to urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5
(Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and Board of
County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03.
Moreover, approving this proposal could set a
precedent and create further pressure to rezone
forest lands, resulting in a cumulative loss of the
county's forest land and thus impacting the land
use and population growth projections that are the
bases of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment is not located within an
area that is currently under review for UGA
designation.
RCW 36.70A020(8) and 36.70A060(1)(a) require
that the County assure the conservation of natural
resource lands. Re-designating commercial forest
land for rural residential use would not be
consistent with the GMA
The following environmental analysis is presented in the format of the Non-Project Action
Supplementai 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?
This proposal is not likely to significantly increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
2-40
"
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 potentially 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 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 contribute to the depletion of energy resources through increased residential
energy use and will result in the loss of 120 acres of forest resources. 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, with the exception of the presence of a slight landslide hazard area in the
western portion of the parcel. Should this amendment be approved, future land division and
development of the parcel shall comply with County critical area protection measures.
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 proposal would convert forest land to rural residential development, resulting in the loss of
forest resource lands. No portion of the site lies within the shoreline jurisdiction, however, loss of
forest cover in watersheds affects ecosystem processes that support shoreline functions and
resources.
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 significant additional demand for public services. The
proponent, however, has indicated that he will seek an expansion of the water service area to
include the property.
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 is not expected to conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment.
2.3.3.1.3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denying approval of the proposed site-specific amendment.
The Comprehensive Plan clearly emphasizes the need to preserve and protect natural resource
lands (Comprehensive Plan, LNG 22.0 and NRG 1.0 & 3.0, pgs. 3-64,4-31, and 4-32). In addition,
the property meets the forest land classification criteria in that it consists of Forest Land Grades 3 &
4, is more than 80 acres in size, is part of a Forest Land Block of at least 320 acres in size, is
2-41
..
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addenoum
September 3, 2008
located further than a half-mile from the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA),
is currently In a deferred forest tax status, and is iocated outside a community water system service
area. A professional forester employed by the applicant stated in a 2007 Forest Management Plan
submitted to the County Assessor's office that the property can produce some of the best quality
wood products available in the Puget Sound area today, and that the applicant was committed to a
concentrated effort to produce high quality wood products through state of the art forest
management techniques. The forested property is also located on a ridge visible from public areas,
which the Comprehensive Plan calls to preserve and protect (Comprehensive Plan, OSP 1.2(f), pg.
6-14). Finally, the Comprehensive Plan prohibits the subdivision of designated forest lands for
residential purposes (Comprehensive Plan, NRP 4.1, pg. 4-33). A rezone from Commercial Forest
to Rural Residential could circumvent this provision and undermine the integrity of the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this proposal Is not consistent with the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Change from Forest
Resource Land to Rural Residential Designation
The proposed amendment could cumulatively impact the land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. If there are currently more rural
residential parcels than is needed to accommodate the 20-year projected population growth and its
allocation to rural areas, then additional rural residential lot creation may weaken the county's ability
to direct growth to urban areas, as called for in UGA-P 1.5 (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 2-23) and
Board of County Commissioners Resolution no. 55-03. Moreover, approving this proposal could set
a precedent and create further pressure to rezone forest lands, resulting in a cumulative loss of the
county's forest land and impacting the land use and population growth projections that are the
bases of the Comprehensive Plan.
2.3.3.2
2.3.4
Request for Application of the Mineral Resource
Land Overlay to an Underlying Commercial
Forest Land Designation (1)
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 (see narrative at pages 4-6 and 4-7; and
NRGs 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0, and NRPs 6.1 through 9.2). Relevant excerpts from this Natural
Resources Element narrative and goai and policy language include the following:
Mineral Lands
Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands
Based upon the criteria provided by the Department of Natural Resources, there are three key
issues that
need to be addressed in the designation and conservation of mineral resource lands:
1. Classifying the types of mineral resources that are potentially significant in Jefferson County;
2. Defining the amount and long-term significance of aggregate that is needed to meet the
2-42
",l
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive PI8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
demand of
Jefferson County's projected population; and,
3. Determining how to balance a variety of land uses within mineral resource areas.
Future mineral resource lands consist of areas identified with the potential for the existence of
mineral resources. These areas:
. appear to contain the resource, based upon the information supplied by Department of
Natural Resources;
. are not primarily within critical areas, for example, high quality wetland areas; and,
. are at least 80 acres in size, of which one forty (40) acre parcel or two twenty (20) acre
parcels are currently vacant.
The criteria used to classify mineral resource lands in Jefferson County were based on the
guidelines provided by the state and an analysis of local conditions. Limited geological information
is available to accurately identify, evaluate, and designate mineral resources of long-term
commercial significance. U.S. Geological Survey Maps and Department of Natural Resources
surface mining data were reviewed to determine current and potential mineral resource iands of
long-term commercial significance.
Based upon this evaiuation, and in conjunction with the analysis and assessment of forest resource
lands, a high degree of overlap between lands devoted to growing timber and land potentially
containing commercial mineral deposits was identified. Because of the amount of forest cover and
geology of Jefferson County, most mineral resources are located in forest resource lands.
Therefore, the inclusion of mineral extraction and primary processing as a permitted use on
designated forest land will protect mineral resource lands from the encroachment of incompatible
development, conserve the mineral resource land base of Jefferson County, and allow for its future
utilization by the mining industry. In addition, the County has included in this approach an action
item (Item #8, p. 4-40, Comprehensive Plan) to perform an analysis to determine the 50-year
construction aggregate supply, so as to ensure that the lands to be protected will meet the 50-year
projected demand within an economically feasible distance to the market area or areas within
County jurisdiction. This satisfies the GMA requirements to not knowingly preclude opportunities
for future mining and, as the lands are identified, to inform nearby property owners of the potential
for future mining use of these areas in order to prevent or minimize potential conflicts.
The Natural Resource Lands Element and JCC Title 18 identify the extraction of sand, gravel, rock,
and minerals as a permitted use. The JCC provides development regulations for mining activities
such as size, clearing, stormwater controls and protection of critical areas.
The Land Use map of this Plan depicts the locations of existing mining operations which currently
operate under a Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Reclamation Permit, and
provides an underlying land use designation. The Mineral Lands map accompanying this element
depicts the parcels regulated under DNR permits at the time of the Comprehensive Plan adoption,
although it should be noted that the mining operations for a number of the sites do not occupy the
entire parcel.
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. A matrix
(Table 4-3) accompanying NRP 6.2 is provided as a reference point for both the County and
applicant to assess the feasibility of designating and protecting the mineral resource and should be
linked to future land use decisions. Specific areas of review will include, at a minimum, the
following: compatibility with neighboring land uses; noise; traffic; visual impacts; water resources,
including surface water, ground water, and wetlands; soil, including erosion, slopes, flooding, and
contamination; and fish and wildlife habitat.
2-43
.' t."
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Eventually, as the mineral resource is depleted, mining sites are abandoned, or the operations
discontinued for long periods of time. Reclamation of abandoned, depleted, or discontinued mines
creates opportunities for new uses compatible with current, ongoing and reclaimed adjacent land
uses. Reclamation reduces the dangers associated with some types of abandoned mines,
improves the aesthetics of the site, and can create environmental amenities, such as lakes, ponds,
wetlands, and forests. Reclamation is not the restoration of the site to pre-mining topography.
Reclamation plans are required by the Department of Naturai 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.
MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS
GOAL:
NRG 6.0 Conserve and protect Mineral Resource Lands for long-term economic use.
POLICIES:
NRP 6.1
NRPl'l.2
NRP 6.3
NRP 6.4
Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the Interim Mineral
Lands Ordinance for classifying and designating Mineral Resource Lands of
commercial significance based on physical and topographic characteristics, distance
from populated areas, and the quality of the resource.
Adopt a final Mineral Lands Ordinance that includes a process for reviewing mineral
lands designation petitions which assesses the feasibility of designating mineral
resource lands according to Table 4.3, and considers compatibility with adjacent land
uses, economic issues and environmental impacts.
Adopt a final Forest Lands Ordinance that includes criteria from the interim ordinance
allowing mineral extraction and the primary processing of materials on designated
Forest Lands, provided that the extraction is conducted under a Washington State
Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Permit and/or other applicable
permit and is performed in accordance with the guidelines for best management
practices established by Jefferson County.
Mitigate conflicts with adjacent land uses by zoning and regulations including
operation, siting, buffering and design requirements which minimize conflicts between
mineral extraction/primary processing activities and land use activities located adjacent
to designated mineral lands. .
2-44
'.
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Comprehensive Plan Table 4-3
Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands
NOT CONSIDER DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
SUITABLE FOR DESIRABLE HIGHLY CRITICAL
FOR DESIGNATION DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
QUALITY OF Low grade Variable but Deposit made Grade meets the Concrete quality.
DEPOSIT deposit. located near use economical to requirements for
area or mine by road construction
processing plant. upgrading or can be
material. uooraded.
SIZE OF Small deposit. Small deposit Medium-size Large deposit Very large
DEPOSIT (less than 2,000 deposit. (7.5 million tons) deposit (10
tons) million tonsl.
ACCESS More than 20 Distance from Less than 10 Large deposit Within 5 miles of
DISTANCE miles from use use area is miles from the presently beyond uses area.
FROM area. minimized due to use area; economical Adjacent to
MARKET access to alternative hauling distance highway with
interstate. access route to present use access for trucks.
available. areas. Near
highways: access
can be orovided.
COMPATIBLE Adjacent land Scattered Adjacent land Imminent No incompatible
WITH use presently development suitable for incompatible land uses
NEARBY incompatible with within outer development and development on existing or likely
AREAS mining range of impacts within commuting adjacent lands. in the
(appreciable of mining; owners distance of use foreseeable
residential may not object to area. future (adjacent
development mining. land in national
within range of forest, operator's
excessive noise, ownership,
dust, blasting, agricultural land
vibrations, etc.) use).
IMPACT OF Noise level in Noise level in Noise at adjacent
NOISE adjacent adjacent residential areas
presently undeveloped less than 50
developed areas areas would dB(A) due to
would clearly exceed distance or
exceed standards for topographical
standards if likely use, but barrier, berm can
mining occurred. use of these be constructed
areas can be easily.
easily delayed or
economical
mitigation can be
provided by
barriers.
IMPACT OF Too close to Blasting no
BLASTING existing required;
subdivision. permanent open
space between
quarry and other
uses;
topographical
barrier between
quany and other
land uses; only
occasional light
blasting; blasting
compatible with
adiacent uses.
2-45
.'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
ompre enslve an a e - contmue
NOT CONSIDER DESIGNATION DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
SUITABLE FOR DESIRABLE HIGHLY CRITICAL
FOR DESIGNATION DESIRABLE
DESIGNATION
IMPACT OF Only access is Slightly longer Alternative truck Adjacent to
TRUCK local road alternative route route can be built freeway with
TRAFFIC through exists. at reasonable access to site.
residential area. expense;
alternative
transportation
(conveyor, etc.,
can be used past
residential
streets\.
VISUAL Mining would Mining activity Some activity Mining activity Activity screened
IMPACT destroy or create. cannot be visible from can be easily by topography or
screened and residential areas, screened by vegetation, or
would but no permanent berms and/or appreciably
permanently alter deterioration of vegetation. reduced by
landscape. landsc8oe. distance.
SURFACE & Potential adverse Watsr resources Limited water No water
GROUND impacts to water on site and can resources on site resources on site.
WATER resources on site. be avoided. and can be
IMPACTS mitigated.
WETLANDS High quality High quality Lower quality Wetlands can be No or minimal
IMPACT wetlands wetlands only on wetlands on site avoided on site. wetlands on site
throughout the a portion of site and can be and of row
site. and can be mitigated. quality.
avoided.
SLOPES Site located in Potential or Unstable slopes Minimal slopes Level grade
active unstable historical on site can be throughout the mining with
slooe area. unstable slooes. avoided. site. minimal slooes.
BIOLOGICAL Rare and Site includes Species of Minor or No significant
IMPACT threatenedl priority wildlife Special Concern temporary loss of biological
endangered hab.at that would habitat located fish and wildlife resources;
plants or animals be permanently on site. habitat. rehabilitation of
on site. moved by mining. site would
replace or create
habitat.
IMPACT OF Mining would Mining would Mining would
FLOODING cause erosion of create erosion create flood
adjacent hazard for roads, control channel
property; could bridges, and and would not
be prevented utility lines; damage adjacent
only at great however, these land.
expense. structures could
be strengthened
at reasonable
costs.
c
h
PI T bl 4 3
d
GOAL:
NRG 7.0
Provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mining
extraction and processing operations.
POLICIES:
NRP 7.1
Require environmental review on all mineral lands designation requests and/or
conditional use permits.
NRP 7.2
Provide for the following factors in mineral resource land use decisions:
a. The range of environmental impacts, including short-term and long-term effects
arising over the lifetime of the proposal;
b. The ability of the site to confine or mitigate all operational impacts;
2-46
,~
NRP 7.3
NRP 7.4
GOAL:
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
c. The compatibility of operations with adjacent land uses when mitigating
measures are applied;
d. The capacity of transportation facilities to handle safely the transport of products
from the site; and,
e. The adequacy of plans for reclamation of the site for appropriate future use.
Develop standards and guidelines to identify and address the impact of mining
operations on adjoining properties. Such conditioning should not have the intent of
rendering mining operations economically unfeasible.
Evaluate small mining operations to determine when the cumulative impact of small
operations becomes a significant adverse impact upon the land or upon adjacent
lands.
NRG 8.0 Ensure that County mineral resource lands are restored to safe and useful
condition with enhancement and mitigation of damage to the function and
aesthetics of the environment and subsequent land uses.
POLICIES:
NRP 8.1
NRP 8.2
NRP 8.3
NRP 8.4
NRP 8.5
NRP 8.6
GOAL:
NRG 9.0
POLICIES:
NRP 9.1
NRP 9.2
Develop requirements for reclamation plans for mineral extraction activities. These
requirements may exceed minimum State requirements.
Ensure that reclamation plans preserve the safety, function and value of adjacent
lands including aesthetic and environmental and water resource values.
Encourage reclamation plans which provide enhanced public value such as parks,
play-grounds, open space, trails, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat.
Encourage reclamation that occurs on an ongoing basis as mineral deposits are
depleted.
Avoid the potential for aquifer contamination in importing material used for reclamation
backfill or storage and in approving subsequent land use activities on reclaimed mining
lands.
Establish standards for performance bonds unless otherwise required for reclamation
activities to be provided prior to the initiation of mineral resource extraction land use
activities.
Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral
extraction activities.
Regulate mining operations to prevent adverse impacts to ground or surface water
quality.
Establish a preference for the protection of aquifers and recharge zones from the
effects of surface mining in the event that adverse impacts cannot be avoided through
best management practices.
2-47
.r ,:<
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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.
2.3.4.1 MLA08-93 (Burnett/Pope Resources)
Reference Number: MLA08-93
Applicant: James Bumett/Pope Resources
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 821324002; 821311001; 821291002; and
821302001
Location: Three miles west of the Hood Canal Bridge immediately north of
Highway 104, and adjacent to Shine Quarry, Port Ludlow, WA
2.3.4.1.1 General Descriotion and Environmental Information
The proposed amendment would seek to apply the Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay
designation to approximately 142 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). Addition of the MRL Overlay 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.
2.3.4.1.2 Cumulative Imoact Analvsis
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.
Whether circumstances releted to the proposed
amendment and/or the area in which it is
iocated have substantially changed 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 Count Com rehensive Plan
Whether the proposed amendment reflects
current wideiy held values of the residents of
Jefferson County residents
The Port Ludlow Master Planned Community
has continued to develop within the MPR zoned
area to the north. The resident population is
greater since the adoption of the
Com rehensive Plan
The assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan is based are presumed to
be valid.
The proposal reflects current wideiy held vaiues
of the residents of Jefferson County residents
insofar as mineral extraction is conducted in the
county. However, it must be noted that other
values which are stated in the Comprehensive
Plan regarding avoidance of land-use conflicts
are also expressed by Jefferson County
residents.
2-48
t:__ ~.,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
The proposed site-specific amendment meets The proposal does not affect any County roads.
concurrency requirements for transportation The Washington Department of Transportation
and does not adverseiy affect adopted level of recommends a Traffic Impact Analysis
service standards for other public facilities and regarding level of service and safety on SR104.
services
The proposed site-specific amendment is The proposed amendment is consistent with the
consistent with the goals, policies, and goals, policies and implementation strategies of
implementation strategies of the various the Comprehensive Plan.
elements of the Com rehensive Plan
The proposed site-specific amendment will not Potential impacts from mining activity as a result
result in probable significant adverse impacts of the MRLO are possible. Those impacts can
to the county's transportation network, capital be mitigated through a combination of SEPA
facilities, utiiities, parks, and environmental mitigation measures and Conditions of
features that cannot be mitigated, and will not Approval.
place uncompensated burdens upon existing or
lanned service ca abilities
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the The subject parcels are suitable for the MRLO
land use map, that the subject parcels are as they contain known mineral resources.
physically suitable for the requested land use
designation and the anticipated land use
development, including but not limited to
access, provision of utilities and compatibiiity
with existing and planned surrounding land
uses
The proposed site-specific amendment will not The MRLO will not create pressure to place
create a pressure to change the land use mineral overlays on other properties.
designation of other properties, uniess the
change of land use designation for other
properties is in the long-term best interests of
the count as a whole
The proposed site-specific amendment does The MRLO designation is appropriate for the
not materially affect land use and population underlying CF1 :80 zoning. It may have an
growth projections that are the bases of the effect on future use of the parcelfor forestry.
Com rehensive Plan
If within an unincorporated urban growth area The proposal is not within a UGA.
(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 proposed amendment is consistent with The proposal is consistent with GMA, CWPPs
the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), and other applicable policies, agreements and
the Countywide Pianning Policies for Jefferson laws.
county, any other applicable interjurisdictional
policies or agreements, and any other locai,
state or federal iaws
2-49
" ,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addenoum
September 3, 2008
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 918.15.170 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 1ll! of the criteria set forth in the tabie below.
Has a known or potentiai extractable resource
in commerciai quantities been verified by
submittal of a geoiogic and economic report
prepared by a qualified professional?
Is the parcel is a minimum of 10 acres in size?
's 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 equai to,
or lower than, one (1) unit per five (5) acres?
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside the
shoreline designation, an urban growth area or
rural vii/age 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
Com rehensive Plan?
Is the proposed MRL Overlay outside of
regulated wetland or fish and wildlife habitat
areas pursuant to Article VI-H and VI-I of
Cha ter 18.15 JCC Ord.8-06 1?
Yes. A geologic report has been submitted
verifying an extractable resource in commercial
quantities.
Yes. As indicated previously, the proposed
overlay encompasses approximately 142 acres.
The parcel is not surrounded by parcels smaller
than five acres on any side.
Yes. The existing and future permissible
density of all areas within the proposed MRL
Overlay is one dwelling unit per eighty acres
CF 1:80.
Yes, though portions of the MRL Overlay are
less than one-half mile of the Port Ludlow MPR.
No. There are regulated wetlands on the
proposed MRLO.
2-50
r-o_ ,.,
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
The following environmentai 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 hard-rock surface mining. Pre-project materials provided by
the applicant shows surface water and a sedimentation pond with a discharge. Removal of hills which
currenlly buffer Port Ludlow from noise dust and light could increase the effect of these hazards.
Potential impacts from light, noise, dust, diminished water quality are addressed with SEPA mitigation
measures.
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. An initial inventory of plants, animals and natural communities of concern
would precede a Habitat Management Plan, as specified in the SEPA mitigation measures.
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.
Electricity, fossil fuels and water would be used for normal operation of the mine.
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.
Project materials provided by the applicant show base mining depth to be below the surface elevation
of existing wetlands. The potential effect of draining subsurface water from the wetlands or the buffers
could potentially be mitigated by not mining into the seasonal high water table. Along with SEPA
mitigation measures identified in Question #2, an initial inventory and rating of wetlands will provide
baseline conditions from which to apply conservation and mitigation plans.
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?
Surface water drains from the MRLO area into Squamish Harbor and Hood Canal. Water quality and
impacts to Shorelines of the State could be a concern.
Question #6 How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The impacts from additional truck traffic on SR 104 would be analyzed in a Traffic Impact Analysis and
may require further mitigations such as road system improvements.
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.
2-51
f' .J
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.4.1.3
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval with modifications and conditions of the proposed MRL Overlay
amendment. In general, the conservation of minerai resource lands occurs under the GMA, through
the natural resource lands designation process (RCW 36.70A040 (3)(b) and 36.70A170) and
through the adoption of development regulations to implement their conservation (RCW
36.70A.060(1)). GMA provides a measure of protection for natural resource activities, but there is
no requirement that rural lands be primarily devoted to these uses (ARD and Dieh/ v. Mason
County, WWGMHB Case No. 06-2-0005 (Final Decision and Order, 8-14-06). Rather, GMA
requires that land appropriate for mineral extraction activities is not inappropriately converted for
residential purposes.
In this instance, a Mineral Resource Overlay application is in close proximity to a Master Planned
Resort. Map A-7a characterizes the viewshed from anywhere along the Port Ludlow Master
Planned Resort. There are topographical features between the proposed mine site and the Resort
with the exception of the valley connecting on the east side of the area. This map also shows a
one-half mile buffer extending outward from the Resort. Planning decisions are guided by an effort
to balance two potentially conflicting land uses. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan provide a
general direction for both the conservation of Jefferson County's natural resource lands and the
enhancement of resource based industries (Natural Resources Element, Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4).
It is the policy (NRP 1.4, 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 which minimize the conflict (NRP 6.4, Comprehensive Plan).
SEPA Mitigation Measures (18.40.760 (2)(b)(ii); 18.40.760 (4)(a)
SEPA mitigation measures are required to bring the probable impacts to a moderate level for the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS). These mitigations include conducting the
appropriate project analysis for the proposed mining activities:
A. Visual Impact Analysis
B. Species and Habitat Inventory and development of a Habitat Management Plan
C. Stormwater Pollution Plan
D. Report on existing noise levels and a Supplemental Noise Report for Iron Mountain
Quarry operation
E. Mine site Illumination Report: Light and Glare Analysis
F. Transportation Report with Transportation Impact Analysis
G. Hydro-geological report: Groundwater Supply and Water Quality of Recharge
H. Wetland Inventory and Mitigation Analysis
2-52
f-<t ,y
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive PI8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September3,20OB
Jefferson County Conditions of Approval (18.45.080 (1)(d))
18.45.080 (1 )(d) refers to the Planning Commission recommendation process. The findings and
conclusions shall include a recommendation to the Board that the project be denied, approved, or
approved with conditions or modifications.
Staff interprets JCC 18.20.240(g)(i)-increased off-site impacts resulting from alteration,
intensification, and expansion of existing gravel pits and surface mining operations-as providing
justification to consider JCC 18.40.530 for Conditional Use Permit criteria at the project level.
These criteria for review are not for the legislative action phase, however they will need to be
considered at the project level phase.
