HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 0511 09
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the matter of amending the
Critical Areas Ordinance, as codified
in Chapter 18.22 JCC
}
}
}
Ordinance No. 06-0511-09
WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 36.70A, et seq., also known as the Growth Management Act
("GMA"), requires that counties planning under the GMA adopt development regulations that are
consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County adopted a GMA-derived Comprehensive Plan on August 28, 1998
via Resolution and completed its seven-year update of said Comprehensive Plan via Ordinance on
December 13,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code (UDC) was originally adopted on December 18,
2000 as a development regulation required by the Growth Management Act, to be effective Janu-
ary 16,2001; and
WHEREAS, for proper citation in courts of law the UDC has been codified within the Jefferson
County Code (JCC) at Title 18; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance or "CAO" (No. 03-0317-08)
on May 17,2008, which created a new Chapter 18.22 (Critical Areas) JCC and repealed portions
of Chapter 18.15 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas), including 160 findings of fact of which are
incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County received timely appeals, called petitions for review, to Ordinance
No. 03-0317-08, resulting in a review of the ordinance by the Western Washington Growth Man-
agement Hearing Board; and
WHEREAS, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board issued a Final Decision
and Order on November 19, 2008 requiring Jefferson County to legislatively amend the geologi-
cally hazardous areas of the JCC, as it pertains to channel migration zones(CMZs) by May 18,
2009; and
WHEREAS, the November 19,2008 Final Decision and Order from the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board required clarification of what constitutes a high risk CMZ
and clarification of vegetation removal within a CMZ; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development proposed code amendments to comply
with the Final Decision and Order; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Supreme Court in Futurewise v WWGMHB, 164 Wash.2d 242,
189 P.3d 161(2008) decided the legislative intention of adopting SHB 1933 in 2003 was that
"Critical areas in the jurisdiction of the SMA are governed only by the SMA" and some CMZs
Ordinance No. 06-0511-09
RE: Critical Areas Amendments
extend beyond the shoreline jurisdiction, thereby warranting regulation through the GMA in ac-
cordance with Chapter 18.22 JCC; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed CMZ amendments
to the critical areas ordinance on March 18, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held deliberations on April 1, 2009, in which the Plan-
ning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed
amendments as drafted by Department of Community Development; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on April 27, 2009 on the
proposed amendments to the critical areas ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) now completes this process by the
adoption of this ordinance, which amends the critical areas ordinance adopted on May 17, 2008,
to comply with the Final Decision and Order and makes the following findings of fact and con-
clusions of law:
1. The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act (or "GMA") in 1990.
2. Jefferson County began planning under the GMA in the early 1990s.
3. The County adopted a Comprehensive Plan under GMA on August 28, 1998. The County
completed its statutorily required seven-year update of its Comprehensive Plan on December
13,2004.
4. The GMA, under RCW 36.70A.050, requires the state agency Community Trade and Economic
Development (CTED) to provide guidelines to classify and protect critical areas.
5. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.060, requires each county to adopt development regulations to pro-
tect critical areas.
6. RCW 36.70A.170, part of the GMA, requires counties to designate critical areas. To comply
with RCW 36.70A.172 counties planning under GMA must include Best Available Science to
protect the functions and values of critical areas.
7. Critical Areas are defined in the GMA at RCW 36.70A.030 as including the following areas
and ecosystems: a) wetlands; b) critical recharge areas for aquifers used for potable water; c)
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; d) frequently flooded areas; and e) geologically ha-
zardous areas.
8. The GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.3201, recognizes the broad range of discretion that may
be exercised by counties. This means that the BoCC, as the County legislature for Jefferson
County, must balance the priorities and options based upon local circumstances. Within the
framework of state goals and requirements, the State Legislature has concluded that the ultimate
burden for planning, harmonizing and implementing a county's future rests with that commu-
nity.
9. In order to balance the planning goals of the GMA, the BoCC encouraged the involvement of
citizens.
Page 2
Ordinance No. 06-0511-09
RE: Critical Areas Amendments
10. The 1998 and 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan includes an Environment Element as
a chapter of the Plan.
11. ENG 9.0: "Ensure that landslide and erosion hazard areas are appropriately designated and that
measures to protect public health and safety are implemented for hazardous areas."
12. ENP 9.1: "Review standards to minimize adverse impacts to public health and safety and to
public and private property for areas where risks may occur from hazards such as landslides,
erosion, subsidence, and other impacts associated with geologic hazards."