Staff Recommendations for Conditions of Approval and Modification:
1) The MRL Overlay amendment shall not extend any closer than one-half mile to the Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort boundary.
2) The proponent shall prepare and submit a habitat management plan with any formal
mining or stormwater application submitted to Jefferson County
3) Prior to approval and operation of a surface mine in the IMQ mineral resources overlay,
the proponent shall submit and satisfy all rllquirements of the Jefferson County Code
(JCC) Title 18 including, but not limited to: '
a) Protection of critical areas per JCC 18.15.170 (6). Mining is prohibited
within regulated wetlands or their buffers. Mining is prohibited in Fish and Wildlife
Habitat areas or their buffers.
b) Submission of a drainage and erosion control plan, grading plan, and
aquifer recharge area report if applicable, which shall demonstrate that the
proposed activities will not cause degradation of groundwater or surface waters.
4) The proponent shall satisfy all requirements of JCC 18.120.240 for mineral extraction,
mining, and reclamation including full compliance with the Washington State Surface
Mining Act (RCW 78.44).
5) The proponent shall satisfy all development standard requirements of JCC 18.30.
6) The proponent shall fulfill the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) found at RCW 43.21c and WAC 197-11.
7) All activities within the MRL overlay shall be subject to the standards of the latest
edition of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. Gravei mining operations shall, prior to approval and operation, obtain
from the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for process water, stormwater
and mine dewatering water discharges.
8) Mining shall be limited to a maximum depth of ten (10) feet above the seasonal high
water table as determined by the best available scientific data, and in concurrence with
Department of Ecology.
9) At the point of Development Permit application, the proponent shall meet the
requirements of JCC 18.20.240 (2)(c) by dedication of buffer zones and other
precautionary measures as appropriate to protect adjoining lands, wildlife habitat and
scenic resources from adverse impacts.
2-53
fi .._,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.4.2 Cumulative Analysis of the Request for Application of the Mineral
Resource Land Overlay Designation to an Underlying Forest Resource Land
Designation
Iron Mountain Quarry is located in the Comprehensive Plan's Shine, #8A planning unit. This area
has known mineral resource deposits and active quarries. The proposal would add an additional
142 acres (approximately) to the County MRL Overlay designation.
2.3.5
Request for Change from Resource-Based
Industrial Zone (RBIZ) Designation to Light
Industrial (1)
Requests for a change from Resource-Based Industrial Zone to a Light Industrial Zone 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. Of greatest relevance is
Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Pian. Of particular use are pages 3-18 to 3-22, and LNG 10.0,
11.0, and 12.0, which are copied below for convenience.
INDUSTRIAL LANDS
Rural Industrial
Rural land designated as rural Industrial land in this Plan is based on existing industrial uses in
areas previously zoned as industrial. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), counties may recognize
areas of more intensive industrial development and contain them within logical boundaries to limit
infill development. Designated under this Plan are the following industrial zones: Port Townsend
Paper Mill as Heavy Industrial (HI), Glen Cove as light industrial and associated commercial (L1IC),
Quilcene and Eastview Industrial Plat as light industrial (L1IM), and forest resource-based industrial
zones (RBIZ) at Gardiner, Center, and the West End. All areas meet the following minimum criteria
for designation of rural industrial land:
1. An area or use of more intensive industrial development in existence on July 1, 1990; and
3. An area that is not located on designated natural resource lands.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Heavy industriai Area
The Port Townsend Paper Mill has provided employment for several generations of Jefferson
County residents. The mill property has been designated as heavy industrial (HI) for the mill and
for activities ancillary to the mill. The property includes a water treatment lagoon and a port facility
on Port Townsend Bay that are directly related to activities at the mill. The mill is recognized as a
heavy industrial activity because it is a large-scale and intensive industrial activity that must meet
extensive environmental permitting requirements under industrial standards for air quality, water
quality, and wastewater treatment.
Glen Cove Industrial Area
2-54
......
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Steff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Uses for the Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C) designation at Glen Cove include commercial and
retail uses that are directly associated with the light industrial uses. Associated commercial and
retail uses may include commodities and products, mechanical or electrical supplies, warehousing
and storage, or may provide support services to those who work in the industries, such as a small
cafe. Allowing broader commercial uses at Glen Cove would require addressing concerns
regarding pedestrian and traffic safety, infrastructure, and incompatible uses both visually and in
terms of hazardous materials storage. Thus the commercial designation for Glen Cove is restricted
to uses which differ considerably from those in Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers.
Light industrial/commercial uses allowed at Glen Cove include but are not limited to: industrial
parks, light manufacturing, construction yards, engine repair, metal fabrication or machining,
plumbing shops and yards, printing and binding facilities (non-retail), research laboratories,
excavating contractors, furniture manufacturing, software development, lumber yards, vehicle repair
and restoration, warehousing and storage, boat building and repair, craft goods. blacksmith or
forge, commercial relay and transfer stations, boat storage, and associated commercial uses as
discussed above. Also permitted as conditional uses are those such as: amateur radio towers
greater than 65 feet in height, cafe, car wash, electronic goods repair, fitness center, kennels, mini-
storage, and nurseryllandscape materials.
The Glen Cove industrial boundary for light industrial/commercial uses recognizes a contained
cluster of existing uses. When the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and
established the interim L1/C zone at Glen Cove, the GMA was still in its formative years and the
case law was not available for guidance. Jefferson County was among the first counties to
establish Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) allowed under GMA as
amended in 1997 by ESB 6094. There was intent to revisit the boundary after thorough analysis
was completed. An expanded Light Industrial (L1) zone was established at Glen Cove in December
2002. The Light Industrial district does not allow for the commercial uses that are allowed in the
L1/C zone.
Quilcene Industrial Area
The light industrial area at Quilcene was recognized in the final Plan based on criteria in 1997
amendments to the GMA allowing Counties to recognize and contain existing areas and uses of
more intensive industrial development (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)). The industries need not be limited
to those serving the local population. Other criteria and considerations used for this designation
inciude: a minority report from the Planning Commission recommending a light industrial area in
Quilcene, the need to provide local employment in an area of distressed economic conditions
located at a distance from the Urban Growth Area, and the desire to reduce commuter-related
traffic pressures on County roadways.
The existing industrial uses include a sawmill, a machine shop, and industrial storage. A vested
project for additional industrial storage is the basis for recognition of an adjacent parcel. Light
industrial uses allowed in the Quilcene Industrial Area include but are not limited to those described
above for Glen Cove, with the exception of the associated commercial and retail uses.
Transportation access is adequate, as the area is on Highway 101. New development will be
restricted until water supply issues related to adequate fire flow are addressed following the
community election for a Local Utility District in late 1998.
Eastview Light /ndustriai/Manufacturing Zone
The Eastview Industrial Plat borders the Paper Mill Heavy Industrial Zone on the north. Eastview
consists of six lots comprising about 8 acres that was platted in 1978. The current uses include
storage, boat yard, and repair services.
2-55
.'- ~.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Urban Industrial
Urban Industrial lands are not bound by the requirements for rural industrial lands in RCW
36.70A070(5)(d), and has the ability to expand beyond the July 1,1990 built environment. There is
currently one example of Urban Industrial within the County, the Urban Light Industrial Zone within
the lrondale/Hadlock UGA
Urban Light Industrial
There are approximately 25 acres of land zoned for Urban Light Industrial within the
Irondale/Hadlock UGA, most of which is currently used by a concrete batch plant and pre-existing
gravel pit.
Major industriai Development
If there is insufficient industrial iand available within an urban growth area (UGA) for a large
industrial operation or if a natural resource-based industrial operation needs to be sited adjacent to
natural resources, there is a process within the GMA that allows for the siting of a major industrial
development (MID) outside of a UGA Additionally, GMA allows qualified counties to designate two
Industrial Land Banks (ILBs) before December 31, 2007 for specific purpose of siting MIDs. MIDs
sited in rural lands either through a permitting process (RCW 36.70A365) or within a designated
ILB (RCW 36.70A367) would be considered urban growth areas.
Forest Resource-Based Industrial Zones
c csi resource-based industries at Gardiner, Center Valley, and the West End have been
designated as Resource-Based Industrial Zones to recognize active sawmills and related activities
at those sites, based on 1997 GMA amendments codified as RCW 36.70A070(5)(d)(i) recognizing
existing industrial uses and allowing for their intensification. The Resource-Based Industrial Zones
are limited to forest resource-based industrial uses in order to prevent the establishment of a wider
range of industrial uses. It is also Intended to support employment in a distressed economic sector
that, while it has seen a decline in employment, will continue to have long-term economic
importance for the County.
Forest resource-based industriai zone boundaries were determined based on criteria in RCW
36.70A070(5)(d) for determining logical boundaries. The reduction in acreage allows for limited
infill, and contains the industrial activity and associated uses to an area based on the developed
area on July 1, 1990.
Jefferson County recognizes that the cyclical nature of the forest Industry will continue to result in
economic upturns and downturns as reforested areas become available for harvest. In order to
maintain facilities that continue to operate, the County recognizes that conversion of machinery and
facilities into forest-related production activities would help to support this industry from one cycle to
the next. The development code will include criteria for the permitting and regulation of conversion
and/or intensification of these areas for related uses that may involve adapting existing equipment
and facilities, recycling, or adding limited value to the forest resource products and byproducts (see
LNP 12.4).
The following table lists industrial areas, existing designations under 1994 zoning, current uses, and
designations under this Plan:
2-56
'... 'f
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Comprehensive Plan Table 3-9
Industrial Land Desianatlons
1994 Designation and Comprehensive Plan
Industrial Area Current Use Designation and
Acreage Acreaae
Port Townsend Paper Heavy Industrial Pulp and paper mill Heavy Industrial (HI)
Mill 292 acres 283.8 acres
Light
Light Industrial- Multiple light industrial Industrial/Commercial
Glen Cove Industrial and associated (LIIC)
Area Commercial commercial 71.58 acres
295.9 acres Light Industrial (LI)
54.93 acres
Light
Quilcene Industrial Heavy Industrial Sawmill, machine shop, Industrial/Manufacturing
Area 20.2 acres industrial storage (LIIM)
22.3 acres
Light
Eastview Industrial Plat -- Storage, Boat Yard Industrial/Manufacturing
8.06 acres
Heavy Industrial Sawmill and associated Forest Resource-Based
Center Valley Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
12.6 acres activities 3.84 acres
Forest Resource-based
Gardiner Industrial Heavy Industrial Sawmill and associated Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
Area 32.2 acres activities, gravel pit 24.9 acres
Light Industrial- Sawmill and associated Forest Resource-based
West End Commercial activities Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
193 acres 122.5 acres
Urban Light Industrial
Irondale/Hadlock UGA -- Gravel Pit (ULI)
25 acres
TOTAL 928.3 acres 616.9 acres
The industrial areas designated as shown above result in a reduction in industrial acreage of 1994
zoning designations from a total of 928.3 acres to 616.9 acres, an overall reduction of 34%. The
application of GMA criteria protects the economic viability of existing uses while restricting industrial
activities to existing areas.
INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
GOAL:
LNG 10.0 Identify and designate sufficient land area within the county for industrial uses
and economic development.
POLICIES:
LNP 10.1
Major industrial developments (MIDs) may be sited outside of Urban Growth Areas
consistent with the UDC and all the criteria in RCW 36.70A.365.
2-57
~( ..'
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensjve Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
LNP 10.2
LNP 10.3
GOAL:
LNG 11.0
POLICIES:
LNP 11.1
LNP 11.2
LNP 11.3
LNP 11.4
GOAL:
LNG 12.0
POLICIES:
LNP 12.1
LNP 12.2
LNP 12.3
Consistent with RCW 36.70A.367, consider the establishment of up to two
Industrial Land Banks for the siting of MIDs.
Designate sufficient land for light industrial uses within the Irondale/Hadlock UGA
Recognize and contain the following areas and uses of more intensive
industrial development within boundaries that may allow for limited areas of
infill development:
Oesignate the Port Townsend Paper Mill property as Heavy Industrial.
Designate the Glen Cove area boundary as Light Industrial and Light
Industrial/Commercial, consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A070(5)(d).
Designate the Quilcene industrial area as Light Industrial/Manufacturing.
Designate the Eastview Industrial Plat as Light Industrial/Manufacturing (L1/M).
Locate new natural resource-based industries in rural lands and near the resource
upon which they are dependent, in accordance with RCW 36.70A365.
Encourage the establishment of sustainable natural resource-based industrial uses
in rural areas to provide employment opportunities.
Natural resource-based industries may be located near the agricultural, forest,
mineral, or aquaculture resource lands upon which they are dependent.
Recognize and designate existing pre-1990 forest resource-b?sed industrial uses
and activities at Center, Gardiner, and the West-End as Resource-Based Industrial
Zones (RBIZ).
LNP 12.4 Existing forest resource based industrial uses and activities shall be recognized as
areas of more intensive rural development under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). These Resource-
Based Industrial Zones should be allowed to accommodate conversions and/or an intensification of
these uses and activities under the provisions contained in RCW 36.70A070(5)(d)(iii).
Growth Management Act Criteria
In addition to these Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, specific provisions of the Growth
Management Act guide the designation of "limited areas of more intensive rural development"
(LAMIRDs) outside of Urban Growth Areas. Pursuant to the GMA (see RCW 36.70A070(5)(d)(iv)
Jefferson County must adopt measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within
LAMIRDs, and those areas shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of LAMIRDs.
2-58
..
Jeffe"on County 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
While LAMIRDs must be delineated predominantly by the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment, they
may also include undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The
GMA sets forth four issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition to respecting
the predominance of the 1990 built environment:
. The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
. Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and
contours;
. The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and
. The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit low-
density sprawl.
The proposal for a change in designation from Resource Based Industrial Zone to Light Industrial is
reviewed below consistent with these criteria.
2.3.5.1 MLA08-101 (Hendy)
Reference Number: MLA08-101 (and related UDC amendment MLA08-389)
Applicant: Catherine Hendy
Assessor Parcel Number: 801102004 and 801102002
Location: 5411 Center Road, Chimacum
2.3.5.1.2 General Description and Environmental Information
The request proposes to change the current land use designation of a portion of less than four (4)
acres of parcel #801102004 (a 9.5-acre parcel) from Resource-Based Industrial (RBIZ) to Light
Industrial.
2.3.5.1.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and 1(c) and JCC 18.45.090(3) and (4), the Planning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific
growth management indicators. Staff findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
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 Pian
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
Com rehensive Pian
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
wideiy held values of the residents of Jefferson
County residents
Circumstances related to the proposed amendment
have substantially changed since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan in that the property has
been unused for several years.
There is information available which was not
considered during the adoption process or any
annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in
that the property has been unused for several
years.
The proposed amendment would not appear to be
inconsistent with the values of Jefferson County
residents; these views may be made more evident
throu h the Plan amendment rocess.
The ro osed site-s ecific amendment meets The ro osal meets concurrenc re uirements for
2-59
"
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
concurrency requirements for transportation and
does not adversely affect adopted ievel of service
standards for other ublic facilities and services
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various elements
of the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts to the
county's transportation network, capitai facilities,
utilities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service ca abilities
in the case of a site-specific amendment to the iand
use map, that the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designation and
the anticipated land use deveiopment, including but
not limited to access, provision of utilities and
compatibility with existing and pianned 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
Ion -term best interests of the count as a whole
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materially affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Com rehensive Plan
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
transportation. The proposed amendment should
not adversely impact the level of county services.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition to being consistent with the Land Use and
Rural element (Chapter 3), the proposed
amendment advances EDG 6.0 and related EDP
6.1, which calls on the County to encourage and
support economic development for rural and urban
lands (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 7-7).
The proposed amendment would not result in a
probable significant adverse impact to the
transportation network, capital facilities, utilities,
parks, or environmental features.
The subject parcel may require environmental
remediation due to diesel contamination of the soil
in conjunction with permitting of new development
on the property. The subject parcel is otherwise
suitable for the requested land use designation.
The proposed amendment is not anticipated to
create pressure to change the land use designation
of other properties.
The proposed amendment does not materially
affect land use and population growth projections.
The subject property is not located within an UGA.
2-60
, ~
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Ad<iendum
September 3, 2008
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
Commercial use of the subject property was in
existence before July 1, 1990. Approval would not
result in a changed boundary of the existing
industrial zoning of the subject property. Moreover,
the proposal promotes economic development. The
proposal is therefore consistent with RCW
36.70A.020(5) and 36.70A.070(1)(5)(d)
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 amount of increase in emissions to air, use of hazardous substances, or production of noise
will depend on the type of industrial activity that occurs on the property, which is unknown at this
time. The subject parcel may, however, require environmental remediation due to diesel
contamination of the soil in conjunction with permitting of new development on the property. All
subsequent project specific development proposals will be subject to applicable federal, state, and
local regulations regarding air emissions, use of hazardous substance, or production of noise.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is not expected to significantly affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The degree to which the proposal depletes energy or natural resources depends on the specific
type of industrial activity that occurs on the property, which is unknown at this time, though it is not
anticipated to be significant regardless of type of activity. 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 fanmlands.
There are wetlands and a fish bearing stream on the subject property. However, they are largely
located outside the existing RBIZ zoning and the proposed Light Industrial zoning. Therefore the
proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on critical areas.
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?
2-61
. ..
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
The proposed amendment is consistent with existing plans and does not lie within a shoreline
jurisdiction. The proposal will create additional Light Industrial zoned land within an existing
industrial zoning.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The proposal is not expected to generate any significant 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.
The proposal is not expected to conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment. The subject parcel may, however, require environmental remediation
before new development on the property is permitted to occur.
2.3.5.1.4 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval, with modifications, of the proposed site-specific amendment. The
proposal is modified to apply only to the 3.84 acres of the subject property which is currently zoned
Resource Based Industrial.
Commercial use of the subject property was in existence before July 1, 1990. Approval would not
result in a changed boundary of the existing industrial zoning of the subject property. Moreover, the
proposal promotes economic development. The proposal is therefore consistent with RCW
36.70A.020(5) and 36.70A.070(1)(5)(d). Recommended modifications to the application include
:;iarification that the amendment applies to only approximately 3.84 acres of parcel number
801102004 and that the amendment requires specific line-in, line-out text changes to both the
Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code (UDC). See Appendix C for specific line-
in, line-out recommended edits of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC.
2.3.5.2
Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Resource-
Based Industrial (RBIZ) to Light Industrial Designation
The proposal will create an additional 3.84 acres of Light Industrial zoned land (for a total of 58.77
acres), but within an existing industrial zoning.
2.3.6
Request for Change from Rural Residential
Designation to Rural Commercial (1)
Requests for changes for a rural residential land use designation to a rural industrial or rural
commercial designation are subject to the goals, policies, and implementation strategies contained
in the Comprehensive Plan, with Chapter 3 being the most relevant. Of particular use are the
subject to Comprehensive Plan goals and policies contained at Land Use Goal (LNG) 5.0 on page
3-50.
GOAL:
2-62
, ~
LNG 5.0
POLICIES:
LNP 5.1
LNP 5.2
LNP 5.3
LNP 5.4
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Establish and maintain the location and size of the County's Rural
Crossroads to provide access to a limited range of non-residential uses.
All rural commercial lands shall be designated based on the provisions of the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A).
Designate the following historic crossroads as Convenience Crossroads (CC) as
shown on the Land Use Map: Nordland, Beaver Valley, and Wawa Point.
LNP 5.2.1
Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act
and the following additional criteria:
a. Consists of a single commercial property; and
b. Provides local rural population and commuting/travellng public
with basic consumer goods and services.
LNP 5.2.2
Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundary of each
of the Convenience Crossroads to those involving basic consumer
goods and services.
Designate the following historic crossroads as NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads
(NC) as shown on the Land Use Map: Chimacum, Discovery Bay, Four Corners,
Gardiner, and Mats Mats.
LNP 5.3.1
Designation is based on the criteria of the Growth Management
Act and the following additional criteria:
a. Multiple commercial properties; and
b. Includes limited specialty goods and professional services; and
c. Serves the local rural population and the commuting/traveling
public.
LNP 5.3.2
Limit uses and their scale within the designated boundaries of
each of the designated NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads to those
involving basic consumer staples with a limited range of goods and
services andior serving the commulingitraveling public.
LNP 5.3.3
Encourage affordable housing through the aliowance of multifamiiy
housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior
housing, and assisted living facilities, and manufactured/mobile
home parks.
Designate the foliowing crossroads as General Commercial Crossroads (GC) as
shown on the Land Use Map: SR 19/20 Intersection.
LNP 5.4.1
Designation is based on the criteria in the Growth Management Act
and the following additional criteria:
a. Location at a major highway intersection near high density
population in the Tri-Area; and
b. Existing commercial uses meet limited regional and multiple
community levels of service.
2-63
i;' ..
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
LNP 5.4.2
Limit uses and the scale of those uses within each of the
designated General Commercial crossroads to those involving an
expanded range of commercial goods and services.
LNP 5.4.3
Encourage affordable housing through the allowance of multifamily
housing opportunities such as multifamily residential units, senior
housing, assisted living facilities, and manufactured/mobiie home
parks.
LNP 5.5
Ensure visual compatibility and traditional design elements for Rural Crossroads
commercial infill development with the surrounding rural area through the creation
and implementation of community based design and development standards. Uses
within Rural Crossroads shall be scaled and sized to protect the rural character of
the natural neighborhood.
Comprehensive Plan Table 3-2
SummarY of Land Use and Zonino Desionations
Land Use/Zoning Criteria for designation Principal Land Use
Designation
R:E$lbeNTIAL ...
Rural Residential Located in areas of similar development; areas with Single family
1 uniU5 acres smaller existing lots of record; along the coastai area; residential
(RR 1:5) adjacent to Rural Village Center and Rural Crossroad
designations; overlay designation for pre-existing platted
subdivisions.
Rural Residential Located in an area with similar development patterns; Single family
1 uniU10 acres adjacent to Urban Growth Area, transition density residential
(RR 1:10) between RR 1:5 and RR 1 :20; parcels in coastal areas
of simiiar size; includes land affected bv critical areas.
Rural Residential Located in an area with similar deveiopment patterns; Single family
1 uniU20 acres Adjacent to Urban Growth Area, Resource Production residential
(RR 1 :20) 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.
COMMERCIAL
Convenience Existing rural commercial uses which provide a limited Rural Commerciai
Crossroads range of basic goods and services (basic foodstuffs,
(CC) gas, basic hardware, and basic medicinal needs) ;
generally located at the intersection of local arterials or
collectors; usually contain a convenience/general store
associated with gas pumps. May also serve the
traveling public.
2-64
,
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
Neighborhood/
Visitor
Crossroads
(NC)
Existing rural commercial uses which provide an
expanded range of basic goods and services for the
rural population and traveling public (grocery, hardware,
bakery, restaurant, tavern, auto repair, small
professional offices, public services, and medical
offices.
Existing commercial uses that provide a mixture of local,
traveling public, and community uses, and may include
limited regional uses due to proximity to population
centers in the Tri-Area.
Existing rural commercial uses that provide for many of
the basic daily needs of the rural population; typically
supplies goods and day-to-day services; provides
limited public and social services. Residential uses
include single family, duplexes, triplexes. and assisted
Iivin facilities.
Commercial area identified in the 1993 EIS for Port
Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Commercial uses will
provide many essential day-to-day goods and services
to residents and resort
General
Crossroads
(GC)
Rural
Centers
(RVC)
Village
Village Commerciai
Center (VCC)
Rural Commercial
Rural Commercial
Rural Community-
based Commercial
and Residential
Rural Community-
based Commercial
Growth Management Act Criteria
in addition to these Comprehensive Plan criteria, specific provisions of the Growth Management Act
guide the designation of "limited areas of more intensive rural development" (LAMIRDs) outside of
Urban Growth Areas. Pursuant to the GMA (see RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv) Jefferson County must
adopt measures to minimize and contain existing areas or uses within LAMIRDs, and those areas
shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary (LOB) of LAMIRDs. While LAMIRDs must be
delineated predominantiy by the pre-July 1, 1990 built environment, they may also include
undeveloped lands if limited in order to prevent further low-density sprawl. The GMA sets forth four
issues that must be addressed in establishing the LOB in addition to respecting the predominance
of the 1990 built environment:
. The need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities;
. Physical boundaries such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and landforms and
contours;
. The prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; and
. The ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit low-
density sprawl.
The proposal for a change in designation from rural residential to rural commercial is reviewed
below consistent with these criteria.
2-65
, .
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
2.3.6.1 MLA08-96 (M. Holland)
Reference Number: MLA08-96
Applicant: Michael Holland/Blue Moon Investments
Assessor Parcel Number: 821333001
Location: Intersection of Shine Road and Highway 104
2.3.6.1.2 General Description and Environmental Information
The request would change the current land use designation of an approximately half-acre (.50)
parcel from Rural Residential one dwelling unit per five acres (RR 1 :5) to Rural Commercial
Neighborhood Crossroad (NC). For practical purposes the subject property has been developed for
commercial use since approximately 1977. It was not so designated in the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan because at that time the existing zoning of the property was residential, and it did not qualify
for a commercial designation.
2.3.6.1.3 Cumulative Impact Analvsis
Pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(1 )(b), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners
shall develop findings and conclusions that consider specific growth management indicators. Staff
findings, conclusions, and recommendation follow.
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
Whether the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Pian 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
Com rehensive Plan
Whether the proposed amendment reflects current
wideiy held values of the residents of Jefferson
Count residents
The circumstances related to the area have
changed substantially since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. The property was initially
zoned residential because it had a residential
designation at the time of the adoption of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan, and did not qualify for a
commercial designation because the
Comprehensive Plan criteria for commercial
designation required previous commercial zoning.
Since that time both state law and the
Comprehensive Plan have changed. Under current
standards the property meets all the criteria under
RCW 36.70A070(5)(d)(i) for a limited area of more
intense rural development (LAMIRD), and meets
the criteria listed In the Comprehensive Plan and
Jefferson County Code for Convenience
Crossroads (see LNP 5.2.1 )(a)(b).
The majority of the assumptions upon which the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted and are relevant
to this proposal remain valid.
The proposal reflects the values established in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2-66
. .
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
The proposed site-specific amendment meets
concurrency requirements for transporlation and
does not adversely affect adopted levei of service
standards for other ublic facilities and services
The proposed site-specific amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation strategies of the various eiements
of the Com rehensive Plan
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
result in probable significant adverse impacts to the
county's transporlation network, capital facilities,
utilities, parks, and environmental features that
cannot be mitigated, and will not place
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service ca abilities
In the case of a site-specific amendment to the land
use map, that the subject parcels are physicaily
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
The proposed site-specific amendment will not
create a pressure to change the land use
designation of other properlies, unless the change
of land use designation for other properlies is in the
long-term best interests of the county as a whole
The proposed site-specific amendment does not
materiaily affect land use and population growth
projections that are the bases of the
Com rehensive Pian
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 overail 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 proposal meets concurrency requirements for
transportation.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation of
Convenience Crossroads.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan LNP 5.2.1 guiding the designation of
Convenience Crossroads.
The parcel is already developed. Access to the
transportation network already exists; power and
public water serve the existing building.
Jefferson County has established clear criteria, in
accordance with GMA guidelines, that are written
into the Comprehensive Plan guiding the
designation of such properties. There are iimited
properties that could potentially take advantage of
the LAMIRD criteria. Designating such properties
could allow for more goods and services to be
offered locally.
The proposal does not materially affect land use
and population projections.
The proposed re-designation is not located within a
UGA.
The proposed amendment meets the requirements
of RCW 36.70A(5)(d)(i) for LAMIRDs and County-
Wide Planning Policies, specifically #8: Policy on
Rural Areas. The character of the rural area will
not be affected by re-designating this property.
2-67
",. .':'
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive pten Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
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 proposal is unlikely to increase discharge to water or create other environmental impacts.
Question #2: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is unlikely to affect wildlife or plants.
Question #3: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources, although more electricity will be used
to operate an active facility.
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 parcel is located in a high-risk Seawater Intrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ) area. Current
development on the parcel utilizes a private water system and is within the PUD's Biwater Bay
service area. Approval of this amendment would not likely increase ground water withdrawal.
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 subject property is not within shoreline. The proposal will affect land use as future development
shall comply with commercial standards. Without a land use change, changes and expansion of the
existing use would need to comply with JCC 18.20.260, legal non-conforming uses.
Question #6: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
The Convenience Crossroads (CC) designation is recommended by staff because subject site
consists of a single commercial property, and can provide the local rural population and commuting
public with basic consumer goods and services (see LNP 5.2.1(a)(b)). The CC designation is
intended in part to ensure that the proposal will not substantially increase demands on
transportation, public services, and utilities; the parcel has featured a de facto commercial use since
approximately 1978.
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 meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). The parcel meets the July 1,
1990 "built environment' LAMIRD criteria.
2-68
Jefferson Coonty 200B Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 200B
2.3.6.1.4
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval with modification of the proposed site-specific amendment: the subject
property meets the requirements of the July 1, 1990 "built environment" LAMIRD criteria, and
qualifies for a designation of Convenience Crossroads, not NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads. The
subject property's location, size, and proximity to the Hood Canal Bridge and to Highway 104 are
consistent with the creation of limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs) outside
of urban areas, as specified in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Recommendation includes a modification:
that the rezone resuit in a LAMIRD designated Convenience Crossroad (CC) rather than
NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroad (NC), to lower intensity of possible uses (see JCC 18.15.040-
Use Table) since subject property is surrounded by zoned or platted densities of 1 d.u. per 5 acres
or greater. Subject property does not qualify for the NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroad (NC)
designation because It consists of only a single commercial property (see LNP 5.2.1 (a)).
Cumulative Analysis of Request for Change from Rural
Residential to Rural Commercial Designation
The proposal would create an additional 0.50 acre of Rural Commercial land and reduce Rural
Residential lands by the same amount.
2.3.6.2
2-69
. >
. .
Jefferson County 200B Comprehensive Pl8n Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
13 Supporting Record, Analyses, & Materials
The table below lists existing environmental documents and other documents and information
utilized for the development of this 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DCD Staff
Report and SEPA Addendum. This report supplements information presented in prior
environmental documents prepared for adoption of the Comprehensive Pian, other legislative
actions, and other County decisions and activities.
DATE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT EVALUATED
September 27, 1978 ~raft~~nvironmentallmpact Statement pro~~sed Comprehensive Plan (pre-
DEIS GMA
Januarv2, 1979 Final EIS-IFEISl Prooosed Comorehensive Plan
December 21, 1992 Countywide Planning Policies (Res. No.
40-99\
February 14, 1994 DEIS Draft implementing Ordinance for 1979
Comorehensive Plan
March 1, 1995 Existing Conditions Alternatives for establishing GMA
Comorehensive Plan
February 24, 1997 DEIS Comprehensive Plan - February 24,
1997 draft
Mav27,1998 FEIS Prooosed Comorehensive Plan
Aunust 3, 1998 Staff Resnonses to Questions Pro nosed Comnrehensive Plan
August 6, 1998 Washington Department of Natural Forest Practices report for parcel #801-
Resources Forest Practices Report # 091-002
2601814
Janua;:;;-26,1999 Land Use Inventorv Reoort Part of Soecial Studv
Januarv 26, 1999 Renional Economic Analvsis / Forecast Part of Soecial Studv
June 30, 1999 Draft Supplemental EiS (DSEIS) Comprehensive Plan 1999
Amendments (Task III of Tri-Area/Glen
Cove Soecial Studv)
August 18, 1999 Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) with Comprehensive Plan 1999
addenda Amendments (Task IV of Tri-Area/Glen
Cove Soecial Study)
June 11, 2001 Soecial Studv Final Decision Document
November 2001 Tri-Area UGA Capital Facilities Speciai
Study
August 21, 2002 Integrated Staff Report & DSEIS 2002 Comprehensive Pian
Amendment Docket
November 25, 2002 Inteorated FSEIS 2002 Amendment Docket
December 2002 Final decisions, findings, ordinances, 2002 Amendment Docket
and conditions
February 13, 2003 Memorandum to Planning Commission Agricultural Lands policy and
reoulation
April 28, 2003 Ordinance No. 05-0428-03 and all Amendments to UDC concerning
documentation for MLA03-485 Anricultural Lands
August 6, 2003 Integrated Staff Reports & SEPA 2003 Amendment Docket
Addenda
September 22,2003 Jefferson County Board of Population forecast for the period
Commissioners Resolution No. 55-03 2000-2024 and the urban/rural
allocation
February 2004 Water System Plan Vol. 2: Public Utility DePicts1 ~ywater Bay Water System
District #1 of Jefferson Countv IFin.1.1 annroved bv DOH Feb. 2005
2004 Staff analysis and environmental review MLA04-29 & 30: UGA plans, goals,
for Urban Growth Area IUGA). nolicies, maos, and renulations.
September 22, 2004 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA 2004 Amendment Docket, including
Addendum "2004 Uodate" reouired bv GMA
August 3, 2005 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA 2005 Amendment Docket
Addendum
3-1
;. ,
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
July 19, 2006 Integrated Staff Report & SEPA 2006 Amendment Docket
Addendum
July 27, 2007 Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit for Real Estate purchase infonnation
oarceI901-132-002
August20,2007 Forest Management Plan for Chimacum Forest Management Plan
Heiahts LLC
September 5, 2007 Integrated Staff Report and SEPA 2007 Amendment Docket
Addendum
August 4, 2008 E-mail correspondence from Ross Response to Mr. James Jackson's e-
Goodwin to Rvan Hunter mail comments
February 14, 2005 Type N Stream Demarcation Study, Evaluatian of Np stream influence on
Phase I: Pilot Results, Robert fish-bearing stream segments.
Palmquist, Principle, Np Technical
Group of the Upslope Process Scientific
Advisory Group, State of Washington
Forest Practices Board's Adaptive
Management Program
3-2
.
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
14 Distribution List
Copies mailed or delivered to:
Jefferson County:
Planning Commission members (9 persons)
Board of County Commissioners (3 persons)
Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Department of Public Works
Department of Health & Human Services
Natural Resources Division
Jefferson County Library at Port Hadlock
Jefferson County Fire Protection District #4 -
Brinnon
State Agencies:
Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic
Development: Growth Management Services
Department of Ecology SEPA Unit
Notification of availability emailed or
mailed to:
Jefferson County:
All other County departments not listed above
Local Agencies & Organizations:
City of Port Townsend
Jefferson County Public Utility District #1
Port of Port Townsend
Jefferson County Conservation District
Washington Environmental Council
Olympic Environmental Council
North Olympic Salmon Coalition
Point-No-Point Treaty Council
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Skokomish Tribe
Hoh Tribe
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader
Peninsula Daily News
Forks Forum
Notification of availability emailed or mailed to:
State Agencies:
Department of Natural Resources (Hugo Flores &
SEPA Review)
Department of Transportation (Bill Wiebe & SEPA
Review)
Department of Health (Kelly Cooper)
Department of Sociai & Health Services
(Elizabeth McNagny)
Department of Corrections (Eric Heinitz)
Department of Fish & Wildlife (Jennifer Hayes)
Department of Ecology (GMA Review)
Puget Sound Partnership
(Cullen Stephenson)
Parks & Recreation Commission (Bill Koss)
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(Lorinda Anderson)
Department of ArcheOlogy and Historic
Preservation (Greg Griffith)
Other Interested Parties:
Washington Association of Realtors
4-1
.
Jefferson Coonty 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
4-2
. .
Jefferson County 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report & SEPA Addendum
September 3, 2008
15 Appendices
A. Location Map of Proposed Amendments
A-1 MLA08-32 (D. Holland) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
A-2 MLA08-56 (Brown) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
(MLA08-59 (Guise) was withdrawn on August 27, 2008)
A-4 MLA08-69 (George) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
A-5 MLA08-73 (Jackson) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
A-6 MLA08-84 (Broders) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
A-7 MLA08-93 (Burnett/Pope Resources) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
A-7a MLA08-93 (Burnett/Pope Resources) - Viewshed Map
A~8 MLA08-96 (M. Holland) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
A-9 MLA08-101 (Hendy) - Map of Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
B. Legal Notice published September 3, 2008
C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Line-In/Line-Out suggested language to be inserted if
legislative decision is to approve MLA08-101 (Hendy)
D. Proposed Unified Development Code Amendment Line-In/Line-Out
E. Jefferson County Resolution No. 55-03, September 22, 2003
5 -1
. .
Appendix A. Location Map of Proposed Amendments
Strait of Juan de Fuca
~
..
..!!!
.s
~
II
-6
<(
~
Ql
~
o
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposals
Location Overview Map Legend
1. MLA08-32 D. Holland
2. MLA08-56 Brown
3. MLA08-59 Guise was withdrawn (no map)
4. MLA08-69 George
5. MLA08-73 Jackson
6. MLA08-84 Broders
7. MLA08-93 Burnett/Pope
8. MLA08-96 M. Holland
9. MLA08-101 Hendy
f
Jefferson County, WA
+
.
NOTE: Map numbering above differS from stajJreport due to Q.use
withdrawal
~1i' ~re lor ~!!IOll
Amended 9-2-08
5-2
\
Legend
D Applicant Parcel(s) Zoning D General Crossroads
Parcels D Public _ Convenience Crossroads
DNR FP Stream Class _ Quinaul! Tribal Reservation _ Neighborhood Crossroads
~ F - Fish Habitat _ Hoh Tribal Reservation IlIE Commercial Forest
"^- N - Non-fish Habitat lIT'" '1 Olympic National Park l1li Rural Forest
-.rv-- S -Inventoried Shoreline _ Urban Commercial D Inholding Forest
~ U - Unknown; X C Visitor Oriented Commercial _ Prime Agriculture
tf;> Wetlands i::J Urban Light Industrial ~ Airport Essential Public Facility
DNR Water Bodies [" ~l Low Density Residential ~ Waste Management Essential Public Facility
~ F - Fish Habitat D Moderate Density Residential D Military Reservation
N - Non-fish Habitat _ High Density Residential D Parks, Preserves, Recreation
S - Inventoried Shoreline ~ Local Agriculture Olympic National Forest
X - Unknown D Not Zoned D Protection Island Wildlife Refuge
~ Seismic Hazard D Rural Residential (1:5) D Water and Tidelands
~ Erosion Hazard _ Rural Residential (1:10) D Port Townsend UGA
Soil Landslide Potential D Rural Residential (1 :20) I11III Single Family (MPR-SF 4:1)
G0 1998-99 Slides D Industrial (HI) D Single Family Tracts (MPR-SFT 1 :2.5)
M High _ Resource Based Industrial _ Multiple Family (MPR-MF 10:1)
~ Moderate _ Light Industrial/Manufacturing D Resort Complex (MPR-RC/CF 10:1)
W Slight g~,r.'.':l Light Industrial _ Village Commercal Center (MPR-VC)
_ Light Industrial/Commercial _ Open Space Reserve (MPR-OSR)
_ Rural Village Center _ Recreation Area (MPR-RA)
o
""
t
~
'f'-
-
~
UD!q1'JV
..
" I
I
.
J! \
~I """
... *"''"''''"
...
~,
.,.
(
c~
,
.
.. "
.
...? ..
;; >~'~,""
",::
'.
.....,
Wf~ . <ft
'~J~,. -r
, _ '......"'. ., r
~
~~
~
It::l-
,
:t:',I;!iI 1f:" .
j'!f/iJiI'I;'
lHl jlJ lif
WhHJ!il I I
,l iT'
! !
I 'I ~ n.
f ~I - Ii : ~ l ~
I I: :'ill"
lil.Hplin:!!
Il/lilj,jii!il!j
1!l!illiillllil,
~~~DD DDDDDIDI~D
." II j! 'I
""" f'
lllldil Ill,'!;]
!lnll!!i;]! III
DDDDD~~DIID6eDDD
, Ii! Ill,
ii, HIll/.i'l
lltlllllldd!!l
IDI~DCEl0DIDDDOel[J
. , II
1 i I j'll' I 1I,
'I'll' I '
11 ",," !....IJ
sD 1111 1011,' ~Ii
~
.~
'} ,.\,
~,'
~;t. >>
h_ ~"--'iij _oj;
-' "
" .."''''.~
~;,." - --~\_.
\001r'?'''''i~ , "..,;
..... - ~
... \, \ .
,~~: ,'* ,C '
. '.t~ -,.t~lt
.
l
'1:1......
~\
I:'l<r:
-
-
ON
::r:~
Cl~
<r:
....J
~
'I
1
~
~
I:'l ~
- 0
0... .....
fj) ....
;> I:'l
..... U
en;:::
~ p..
fj) p..
iJ<r:
..... ....
p..~
S fj)
o S
u'1:l
00 ~
o fj)
o S
N<r:
"*
1/)"",
C'lS
(1)
...
<(
"0
.
..
..;:);s. .
~. ~fll ->j
.~. ',".;
-;;;
E
m
"
.~
m
c::
E
=>
c::
C
N
ci:
c::
~~
=>-
c::~
C"
N'-
,~
C)
c::
.-
c::
o
~
1 j
:11 1,!lJ~fl )
I/,l,..P..
1"'I,ijl:-
fUHjH1llf
I'l:'[!!'''i~
! r j~i"
!. '"
!; '" ~
II j.! oHlh1
illl III/nWIIIIIPj'
Hille Illl !
D~~DD DDDDDIDI~D
'I' 'I
m,idIlPj!!I!l!
!wlhwl I I
DDDDDIDDDIDimD~D
II 1111Ill!11
Il/lillllodd
IDI~DDDD[IDDDDI~
. II
!!lTl II
.11!1Llll....l1
HI i~lllflll. ~I,j
~ t:::
...... 0
0... .~
0; '"
:> ~
0,-1 '1"""1
(J) ......
t::: P-
o; P-
..c::~
0;
.... '"
P-t:::
a 0;
o a
u'1:l
00 5
~ 0 a
~~
-,
1
),
'i: r.i,
ilJI1~lliili!l.
I'ill.'l':
1.!I PJd'
'I"'fl'; fl'
1..t!!,,1 I
! 11 i'i'. '
,!' ; ~,
Ill,! ,HW
liIIJlll1ljlii1!11!!
ll!' 1'1 1- it
El~~D6~D69M'~.M
u II I '1
,lll,q, 'ql i
MM~,~~l~~U~61
, ,I 0
I ",' 1
;1 ilPphl
16thdlddiP!
. IiIDD[JIUDDDD~El
! I II
1 'dlJ!1l II
50 ilii fll." . ._ll
Hl
\
.\
\ ~
\
...
't
"'
"
...
\
-
~
1:
-ll
.;;;
..
a:
~
~
a:
o
N
Ii:
a:
~~
b() \
2;:<t::
~
'-'0\
\0
\
00
o
<t::
.....l
~
\
.""
~ ~l
~S./Q
I::
(-:l I::
- 0
c.. .~
~ j..J
;> (-:l
.~ U
f/l .~
1::-
(U p..
"5~
... j..J
S-5
o a
u'U
00 I::
o U
o a
N<t::
.06'
"Q'
\
. ,
'"
~
I
I,
'I'! 1:1"
,11'111;11
HljiWh:
j"j'pJ'I'
'I~ ItJI'1i!1
II ""-,JHl
l J'r'
I, __
!' '~q,
I! ,I ~ , , I ~ ! ,
j j l! .! ii' i
ill!i!l!I!!!,!111
llilUi!lll JIll
~~~DD DDDDDIDI~D
,
-., \' I 11
,,~ _1 '1I !! ,
II It iI' I '! l"-I
llH!'J_L!jl HI
Hn iH~'! ~~
DDDDDIDD~IDB9DmD
. ii' 1'111
II j PIl !:i
! I ~,,! !f,n
illilllHHIJIi
IDllllDDDI:1DlOODDlltJ
. I
! j Ill, I 11
'1<1,11 ,.
ldllll i I rOlii . .~~
-
,.,!'Il,..!::!
..... -
,,,....'i;::~~'"
"t ,~.~
~~ ~~
.~~
., -
. ~,~~~ ~
.~, !I.;..:-.-
\~ --
t;...: a~
Ill'!'
\.
~!I'\
0'
"'-<
~
UM
<Ilt-
--',
00
o
-<
.....J
~
~
~
'"
o
N
"
'"
; ~
-< 0
~ .~
G) ...
:> ~
o...-! 0""""
'" -<
~ p..
G) p..
...c:-<
G)
.... ...
p..~
S Co)
o S
u"C
00 ~
o Co)
o S
N-<
-;;;)...-----.
.,- ----
,;::
,~
..~
~
.~
j'..
.,
~
..
f/)
~~
CI)
, a..
~~
,
,
Ill'
'1' "~I
"i!'~iil_',
h/lll'!!""
j~II,lJliil
jJ,IJHllll J
I : i'll,
I
!
, .
. , ",-
Ii ! I <in I
IIlJlII/jlmlll
Ill!! Idill/I!
~mo OOOOOIOI~O
." I! I' 11
lllhJIJilllllllldl
JIll !Ill HI
OOOOOIDO~IOgmDDDD
· ! I! ],,).
II I i lj II III
II d.w.llIllll!!l
!DI~~DDDIOOOOGD
. ,I
IIll-!l il
l:d!!ili...Jll
HIiIlIO II' ID~~
<or, it ~vr
,"'- ~<
8;-
~CX)
,
CX)
o
<
,
-
~
~
~ ~
...... 0
i:l.. .~
~ 'c:;
;> u
.~ ......
ffJ ......
~ p..
~ p..
-5<
.... ....
p..~
S ~
o S
u"O
CX) 5
o s
~<
!Il.j
!":"iPII
Ilt'T'1-:
w1'I;Jllh
IV!!I!H!i
i l j'i'
f; ",_
!I! ! I ,Iiil!!l.