13. ENP 9.2: "Improve the scientific information which serves as the basis of land use and plan-
ning, such as the nature and distribution of geologic materials, processes, and conditions."
14. ENP 9.3: "Land uses in geologic hazard areas should be allowed only when appropriate mitiga-
tion is provided to protect public safety and the environment."
15. ENP 9.4: "Establish a preference for the use oflandslide mitigation measures which are com-
patible with natural conditions, including setbacks, appropriate siting, drainage control, buffers,
and bioengineering solutions."
16. ENP 9.5: "The County may require geotechnical reports for areas of potential risk from geo-
logic conditions or processes when necessary, and may provide for qualified staff or peer re-
view of studies under a reasonable fee schedule."
17. ENP 9.6: "Promote best management practices to minimize landslide in land use regulations
related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other
development. "
18. ENP 9.7: "Promote public education programs that foster an understanding of landslide hazard
areas and encourage homeowners and communities to mitigate existing problems."
19. Jefferson County Natural Resources Division and Jefferson County Department of Community
Development received the following report: Perkins, S.J. 2006. Final Report. Channel Migra-
tion Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers,
Jefferson County, Washington. Perkins Geosciences, in February, 2006.
20. A document from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation entitled Septem-
ber, 2004 Channel Migration Zone Study Jefferson County, Washington Duckabush, Dosewa/-
lips, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers. Technical Service Center Flood Hydrology Group
D-8530 Denver, Colorado, provides channel migration zone information.
21. Jefferson County received report: Perkins, S.J. 2004. Final Report. Lower Hoh River Channel
Migration Study. Preparedfor the Hoh Indian Tribe, in June 2004.
22. A document entitled A Frameworkfor Delineating Channel Migration Zones, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Transportation, November, 2003.
Ecology Final Draft Publication #03-06-027, provides channel migration zone information.
23. Jefferson County received a correct and timely Petition for Review to the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board from Olympic Stewardship Foundation and certain named
individuals on May 23,2008.
Page 3
Ordinance No. 06-0511-09
RE: Critical Areas Amendments
24. Washington Environmental Council appealed the initial adoption of the UDC (which was
adopted by Jefferson County on December 18, 2000) and the subsequent amendments to the
UDC (which were adopted on December 13, 2004). Jefferson County entered into an agree-
ment with Washington Environmental Council to agenda and review specific items as part of
the UDC update. Both of the 2000 and 2004 cases were consolidated, and the Western Wash-
ington Growth Management Hearings Board issued an Order Dismissing Case (Case No. 05-2-
0006) on May 19,2008. The order was issued because Jefferson County completed the remain-
ing items in the Settlement Agreement between Jefferson County and the Washington Environ-
mental Council.
25. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board issued their Final Decision and
Order on November 19,2008. Among the legal conclusions reached by the Western Washing-
ton Growth Management Hearings Board in that FDO is the conclusion that the decision of the
County to include CMZs as a type of GMA "critical area," specifically as a subset of the critical
area category known as "geologically hazardous areas" was and is GMA-compliant.
26. Jefferson County Department of Community Develop published a Notice of Intent to Amend
the UDC with line-in/line-out text (MLA09-00070) on March 4, 2009.
27. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the UDC on
March 18,2009.
28. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments on April 1, 2009. The
Planning Commission recommended that the BoCC approved the amendments, as proposed in
MLA09-00070, in response to the Final Decision and Order from the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board on November 19,2008.
29. On April 13, 2009, the BoCC determined that another public hearing was warranted, and di-
rected DCD staff to notice a public hearing on April 27, 2009.
30. The BoCC held a public hearing on April 27, 2009 to allow interested citizens, tribes and agen-
cies the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the CAO.
31. The BoCC, during their regular agenda, deliberated on the proposed amendments on May 4,
2009, and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for May 11,2009.
32. The BoCC concludes that the attached Ordinance is not a permanent or temporary physical oc-
cupation of private property that would require just compensation.
33. The BoCC concludes that the attached ORDINANCE will not act to deprive property owners in
this County of all economically viable uses of their real property.
34. The BoCC concludes that the attached ORDINANCE will not deny or substantially diminish a
fundamental attribute of real property ownership. The State Attorney General defines the fun-
damental attributes of real property ownership as the right to own or possess the property, the
right to exclude others from that property and the right to sell that property.