I ill . -I i!
liilll111!l!h,IIH
lIlII Iill Jlil
O~gDD DDDDDIDI~D
." (I I 11
IlllII'Jl!lllj]l'l!l)"
Jllll Ill! ,I
0DDDDDIOD~ID~mDDD
I j , I
· ! jl,ljPl
II II! II' .! 'I
lltldllllldlli,
lDlgDj~D~DIDDDDI
!,',d'l' J n
llih 1.1 h
1.."J,J,...l1l
HIIIIID ll.li !iS~
-
~t--
0..'
0'<
0...
---""
~O\
~,
t::00
....0
~:5
~
t::
C':! t::
- 0
0... ._
~ ~
:> u
'c;5 ;:::
t:: 0..
~ 0..
"5<(
.... '"'
o..t::
S ~
o S
U'"O
00 t::
g E
N<(
.*
l::l
o
.~
w
'"
U
.~
-
t:l..
t:l..
-<
w
l::l
E
"0
:::
E
-<
l::l
'"
c::
0.)
>
.~
'"
l::l
0.)
...c::
0.)
....
t:l..
E
o
I ;;;
i g
I, N
i i ii
~ ~ 'I j li 'I
Iii \IJidl
>J 1"I'lH,
ht.lll!!:l
!!i1l1ji"l:11
J;., ,l.!l.
,
L
'l'IIJhl
.. I l!1 ~ i '! ,
Hijj'lfjh
j'l, "J"t
'HI'.' Ilh
'!1 Jl;J:!j
Jlll'i"
.
*
f_!:h
I! ~P!pl
';1 'hl!;]1
W !U~~!lJ~!
"
!. '1 jl
i !qiIJ JIll
!~!!j~Jl!~~~M
o 1 1j ,::
l!lJH1hldll
~M~i~MD~BDDDD
I 1.11
I Ii I Ii l III It
1111!.!I!....!~lo'DD
lu 11111 Ill.. .
~.
/'~$
.
'"dOC
~'
o:s<
-<
0\0
:r:q-
:E~
:s
:E
~ ~
.!$ 0
,!! ~ 'r:l
1,': Q.) {'I$
~ .e; .~
'.j; rJ)~
~ 0...
JJ<
~ ....
0..5
E E
O'"d
U l=:
OC <l.l
o E
~<
3)
~
....,
,~
~
....,
w
~1
'...
~
,
,
i,
.1 I l.i,
11!11'1''1l*
iH(!l i~
f1hJ!HllJl
'1~'!i!!'!Il, "
i i j!f"'
I; _
d I! ,jd'l.
!I IJj "il!,!
fl!lilllllll!!l!
Ilil'lllillllllDl
DB~DD DDDDDIDI~
-- I fIll
," i Ill! I! _
llll',I!!l," "11'J1i!!"jl
dd .Ill .,
DDDDD~ODDIDm9D~D
I . I
!I lnd!lrlj
il,Il!llllllll'J
iDIDDD0DDIODDD~t1
, l! 111-1 I II
l,j I" I
Idl!~iilolii"-~6
,
;;;
~
~
..,
OJ
"
'"
;;;
$
'"
o
'"
ci:
'"
>D\
'1:1'
~<
I.)
:r:-
o
-
,
00
o
<
...J
~
."
a.
~%,
''*1
.
il ""
i
c
~
..,
'w
"
'"
i
-=
o
~
ci:
'"
~ ~
-< 0
r:l.. .""
I.) ....
> 5
.- .-
f/)_
~ p.,
~ p.,
...<::<
I.)
.... ....
p.,5
s s
0'1:1
U ~
00 I.)
o e
~<
~
H
#"
~ .
:.' ','.,':,:
,;lj
~
ie.' .:{~
,..-
. .
AQpendix B:
Legal Notice
Published September 3, 2008
. .
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND
NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF
SEPA ADDENDUM
AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMEND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON
THE 2008 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), Jefferson County is issuing an integrated GMNSEPA document per WAC 197-11-210 through
197-11-235 in relation to eight (8) site-specific amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
that constitute all items on the final docket of the 2008 annual Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle and
the one (1) Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment Jefferson County has determined that it is the
appropriate SEPA lead agency for the proposals. Adoption of any Comprehensive Plan amendment on
the 2008 docket and the UDC amendment is a non-project action under SEPA, Chapter 43.21 C RCW.
Following are brief descriptions of each of the eight (8) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
and the one (1) proposed amendment to the UDC that are the subject of this notice. Each case has a
Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number and each site-specific amendment has an Assessor's
Parcel Number (APN) for reference:
Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1. MLA08-32; Dave Holland/Davos Capital LLC; corner of Hastings and Arabian Lane, Port
Townsend; 14.02 acres (APN # 001064002); RR 1: 1 0 to 1 :5.
2. MLA08-56; BG Brown Residency Trust, Gloria Brown (David Goldsmith - authorized agent); one
mile west of intersection of Eaglemount Road and Center Road, Chimacum; 116 acres (APN #
801091010, application under number 801-091-002); CF 1 :80 to RF 1:40 for 80 acres; RR 1 :20
(or AL 1:20) for 36 acres.
3. MLA08-69; Jeffrey and Tamara George; 472 South Edwards Road; 19.91 acres (APN #
001191002); RR 1:20 to RR 1:10.
4. MLA08-73; James Jackson, Chimacum Heights, LLC; half-mile from Oak Bay Road (via Oak Hills
subdivision), half-mile from Port Hadlock Sheriffs Office, and half-mile from Chimacum Corners;
120 acres (APN # 901132002); CF 1:80 to RR 1:10.
5. MLA08-84; Richard A. Broders/CMR Partnership; 0.3 miles down Cleveland Street off Oak Bay
Road; 38 acres (APN # 901121001); RR 1:20 to RR 1:5.
6. MLA08-93; James Burnett, Iron Mountain Quarry/Pope Resources; approximately three miles
west of the Hood Canal Bridge, immediately north of SR 104; 142 acres (portions of APN #'s
821291002,821302001,821324002, and 821311001); CF 1:80 to Mineral Resource Land
Overlay.
7. MLA08-96; Michael Holland; intersection of Highway 104 and Shine Road; 0.50 acres (APN #
821333001); RR 1:5 to Rural Commercial.
8. MLA08-101; Catherine Hendy; approximately 4 acres (APN # 801102004) at 5411 Center Road,
Chimacum; Resource-Based Industrial (RBIZ) to Light Industrial.
Unified Development Code Amendment:
1. MLA08-389: Removing specific identification of locations from Industrial zoning references and
changes refiecting the re-designation of the Center Valley Resource Based Industrial Zone to Light
Industrial.
B-1
.
GMA Notice: This document serves as the 60-day notice of intent to amend the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code and is being circulated per WAC 365-195-620 to
State agencies on the list provided by the Washington State Office of Community Development of agency
representatives responsible for reviewing proposed amendments to comprehensive plans and implementing
regulations.
Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents and Notice of Availability including SEPA
Addendum: The document also serves as a final m~igated determination of non-significance (MDNS) notice
of adoption of existing environmental documents, and notice of availability of a formal SEPA document, an
Addendum, pursuant to SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC). After review of the docket and existing
environmental documents, the SEPA Responsible Official at the Department of Community Development
(DCD) has determined that existing environmental documents, augmented by the integrated SEPA
Addendum, provide adequate environmental review to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-600 with
regard to consideration of the eight (8) amendment proposals on the 2008 Docket and the one (1) UDC
amendment. A Staff Report, offering recommended action on these eight (8) Comprehensive Plan
amendments and one (1) UDC amendment, has been integrated with a SEPA Addendum per WAC 197-
11-235. In accordance with WAC 197-11-630, there is no new SEPA-specific public comment period In
conjunction with this Comprehensive Plan amendment package. However, DCD and the Planning
Commission are accepting general comments on the merits of these suggested amendments as detailed
below.
The following existing environmental documents are being adopted:
. 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 cumuiative
environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan.
. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community Development
Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued September 22, 2004.
Other relevant documents have been incorporated by reference in the combined Staff Report and SEPA
Addendum.
Planning Commission Public Hearing: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing to take oral and written comments on the eight (8) site-specific
Comprehensive Pian amendments comprising the 2008 final docket and the one (1) Unified Development
Code amendment. The public hearing for these amendments will occur on Wednesday, September 17,
2008, beginning at 6:30 PM at the Washington State University (WSU) Extension Office, Spruce Room,
Port Hadlock, WA.
Public Comment Period: The Planning Commission and DCD will accept written comments on the
merits of the proposed amendments through close of business on Friday, October 3, 2008. Any written
comments on these suggested amendments submitted after the close of the public hearing will be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for consideration in its legislative decision. The
BoCC may hold a public hearing before taking action on the final docket and UDC amendment. (Formal
notice would appear in the newspaper of record at a later date.) Written comments on the proposals may
be submitted to DCD at621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 or via email to
Dlann i nalalco. iefferson. wa. us.
Availability of Documents: For more information or to inspect or request copies of the original
applications for the proposed amendments, the Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum, the
adopted existing environmental documents or other related information, contact DCD Long-Range
Planning at the mail or emall addresses above, by phone at (360) 379-4450, or visit the 2008
Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle webpage, where documents and notices are posted in Portable
Document Format. The 2008 Docket webpage can be accessed through the Jefferson County
homepage: httD://www.co.iefferson.wa.us.
B-2
2
" -..
AQpendix C:
MLA08-101 (Hendy)
Comprehensive Plan
Line-ln/Line-Out Changes
LAND USE AND RURAL
'-' ..
INDUSTRIAL ..
. He Heavy Industrial
avy . Port Townsend Paper Mill Paper Mill and
Industrial ancillary activities
(HI) . Glen Cove
. Center Valley Light Industrial
. Li
gh! . Quilcene Industrial Area Light Industrial
Industrial . Eastview Industrial Plat
. Li Light industrial and
ght . Glen Cove Industrial Area retail uses associated
Industrial! with an industrial
Manufactu use
ring
(LIIM) Forest resource-
. Gardiner based industrial
. Light . Cooter Valley
Industrial! . West End
Commercial
(LIIC)
. Forest
Resource-
Based
Industrial
Zones (RBIZ)
~(JWCE . ... .
Resource Lands Refer to the Natural Resource Element of the Rural Resource
Comprehensive Plan for identification of criteria for Lands for
designation of land as Resource Land. agriculture, forestry,
and mineral
extraction
PUBLIC USE
Public Facilities Refer to the Capital . Facilities, Essential Public Public Lands
F ac iI ities, and Open Space, Parks & Recreation
Elements for designation criteria for uses such as: solid
waste, sewage treatment, utilities, energy facilities,
educational institutions, medical facilities, public safety
facilities, neighborhood and community parks, public
trails, public open space.
RURAL RESIDENTIAL LANDS: ALLOCA nON OF GROWTH
Existing residential land use and ownership patterns are only one of several factors for determining
future development patterns in Jefferson County. The allocation offuture population must be considered
when analyzing the overall need for the creation of additional residential lots and detennining where
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-6
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
LAND USE AND RURAL
~ .
INDUSTRIAL LANDS
Rural Industrial
Rural land designated as rural industrial land in this Plan is based on existing industrial uses in areas
previously zoned as industrial. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), counties may recognize areas of
more intensive industrial development and contain them within logical boundaries to limit infill
development. Designated under this Plan are the following industrial zones: Port Townsend Paper Mill
as Heavy Industrial (HI), Glen Cove and Center as light industria] (Ln, Glen Cove as light industrial and
associated commercia] (LIIC), Quilcene and Eastview Industrial Plat as light industria] (LI/M), and
forest resource-based industrial zones (RBIZ) at Gardiner, Center, and the West End. All areas meet the
following minimum criteria for designation of rural industrial land:
I. An area or use of more intensive industrial development in existence on July I, ]990; and
3. An area that is not located on designated natural resource lands.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Heavy Industrial Area
The Port Townsend Paper Mill has provided employment for several generations of Jefferson County
residents. The mill property has been designated as heavy industrial (HI) for the mill and for activities
ancillary to the mill. The property includes a water treatment lagoon and a port facility on Port
Townsend Bay that are directly rela1ed to activities at the mill. The mill is recognized as a heavy
industrial activity because it is a large-scale and intensive industrial activity that must meet extensive
environmental permitting requirements under industrial standards for air quality, water quality, and
wastewater treatment
Glen Cove Industrial Area
Uses for the Light ]ndustrial/Commercial (LIIC) designation at Glen Cove include commercial and retail
uses that are directly associated with the light industrial uses. Associated commercial and retail uses may
include commodities and products, mechanical or electrical supplies, warehousing and storage, or may
provide support services to those who work in the industries, such as a small cafe. Allowing broader
commercial uses at Glen Cove would require addressing concerns regarding pedestrian and traffic safety,
infrastructure, and incompatible uses both visually and in terms of hazardous materials storage. Thus the
commercial designation for Glen Cove is restricted to uses which differ considerably from those in Rural
Crossroads and Rural V illage Centers.
Light industrial/commercial uses allowed at Glen Cove include but are not limited to: industrial parks,
light manufacturing, construction yards, engine repair, metal fabrication or machining, plumbing shops
and yards, printing and binding facilities (non-retail), research laboratories, excavating contractors,
furniture manufacturing, software development, lumber yards, vehicle repair and restoration,
warehousing and storage, boat building and repair, craft goods, blacksmith or forge, commercial relay
and transfer stations, boat storage, and associated commercial uses as discussed above. Also permitted as
conditional uses are those such as: amateur radio towers greater than 65 feet in height, cafe, car wash,
electronic goods repair, fitness center, kennels, mini-storage, and nurseryllandscape materials,
The Glen Cove industrial boundary for light industrial/commercial uses recognizes a contained cluster of
existing uses. When the County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1998 and established the interim
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-]9
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
LAND USE AND RURAL
..' ...
LIIC zone at Glen Cove, the GMA was still in its formative years and the case law was not available for
guidance. JeffersonCounty was among the first counties to establish Limited Areas of More Intensive
Rural Development (LAMIRDs) allowed under GMA as amended in 1997 by ESB 6094. There was
intent to revisit the boundary after thorough analysis was completed. An expanded Light Industrial (L1)
zone was established at Glen Cove in December 2002. The Light Industrial district does not allow for
the commercial uses that are allowed in the LIIC zone.
Center Vallev Industrial Area
The Center Vallev Light Industrial ILl) area was previouslv designated a Resource Based Industrial Zone due 10 the
oresence of a small sawmill oDeration. The sawmill closed and was inactive for several vears before the area was
rezoned as Light Industrial in 2008 (0 accommodate an expanded ODDOrtunitv of uses at the site.
Quilcene Industrial Area
The light industrial area at Quilcene was recognized in the fmal Plan based on criteria in 1997
amendments to the GMA allowing Counties to recognize and contain existing areas and uses of more
intensive industrial development (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)). The industries need not be limited to those
serving the local population. Other criteria and considerations used for this designation include: a
minority report from the Planning Commission recommending a light industrial area in Quilcene, the
need to provide local employment in an area of distressed economic conditions located at a distance from
the Urban Growth Area, and the desire to reduce commuter-related traffic pressures on County roadways.
The existing industrial uses include a sawmill, a machine shop, and industrial storage. A vested project
for additional industrial storage is the basis for recognition of an adjacent parce], Light industria] uses
allowed in the Quilcene Industrial Area include but are not limited to those described above for Glen
Cove, with the exception of the associated commercial and retail uses.
Transportation access is adequate, as the area is on Highway \OJ. New development will be restricted
until water supply issues related to adequate fire flow are addressed following the community election
for a Local Utility District in late 1998.
Eastview Light Industrial/Manufacturing Zone
The Eastview Industrial Plat borders the Paper Mill Heavy Industrial Zone on the north. Eastview
consists of six lots comprising about 8 acres that was platted in 1978. The current uses include storage,
boat yard, and repair services.
Urban Industria]
Urban ]ndustriallands are not bound by the requirements for rural industrial lands in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d), and has the ability to expand beyond the July 1, 1990 built environment. There is
currently one example of Urban Industrial within the County, the Urban Light Industrial Zone within the
lrondalelHadlock UGA.
Urban Light Industrial
There are approximately 25 acres of land zoned for Urban Light Industrial within the IrondalelHadlock
UGA, most of which is currently used by a concrete batch plant and pre-existing gravel pit.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-20
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
LAND USE AND RURAL
.. .
Major Industrial Development
If there is insufficient industrial land available within an urban growth area (UGA) for a large industrial
operation or if a natural resource-based industrial operation needs to be sited adjacent to natural
resources, there is a process within the GMA that allows for the siting of a major industrial development
(MID) outside of a UGA. Additionally, GMA allows qualified counties to designate two Industrial Land
Banks (ILBs) before December 31, 2007 for specific purpose of siting Mills. Mills sited in rural lands
either through a permitting process (RCW 36.70A.365) or within a designated ILB (RCW 36.70A.367)
would be considered urban growth areas.
Forest Resource-Based Industrial Zones
Forest resource-based industries at Gardiner, Center Valley, and the Wes1 End have been designated as
Resource-Based Industrial Zones to recognize active sawmills and related activities at those sites, based
on 1997 GMA amendments codified as RCW 36.70A.070(5XdXi) recognizing existing industrial uses
and allowing for their intensification. The Resource-Based Industrial Zones are limited to forest
resource-based industrial uses in order to prevent the establishment of a wider range of industrial uses. It
is also intended to support employment in a distressed economic sector that, while it has seen a decline in
employment, will continue to have long-term economic importance for the County.
Forest resource-based industrial zone boundaries were determined based on criteria in RCW
36.70A.070(5)(d) for determining logical boundaries. The reduction in acreage allows for limited infill,
and contains the industrial activity and associated uses to an area based on the developed area on July I,
1990.
Jefferson County recognizes that the cyclical nature of the forest industry will continue to result in
economic upturns and downturns as reforested areas become available for harvest. In order to maintain
facilities that continue to operate, the County recognizes that conversion of machinery and facilities into
forest-related production activities would help to support this industry from one cycle to the next. The
development code will include criteria for the permitting and regulation of conversion and/or
intensification of these areas for related uses that may involve adapting existing equipment and facilities,
recycling, or adding limited value to the forest resource products and byproducts (see LNP 12.4).
The following table lists industrial areas, existing designations under 1994 zoning, current uses, and
designations under this Plan:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-21
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
LAND USE AND RURAL
t' ..
Table 3-9
Industrial Land DesilJnations
1994 Designation and Comprehensive Plan
Industrial Area Current Use Designation and
Acreage Acreae:e
Port Townsend Paper Heavy Industrial Pulp and paper mill Heavy Industrial (m)
Mill 292 acres 283.8 acres
Light
Light Industrial- Multiple light industrial IndustrialiCommercial
Glen Cove Industrial Commercial and associated (LIlC)
Area 295.9 acres commercial 71.58 acres
Light Industrial (LI)
54.93 acres
Light
Quilcene Industrial Heavy Industrial Sawmill, machine shop, Industrial/Manufacturing
Area 20.2 acres industrial storage (LIIM)
22.3 acres
Eastview Industrial Light
Plat - Storage, Boat Yard Industrial/Manufacturing
8.06 acres
Perest ReS0HrCe BaGed
Center Valley Heavy Industrial Fonner S,awmill and InduGtrial ZeRe Light
12.6 acres associated activities Industrial (LI RBlZ)
3.84 acres
Forest Resource-based
Gardiner Industrial Heavy Industrial Sawmill and associated Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
Area 32.2 acres activities, gravel pit 24.9 acres
Light Industrial- Sawmill and associated Forest Resource-based
West End Commercial activities Industrial Zone (RBIZ)
193 acres 122.5 acres
IrondalelHadlock Urban Light Industrial
UGA -- Gravel Pit (ULI)
25 acres
TOTAL 928.3 acres 616.9 acres
The industrial areas designated as shown above result in a reduction in industrial acreage of 1994 zoning
designations from a total of 928.3 acres to 616.9 acres, an overall reduction of 34%. The application of
GMA criteria protects the economic viability of existing uses while restricting industrial activities to
existing areas.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-22
UPDATED BY ORDfNANCE #17-1213-04
LAND USE AND RURAL
_ t
MAP
CENTER RESOURCE R\SED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
3-38
UPDATED BY ORD[NANCE #[7-1213-04
LAND USE AND RURAL
. .
LNP 10.1
LNP 10.2
LNP 10.3
GOAL:
LNG 11.0
POLICIES:
LNP 11.1
LNP 11.2
LNP 11.3
LNP 11.4
GOAL:
LNG 12.0
POLICIES:
LNP 12.1
LNP 12.2
LNP 12.3
LNP 12.4
Major industrial developments (Mills) may be sited outside of Urban Growth Areas
consistent with the UDC and all the criteria in RCW 36.70A.365.
Consistent with RCW 36.70A,367, consider the establishment of up to two Industrial
Land Banks for the siting of Mills.
Designate sufficient land for light industrial uses within the IrondalelHadlock UGA.
Recognize and contain the. following areas and uses of more intensive industrial
development within boundaries that may allow for limited areas of inlill
development:
Designate the Port Townsend Paper Mill property as Heavy Industrial.
Designate the Glen Cove area boundaty and Center as Light Industrial and Glen Cove as
Light Industrial/Commercial-, consistent with the provisions ofRCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
Designate the Quilcene industrial area as Light IndustriallManufacturing .
Designate the Eastview Industrial Plat as Light IndustriaVManufacturing (LVM).
Locate new natural resource-based industries in rural lands and near the
resource upon which they are dependent, in accordance with RCW
36.70A.365.
Encourage the establishment of sustainable natural resource-based industrial uses in rural
areas to provide employment opportunities.
Natural resource-based industries may be located near the agricultural, forest, mineral, or
aquaculture resource lands upon which they are dependent.
Recognize and designate existing pre-] 990 forest resource-based industrial uses and
activities at CeRter, Gardiner, and the West-End as Resource-Based Industrial Zones
(RBIZ).
Existing forest resource based industrial uses and activities shall be recognized as areas
of more intensive rural development under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). These Resource-
Based Industrial Zones should be allowed to accommodate conversions and/or an
3-58
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
UPDATED BY ORDINANCE #17-1213-04
" , .
AQpendix D:
MLA08-389 {Hendy}
Unified Development Code
Line-ln/Line-Out Changes
.c .
! ~
~ ~
i I
! !
bI) "
0
. .S 'f,j
<il ~
.~ "
t; u
" oil "
e ~ <t: ~ U
e "0 -
<il 0 Iii ... ~I
-;; 'S ~ ~ -<
-;; ~
.;: ~ '" -;; .~ .~ ~ ...
:I -
1;; "0 'S 'S " ~ ...
:I .s ~ ~ ~ " <> .2
~
"0 .g .g .g "0 " ... ~
" " " ... "
- ~ " .s .s - 0- 15
- ~ .:! "
-;; :I - .E .E '" ..
... 0 :m, :E t of "
" ~ bI) bI) "
~ " :J :J :1: " ;;> ~
<t: ..-l 0- 0..
g ~ <t: -<
i2 - - 0- g
- -'l ..-l :I: 0- 0-
"
"
Iii ~ ~
t:: ~ " "
0 " ... ... -g
~ s ... " "
" <( <( 0
... <( ...
" - 0 0 ~
.. -;; on - <:::' ~
...l :3 :3 0
" ~ ;;> u
" "0 0
Iii ... Cl Cl Cl "0
" ..-l " .. ...
... ..-l <0-< .. ... 0 .~
" 0 ...l -;; E ...
<0 -;; 1;; -;; I ~
'" "0 " .0 ~ ~ -g
~ ... Iii " ... 1;; .~ -;; ~ -;; " 0
.E " - ... ... 0
... 0 " " 'g E '.g " u u ...
-;; " ..-l " ... ... " S " ~
" <0 -;; - <0 :5! " " " ~ " 0 ~
-;; '" ... :5! "0 "0 S " 0 0
... '5, ... '" 'e e ~ .;;; .;;; " .= ...
= .E ~ bI) ~ ~ <0 " ... U
<( 0 .S .:! .:! .:! u :; '" 0
:; " ... ~
:I - ~ "0 " .c
" " " '" ~ -;; -;; -;; -;; E .=
~ e .;: ~ '0 ... -;; Ei bI) 1l
... ... ;; ... 'Z
.;: bI) ~ 0 :I '3 " ~ ~ " ~ 0 "
0- <( U 0:: - ~ <t: ~ U ;z: <::)
0 0
0 0 0 0 ~ - <:!
'" '" 00 't u
" , , , ~
0- ..-l ... ~ e:: ~ ~ ~ u ~ u u u
-< <( <( ~ u ~ u ;z: <::)
~
o
!
!
!
.8
...
~
"
-5
>>
.c
'0
*
],
e,
~
~
u
u
~
"
"
~
'jj
"
~
:::
~
iJ
"
oS
e-
u
~
~
'"
o
ti
"
~
...
~
.c
E
'"
8
11
'0
g
11
"
g <Ii
t~
~ g
5~
""
'jj
~
,.:z
0(
g
-u.lV'~~ 1JIq.Jfl ~
1pOIPVlf ).IOd pliJ-ilJllnlOM ~
"
=
=
.
..
~pu'f.l~~nu ~
fIJPlS'Gptq MoNH ~
..
l
~
..
:"Ol>=~~~~ ~
("o:J UOf!)) ..w"l"'I"'lI!~! ~
.
f
.
"
{otO:J"'I'')}
"''PillUuOO'.,)I1I1lJSIlpUJ~'1
JBf.I-'PU11>>-1l4UlIMQH
plDJlUlO.Q~
..
"
I
.
.
u
~
.
"
p.UllSQf.::)"'~II.mqtt'tilN.
p.(Ui$O.Q:.l:)U~1),-W:O,)
.ll.lJ,UoI.:)aS1I1M )8.lal{ ~
]
.
~
~
~
.
"
SUlV DunOI
iJU...'VtlW10 I
A.l3V $InCl I
~
I
-'
.
.
.
J
311'1Pl0lfUIl)4J1lI
I,.ma ,.,.,.mtntW'..) - :JS;l.JO.ll
I~ PIllWMUPJ -f";JIIJlmf.lJv
~
-'
~
~
u
z
~
,,~
iii,:.;
,,~
= ..
"-
I
u
~
o
0(
,
~
.
~
.
~
i
..
~
~
~u
.2"'
u
S
~
~ g ~
*- z ~
z z z
~ z z
:! z z
z z z
z z z
t
..
.
... :l :E
II .~ ~
.~ ,g 8
:; ] t
'il - t:
~ i:' ..
.! . ~
~ ~ l
Vi 0( U
000
z z z
z z z
~ z :!
:! z :!
~ z ~
:! z :!
>= Z Z
~ z >=
~
..
-8.-
.. ~:~
I~,~
5~~
1.b~.o::
.~:~ -~
..8~i
8 8 ~
. .
:l
. 0
z z
:l
z z
:l
o 0
z z
il
:l
z z
.
z
o 0
z z
o
Z
z z
~
z z
~
z z
o
Z
o 0
z z
,
>-
, ,
>- >-
~
:! :!
,
>-
:! >=
,
>-
, ,
>- >-
z ;.;.
o "
z >- >-
112
E'!:
o ~ l'I
~l ~
ij !
p-]
.... ~ 11 l.
5lE'5 ~
~],~ rii
,
!
.-
n
if
- ~
50
";:;::1
!"
;.-,
~ .
]
"';i
"ij
"
-."
C.!:l
]Jl
~,9
,g .~
.s .
~:a
-61,-
._ 1iI
-'"
i~
],.8
~ Il
>.'"
.o~
'5!i
[S
o e .
~ ~ ~
> ~ .
~.s'E
'~.a ~
8'~ "0
0.j3 ~
~ oS u
..~il
21l1j
I-< 't<:i 0'
.s'u ..
. 0 >.
"CI "'1::'
'S: ~ ::l
ei38
"'.-
Il'~ 6
",'r:: e:
.: ~:;g
.~ '"'d II)
" ~ ~
.a ".5
.~ ~ ~
,9 -.-
.......-at;l
o'S '8
~ gj ~
0"0._
eo.5 _
'-lj
~~.e
.c-'
.....~
",,s 5
~""
d ~~
e.ogtl
"8.5
:-;::l~
'" &:=
. . 0
~H
.."a
'Ii .
<II :g e
~.~~
.E:~g
.~.:! ~
..J ~]
5 u
..
-'" "
~ ta ~
~i
- .
.g ~
",9
8.
.0 t
" .
- "
,s>.
~'tl
.~~
~Il
."",
~~
ell
5'S
g.~
;; "
> .
~:E
c>.~
's g
8..
0'.
~ ~
U
r.l 8
~-g
B.rg
.!!l g
.~~
~ ~
.~ a
.s .
....~
ou
e 5
.50
. .
,s.s
",.s
u ~
:::..~ .
..J.....u
'-';> .-
'a'g ~
..... ~.-
g_"O
8'~'~
sta
os]
us_
~ 8'~
S." on
;g $.5
"O<Qt;;
.El"'; .~
..... s; ~
.d ~ ~
on".
:.:3--o:i3
u fa.:::;
> t;
8~~
= " "
.,g =
as]
~-;;
:=.s
e'5~
"
" ~
8.
-" >
~8
,sli
.-
:9(,j
e.s
"',9
1~
- .
5~
5 "
sa
~ 8
~.8
.!:a s
S'"
~.g
.ll
1l.5
H
]~
0"
- .-
.;a~
.~ ;s
.a~
~
:.g-g
.... "
o -0
. 0
~ ~
~~
",."
v .~
,sll
","
-."
e3
.. "
"S ~
" .
'..
~ "S
~.g
::;S
i~
::;-;;
-;,s
:= .,;
:s ~
u .
~ta
"S
~.g
U .5
ji
oe
o
~
H
~
J!
~
.~
.s
~
....
o
e
[
o
1
11
],
. .
~a
3::E
-
e 8-
s ~.
"''''
s: &3
~ ~
.~ ~
S"
o 0
6'"
u .
.,9
ll.s
ih
'u "0
.a .
.s .~
.~ g
.~~
oil ~
" on
:s~
.... .
0'0
-= .9
. .
.5.2
~ :~
u
~.~
S il
"~
,g 3
.!3 5
i:'."
n 3
:r:..
Ii
~
:2:]
."
. ~
> "
.".0
~8-ri
a-&!
'3~~
p~
",]'"
" .
.S 1!,9
";"'1
!3 3 .
8-"~
~H
l/j~o
~~ a
5.g g
" 0 U
H6
" '" ~
.g.s ~
.S.'E u
." "~
~ ~.s
.0 0 ~
8.5.g
!3 i1 d
o " 5l,
~ go';;;
~"'O~
. . .
~ ~.<;:::
<":;'.;3 '"
",."1
.5 8 'S
. "
.~ 0 ::l
~..g"O
"" II).S
~1;i"'d
._::= U
51,'" ~
oJ! -9
u .
e s ~
t)"'O 0
'Ii ~ "
" = ~
;.a$~
.5.f1
.d ..
.... - .
",g :a
- " .
01 " _
~c..a1U
::::'o~
E,s i-
~ ~ 3
"''' 8
..5 "S:
"E"fiJl
~ ~.s
OJ . "
8.s .~
.. ..-
" - >
o ."
"." u
. ~ "
'" ...
"..i
-'~:g
~",.6
~
~
i
u
1
&
E 5~
~OgbO
€;;a~
~~n
." >.J! 9
!ia-o:o;I <>l
ell'"
.g .~ ~ a
iij S E fIl
'8 ~ '" ~
a ~ s u
0- Ul 3
fl} g......s
~ . ~
~ -85 i
..s C"'.r:;
~ f~~]
'0 cr.,J::I
.0 0 .~
~t06o.
~ . uS
..,su8
5 .::.s
.... 01) 0 "'0
'j'~ la ~
.b.s.:;a tl
~ ~.~ ~
.g~[8
.- l:I .....
>o~..a
2o~.....
c. -.s .~
c"'" d
o ;::l ::>- Q.l
~~88.
~ 0 a -u
~""''E-S
~~80{)
t-< ~ 0.6
. QJJ ~.t:j
;;;: Q5!3
.......in S.S
o d.::: S
f-c~o;l>.
~~.~..c
~ t:l '" ~
t1 0 ~ ~
....-..c~
.......~Oiil
!f:~~"'"
"a 1! l-< e
~ cr-..s.S
_ ~"d '"
>>Q. ~.3
~ >. 0._
;:::..c !:: >.........
01)"d s:'.g-
> ~ o;l '" <Q>
O,s:::! <I) "0 \0
C ~..c ~ q
.:;a tl ~r;l QO
'~~e"b"E
~-B3~2.
f-I '" '80 .
~hi!~
~ ::;; =~ ta
':::2 c':::
= .- ~
-8 <n"!';l -5
_';;j-g~'r;;
:!-.~ ~'S: ~
. -.<. 'I>
AQ,pendix E:
Jefferson County Resolution
No. 55-03
September 22, 2003
. .ei;~.+r~) q/~~h3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE )
COUNTYWIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT )
PLANNING POPULATION PROJECTION, )
EXTENDING THE POPULATION PROJECTION )
TO ADDRESS THE PERIOD 2000-2024, AND )
ALLOCATING A PORTION OF THE PROJECTED )
URBAN COMPONENT OF GROWTH TO PORT )
TOWNSEND, TRI-AREA AND PORT LUDLOW )
RESOLUTION NO. 55-03
Section 1.
Be It Resolved
A. FINDINGS:
1. On December 21, 1992 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) and the
City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County's only incorporated city, adopted the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), as required by Section .210 of the Growth
Management Act (GMA).
2. The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) was established pursuant
to the GMA, RCW 36.70A.210, as the collaborative process required by that statute to
provide a framework for adoption of a county-wide planning policy.
3. The Jefferson County BoCCC adopted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (the
Plan) in 1998. The Plan reflected the JGMSC's recommended 1996-2016 forecast and the
disaggregation of the forecast population between urban and rural areas, and it included
specific allocations to the various urban areas within the county. The Plan adopted a
population forecast of 39,936 for the year 2016.
4. CPP Policy 1.1 requires that the county work with Port Townsend to establish updated
population forecasts and allocations.
5. Between February and April of2003, consistent with direction contained in the CPP,
county and city staff developed a proposed update to the countywide population forecast
to address the period 2000 to 2024 and prepared suggested urban population allocations
for Port Townsend, the Tri-Area, and Port Ludlow.
6. City of Port Townsend staff and the County worked cooperatively in recommending an
update to the countywide population forecast and allocation for the period 2000 to 2024.
This discussion culminated in an April 16, 2003 consultant prepared recommendation
entitled "Joint Population Forecast & Allocation - Update."
f.-j..
.. ;;. ..
RESOLUTION NO. 55-03
Page: 2
7. The consultant prepared recommendation was adopted by the Port Townsend City Council
as the city's position on updated population forecast and allocation through a unanimous
7-0 vote at their April 14, 2003 meeting.
8. The BoCC voted to extend the adopted countywide population forecast to address the
period 2000 through 2024. The recommended forecast, which falls within the acceptable
Washington State Office ofFinanacial Management range, concludes that the countywide
population will grow an additional 13,840 during the period 2000 to 2024, to a county-
wide population of 40,139. Table I summarizes the recommended update to the
Countywide population forecast.
9. See Table below
Summary Table 1: Updated Jefferson County Population Forecast - 2000-2024
Year Population Growth
2000 26,299 N/A
2024 40,139 13,840
Total Forecasted Growtb 40,139
2000-2024
10. See Table below
Summary Table 2: 2024 Population Projection & Allocation Summary.
.
2000 Population Antlelpaled Proj...ed 20:14 PerceDtage of C.mpo....
Growtb Population T.tal Couoty- Ano." Growth
(2_20:14) ~~:" Gro".:~ Rale
1_20:14
Pert Townsend
UGA 8.344 4.985 13,329 36% 1.97%
IIncomoratedl
Tn.Area UGA 2,553 2,353 4,906 \7% 2.76%
lUnlneoroorated\
Port Ludlow 1,430 2,353 3,783 I"~ 4.\4%
MPR
lUnlneorooraledl
UGAlMPR T.tal 11,317 9,691 11,0\8 70% 2.45%
Unlueorporated
Rural" \3,972 4,149 18.12\ 30% 1.09%
Resources Areas
County~wide 16,299 \3,840 40.\39 100% \.71%
T.tal
.Sources: 2000 U.S. Census and 2002 Washington State OFM Population Forecasts
t,~
'. ,
~ *t-.4"
RESOLUTION NO. 55-03
Page: 3
B. CONCLUSIONS:
1. The GMA requires cities and counties to detennine by September 1,2004 whether
sufficient suitable land (i.e., urban and rural) is available to accommodate the projected
population within OFM's new 20-year for.ecast range (RCW 37.A.215).
2. Jurisdictions are not precluded from updating population forecasts and plans, including
UGA boundaries, in advance of the planning required by September 1,2004 (RCW
3670A.130 and 36.70A.215).
3. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan directed the county to work cooperatively with
the City of Port Townsend to establish updated population forecasts and urban/rural
allocation.
4. The proposed allocations are reasonable and within the range of choices afforded to
jurisdictions under the GMA. They will allow ongoing and extensive planning efforts to
proceed pending adoption of a new 20-year population target consistent with OFM's new
2000-2024 range.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopts the following:
1: Adoption of Updated Countywide Population Forecast. Based on the concurrence of the
City of Port Townsend, the recommended countywide population forecast of 40,139 for the
period 2000-2024 and the urban/rural allocation detailed in Summary Table 2 above, are adopted
as the GMA planning population target for Jefferson County.
, .
JEFFERSON COUNTY
~~~ONERS
Dan Titterness, Chair
. .
'r7r;a(0) ~
Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board
~
Glen Huntingfo, mber
,~~
Ju Mackey, Member 0
[-3
!<;. ~ ",'. ; ,';"'"
,,--,
i
I
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 379-4450
2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle
How To Decide?
(See ICC 18.45.080 for guidance to the Planning Commission)
ICC 18.45.050( 4)(b )(i)(ii)(iii):
HOW TO DECIDE supplement
To Planning Commission
Meeting of 11/5/08
ICC 18.45.050( 4)(b )(i)(ii)(iii):
i) Growth is happening more slowly than anticipated in Jefferson County.
ii) No; the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not
diminished nor increased; but it is irrelevant to the amendment
proposals this year.
iii) The topic of whether there is sufficient urban land designated and
zoned to meet projected demand and need evoked lively debate.
Several Planning Commissioners thought the question irrelevant
because none of this year's amendment proposals were close to urban
areas; others disagreed with that assessment.
Final Conclusion: answers to these questions do not in any way change the prior
recommendation votes for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle.
i) MLA08-32 - D. Holland
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1 ) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2. Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - Is there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances reiated to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp
Plan?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation, and not adversely affect
adopted ievel of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies. and implementation strategies of the various Comp
Plan elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does it affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate ievei of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation. and is that designation
compatible with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposal create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if so, is
that in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affeclland use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) Is the parcei located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A), the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional pOlicies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state. or federal laws?
B) Comprehensive Plan
Deliberation should address:
1) The expected impact on rural character, open space. native vegetation, and variety of rural densities.
2) Population projections and allocation with respect to the adequacy of rural residential land availability
and the proximity of UGA(s).
3) The designation criteria for rural residential 1 :5.
4) How are the various goals and policies of the Comp Plan balanced with respect to this proposal?
(Chapters 3 (Land Use), 6 (Open Space), and 8 (Environment); are there other areas of relevance?)
C) The Record
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA. the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson
County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 2
MLAOS-56 - Brown
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2, Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - Is there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp
Plan?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation. and not adversely affect
adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies. and implementation strategies of the various Comp
Plan elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does it affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate level of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation. and is that designation
compatible with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposal create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if so, is
that in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affect land use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) Is the parcel located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A). the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state, or federal laws?
B) Comprehensive Plan
Deliberation should address:
1) The expected impact on rural character, open space. and native vegetation Population projections
and allocation with respect to the adequacy of rural residential land availability and the proximity of
UGA(s).
2) Should zoned commercial forest be re-designated agricultural lands or rural residential?
3) The designation criteria for agricultural lands of local significance. rural residential 1 :20 and rural
forest 1 :40 (including consideration of the presence of critical areas).
4) How are the various goals and policies of the Comp Plan balanced with respect to this proposal?
(Chapters 3 (Land Use), 4 (Natural Resources), 6 (Open Space), and 8 (Environment); are there other
areas of relevance?)
C) The Record
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson
County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know. satisfy legal criteria?
5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 3
MLAOS-69 - Georqe
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2. Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - Is there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp Plan?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation, and not adversely affect
adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various Comp Plan
elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does it affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate level of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation, and is that designation compatible
with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposal create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if so, is that
in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affect land use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) Is the parcel located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A), the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state, or federal laws?
B) Comprehensive Plan:
Deliberation should address:
1) The expected impact on rural character, open space, native vegetation, and variety of rural densities.
2) Population projections and allocation with respect to the adequacy of rural residential land availability and
the proximity of UGA(s).
3) The designation criteria for rural residential 1 : 1 O.
4) The established need of converting rural residential 1 :20 land to higher residential densities.
5) How are the various goals and policies of the Comp Plan balanced with respect to this proposal?
(Chapters 3 (Land Use), 6 (Open Space), and 8 (Environment); are there other areas of relevance?)
C) The Record:
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 4
MLA08-73 - Jackson
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1 ) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2. Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - Is there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp Plan?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation, and not adversely affect
adopted levei of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various Comp Plan
elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does it affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate level of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation, and is that designation compatible
with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposal create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if so, is that
in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affect land use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) Is the parcel located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A), the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state, or federal laws?
B) Comprehensive Plan
Deliberation should address:
1) The expected impact on rural character, open space, and native vegetation.
2) Population projections and allocation with respect to the adequacy of rural residential land availability and
the proximity of UGA(s).
3) The issue of conservation of natural resource lands: should commercial forestland be re-designated rural
residential?
4) The designation criteria for rural residential 1:10.
5) How are the various goals and policies of the Comp Pian balanced with respect to this proposal?
(Chapters 3 (Land Use), 4 (Natural Resources), 6 (Open Space). and 8 (Environment); are there other
areas of relevance?)
C) The Record
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 5
MLA08-84 - Broders
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2. Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - Is there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp Plan?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation, and not adversely affect
adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various Comp Plan
elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does It affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate level of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation, and is that designation compatible
with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposal create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if so, is that
in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affect land use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) Is the parcel located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A), the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state, or federal laws?
B) Comprehensive Plan
Deliberation should address:
1) The expected impact on rural character, open space, native vegetation, and variety of rural densities.
2) Population projections and allocation with respect to the adequacy of rural residential land availability and
the proximity of UGA(s).
3) The designation criteria for rural residential 1 :5 (including consideration of the presence of critical areas).
4) The established need of converting rural residential 1 :20 land to higher residential densities.
5) How are the various goals and policies of the Comp Plan balanced with respect to this proposal?
(Chapters 3 (Land Use), 6 (Open Space), and 8 (Environment); are there other areas of relevance?)
C) The Record
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 6
MLA08-93 - Burnett (IMO)
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2. Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - 15 there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp Pian?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation, and not adversely affect
adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) 15 the proposal consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various Comp Plan
elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does it affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate level of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation, and is that designation compatible
with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposal create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if 50, is that
in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affect land use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) 15 the parcel located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) 15 the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A), the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state, or federal laws?
B) GMA, SEPA, Comprehensive Plan, and Jefferson County Code
Deliberation should address:
1) Natural resource lands designations and classifications (see RCW 36.70A050, RCW 36.70A060; JCC
18.15.020(3) (Mineral Resource Lands).
2) Natural and built environment (WAC 197-11-444; JCC 18.40.030(5) and Article X (SEPA)); SEPA
mitigation measures (JCC 18.40.760(2)(b)(ii); also 18.40.760(4)(a).
3) Presence of critical areas (RCW 36.70A060 and JCC 18.22)
4) Proximity to an existing MPR.
5) Economic Development
6) What are the most important areas of the Comp Plan (and why) with respect to this proposal? (Chapters
4 (Natural Resources), and 7 (Economic Development); are there other areas of relevance?)
C) The Record
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) 15 the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, 50 far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
5) 15 the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 7
MLA08-96...;. M, Holland
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2, Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - Is there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp Plan?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation, and not adversely affect
adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies, and Implementation strategies of the various Comp Plan
elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does it affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate level of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation, and is that designation compatible
with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposai create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if so, is that
in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affect land use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) Is the parcel located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A), the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state, or federal laws?
B) Comprehensive Plan
Deliberation should address:
1) The expected impact on rural character.
2) Rural economic development.
3) What are the criteria for Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development?
4) How are the varies goals and policies of the Comp Plan balanced with respect to this proposal? (In
Chapter 3 (Land Use), especially Table 3-2 and pp. 3-9 through 3-16 on rural commercial designations;
Chapters 6 (Open Space), 7 (Economic Development), and 8 (Environment); are there other areas of
relevance?)
C) The Record
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Planning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 8
MLA08-101 - Hendy
1. Motion, second, discussion?
Recommendation (one of the following):
1) Approve
2) Deny
3) Approve with conditions or modifications
2. Deliberations
A) Required findings: Growth Management Indicators - Is there a reason to make this change?
1) Have there been changes in circumstances related to the proposal since the adoption of the Comp Plan?
2) Are the Comp Plan assumptions still valid with respect to the proposal?
3) Does the proposal reflect current widely-held values of Jefferson County residents?
4) Does the proposal both meet concurrency requirements for transportation, and not adversely affect
adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services?
5) Is the proposal consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the various Comp Plan
elements?
6) Will the proposal result in adverse impacts or place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned
service capabilities? Does it affect the County's capacity to provide an adequate level of services?
7) Is the parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation, and is that designation compatible
with surrounding uses?