35. The BoCC concludes that the attached ORDINANCE does not require a real property owner to
dedicate a portion of their property to a public use because when a permit application is made
Page 4
Ordinance No. 06-0511-09
RE: Critical Areas Amendments
by a citizen and the terms of this ORDINANCE are applied as part of determining whether the
permit should be granted, the conditions required of the applicant by the ORDINANCE will and
must have a nexus to the adverse impacts of that proposal and will and must be roughly propor-
tional to the magnitude of the perceived likely harm.
36. The BoCC concludes that the ORDINANCE will not rise to the level of a 'regulatory taking'
with respect to real property because any possible interference with investment-backed expecta-
tions that the new ORDINANCE will cause is outweighed by the fact that the new ORDI-
NANCE furthers an important governmental interest [as established by RCW 36.70A.060(2)] in
the least-intrusive means possible.
37. The BoCC concludes that the Ordinance does not violate or diminish the substantive due proc-
ess rights that real property owners hold because the Ordinance serves a legitimate public pur-
pose through means that are both reasonably necessary to achieve the intended purpose and not
unduly oppressive to the landowner.
38. With regard to Growth Management Indicator JCC 18.45.080(1)(b)(i), the existence of the FDO
represents the changed circumstances leading to this Ordinance. Jefferson County adopted Or-
dinance No. 03-0317-08 on March 17,2008, the new Critical Areas Ordinance. Jefferson Coun-
ty then received appeals from interested parties, resulting in a hearing before the Western Wash-
ington Growth Management Hearings Board. The Western Washington Growth Management
Hearings Board issued a Final Decision and Order on November 19, 2008 stating that the appel-
lants had prevailed with regard to certain issues pertaining to CMZs. The FDO requires Jeffer-
son County to legislatively bring itself into compliance with the GMA by May 18,2009. Fur-
ther, the FDO requires a County's Statement of Actions Taken and Index to the Record Due by
June 1,2009, and a Compliance Hearing on July 15,2009. This ordinance fulfils GMA-related
requirements to incorporate Best Available Science into critical area regulations and addresses
specified items found within the Final Decision and Order of November 2008.
39. With regard to Growth Management Indicator JCC 18.45.080(l)(b)(ii), Jefferson County is to
revise those section of Ordinance No. 03-0317-08 pertaining to CMZs to better incorporate the
science that the County used, as required by the Final Decision and Order.
40. With regard to Growth Management Indicator JCC 18.45.080(I)(b)(iii), there is no change in
County-wide attitudes. However, Jefferson County development regulations are intended to
protect and promote public health and safety. The proposed amendments are intended to strike
a compromise between the rights of the landowner to use his/her own property while ensuring
development proposals consider public interest and safety. This proposal has been prepared for
public review, and input from the public has been sought and considered during the legislative
process to comply with the FDO.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County, Washington,
in regular session assembled does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1: Adoption of Amendments to JCC 18.22. Pursuant to the County's authority con-
ferred by RCW 36.70A and 43.21C, the Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts the
amendments to development regulations, which are marked as EXHmIT B, attached hereto and
by this reference made a part of Jefferson County Code Title 18.22, as an official land use control
and comprehensive plan implementing regulation for Jefferson County, Washington.
Page 5
Ordinance No. 06-0511-09
RE: Critical Areas Amendments
Section 2: Best Available Science (BAS). By incorporating all 160 findings of fact for Critical
Areas Ordinance No. 03-0317-08, this ordinance includes all best available Sciences literature
that was submitted, considered, and evaluated by citizens, agencies, tribes, the Planning Commis-
sioners, Department of Community Development, and the Board of County Commissioners. The
references listed in EXHBIT A are considered the applicable literature to address the November
19,2008 Final Decision and Order issued by the Western Washington Growth Management
Board. See Findings and Conclusions for specific references determined by the Board of County
Commissioners to balance the goals of the Growth Management Act and include best available
science.
Section 3: Severabilitv. In the event anyone or more of the provisions of this ordinance shall
for any reason be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or invalidate any other provi-
sions of this ordinance, but this ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid pro-
vision had not been contained therein; PROVIDED, that any provision which shall for any reason
be held by reason of its extent to be invalid shall be deemed to be in effect to the extent permitted
by law.
Section 4: Attachments.