8) Will the proposal create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties (and if so, is that
in the interests of the county as a whole)?
9) Does the proposal affect land use and population projections that are the basis for the Comp Plan?
10) Is the parcel located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA)?
11) Is the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA - RCW 36.70A), the County-Wide
Planning Policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements (such as with the City of Port
Townsend), and any other local, state, or federal laws?
B) Comprehensive Plan
Deliberation should address:
1) The expected impact on rural character.
2) Rural economic development.
3) What are the criteria for Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development?
4) How are the various goals and poiicies of the Comp Plan baianced with respect to this proposal?
(Chapter 3 (Land Use), especially Table 3-9 and pp. 3-18 through 3-21 on industrial lands; Chapter 7
(Economic Development); are there other areas of relevance?)
C) The Record
1) In addition to the guidance provided by GMA, the County-Wide Pianning Policies, the Jefferson County
Code, and the Comprehensive Plan, what else is in the record with respect to this proposal?
2) Can assertions in the record be confirmed by information from other sources?
3) Is the decision we are about to make based on the record?
4) Does the decision we are about to make, so far as we know, satisfy legal criteria?
5) Is the decision we are about to make limited to the specific request at hand?
3. Repeat motion and vote
Page 9
(c)RPG
cc'.1)cD 1J-\\rO~
jeffbocc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ern [franern@waypt.com]
Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:36 PM
jeffbocc
MRLO for Iron Mountain Quarry
Dear commissioners:
The Comprehensive Plan should not allow the Master Planned Resort
quarries in incremental steps over the years.
':9ErQ, ,
'., t".{ ..t.l...' J?.
~.f(i .
to be en~i.r'c"'[ed
by
We believe you have made a wise decision for the long-range welfare of the county and
should stay with that decision.
Sincerely,
Ernest and Frances Oxton
94 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow
1
CC'. l)CD ';),No't
Page 1 of 1
From: Helen Cotta [hcotta@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29,20085:51 PM
To: Laury Hunt; Lynn Gauche
Subject: Negotiations with IMQ - some thoughts on keeping POS revenue in Jefferson County..
jeffbocc
Is there any way to negotiate with IMQ to use Jefferson County as the "off loading" point so that
the POS (poing of sale) revenue can stay within Jefferson County? Jefferson County is a much
poorer county than Kitsap County where Kitsap has major businesses, many smaller businesses,
where the Silverdale Mall and larger retail outlets for sales tax revenue income opportunities to Kitsap
County, which is also more populated, thereby adding additional tax revenue to Kitsap County.
My thought is to discuss the concept with the County Commissioners so that the trucks are
"off loaded" or "switched out" (perhaps from single truck to double trucks, visa versa or some
other type of arrangement like being weighed) somewhere in Jefferson County so we have the
benefit of the POS sales tax revenue; otherwise we are left with an potential environmental mess
that IMQ wants no CUP, without any direct sales tax revenue advantage to Jefferson County,
This would at least bring some revenue in to Jefferson County as a result of the mining project,
don't you think? It seems to me there could be some way to reach an agreement with IMQ
and the sales tax revenue issue or P~S revenue for instance as the trucks are dispatched or
weighed at Jefferson County,
If the trucks can't use Oak Bay Road, they could use Highway 19 to the 4 way stop at Chicacum,
install a weigh station at that location (which is for lease) where Jefferson County can gain income.
Perhaps requiring trucks to be weighed before they leave Jefferson County and write up P~S receipts
here based upon weight to keep the tax revenue in Jefferson County.
IMQ could pay for the scales to be installed in Jefferson County if necessary.. ,just some thoughts
which I have run past a few people In town who agree that this tax revenue needs to stay in Jefferson
County, where the mining operation is done, not Kitsap County, where it might be "sold" or
off loaded from trucks. Maybe it is as simple as the fact that there is no "large weight scale"
in Jefferson County that I am aware of. I believe the closest is at Hill Moving and Storage
which is opened to the public in Kitsap County, but I could be incorrect on that, I remember
when Hill had their "public scales" installed and they stated they were the only public scales on the
OlympicPeninsula and they projected a huge annual revenue from this, Think it could be as simple as
that?
It might be worth looking into. Thanks Laury and all on the IMQ team for thinking outside the
box on this issue to keep the revenue in Jefferson County,
Ue.l.e.vvC~
~II14;t'1<(;()1oW et'IUl4 CO'fI.ti;Lct
360 7740771 phone{\IOice.maiLCO'fI.ti;Lct
12/112008
~C' \)c'D 0\1\08'
jeffbocc
Page 1 of 1
From: Cap!. Jerry L. Conover [tdarjer@wayp!.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29,2008 11 :39 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: IMQ
Board of County Commissioners
The fifty or so Port Ludlow opponents to the IMQ are a fraction of the County's citizens who will benefit by the IMQ
initiative, Don't be trapped into providing fuel for the conspiracy generated by but a few residents of the county.
You may notice these voices aren't voices of established Northwest citizens, People who have been here just a few years
always seem to be opponents to our lifestyle,
Approve the land owners right to their property fulfillment.
I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter
We are a community of5,7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 2154 of my spam emails to date,
The Professional version does not have this message
12/1/2008
C'C', D(~1) I';J-\' ID'8'
Page 1 of 1
jeffbocc
From: Bob Asbell [asbellb@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 20084:24 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: MRLO Hearing for Iron Mountain Quarry, December1, 1008
My wife and I request that the county supervisors vote against the Iron Mountain Quarry at the MRLO
hearing next week.
Robert], Asbell and Pam A. Asbell
124 Clear View Place
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
(520) 661-8230
12/1/2008
"-...'
J
Page 1 of2
~..uc1) 0\, joo
Leslie Locke
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Friday, November 2S, 200S 4:19 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Iron Mountain Commissioners' meeting
From: Browne, William G. - COB(SMTP:BROWNEW@BUS.OREGONSTATE.EDU]
Sent: Friday, November 2S, 200S 4:14:16 PM
To: David Sullivan; John Austin; Phil Johnson
Subject: Iron Mountain Commissioners' meeting
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Commissioners
SUBJECT: Jefferson County's Commissioners meeting 11/29 on Iron Mountain
regarding the Mineral Resources Land Overlay question
You will be hearing Port Ludlow residents express concerns surrounding Iron
Mountain Quarrie's (1M) nebulous request for an unconditional permit to remove
materials from the 140 acres adjacent to our community.
In Port Ludlow our goal is maintaining the quality of our lives. To do this care is
needed to insure minimal impact of Iron Mountain's supposed development on our
community. We are concerned with the potential affects that a large mining activity
could have on our community.
These concerns are personal and will be expressed in individual testimony. They
may include concerns for:
hours of operation,
size of blasting charges,
increased traffic,
added driving dangers,
sound,
vibrations,
dust from mining operations and affiliated activities,
industrial smog,
wind issues,
unsightliness of our natural landscape during and after the
undertaking,
contamination of our water supply, and
unintended draining of our aquifer.
12/1/2008
...........
Page 20f2
If 1M will not disclose property boundaries in question and plans for using the land,
Port Ludlow residents need to insure that their "Gateway to Heaven" is not raped,
pillaged and ransacked.
William G. Browne
113 Outlook
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
1211/2008
<:c 'DeD Id-II )08'
Page 1 of 1
Leslie Locke
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 1 :05 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Letter to County Commissioners - MRLO
From: Browne, William G. - COB[SMTP:BROWNEW@BUS.OREGONSTATE.EDU]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 20081:01:18 PM
To: Phil Johnson; John Austin; David Sullivan
Cc: David W Johnson; Lynn
Subject: Letter to County Commissioners - MRLO
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear County Commissioners:
This Monday the County Commissioners will decide on the Mineral Resource Land Overlay Designation
for Iron Mountain Quarry, The issue has a history, The original MRLO application was denied in
a hearing on October 15. The Planning Commission later issued a recommendation against allowing a
zoning change, They voted 8-0 against IMQ's application citing no benefit to the county, costs to the
county, incompatibility with existing development, and lack of disclosure of actual plans as reasons for
their decision, The decision was made following a rational and considered process. A large number of
people from Port Ludlow attended the hearing; a larger number submitted letters in support of
denying the request for the M RLO,
Lawyers for IMQ and Pope Resources continue to press for a reversal of the prior decisions, I urge the
Commissioners to support the previous legal decisions of County employees and the recommendations
of the Planning Commission deny the request for an MRLO, This mining operation will have a
disasterous effect on our community if it is allowed to proceed unfettered. The managers have not
been forthcoming with divulging their plans. They have been persistent in trying to obtain the right to
proceed without regulation, Don't abet their attempts by granting the Mineral Resource Lands Overlay,
Do your job, support the welfare of your constituents, and oppose corporate greed,
Beverly Browne
113 Outlook Lane, Port Ludlow, Washington (1-360-437-8099)
12/1/2008
CC1)C\) 0\ \ \o~
Page 1 of2
.
Leslie Locke
From: John Austin
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:44 AM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Iron Mountain
From: Powers & Therrien[SMTP:POWERS_THERRIEN@YVN.COM]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 20088:40:33 AM
To: John Austin
Cc: Powers & Therrien; William G. - COB Browne
Subject: Iron Mountain
Auto forwarded by a Rule
John:
I understand, perhaps incorrectly, that the BoCC has been asked to address the Iron Mountain Quarry in its open
meeting today. I initially commented on the treatment of Iron Mountain as a vested extension of an existing right
in Pope Resources. I did not participate directly in the LUPA action that followed.
I remain concerned that expansion of quarrying at Iron Mountain could affect the aquifers supplying Port Ludlow.
As you are aware, Port Ludlow already relies on an inadequate allocation of potable water when measured
against the County or State health regulations. It cannot afford a diminution of its rights either legally or
physically. At the very least geological studies should be done to ensure the rights are protected from shootiing in
connection with Iron Mountain.
I also am concerned that the opening of a major quarry at Iron Mountain could affect the health and welfare of the
Port Ludlow community. It clearly will generate dust and noise in an area contiguous to a major population center
in Jefferson County. Monetarily, it will affect the value of residential units in Port Ludlow. Who would want to live
near an active large quarry. Since Jefferson County also relies on tax base from Port Ludlow, I would think it in
Jefferson County's interest to protect its economic base. Finally, Pope granted rights to Port Ludlow in connection
with its approval to develop and continue a trail system in the area of the Iron Mountain quarry. Pope should not
be able to rescind rights it used to obtain Jefferson County's consent to the MPR and to sell units therein. There
should be mitigation that protects the trail system from the quarrying activity. The quarrying should be located
and removed from the vicinity of the trails.
Finally, I have seen nothing which shows how the Jefferson County road system and particularly the roadway
through Port Ludlow will be affected. Where will the aggregate be delivered? How will it be delivered? Is there a
connection between work at Mats Mats, a residential community at an old port/quarry site, and Iron Mountain.
These issues need to be addressed.
I understand that the Planning Commission has unanimously disapproved the Iron Mountain project. I join in its
disapproval. I think it is well grounded.
Please consider this as testimony in any hearing on Iron Mountain that will be conducted today.
Thanks,
Les Powers
Powers & Therrien, P.S.
12/1/2008
.
Page 20f2
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-453-8906
Fax: 509-453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. This message and any attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person named above. If
you are not that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email
message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another person any tax-related matter.
12/1/2008
('C '."Dc}) l:l \ \ 108'
Page 1 of 1
jeffbocc
From: Ken & Loretta Close [klclose@olypen.com]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 20083:37 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO
H.,~;R!
f'~
~~
k:.~ 'jl':~
Board of County Commissioners,
We are writing to express our opposition to Iron Mountain Quarry's MRLO request We live in South Bay of Port Ludlow
and when we purchased property in this community Pope Resources was the developer. At that time Pope was promising
a quiet resort community located in the woods by the Bay. Since Pope has sold the development, they have forgotten
the marketing promotions they used to sell property for many years.
Recently Pope logged the land IMQ is proposing to mine and we can now hear the noise from the existing Shine Quarry
which is located much farther away then the proposed IMQ mine. We are deeply concerned about degradation of our
property values, noise and dust pollution, impacts to our water sources, as well as noise and cost impacts of heavy truck
traffic to our local roads.
I urge you to vote in opposition to IMQ's MRLO request
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Close
Loretta J. Close
120B Fairway Lane
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
12/1/2008
cc.J:)C-D 1:.L1, \0'6
Page 1 of 1
jeffbocc
From: Pamwrite@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11 :37 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Monday's Hearing on IMQ/Pope Resources
~lCA. ~!~ j? n' ~<I""",\",
~ ~ " .. ,.. '. f( _.. ..' J :'.-" "
.. ~', ,_ .." -~ '.~ ~ \",j;(: '4; .~;~ ,f ~.'
,pt,,,,,';d' ,~.~~~it,) :,{~ t. ,; )>.
." ". ''''',;.0- ;:'.l,JlfI'. \.a^"_l'!
Dear Commissioners.
We would include in this email our initial letter regarding IMQ's plans, but I am at loss to find it. Recently, and for the
first time, we took the four-mile hike which circles the absolutely beautiful area behind the Port Ludlow Golf Course.
Though we do NOT play golf, we agreed that the woods, the environment, the wildlife we spotted while on our hike,
were precious--elements of our community that make it sublimely important to life as a whole. Half way through the
hike, however, what had been an experience to treasure became a doorway to hell on Earth. The land had been
stripped of all growth and we could see farther where other land had been "shaved" to soil, barren, and desolate.
Certainly in these times of change, of forward thinking, when we are at a turning point from which the planet may not
forgive us, we must make the most conscientious of decisions every day. As part of our county's stewards of the land,
you must treat your responsibility with the highest level of respect and gravity. It is a monumental task and it is in your
hands. Please, do not betray the trust we have in you.
Sincerely,
Pamela and Gary Baillargeon
61-5 North Bay Lane
Port Ludlow, WA
Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Trv the NEWAOL.cQrD.
12/1/2008
cc. TICS) o.Ho'iS
Page 1 of2
jeffbocc
From: Pamwrite@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11 :39 AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: IMQ/Pope Resources
TO: Board of County Commissioners
What follows is a copy of one of two letters we mailed via P.O. our concerns re decision being made by a few which will
impact our community profoundly. PLEASE look to the future and trust your best instincts as to what will keep our
beautiful spot on this planet safe, and defend it with your heart We must not lose to those who wili rape the land out of
greed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Pamela and Gary Baillargeon
October 1, 2008
Joel Peterson
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Mr. Peterson:
What follows is a hard copy of an emaill sent to you and to the Planning Commission this day. There is always the
chance emailscanbeerasedaccidentally, or be seen as junk mail and deleted. So:
Attn: Jefferson County Department of Community Development and Planning Commission
I am one of MANY who failed to note there was a meeting Sept. 17 --a very important meeting--at which the re-zoning of
specific sites was up for public comments and your consideration. Somebody who must know my husband and
I (and several hundred others) as residents of Port Ludlow have a tremendous stake in the IMQ actions, because we
were sent a copy of the agenda of your meeting and the multi paged Request for Application of the Mineral Resource
Land Overlay Designation to an Underlying Forest Resource Land Designation presented by Iron Mountain
Quarry/Pope Resources.
That they have now tried a different strategy (i.e., rezoning for an MRLO to a UCFLD) to get around their failed efforts
at avoiding a conditional use permit for a nonconforming use, seems quite sly. That it was at a meeting which was not
expected by most Port Ludlow residents, thus was poorly attended, stinks--to be candid.
I have read, and reread the RequesUApplication of the Mineral Resource Land Overlay etc. with difficulty. But it is
obvious that there is much left unanswered, much that is left vague, and much that is simply not fact. As to what is
untrue: "The proposal reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County residents [sic] insofar as
mineral extraction is conducted in the county." When and how did you collect even a cross section of those values
which we, as Jefferson County residents, hold? I'm unaware of any poll taken. Would not the crowd of several
hundred residents demanding a CUP for the quarry intention speak volumes?
Addressing the current MRLO request, I am at a loss after reading the "staff evaluation" and the subsequent
environmental analysis in the "format of the Non-Project Action Supplemental Sheet to the Environmental Checklist
developed by the Department of Ecology pursuant to the [SEPAl" . . . I am at a loss as to why anyone of you upon the
commission would consider in favor of issuing the MRLO requested Plan Amendment (i.e., rezoning).
How many upon the Commission have walked the perimeters of the proposed site? If you had, you must understand
our concerns.
Wildlife in the area (the site of IMQ's deforestation and mining) have been displaced. There is no doubt about that. We
now have cougars roaming inhabited areas of our community. The cougars are not the problem. They, like other
12/1/2008
Page 20f2
species of "unendangered" animals, roam, nest, and graze our land on the Peninsula. But where are they going to live
when their habitat 'IS cleared and mined, when large trucks barrel down the two-lane roads the animals must traverse
already?
Likewise, who will be shouldering the burden for new and wider roads--since the existing ones and those which are
NOT limited to SR104 and which have been mentioned as routes to the water where the trucks will unload onto
barges? The taxpayer. You think now is a good time to suggest we dip deeper into our fixed incomes (since this area
is primarily one of senior and retired citizens)? Your staff indicates in Table 10 that "The proposal does not affect any
County roads." Absurd and untrue.
This is not a well-thought-outletter. I might apologize but for the lack of timely notice.
It is admitted that hills and ridges will necessarily be removed which currently buffer Port Ludlow from noise, dust and
light. It is admitted that there will be a buffer distance of UNDER the limit of 1/2 mile though "barrier berm can be
constructed easily." Such notions fly in the face of reality. It is acknowledged already that "water quality and impacts to
Shorelines of the State could be a concern." The MRLO document continues to conflict with reason and reality. We, in
Port Ludlow and other nearby communities, are walkers. Mining trucks and equipment are going to make it extremely
dangerous for our community.
I do not understand how you can, in good conscience and with any true understanding of our lives or appreciation of the
financial, environmental impacts, allow IMQ to open new areas using different avenues of code or law. I implore you,
my husband and I both ask that you adhere to the policy of NRP1,4: "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." The impacts are acknowledged to be "probable." NRP1,4 does not say it will keep
impacts at a "moderate level." It says adverse impacts, period.
Please review any recommendation you have made; and, remember that there are impacts that will never be undone.
IMQ MUST be required to obtain permits--CUP for certain!--; they must submit specific rather than vague planning
documents; and all must consider the preservation of our environment. We live here.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Pamela and Gary Baillargeon
61 North Bay Lane, Unit 5
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
360-437-7727
Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Ir:y t.he. Ni::W AOL.com.
12/1/2008
<:c- lX"S) [;)\\108
Page I of2
From: Iydia kelly [Iydia@bainbridge.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 10: 1 0 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Fwd: re mineral resources overlay ( agenda # ML 08-93)
jeffbocc
;
To the Board of County Commissioners,
This is a letter I sent to the planning department in October and am forwarding it on to you, Tomorrow,
December I st, you will be meeting to hear our concerns and make your own decision on the Mineral Resource
Overlay request by Iron Mountain Quarry and Pope Resources. We, at Port Ludlow, were very happy with the
planning department's decision to not allow the Mineral Resource Overlay, I am writing to encourage
you to continue to oppose the mineral resource overlay. This is will be more critical if indeed
Iron Mountain quarry would be allowed to be "grandfathered" into mining the entire 142 acres, My concern is
that this could turn into a much larger mining operation than even the 142 acres, Now that Pope Resources is
attempting to acquire the DNR lands that are interspersed with the Pope Resources land and adjacent to Port
Ludlow Resort. My fear is that this could also lead to the entire area being open to mining, My concern is not
only for Port Ludlow Resort, but also for the entire well being of Jefferson county. Do we want to look like
Butte, Montana?
We, the people of this county have recently reelected you, Dave Sullivan and Phil Johnson, Congratulations! I
know we are relying very heavily on you to protect our beautiful county from such an enormous mining
operation,
Many thanks for considering my comments,
Lydia Kelly
(360) 437-9676
e-mail: lydia@bainbridge.net
Begin forwarded message:
From: Iydia kelly <Iydia@bainbridge.net>
Date: October 2, 2008 9:30:57 PM PDT
To: ipeter~()n@co.iefferson,wCl,us
Subject: re mineral resources overlay ( agenda # ML 08-93)
To the Planning Department,
On September 17th 2008, Iron Mountain Quarry requested that a "Mineral Resources Overlay" be
approved ( agenda # ML 08-93) for the area that they have hopes to mine, The staff
recommendation was to approve this measure,
I want the planning commission to note that I am opposed to this measure. I understand that Iron
12/112008
Page 2 of2
Mountain Quarry would like to mine 142 acres ofthis property that is adjacent to the Port Ludlow
Resort, (my home is a very short distance from this area.. as are many other homes), Having such a
large mine is of great concern, not only to the home owners, but also the affect that this would
have on our whole community. The aquifer from which Port Ludlow receives its water supply lies
underneath this proposed mine. The noise and dust and pollution that such a mine would produce
is of great concern, The increase in traffic on our roads would be quite considerable. A great
concern to me is the affect this will have on the wild life ofthe region, As it is, due to the logging,
this has put the wild life under stress due to loss of habitat. However trees do grow again, and the
land will recover, but mining is very invasive, and the destruction far greater.
I am lead to believe that Shine Quarry provides all the basalt rock that we need in this county, in
fact production is down due to the slowing down of the building trade, So Why does Iron
Mountain Quarry want so much land to mine? This will clearly be intended for foreign markets.
And while I understand that people have to make a living somehow., the idea that our mountain
will be removed to be sent out of state, or out of the country) and we are left with a huge mess, and
increased noise and property values that are even further reduced is intolerable. What would
Jefferson county get from this? Not even the sales tax,
I hope you will not only not approve the Mineral Resourses overlay, but also reject the request to
allow 142 acres to be (grandfathered) mined. I understand that the rules for mining would allow (
if all the other rules are followed and permitted) 10 acres at a time to be mined. Many quarry
companies have followed these rules. Why should this company have preferential treatment. If you
allow this to happen, I think we will have one ungodly mess on our hands. PLEASE, reconsider.
Thank you,
Lydia Kelly
52 Timber Ridge Drive
Port Ludlow, W A 19365
Cell Phone # (206) 390-1048
12/1/2008
cc.ueD 1:1-\110'&
Page I of2
t.?r" _/~ ,;,.~'o
Jeffbocc l' j i ," IJ . ~ I'C-'''''" '"
" "~,,'r P 1, .\ '1 ".. .f"\ '~.co
________.__._.,_____ ____~_~_.______"_~m'_._ j;~__~ $,p",~ -, -~''1*tr----'-ff'''-i-~ ~ '\----
From: Phil Andrus [inthewoodS@Olympus.netj' '" I "\"f; 'd..i., t)Ni)
Sent: Monday, December 01, 200810:18AM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comprehensive Plan amendments
Greetings,
I am writing to comment on several proposed site-specific amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. I will
comment only on those amendments for which I have concerns,
MLAOS-56 OM Brown/Goldsmith
I support the Planning Commission recommendation to split-zone this parcel as well as the detailed condition
suggested in the staff report. There are numerous parcels thoughout the county which include both commercial
or rural forest land and pasture land, In many cases, the zoning classification for these lands established at the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan followed the Assessor's tax classification for them, which resulted in
pasture land being placed in a commercial forest designation, Since the pasture land in this instance is of
sufficient acreage to allow it to be classified as agricultural land, its retention as open space would be
accomplished, The mixture of farm and forest land is historic in our county and throughout North
America, Unless there is an avoidable legal prohibition against split-zoning for this property, I support doing
so.
MLAOS-84 -- Broders
The applicant here has not offered any justification which would not be asserted by any other land owner who
wished to have his or her property upzoned, There are no special circumstances present nor any
hardship, Further, wetlands and a type NP stream on the property argue against its potential for subdivision
into viable five acres lots, This amendment should not be approved.
MLSOS- 73 -- Jackson
Both the Growth Management Act and prudent conservation policy require that our county and our state save
resource lands for the meeting of future economic and cultural needs. This applicant has not demonstrated any
compelling reason for the county to allow the conversion of his 120 acres of forest land, about which
his forestry consultant wrote, "...property can produce some of the best quality wood products available in the
Puget Sound area today, and that the applicant was committed to a concentrated effort to produce high quality
wood products through state of the art forest management techniques," This application should be denied,
MLAOS-93 -- Pope Resources
I strongly endorse the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny this application and commend it for its
sound reasoning, Contrary to the unconvincing and seemingly unconvinced language in the staff report, I
consider quarrying, with its necessary noise and other adverse effects, to be incompatible with the residential
and recreational uses located within one-half mile of the site in question, If the applicant had considered these
effects able to be mitigated, the applicant might have made mention of its intention to mine this site as it was
marketing the Port Ludlow development. Failure to do so indicates either that the applicant initially had no
plans to mine or that the applicant intended to deceive its potential customers, Further, Jefferson County is not
required by the GMA to give resource land status to every pocket of rock and gravel throughout the
county, Indeed, doing so would be in conflict with some of the critical purposes of the GMA and also would
defeat the very principles behind land use planning.
12/1/2008
Page 2 of2
MLA08-101-- Hendy
When the Planning Commission adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, the concept of the Resource Based
Industrial Zone was innovative and attractive. It seemed like a perfect fit for our county, which was and is in
transition from a resource-based economy to one which incorporates resourced-based activities in a broad mix
of economic endeavors. I am unaware of any of the parcels zoned RBIZ in 1998 which are now being used as
the Comprehensive Plan intends. I therefor support the reclassification of this parcel to Light Industrial. In
terms of impacts upon nearby land uses, there is little to no difference between the two zoning
classifications, Any significant environmental impacts must be mitigated in either case. While there is some
wisdom in concentrating all sizeable commercial and industrial activities in urban growth areas, this site is
nearly twenty miles from Port Townsend, which is a long and expensive commute for those who reside in this
rural area. Speaking as a resident of rural Jefferson County, I would prefer that there be opportunities for
employment closer to my home. However, it is crucial that any use of this site be limited with respect number
of employees, traffic generated, and overall scale of development, so that it complement, rather than conflict,
with the rural area which surrounds it,
Best regards,
Phil Andrus
POB 261
Chimacum
12/1/2008
.
I,...,II/Oll
e.C'.1)CD 7\
1- " i~'. j> D~' It., #'\
If'l'lk.:.1. , 'iE' "
.~' .~. l~:"\" I. ~Id ,,:.ill
': ~ ;..,;;,r ~j')." ~ '0 ~;I'
p~ ,,~ .~
;1 ',;( H '\
i Ji'i 1
b.... ,,' :.,. ','
-'._ ;; C/._"""
.! ~ I 1,'1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
November 25, 2008
DEe 0 1 2008
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
P,O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Re: MLA08-93; Burnett/Pope Resources MRLO Application
Comment from Applicant
Dear Commissioners:
We request on behalf of the applicants, Jim Burnett and Pope Resources (Burnett/Pope),
that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the Mineral Resource Land Overlay
(MRLO) application, MLA08-93. County Planning Staff recommended approval of this MRLO
application based on a clear and thoughtful application of the MRLO review criteria, As the
Staff concluded, the application meets each of the applicable criteria and should be approved in
order to preserve this important mineral resource area for future use. Consistent with that
recommendation, we request that the BOCC approve this application,
We acknowledge that the Planning Commission has recommended denying this
application. As you will find in reviewing the Planning Commission record, however, that
recommendation was based on two fatal misconceptions, First, the Planning Commission
condemned this application for not providing project level detail. This is a MRLO application,
not a project permit application, The County does not require applicants to provide project level
detail at the MRLO application stage. Furthermore, as we have explained previously, no mineral
resource extraction activities will continue on the subject site until there has been a project level
review, At that time, Burnett/Pope will provide project level details regarding the proposed
extraction plan, The County may not deny this application at this preliminary MRLO stage for
failing to provide project level detail, The County recognized this distinction last year in
reviewing Broders' application for an MRLO, MLA07-90, As part of that review, the County
did not require project level detail to approve the MRLO application. Instead, the County
conditioned the approval to ensure that any project level issues were addressed at the time of
permit application. Jefferson County Ordinance 02-0128-08. That is what the Staffhas
recommended regarding the Burnett/Pope application as well. We request that the BOCC
continue this valid and effective approach,
Second, the Planning Commission apparently failed to review in detail the permit
application materials submitted by Burnett/Pope. Had the Planning Commissioners reviewed the
application materials, including the SEP A checklist, the Planning Commissioners would have
found answers to many of their questions regarding the mineral extraction operations proposed
Y:\WP\JMQ\JEFFERSON CQI}NTY\II.1RLO APPLTCATlON\BOCC LTR 112508_DOC
1015 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle. WA 98111-3140 106-381-9540 lax 106-616-0675 www.GordonOerr.com
.
Jefferson County
Board of County
Commissioners
-2 -
November 25, 2008
for the site. For example, these application materials explain the proposed transportation route
(over SR 104, and not via a bargelboat of any kind), as well as the estimated number of vehicular
trips that the project will generate per day, If you review the complete application, together with
the Planning Staff's recommendation, you will find that the application meets each applicable
MRLO criteria and should be approved,
Finally, BumettIPope acknowledge that there is citizen opposition to their application.
But at this point, the subject property is still far enough from the Port Ludlow area that it can be
mined without significantly impacting Port Ludlow, As a result, under the County's MRLO
dcsignation.;riteria, t11isis the critical tirne to designate the subject property for iTIineral resource
use, See Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Table 4-3 (Matrix for Assessing Lands for
designation as Mineral Resource Lands), p, 4-36 - 4.37, The County should not wait. If the
County fails to designate this area now, it is very likely that Port Ludlow will continue to expand
toward this property, That will make it all the more difficult - if not impossible - to protect and
utilize the important mineral resources that are abundant on this property in the future, That is
contrary to the Growth Management Act's mandate to designate and protect for future use
important resource lands, RCW 36. 70A.170.
We will not be at the hearing on Monday, December 1,2008, due to scheduling conflicts,
but we ask the BOCC to follow its own precedent and approve the BumettIPope application.
(Please see our October 3, 2008, letter requesting revisions to the Staffs proposed conditions of
approval, enclosed herewith,) BurnettIPope will provide project level detail at that time that they
submit a project level application. Until then, it is critical that the County take steps to protect
the significant mineral resource present on the subject property for future use, We acknowledge
that designating resource lands can be controversial, but that is why the State Legislature placed
it amongst the highest priorities of the GMA.
Thank you for your consideration, Please contact me if you have questions or comments
prior to or during the December 1 st hearing,
Very truly yours,
tV~ ~_~
Molly A. Lawrence
MAL:mal
cc: Jim Burnett, Iron Mountain Quarry
Joel Peterson, Jefferson County Long Range Planning
Y:\WP\IMQ\JEFFERSON COUNTY\MRLO APPUCATlON\BOCC L TR 11250&,OOC
FW: Iron Mountain --- Mats Mats dock application
e.C '. \)CD \;;tHol
Page 1 of2
Leslie Locke
From: Phil Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 11 :25 AM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Iron Mountain --- Mats Mats dock application
From: Bert Loomis[SMTP:BERTL@CABLESPEED.COM]
Sent: Monday, December 01,200811:19:33 AM
To: Lee Amundson; Douglas Barber; Jim Brannaman; Maggie Brown;
Hana Buresova; Stephen Causseaux; Jeff Chew; Don Clark; Grant Colby;
Jerry Conover; Bill Cooke; Don Cooper; Tony Durham; Bill Funke;
Suzanne Graber; Lewis Hale; Gary Hashbarger; Doug Herring; Dennie Holman;
Glee Hubbard; Del Jacobs; Phil Johnson; Greg Jordshaugen; Peter Joseph;
Ed Knodle; Larry Lawson; Faith Lumsden; Matt Lyons; Tom McCay; Jack McKay;
Larry Nobles; Terry O'Brien; Allen Panasuk; Audrey Pedersen; Sid Pool;
Mike Porter; Bruce Pyles; Rick Rozzell; Carol Saber; AI Scalf;
Bruce Schmitz; Richard Shattuck; Jeff Shipley; Bob Skodis; Jeff Stewart;
Tom Stone; Paul Taylor-Smith; Barbara Wagner-Jauregg; Chris Whitehurst;
Nancy & Bill Zingheim; Elizabeth Van ZonneveJd
Subject: FW: Iron Mountain -- Mats Mats dock application
Auto forwarded by a Rule
To: John Austin <mailt.():jaustin@co.ieffersqn.wa.us>
Subject: Iron Mountain
John:
I understand that the SoCC has been asked to address the Iron Mountain Quarry in its open meeting
this evening. I initially commented on the treatment of Iron Mountain as a vested extension of an
existing right in Pope Resources. I did not participate directly in the LUPA action that followed.
I remain concerned that expansion of quarrying at Iron Mountain could affect the aquifers supplying
Port Ludlow. As you are aware, Port Ludlow already relies on an inadequate allocation of potable
water when measured against the County or State health regulations. 11 cannot afford a diminution of
its rights either legally or physically. At the very least geological studies should be done to ensure the
rights are protected from shootiing in connection with Iron Mountain.
I also am concerned that the opening of a major quarry at Iron Mountain could affect the health and
welfare of the Port Ludlow community. It clearly will generate dust and noise in an area contiguous to a
major population center in Jefferson County. Monetarily, it will affect the value of residential units in
Port Ludlow. Who would want to live near an active large quarry. Since Jefferson County also relies
on tax base from Port Ludlow, I would think it in Jefferson County's interest to protect its economic
base. Finally, Pope granted rights to Port Ludlow in connection with its approval to develop and
continue a trail system in the area of the Iron Mountain quarry. Pope should not be able to rescind
rights it used to obtain Jefferson County's consent to the MPR and to sell units therein. There should
be mitigation that protects the trail system from the quarrying activity. The quarrying should be located
and removed from the vicinity of the trails.
12/112008
FW: Iron Mountain --- Mats Mats dock application
Page 2 of2
Finally, I have seen nothing which shows how the Jefferson County road system and particularly the
roadway through Port Ludlow will be affected, Where will the aggregate be delivered? How will it be
delivered? Is there a connection between work at Mats Mats, a residential community at an old
port/quarry site, and Iron Mountain, These issues need to be addressed.
I understand that the Planning Commission has unanimously disapproved the Iron Mountain project.
join in its disapproval. I think it is well grounded.
Please consider this as testimony in any hearing on Iron Mountain that will be conducted today.
Thanks,
Bert
12/112008
cc '.\)cD \~\llv~
jeffbocc
tj
ri
From: rhunter rhunter [rhunter@ecoisp.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01,200811:13 AM
To: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr; Joel Peterson; Michelle McConnell; jeffbocc
Subject: 2008 CPA Cycle Public Comment
Attachments: 2008 CPA Cycle_Public Comment
Please find attached my public comment for the 2008 CPA cycle,
Regards,
Ryan Hunter
12/1/2008
Page I of 1
,
Board of County Commissioners
1820 Jefferson St.
Port Townsend, W A 98368
December 1, 2008
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to share my personal perspective on proposed comprehensive plan
aroendments that would allow for the creation of new rural residential lots, The 2008
Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle has five such aroendments; D, Holland (MLA08-
32), George (MLA08-69), Broders (MLA08-84), Brown (MLA08-56), and Jackson
(MLA08-73),
The Growth Management Act (OMA) and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
(Comp, Plan) compel the County to deny such applications, The GMA requires counties
to encourage development in urban areas (see RCW 36.70A.020(1)) and to contain or
otherwise control rural development (see RCW 36.70A,070(5)(c)(i)), The OMA adds that
providing land for development must be consistent with the 20-year population forecast
(RCW 36,70A,l15), The Comp, Plan provides guidance to the county on how to
implement these OMA requirements. Table 3-1 on page 3-3 of the Comp, Plan and BoCC
resolution no, 55-03 sets targets for the allocation of projected 20-year population growth
in the county, By 2024,70% of projected growth is to be allocated to urban areas (e.g.
Port Townsend, lrondale/Hadlock, and Port Ludlow), while only 30% is allocated to
unincorporated rural areas, Moreover, page 3-6 of the Comp, Plan states that "the
allocation of future population must be considered when analyzing the overall need for
the creation of additional residential lots and determining where those lots should be
located to accommodate future growth" (emphasis added). Land use policy 3.2 on page
3-47 adds that "proposed rural residential densities shall allow for an adequate supply of
appropriately zoned land based upon the County's rural population projections and
needs..." (emphasis added),
So it is clear that the county cannot separate rural residential land use decisions from the
20-year population projections and its allocation to rural areas, The 1998 Comp, Plan had
a table (Table 3-3 on page 3-7) that estimated the number of buildable, vacant lots in the
county and the aroount that would be in oversupply by 2016 (accounting for a 25%
market factor to prevent a land price spike - the table was removed in 2004 because data
was not available to update it), Using the data in this table, I was able to roughly estimate
that by 2024, after all projected population growth is accounted for, the county would
have an excess supply of over 3,000 rural residential lots, This is not the oversupply we
have today, but the oversupply we will have in 2024 after all growth is accountedfor!
And this is using population projections that are likely higher than what will actually
occur, based on recent trends of slower than anticipated population growth,
Some may argue that the lot oversupply estimates are too unreliable to be of value, but
even if we were to cut the number in half, which is a very generous fudge factor, we
would still have a large oversupply of rural residential lots for accommodating future
population growth.
Given this large oversupply of rural residential lots, the BoCC is severely limited in its
ability to encourage 70% of future population growth to urban areas as called for in Table
3-1 of the Compo Plan and resolution no, 55-03, The situation will only worsen if the
BoCC continues to approve Compo Plan amendments that create even more rural
residential lots, In fact, approving such amendments would in effect remove population
growth projection considerations from rural residential land use decisions, which is
counter to the GMA and the Comp, Plan. It is for these reasons that I urge the BoCC not
to approve amendments that create new rural residential lots until such time that the large
oversupply of rural residential lots is significantly reduced and is more aligned-
accounting for a 25-30% market factor - with 20-year population growth projections and
their allocation to rural areas.
Regards,
Ryan Hunter
1423 Grant 8t.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
!
c.c Dcb i~lloa
Page I of2
jeffbocc
From: Material Things [theultimatestuffer@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 20081:23 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: MRLO Decision - Dec 1, 2008
i ',W
~ "
~ 'i
~!(:':; C'
-..,.j
/':",-
Del & Dianne Ridgley
386 Camber Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
theseehawks@gl1l<li/,com
December I, 2008
David Sullivan John Austin, Phil Johnson
Jefferson County Commissioners
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, W A 98368;
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Regarding: Iron Mountain Quarry MRLO request.
We are writing to urge you to uphold the decision made by the Jefferson County planning committee to deny
the Iron Mountain request to re-zone,
If Iron Mountain were planning anything that would benefit anyone in Jefferson County (except Pope
Resources), they would have told us what these benefits would be rather than keeping their whole plan a
huge secret. Since they are not forthcoming with a plan, we must assume that what they have in mind is
detrimental to Jefferson County as a whole and to Port Ludlow in particular.
An MRLO designation would curtail further housing development in that area, The housing in and around
Port Ludlow has been a lucrative part of the tax base in Jefferson County and this designation would cut off
the potential for expanding that tax base,
Iron Mountain has acknowledged that they would be using SRI04, but they have not ruled out using other
roads nor has it ruled out the use of the Mats Mats Docking area, Since these have not been ruled out, we
must assume that they will most likely be used,
Noise and truck traffic will drive away potential home buyers throughout Port Ludlow, This will harm the
real estate business and decrease the value oflocal homes, This in turn wiII lower the tax dollars that
Jefferson County now receives from these homes and businesses,
Since there is no demand for more gravel in Jefferson County than what is already being supplied by local
mines, it appears that the material from the Iron Mountain project wiII be sold outside the county and will
give Jefferson County VERY LITTLE TAX REVENUE, So while their trucks are destroying our roads at a
record rate, Iron Mountain will not contribute to their maintenance, The Iron Mountain project wiII increase
our expenses while it decreases our revenue,
A huge mine of 142 acres with up to 350 trucks a day running over our roads will destroy the tourism
industry, Particularly in jeopardy are the Port Ludlow Harborside Inn and Restaurant and the Port Ludlow
Golf Course. However, other local tourist attractions will also be impacted, The noise of the trucks and the
blasting wiII be enough to drive away anyone planning to visit this area,
It is even doubtful that there will be local jobs generated by this mining company, In most cases large
12/1/2008
Page 2 of2
companies bring in their own outside employees, So once again Jefferson County residents will lose much
and gain nothing with the addition ofthis mine,
Please deny the MRLO request and protect Jefferson County.
Del & Dianne Ridgley
12/1/2008
(,c' oeD \d-.\\Io'g
Page 1 of 1
jeffbocc
From: Tony Simpson [ausimpson@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1 :27 PM
To: jeffbocc
Attachments: MRLO Hearing at BoCC AUS Letter 081201 F.pdf
~,It" n
.,~ !Ii~;l.: N!
." .,'
"';,1.1' ~:.:
The attached letter if for the County Commissioners at the Public Hearing tonight in the Superior Courtroom,
5PM, Monday, December 1, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Tony and Sally Simpson
12/1/2008
230 CAMBER LN
PORT LUDLOW, WA 98353-8782
FaxlPhone (360) 437-8220
ausimoson@msn,com
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
P,O, Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
December 1, 2008
Re: Hearing on 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Item MLA08-93 Pope Resources (POPE)
Request for a Zoning Change by Mineral Resource Land Overly (MLRO)
Dear Sirs:
We ask that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners uphold the County Planning Commission's
unanimous decision to deny the application by POPE and Iron Mountain Quarry (IMQ), We ask that
you do not accept demands for premature approval. Failure to take adequate time for due diligence
disclosure of quarries' hidden agendas can too easily lead to massive long-term transportation
problems and huge county expenses. (See details of problems in the attachments,) We must know
their long-term plans, constraints, and legal limits on growth before initiating a project, which, once
started, is irreversible.
The principal issue we address here is the Primary Processing part of the MRLO designation process
and the incomplete nature of POPE/IMQ's MRLO application. In particular, we focus on the steps
following quarry extraction but preceding delivery to the ultimate customer.
POPE/IMQ has insisted that they must mine the entire 140 acres. We must take them at their word,
This means that they will have additive production capacity roughly equal to 3)1, times that of POPE's
40-acre Shine Quarry.
Shine Quarry meets the peak local demand-it is currently operating at half its maximum capacity,
The obvious question is what would POPE/IMQ do with their huge excess production? POPE and IMQ
are astute businesses that operate for their stockholders' profit and keep their operating plans secret,
For example, residents of Port Ludlow's master planned community were surprised to learn that POPE
has intended to start this new quarry for 28 years (see page 4), Trucking beyond about 25 miles is
prohibitively expensive and will be even more costly in the future, Therefore, POPE/IMQ will
ultimately need to use sea transportation, which is far less expensive.
Fred Hill Materials (FHM) admitted upfront the need for a conveyer and transshipping sea dock as an
integral part of their quarry. To circumvent the licensing delays and problems encountered by FHM,
IMQ have taken an incremental approach by seeking mining zoning rights through a forceful legalistic
approach while deferring transportation and shipping zoning.
We argue that POPE/IMQ transportation and shipping must be an integral part of a zoning change
application for a quarry. To grant POPE/IMQ's zoning changes incrementally would be an abuse of the
zoning procedure, would deny legal protection rights of Jefferson County residents, and would be an
inconsistent application of process that rewards IMQ for misleading shortcuts. Why should IMQ get
an incremental zoning change concession omitting transportation/shipping when FHM readily
disclosed their transportation/shipping plans and their impacts with their application?
For example, once POPE/IMQ starts quarrying, they or their surrogates can acquire, lease, or build a
dock-for example at Mats Mats Bay, The recently proposed Department of Natural Resources land
exchange will grant to POPE the missing pieces of their jigsaw (see page 13), This information
postdates the Planning Commission and Planning Department's studies, It will provide POPE with
actual and close sea access at points around Port Ludlow, In time, Port Ludlow could easily become
the center of an extended industrial plant by several scenarios.
The initial application plan that starts a quarry is usually of a minimal and non intrusive scope; it is
silent about what the quarry will not do. The real problems are in the quarries' hidden agendas that
guide their evolution over time, We know from IMQ's impact on Granite Falls that their increasing
transportation through populated areas is disastrous for the residents. Granite Falls is about to install
a $30,000,000 bypass to mitigate partially the impact of heavy trucks-at no cost to the quarries (see
pages S-8), Other Washington State communities have similar long-term transportation problems as
their nearby quarries evolve (e,g" Sultan, Index, North Bend, and Maury Island, see pages 9-12).
Residents are often surprised to learn that the County receives only 1.6 percent sales tax on quarry
sales in the County and no sales tax for quarry product sold outside the County. Nevertheless, public
funds must repair, maintain, and develop roads, bridges, acceleration lanes, and other infrastructure
to accommodate the quarries' ultra-heavy truck/trailer rigs. Moreover, the entire County population
must absorb the loss of taxes due to declines in taxable value of properties affected by the quarry.
Port Ludlow has a taxable property value of $687 million-almost fifteen percent of the entire County
taxable property. We believe that this is a permanent valuable County asset worth many times more
than any quarry, We trust that you will not risk deterioration of this County asset and your residents'
well-being by a decision lacking all the pertinent facts and adequate time for their evaluation. In
contrast, the quarry's reserves will not deteriorate with time, building growth at Port Ludlow is at a
standstill, and POPE has patiently waited 28 inactive years without claiming any harm,
We therefore respectfully ask that you support the County Planning Commission's negative decision.
Further, we hope that you find a way to require top officers of POPE and IMQ to declare bindingly
their long-term quarry, transportation, and shipping plans-what they will not do-before the County
reconsiders their MRLO request.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony U. Simpson and Sally A. Simpson
Attachments (S), pages 3-13
Page 2 of13
Attachment 1
ff. = :.: =-
.... ....rclS
,"""""-
May 21, 2007
i, . '. ~,,--,:\~---'"';:'~, \
,e. 1" ,_ l:.' .;.;::;
\,\~:_:<f -.-." -\ I
'" MAV 03 ZOIJl ;,\.' f'
iU .,,1' .--J......