Exhibit A
Bibliography of Best Available Science Reviewed
Exhibit B
Amended Critical Areas Code JCC 18.22.
Section 5: SEPA: Adoption of Existine: Environmental Documents. The SEPA Responsible
Official has determined that existing environmental documents provide adequate environmental
review of this ordinance to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-600. 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 po-
tential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community Develop-
ment Integrated Staff Report and SEP A Addendum issued September 22, 2004. The
Addendum included description and analysis of code amendments proposed in 2004
that are similar to those being proposed now. The current proposal is more protective
than the 2004 proposal, which was not adopted, and incorporates best available sci-
ence with respect to critical areas protection under GMA.
Section 6: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on May 11, 2009 at
5:00 pm.
Page 6
Approved and signed this 11th day of May, 2009.
Approved as to Form Only:
~~v;:r ~2'bO 9
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Page 7
Ordinance # 06...0511-09
RE: Critical Areas Amendments
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ULL-
David Sullivan, Chairman
Phil a-
$f:n~
EXHIBIT A
Channel Migration Zones
Citations
Considered for Amendments to JCC Chapter 18.22
Perkins Geosciences with TerraLogic GIS. 2003. Lower Hoh Channel Migration Study.
Prepared for the Hoh Indian Tribe. September 2003.
Perkins Geosciences with TerraLogic GIS. 2004. Lower Hoh River Channel Migration Study.
Prepared for the Hoh Indian Tribe. June 2004.
Klawon, J. 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Qui/cene,
and Little Quilcene Rivers. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.
Prepared for Jefferson County. September 2004.
Perkins Geosciences. 2005. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush,
Big Qui/cene, and Little Quilcene Rivers. Prepared for Jefferson County. July 2005.
Perkins Geosciences. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush,
Big Quilcene, and Little Qui/cene Rivers. Prepared for Jefferson County. Final Report,
February 2006.
EXHIBIT B
Proposed Line-in/Line-out Development Code Language
All header references are to the Jefferson County Code, Title 18 Unified Development Code
Chapter 18.10 Definitions
18.10.030
C definitions.
"Channel migration zone" (or CMZ) means an area within the lateral extent of likely stream channel
movement that is subject to risk due to stream bank destabilization, rapid stream incision, stream bank
erosion and shifts in the location of stream channels. "Channel migration zone" means the corridor that
includes the present channel, the severe channel migration hazard area and the moderate channel
migration hazard area the Historic Channel Miqration Zone (which is the footprint of the active channel
documented throuQh historical photoqraphs and maps), the Avulsion Hazard Zone (which is an area with
the potential for movement of the main river channel into a new location), and the Erosion Hazard Area
(which is an area outside the Historic Channel Mioration Zone and the Avulsion Hazard Zone, and
includes an Erosion Setback for a 100-year period of time and a Geotechnical Setback to account for
slope retreat to a stable anole of repose). "Channel migration zone" does not include areas that
Disconnected Miqration Areas, which are areas that have been disconnected from the river by leoally
existina artificial structure(s) that restrain channel miqration (such as levees and transportation facilities
build above or constructed to remain intact throuah the 1 DO-year flood elevation), that are no lonaer
available for mioration by the river. lie behind an arterial road, a public road serving as a sole access
route, a state or federal highway or a railroad. "Channel migration zone" may exclude areas that lie
behind a lawfully established flood protection facility that is likely to be maintained by existing programs
for public maintenance consistent with designation and classification criteria specified by public rule.
When a natural geologic feature affects channel migration, the channel migration zone width will consider
such natural constraints. "HiQh Channel Miaration Hazard" (or hioh risk CMZ) for the Bio Quilcene, Little
Quilcene, Dosewallips, Duckabush, and Lower Hoh Rivers means those non-disconnected portions of the
channel that are likely to miqrate within a 50-year timeframe. For the Biq Quilcene, Little Quilcene,
Dosewallips, and Duckabush Rivers, "Moderate Channel MiQration Hazard" (or moderate risk CMZ)
means those non-disconnected portions of the channel that are likely to miorate within a 50- to 1 DO-year
timeframe: and "Low Channel Miqration Hazard" (or low risk CMZ) means those non-disconnected
portions of the channel that are likely to miqrate beyond a 1 DO-year timeframe. For the Lower Hoh River,
"Moderately Hiah Hazard" (or moderately hiqh risk CMZ) means those non-disconnected portions of the
channel that are likely to miorate within a 50- t01 DO-year timeframe, "Moderate Hazard" means those
non-disconnected portions of the channel that are likely to miQrate beyond a 1 DO-year timeframe, and
"Low Hazard" means the non-disconnected portions of the channel that are less likely to be affected by
channel miaration, but is still at risk due to its location on the valley floor.
Chapter 18.22
Critical Areas
Article V - Geologically Hazardous Areas
18.22.160
Classification/Designation
(1) Classification. Geologically hazardous areas shall be classified based upon a combination
of erosion, landslide and seismic hazard.
1
(2) Designation. The following erosion, landslide, seismic, and channel migration zone
(CMZ) hazard areas shall be subject to the standards of this Article V:
(a) Erosion Hazard Areas. Areas containing soils or soil complexes described and
mapped within the United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation
Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County as having a severe or very severe
erosion hazard potential.
(b) Landslide Hazard Areas. Areas potentially subject to mass movement due to a
combination of geologic, topographic and hydrologic factors including:
(i) Areas of historic failures or potentially unstable slopes, such as:
(A) Areas described and mapped as having severe or very severe
building limitations for dwellings without basements within the
United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service
Soil Survey for Jefferson County;
(B) Areas described and mapped as recent or old landslides or slopes
of unstable materials within the Washington State Department of
Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas of Jefferson County; and
(C) Areas described and mapped as areas of poor natural stability,
former landslides and recent landslides by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth
Resources;
(ii) Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank
erosion, or undercutting by wave action; and
(iii) Areas with any indications of earth movement, such as:
(A) Rockslides;
(B) Earthflows;
(C) Mudflows; and
(D) Landslides.
(c) Seismic Hazard Areas. Areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of
earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or
surface faulting. These areas are identified by the presence of: poorly drained
soils with greater than 50 percent silt and very little coarse material; loose sand or
gravel, peat, artificial fill and landslide materials; or soil units with high organic
content.
(d) Channel Migration Zones (CMZs). Areas subject to the natural movement of
stream channel meanders. .ffi.. Those areas within the delineated high risk CMZ
area, (the area in which channel migration is likely to occur within the next-l-OO
~years) are subiect to this Article. .\Teas protected from channel movement due
to the existence of permanent leyees or infrastructlHe improvements such as roads
and bridges constructed and maintained by public agencies are excluded from the
high or moderate risk designation Disconnected Migration Areas. which are areas
that have been disconnected from the river by legally existing artificial
structure(s) that restrain channel migration (such as levees and transportation
facilities build above or constructed to remain intact through the lOa-year flood
elevation) and are no longer available for migration by the river. shall be excluded
from review under Article V. Moderately high. moderate. and low risk CMZs
areas are also excluded from review under this article.
2
(3) Sources Used for Identification. Sources used to identify geologically hazardous areas
include, but are not limited to:
(a) United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey
for Jefferson County.
(b) Washington State Department of Ecology, Coastal Zone Atlas.
(c) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Slope Stability and Geologic
Maps of Eastern Jefferson County.
(d) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geographic Information
System: Soil Survey.
(e) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Maps of Eastern
Jefferson County, Compressibility of Earth Materials in Eastern Jefferson County.
(f) United States Department of the Interior, USGS Quad Maps.
(g) US Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Channel Migration
Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene and Little Qui1cene
Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. Denver, CO.
(h) Perkins Geosciences. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the
Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson
County , Washington. Seattle, W A.
(i) Perkins Geosciences with TerraLogic GIS. June, 2004. Lower Hoh River
Channel Migration Study Summary Report.
G) The following rivers are not regulated in this section as a result of not having
mapped CMZs (not an exhaustive list):
Thorndyke Creek, Shine Creek, Chimacum Creek, Snow Creek, Salmon Creek,
Upper Hoh River, Bogachiel River, Clearwater River, and Quinault River
(4) Geologic Hazard Area Maps. The maps prepared by the county using the identification
sources listed in this section have been produced for informational purposes only and are
not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this code.
18.22.170
Protection Standards
(1) General. Application for a project on a parcel ofreal property containing a designated
geologically hazardous area or its buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth below.
(2) Drainage and Erosion Control.
(a) An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have
approved, a drainage and erosion control plan, as specified in this chapter, when
the project application involves either of the following:
(i) The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or
(ii) The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically hazardous area.