\ ~.1Y
D,VtL.OPMENT
19245 Tenth Avenue Northtast
PouIIbo. WIItmgton 98371).7456
(36O)lIl7-6626
(36O)lIl7.1156FAX
Mr, Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson County Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend. W A 98368
RE: Mineral Resource Issues
Dear Mr, Scalf-
Pope Resources has entered into an agreement with Iron Mountain Quarry to lease an
area ofapproxirnately 140 acres for hard rock mining, This lease area is shown on the attached
drawing prepared by Layton & Sell, The area in question is located immediately adjacent to and
south and east of the existing Shine Quarry on the north side of SR 104 about 4 miles west of the
Hood Canal bridge, This lease area lies mostly within Section 29, T28N, RIE, W,M,. but the
lease area includes small portions of Sections 30, 31, and 32. The lease area is on land
designated Commercial Forest in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is covered by a
mineral resource designation for the hard rock mineral deposit in this location,
The purpose of this letter is to clarify that all of the area proposed to be leased to Iron
Mountain Quarry is within an area of known mineral deposits that Pope Resources and its
predecessor. Pope and Talbot, owned and intended to be used for hard rock mining from the time
the first mining occurred at this location in the 1970's. Attached to this letter are aerial
photographs from the Washington State Deparbnenl of Natural Resources showing the history of
mining at this localion. The 1979 aerial pholO shows mining activity at the original Shine quarry
location, which is south of the current Shine quarry and is within the area to be leased to Iron
Mountain Quarry. In fact, this original Shine quarry site has been used continuously for mining-
related activities until recently when the lease agreement was signed with Iron Mountain Quarry,
We understand that you met with Jim Burnett and his attorney on May 11, 2007, to
discuss the stalUS of mineral extraction rights at this location, Pope Resources wants to be sure
that Jefferson CoWlty understands that Pope Resources considers all of the Iron MOWltain Quarry
lease area 10 be part of the area of non-conforming mineral extraction rights that have been
associated with this property since the 1970's. Pope Resources believes that the "diminishing
asset doctrine" adopted by the Washington Supreme Court in 2001 (City of University Place v,
McQuire, 144 Wn.2d 640) applies to all of the mineral resources located in the 140 acres to be
leased to Iron Mountain Quarry,
lOG ITEM
# I
PaQe....L. of .tJ
.~
-::.
.1
Page 3 of 13
Mr. AI Scalf
May 21, 2007
Page 2 of2
Pope Resources strongly supports Iron Mountain Quarry's efforts to proceed with
mineral resource mining operations within the 140-acre proposed lease area, which has heen
owned and intended for mineral resource mining opemtions since at least 1979, We understand
thaI the "diminishing asset doctrine" as applied to this 140 acre area would confinn the right of
Pope Resources and its lessees to continue mineml resource operations in this area but would not
eliminate the need for pennits and approvals to meet environmental requirements such as air
quality, stonn water maoagement, and ooise.
We appreciate Jefferson County's attention to our request for confirmation that the
"diminishing asset doctrine" applies to the 140-acre mineral resource area that has been owned
and intended for mining and processing.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questiolls aboulthis infonnation,
v cry truly yours,
'7->.. ~~X -r"",---
David L, Nunes,
President and CEO of
Pope MGP, Inc., Managing Partner of
Pope Resources, a Delaware limited partnership
Enc,
DLN/sgs
cc: Mr. James Burnett wlout encl.
Mr. Tom Kametz wlout encl.
Mr. Keith Moxon w/out encl.
Mr. Patrick Raymond wlencl.
LOG ITEM
#-.J
Page ~ of -Y-
~ ~ ff<> fi::ij I(Q '" G1
n I I, .
'" MAY 2 3 2007 ILJ
I ,.~
L DEVELOPMENT
Page 4 of 13
Attachment 2
m,eSeattte<<tmes
~
Wednesday, February 5, 2003 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call
206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
Quarries, city clash over plans for detour
By Peylon Whitely
Times Snohomish County bureau
Making repairs on Granite Falls' main drag is expected to cost a half-million dollars and could take months.
Repairing relations between the city and nearby gravel-mining operations could take even longer.
That was made clear during a meeting last week to discuss an improvement project for East Stanley Street, the main
east-west road through Granite Falls. The project likely will require rerouting more than 1,000 gravel trucks that drive
through the city daily.
Therein lies the rub.
Granite Falls officials want to close the street completely, to finish the project as soon as possible, and reroute the trucks
out of the city. The gravel quarries would prefer an alternate route that traveled through the city over several residential
streets.
The disagreement sparked a heated exchange between Granite Falls officials and quarry representatives at last week's
meeting. About 30 representatives from the city, Snohomish County, the state and trucking and quarry companies
attended the session at the county Administration Building in Everett.
Granite Falls Mayor Floyd "Butch" DeRosia said the quarries' preferred route would disrupt neighborhoods and
represented an unwillingness to compromise.
"I don't feel the city should take the full brunt of this project," DeRosia said. "I think everyone should join in and not
completely choke off Granite Falls."
City Councilman Matt Hartman said the city was being asked to do too much.
"I have not heard one thing from the quarries that might consider reduced output" to cut traffic loads, Hartman said. "Is this
a compromise from that standpoint?"
But Jim Burnett, owner of the Iron Mountain quarry, said such restrictions would be unacceptable.
"No, those kinds of constraints shackle our business," he said. 'We're going to eat thousands of dollars a day as an
industry."
"Given that, I'm really curious as to how you expect us to compromise," Hartman said.
"It's your project," said Burnett.
"It's not my problem how you get your product to market," Hartman responded. 'We have to accommodate an industry
that over the past five years has done absolutely nothing."
Page 5 of 13
Eventually, the give-and-take did result in possible solutions, but the exchange illustrated what meeting participants
described as yeers of ill will that has developed over gravel trucks in Granne Falls.
More than 1,000 trucks from querries outside the city - about one every 30 seconds on average - go through Granite
Fells every dey, using the only allowable route elong Stanley Street,
If the street can be closed completely, the work probably can be done in about six weeks, starting in spring. If one lane is
kept open for traffic, the work probably will stretch to three months or more and into the summer tourist season.
The quarry operators presented a detour plan that would send the trucks on other streets through the city. They would
move along South Alder Avenue, then onto East Pioneer Street, then onto South Granite Avenue, then for a block along
West Galena Street and then onto Cascade Avenue to be reconnected to West Stanley Street
The city has proposed a route that would take the trucks out of Granite Falls, sending them onto Robe-Menzel Road and
south to Carpenter Road, then west to OK Mill Road toward Machias.
Burnett said such a circuitous 15-mile route would be intoierable for the companies. County officials expressed concerns
about a narrow bridge on OK Mill Road being unable to handle the weight of the gravel trucks and having to put a signal
on the bridge to restrict it to one-lane traffic if truck use increased.
Other suggestions included having empty and loaded trucks use different routes, with loaded trucks moving on city streets
and empty trucks moving along county roads.
The quarry operators offered to restrict their operations by one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon.
But no solution was immediately reached.
DeRosia eventually moved the meeting into executive session, excluding members of the public, cning possible litigation
- meaning the parties might end up going to court to try to resolve the differences - as the justification.
DeRosia said the decision will be up to the Granite Falls City Council, with some action needed within about two weeks if
the road project is to start in spring.
Peyton Whitely: 206-464-2259 or owhitelv@Jseattletimes.com.
Page 6 of 13
Attachment 3
Questions?
Please contact:
. Crilly Ritz, Environ-
mental Review/
Snohomish County
Public Works,
425-388-3488
ex!, 4586; email:
Crilly,ritz@
co.snohomish.wa.us
. Eric Nordstrom,
Designl Snohomish
County Public Works/
425-388-3488, ex!.
4649; email:
eric.nordstromi@
co.snohomish.wa.us
A U.S.D.O.T.
~ Fed. Hwy.Admln,
~ WAS_
~" Deportmont 01
...~ Transportation
AAA. SnohomlBh
'"l'"l'"l~ County
II Gronlle FoUa
The co-lead agencies ensure full
compliance with Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of
1987 and related statutes by
prohibiting discrimination based
on race, color,. national origin
and gender in the provision of
benefi~ and $Elrvices. For more
information on Title VI, please
call WSDor Title VI Coordinator
at 360-705-7098.
Granite Falls Alternate Route
August 2007
"f4jIdfCll.~..i0p8ll. Ht!fS.fGfm4t}
. N EPA Env. Assossment Issued on August 8
. Public Hearing Scheduled for August 22
. Comments Due September 7
You ore invited to an informal open
house environmental public hearing on
August 22 to learn about the proposed
Granite Falls Alternate Route and to
review and comment on the Environmen~
tol Assessment (EA), Come anytime Irom
6.8 p.m.; there is no formal presentation.
The EA was prepared to meet National
Environmental Polky Act (NEPA) require-
ments and was issued August 81 2007
initiating a 30~day comment period that
ends on September 7, 2007,
The co-lead agendes on the project are
the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the Washington Stote Deportment
01 Transporta~on (WSDOT), Snohamish
County Public Works and the City 01
Granite Falls. Comments received by
September 7 will be considered by FHWA
in its review of the project.
-tftt-fJeSU "^
_ -" lati_
..................,...,.,'.~!~~
The proposal is to construct a 1.9-mile
altemate route to divert truck traffic away
from downtown Granite Falls and serve as
a strategic freight corridor for the region.
The new road would run north from SR 92
west of Granite foils, then curve north and
east around the town and connect to the
Mountain Loop Highway just north of
Gun Club Rood.
The roadway would have!wo 12-fool
wide roadway lanes in each direction with
8-foot wide shoulders. Three roundabout
intersections have been designed to convey
traffic flow and accommodate the large-
sized trucks that would pass through them.
(Continued on back)
Page 7 of 13
Timeline
Construction is expected to take two
years and moy begin as soon os
2009. However, depending on
permit approval and funding avail-
ability may not begin until 2010.
Funding
Construction cost is estimated to
total $24 million. Federal, State of
Washington, Snohomish County and
City of Granite Falls funds will be
used to construct the alternate route.
Environmental Review
An Environmental Assessment (EA)
was issued on August 8, 2007, The
EA describes potential environmental
impacts thai could result from the
proposed project and suggests
mitigation measures that could
prevent or minimize these impacts.
The EA is available for public review
and comment at the Granite Falls
City Hall and Ubrory, Snohomish
County Public Works, and County
website (www.snoco.org, search
"Granite Falls Alternate Route").
Oll 'ON I!WJ9d
'riM 'n&JiM3
OIVd
e6~sOd sn
OlS l~SlId
r'u--'&\w.....-..,.
"...:~~~:l~,>..>,:>_,;:.~;,..,""".~,~t~.~:'
You may submit written comments:
. at the meeting on August 22,
. by email: crilly,ritz@
co.snohomish.wa.us, or
. by mail: Crilly Ritz, Snohomish
County Public Works, 3000
Rockefeller Ave., MIS 607, Everett,
WA 98201
All comments received in writing and
verbally 01 the Augusl 22 hearing will
become port of the hearing record.
A written response and a copy of
Ihe Finding of No Significant Impacl
(FONSI) document will be senllo
each person who comments on
the EA,
Comments are due
by Sept. 7, 2007
Accommodation ond Accessibility
The meeting site is accessible to
persons with disabilities. Individuals
requiring reasonable accommoda-
tion moy request written materials in
alternative formats, sign language
interpreters, physicol accessibility
accommodations or other
Page 8 of 13
reasonable accommodation by
calling Tina Hokanson, Communica-
tions Specialist, 01425-388-3789, or
by emailing her at tino.hokanson@
co.snohomish.wa.us. People with
hearing impairments may call the
Counfy's text telephone line at
425-388.3700 or the Washington
Relay Center at 711 .
The co-lead agencies ensure full
compliance with Title VI of Ihe Civil
Rig hts Act of 1987 0 nd relaled
statutes by prohibiting discrimination
based on race, color, notional origin
and sex in the provision of benefits
and services. For more information
on Tille VI, please call WSDOT Title VI
Coordinalor 01360-705-7098,
Serio un tradutor en el reunion el 22
de Agosto. S; tiene preguntas, por
favor contado Diana Williams,
Snohomish County, (425) 388-3488,
.3584 au diano.williams@
co.snohomish. wo. us
This poper is recycled & recycloble.
~0~86 '<fM '"8J9Jl3
L09 SlV'l 'J9l1ej8lpO!,J OOOS
""JOM "'Iqnd
8^!l"""X3 A1u~ 'uopJll8ll UOJOV
,\JUno:) lI"lwollOUS
~
Attachment 4
~tattlt'ost-3nttlfigt1lCtr
http://seattlepi.nwsource, com/local/ 59671 Jegion25 ,shtml
Rapid arowth makes sand and aravel ever more precious
Residents are digging in, resisting attempts by state's gravel miners to increase output as population rises
Monday, February 25, 2002
By GORDY HOLT
SEATTLE POST-INTELlIGENCER REPORTER
It's the region's most valuable geologic resource -- dumped here 10,000 years ago by the glaciers of the last ice
age,
It still lies thick over much of the landscape,
It isn't silver or gold,
It's sand and gravel, and it is becoming more precious than ever.
Over the next 20 years, more than 2 million people are expected to arrive in Washington state, By 2050, some
predict that growth will amount to 29 new Tacomas,
Where will the sand and gravel for all of this construction come from?
"Good question," says state geologist Ron Teissere, "We'll either have to drill it out with tunnels, or bulldoze
houses out ofthe way, In either case, it won't be pretty."
That's because access to much ofthe material is no longer a short drive away,
As the suburbs have expanded, sand and gravel have been sealed beneath cul-de-sacs and homes with three-car
garages.
Mining sites are being pushed farther away from construction projects -- raising the costs,
As mining companies try to expand and search for new sources around the Puget Sound area, they are meeting
resistance -- from North Bend to Sultan, from Maury Island to Mats Mats Bay.
Here are their stories..,
Mats Mats Bay: 'Do they really need 24 hours a day?'
From their front porch, Rae and Harold Belkin can watch workers crush, grind
and truck basalt from the water's edge,
The couple moved here in 1991 knowing they would live near a mine,
knowing that dynamite would be part of their daily lives.
Despite battles over dust and noise, however, the Belkins and their neighbors
got along with the series of owners who have tapped the quarry over the years,
Until now.
Glacier Northwest, a Japanese-owned mining company with facilities
throughout the Northwest, is seeking permission from Jefferson County to
deepen the 65-year-old Mats Mats quarry to a point 60 feet below sea level
and to work around the clock,
The Belkins and their neighbors fear a mine that deep would allow seawater to
infiltrate their drinking-water wells, and they object to the 24-hour-a-day proposition,
"Do they really need 24 hours a day?" Rae Belkin asked, "You want to say to them, 'Can't we just do lunch?'
But nobody wants to do lunch, yet."
e
SEAmE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Page 9 of 13
The Belkins' concerns are echoed across the state as the demand for sand and gravel increases as more and more
houses are built,
Complicating matters is the way resource planning is managed in this state,
When the state's Growth Management Act went into effect 12 years ago, it directed county governments to
make way for a population that would jump by more than a million people, This is to be done while protecting
the environment and setting aside farms and such natural-resource areas as gravel mines,
But each of the 39 counties makes its own rules.
A Growth Management Act mandate requires "early and continuous public participation" in the decision-
making process,
But it hasn't always worked.
Sultan: 'We don't need more grief'
The traffic through this growing community is already bumper-to-bumper on
U.S. Route 2,
So when residents learned that a proposed gravel mine would send 800 trucks
a day through their town, they revolted.
"Everybody has lost someone to that roadway," said Mark Raney, a family
physician and member of the Sultan City CounciL "We don't need more grief."
Raney pointed to the traffic problems in another Snohomish County
community, Granite Falls, where Florida-based Rinker Materials survived an
eight-year permit battle to open a 400-acre mine,
Because Rinker has to run its trucks right through town, a traffic bypass may
now have to be built, and that prospect has not been missed by the people of
Sultan.
Within an urban boundary of only 4 square miles, Sultan has a population of 3,344, up 50 percent since 1990 --
and it's still expanding.
"To put an open-pit mine in a neighborhood already suffering from growth problems gave us all heartburn,"
said Merlin Halvorson, the local fire chief.
Trouble began when the state Department of Natural Resources identified a mountain of state-owned gravel just
north of town and planned to lease it to the highest bidder.
"We had to learn about this through the Tulalips," said Bruce Meaker, resource manager with the Snohomish
County Public Utility District. "The tribes sent us an e-mail saying, 'Oh, by the way, maybe you want to pay
attention to this.'
"When we did," Meaker said, "we found it to be quite disturbing. There'd been virtually no public notification."
Of particular importance to Meaker's utility was the mine's location. The mine's ground zero would be near a
powerhouse that generates 10 percent of the PUD's electricity.
Some wondered what a gravel mine would do to the landscape's stability; to the high-pressure line that brings
water to the turbines; and to the powerhouse itself.
Would an accident put the facility in jeopardy?
There were few answers, and the uproar put the auction plans on hold.
But prospects of a Sultan mine remain.
The Department of Natural Resources' decision awaits finalization of Snohomish County's new land-use plan,
Last month, the city councils of Sultan, Granite Falls and Index passed resolutions condemning what they said
was the county's failure to consider the potential for traffic impacts in areas being eyed for future resource
mining.
Page 10 of 13
,rett SNOHOMISH
, ~ COUNTY
, ;0 roe
<. ~. -a
-~;
: .
~ l. - KING
J"~~. COUNTY
SEAmE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Maury Island: 'We have to protect our.rights'
From a strip mine on Maury's east shore, Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher
Randy Johnson might well skip a flat rock all the way to Sea- Tac Airport,
No wonder, then, that Glacier Northwest wants to barge material from its
Maury mine straight across Puget Sound, It's the straightest, cheapest line to
the airport's third runway project.
To do this, however, Glacier plans to expand its mine from 40 acres to 200,
increasing the material taken from 10,000 tons a year to more than 7,5 million.
Although the area was zoned for mining 60 years ago, a suburb known as
Gold Beach grew around the mine, and therein lies the problem.
Glacier Northwest manager Ron Summers is moving his permit application
through the clutter of local, state and federal agencies that must sign off on the
project. But the going has not been easy,
On one side are the neighbors; on the other is the Department of Natural Resources and a handful of
environmental agencies,
Last year, the DNR listed Maury Island's shoreline as a marine reserve to protect endangered wild salmon as
well as herring and the shoreline's eel grass,
Glacier then sued to overturn that designation, and now is trying to negotiate a settlement.
"We're not suing because we want to," Summers said, "That's not how we try to do business. But we have to
protect our rights,"
North Bend: 'Their mistake'
A proposal for a strip mine here began to take shape in 1998, when county and
state officials signed a memorandum of agreement with Weyerhaeuser Co. and
the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust.
Weyerhaeuser wants its German-owned partner, Cadman Inc., to extract sand
and gravel from a 260-acre site just east of Edgewick Road beyond North
Bend's city limits,
The agreement came with an important caveat: Protect the ridge's forested
flank to preserve the Greenway Trust's mission, a blemish-free corridor along
1-90.
SEA11l.E POST-INTEWCENCER
Snoqualmie
I:J River
.'~''"
Once the gravel is gone, W eyerhaeuser agrees to reclaim and replant the
mined property, and deed it to King County as public open space.
Sounded good on paper.
But as Cadman's plan took shape, it began to sound bad to residents in North Bend.
A mile-long conveyor belt down that forested flank would be installed to move material from the ridge to a
processing plant on the valley floor,
Cadman's trucks would use Edgewick Road and Exit 34 to and from the freeway, a route already crowded with
cross-state truck traffic to and from Ken's Trucktown,
Some fear that the purity of North Bend's aquifer might be compromised; others suspect mining will continue
far beyond the 25-year limit outlined in the plan,
So Jeff Martine and 782 of his closest neighbors are raising money to fight Cadman's plan, in court, if
necessary.
"If everyone had played by the rules and followed the process early on," Martine said, "we wouldn't be at each
other's throat right now,"
Page 11 of13
· Tacoma
SEAffiE POST-INTELUCENCER
A key to the protest is the residents' demand that Cadman take the pressures off Exit 34 by using the ramps at
Exit 38 three miles into the 1-90 canyon,
Exit 38 has a storied past.
Thirty years ago, when 1-90 was under design, a federal highway engineer compared the cost of building that
exit against the value of the gravel and timber in the area. Those resources would not justify construction costs,
he concluded,
Weyerhaeuser's timber holdings were later re-evaluated, however, and the interchange was finally built.
"Now they ought to use it," Martine insists, "It's the only sensible, balanced way to solve this controversy.
"Weyerhaeuser lobbied hard to get it built," Martine said of the exit. Cadman "should be using it now for its
gravel operation."
Richard McCullough, superintendent of Snoqualmie Valley School District 410, is concerned about the
potential for having up to 900 trucks a day on Edgewick Road,
With a final environmental-impact study now in county hands, Cadman's project manager, Robin Hansen, isn't
worried.
"We think it's a go," she said.
Martine and his associates aren't giving up,
"They've treated us as if we all lived in double-wides and kept old Kelvanators in the back yard," he said, "Their
mistake. "
P-I reporter Gordy Holt can be reached at 425-497-0907 or gordyholt@Seattlepi.com
@ 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Page 12 of 13
Attachment 5
~..,~;
, ,
: :
'\~ :
\.
, "I' :
.......~.(.<O"-..I'.......l
. ~L
,
,
;
i
; I
. I, . .__...., <."
..----......!...--.-..-:.,..;.-... \..l \. ..
I f \"-""
~ ! ,,~;
'r-L-.. -'
~. ~..
-~ ~ _ :- t
ij.5t
f
J
~J.)
~I
~"C!
~ 'f
'd'
.,.
~;:
...-:."
"~
......1".
c':i~~~
1
~.I
P p" lands
Y .!low are current (I
1 the" will gaIn from
the paree s 1
OrOlnge(y) .n.
the swap
-
~-
I
I
..
Page 13 of 13
cC', 1)(. \) 12\ 'Io~
Page I of I
jeffbocc
From: CAROL KATUZNY [CKATUZNY@MSN.COM]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1 :52 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: IMQ/Meeting
r' l. f" Jl f"11 Hr-
"' ~' It..t! ~ _ ~ '\ j'~ \M5;
. ~ ~r,'; f '~:; 'i)" ~ i c;; >~60'/
TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
This is in regards to IMQ's continuing request to manipulate this county, its commissioners, and residents.
Please hold firm on your original decision! IMQ will try to pressure you and the community until they get
their way,
We do not want to become another victim as other communities have become via IMQ!
Thank you,
Carol Katuzny
124 Sea Vista Terrace
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
360-437--57
12/1/2008