(b) Drainage and erosion control plans required under this chapter shall discuss,
evaluate and recommend methods to minimize sedimentation of adjacent
properties during and after construction.
(c) Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a marine bluff, landslide
hazard or ravine. The applicant must demonstrate that the storm water discharge
cannot be accommodated on-site or upland by evidence of a geotechnical report,
unless waived by the administrator. If drainage must be discharged from a bluff to
adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the face of the bluff and directed to the
3
(3)
(4)
apply:
water by tight line drain and provided with an energy dissipating device at the
shoreline, above OHWM.
(d) In addition to any erosion control methods specified in the drainage and erosion
control plan, the administrator may require hydroseeding of exposed or disturbed
areas or other BMPs.
Clearing and Grading.
(a) In addition to the general clearing and grading provisions in Chapter 18.30 JCC,
the following provisions shall also apply:
(i) Clearing within geologically hazardous areas shall be allowed only from
April 1st to November 1st, unless the applicant demonstrates that such
activities would not result in impacts contrary to the protection
requirements herein;
(ii) Only that clearing necessary to install temporary sedimentation and
erosion control measures shall occur prior to clearing for roadways or
utilities;
(iii) Clearing limits for roads, septic, water and storm water utilities, and
temporary erosion control facilities shall be marked in the field and
approved by the administrator prior to any alteration of existing native
vegetation;
(iv) Clearing for roads and utilities shall remain within construction limits
which must be marked in the field prior to commencement of site work;
and
(v) The authorized clearing for roads and utilities shall be the minimum
necessary to accomplish project specific engineering designs and shall
remain within approved rights-of-way.
(b) The following provisions regarding grading shall apply:
(i) An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have
approved, a grading plan, as specified in this chapter, when the application
involves either of the following:
(A) The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or
(B) The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically
hazardous area.
(ii) Excavation, grading and earthwork construction regulated under this
section shall only be allowed from April 1st to November 1st, unless the
applicant demonstrates that such activities would not result in impacts
contrary to the protection requirements herein.
Vegetation Retention. The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall
(a) During clearing for roadways and utilities, all trees and understory lying outside
of approved construction limits shall be retained; provided, that understory
damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned.
(b) Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing activities shall be minimized
by directional felling of trees to avoid critical areas and vegetation to be retained.
(c) Retained trees, understory and stumps may subsequently be cleared only if such
clearing is necessary to complete the proposal involved in the triggering
application.
4
(d) Within a high risk CMZ. vegetation removal shall not be allowed. Vegetation
removal outside of a high risk CMZ shall not be reviewed under this Article.
Should this provision conflict with other vegetation retention requirements
specified within the JCC. the more restrictive protection requirement applies.
(5) Buffer Marking. The location of the outer extent of landslide hazard area buffers shall be
marked in the field as follows:
(a) A permanent physical separation along the boundary of the landslide hazard area
shall be installed and permanently maintained. Such separation may consist of
logs, a tree or hedgerow, fencing, or other prominent physical marking approved
by the administrator.
(b) Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per
parcel or every 100 feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to
and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following
statement: "Landslide Hazard Area & Buffer - Do Not Remove or Alter Existing
Native Vegetation."
( c) In the case of short plat, long plat, binding site plan or site plan approvals under
this code, the applicant shall include on the face of any such instrument the
boundary of the landslide hazard area and its buffer.
(6) Buffers - Standard Requirements. The following landslide hazard area buffer provisions
shall apply:
(a) Buffer areas shall be required to provide sufficient separation between the
landslide hazard area and the adjacent proposed project.
(b) The appropriate width of the landslide hazard area buffer shall be determined by
either: application of the standard buffer width set forth below; or, by acceptance
of a geotechnical report meeting the criteria of this section.
(c) Buffers shall remain naturally vegetated. Where buffer disturbance has occurred
during construction, replanting with native vegetation shall be required.
(d) Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition; however, minor pruning of
vegetation to enhance views may be permitted by the administrator on a case-by-
case basis.
(e) All buffers shall be measured perpendicularly from the top, toe or edge of the
landslide hazard area boundary.
(f) A standard buffer of 30 feet shall be established from the top, toe and all edges of
landslide hazard areas.
(g) A building setback line is required to be five (5) feet from the edge of any buffer
area for a landslide hazard area OR to outside the full extent of the high risk
channel migration zone (CMZ), whichever is greater.
(7) Reducing Buffer Widths. The administrator may reduce the standard landslide hazard
area buffer width only when the project applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
administrator, that the project cannot meet the required setback. The reduced buffer must
adequately protect the proposed project from the risks of the landslide hazard area to the
maximum extent possible. Under no circumstances shall the buffer width be reduced to
less than 15 feet.
(8) Increasing Buffer Widths. The administrator may increase the standard landslide hazard
area buffer width when a larger buffer is necessary to protect the proposed project and the
5
landslide hazard area. This determination shall be made when the administrator
demonstrates anyone of the following through appropriate documentation:
(a) The landslide area is unstable and active.
(b) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe landslide or erosion, and erosion control
measures will not effectively protect the proposed project from the risks posed by
the landslide hazard area.
(c) The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover.
(9) Geotechnical Report.
(a) An applicant submitting a project application shall submit, and have approved, a
geotechnical report, as specified in Article VIII of this chapter, when the
application involves any ofthe following:
(i) The alteration of a landslide hazard area or its buffer.
(ii) The creation of a new parcel within a known landslide hazard area.
(iii) The construction of a publicly owned facility in a designated seismic
hazard area.
(b) Where a geotechnical report is required for a landslide hazard area, the project
application shall not be approved unless the geotechnical report certifies all of the
following:
(i) There is minimal landslide hazard as proven by a lack of evidence of
landslide activity in the vicinity in the past;
(ii) An analysis of slope stability indicates that the proposal will not be subject
to risk of landslide, or the proposal or the landslide hazard area can be
modified so that hazards are eliminated;
(iii) The proposal will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to
adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions;
(iv) The proposal will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and
(v) All newly created building sites will be stable under normal geologic and
hydrogeologic conditions (if applicable).
(c) Where a geotechnical report is required for a seismic hazard area, the project
application shall not be approved unless the geotechnical report demonstrates that
the proposed project will adequately protect the public safety.
18.22.180
Conditions
(1) General. In granting approval for a project application subject to the provisions of this
Article V, the administrator may require mitigating conditions that will, in the administrator's
judgment, substantially secure the objectives ofthis article.
(2) Basis for Conditions. All conditions of approval required pursuant to this section shall be
based upon either the substantive requirements of this section or the recommendations of a
qualified professional, contained within a special report required under this chapter.
6
Consent Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
lC)
FROM: Al Scalf, Director ~
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manger M 0),/
Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner (}/Po
DATE: May 11,2009
SUBJECT: Adoption of Amended Critical Areas Ordinance
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On May 4, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) deliberated on the proposed amendments to
the Unified Development Code (UDC). The proposed revisions were based on a November 19,2008
Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order (FDa). This FDa
required Jefferson County to legislatively bring the UDC into compliance with the GMA, as it pertains to
Channel Migration Zones (CMZs). The proposed amendments would revise Jefferson County Code (JCC)
Chapter 18.22, Article V - Geologically Hazardous Areas and JCC 18.10.030 - C Definitions.
After deliberations, the BoCC directed Department of Community Development (DCD) staff to prepare an
ordinance for signature on May 11, 2009.
ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS/PROS and CONS:
DCD has prepared an amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance based on the Final Decision and Order.
Jefferson County is required to legislatively bring itself into compliance by May -18, 2009, and action by the
BoCC is needed by that date to comply with the FDO.
The Final Decision and Order requires Jefferson County to retain CMZs within the geologically hazardous
section of the JCC (page 31, lines 27-29). Geologically hazardous areas are regulated under the Growth
Management Act; therefore, any portion of a high risk CMZ that is beyond shoreline jurisdiction would be
regulated as a critical area under the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments are intended to clarify what constitutes a high risk CMZ, as required under the
Final Decision and Order (FDa page 32, lines 11-18), and to clarify vegetation removal requirements within
a CMZ (FDa page 39, lines 12-19).
This agenda request and proposed ordinance have been reviewed by David Alvarez.
FISCAL IMP ACT/COST -BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
Work on this amendment has been budgeted through Long Range Planning as an expenditure from the
General Fund. Subsequent permit reviews will require payment of any applicable fees at the time of proposal
submittal, which will then reviewed through the Development Review Division.
Consent Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
DCD recommends the BoCC adopt the proposed amendments to the UDC.
REVIEWED BY:
~-a(G1
Date