Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121409 ~~ co~ ~~~fi ~f~~~~h~ ii!$' ~\ I""' ~ ~ -<, .) 1 \ ! I \~ ~J '''~INqf)/ 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 14, 2009 The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Sullivan at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens in attendance at the meeting: a citizen expressed his concern about protecting property owned by the State Department of Natural Resources which may soon be put up for sale; a citizen stated he feels the County needs to do economic development planning for Jefferson County; four (4) citizens thanked the Board for continuing the "Public Comment Period" and expressed the importance of allowing citizens to speak; a citizen stated that his comment made to the Board regarding possible vandalism to the Courthouse was mis- quoted in an article in the "Leader" newspaper and that a correction will be published; a citizen presented the Board with a letter asking ten (10) questions about the rules of procedure for "optional" public comment period at the Board's weekly meetings; a citizen commented on the work being done by a local property rights group to increase economic development and urged the Board to support their effort; a citizen stated that he believes a certain amount of respect and decorum for the elected office of Commissioner is due to the members; two (2) citizens encouraged those who are critical of the County's economic development effort to attend Planning Commission meetings and other meetings where economic development is discussed; a citizen commented that County officials need to follow public records laws to prevent the release of personal information; a citizen stated that he believes County government censors information and restricts free speech. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to delete item #2 and approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. I. RESOLUTION NO. 78-09 re: Closing County Administrative Offices at Noon on Christmas Eve 2009 2. DELETE: AGREEMENT reo 2010 Community Services Grant Funding; Gardiner Community Center Board Approved later in Minutes 3. AGREEMENT re: Substance Abuse Treatment; Jefferson County Public Health; Safe Harbor Recovery Center 4. AGREEMENT Amendment No.5 re: Quilcene-Snow Watershed Implementation Phase Four (4); Water Resource Inventory Area (WRlA) 17 Planning Unit; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology 5. AGREEMENT re: School-Based Mental Health Services; Jefferson County Public Health; Quilcene School District Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 2009 6. Authorization to Proceed with Right of Way Acquisition; Larry Scott Memorial Trail- Segment 4, Parcel No. 001323019, $23,500; Jefferson County Public Works Project #CR1069; STPE-20l6(015 7. Advisory Board Appointment; Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Distric~ No. 1; Two (2) Year Term Expiring December 14,2011; Nathanael O'Hara 8. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 23, 2009 Totaling $696,691.43 9. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated December 4, 2009 Totaling $729,696.52 and AlP Warrants Done by Payroll Dated December 4, 2009 Totaling $562,819.45 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners reviewed their meeting calendar and discussed various meetings they recently attended. County Administrator Philip Morley noted that the County received a grant from the Washington State Historic Trust in the amount of $300,000 for improvements to the courthouse roof. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Austin moved to approve the minutes of September 28,2009 and October 5, 12, 19 and 26, 2009 as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: 2010 Community Services Grant Funding; Gardiner Community Center Board: (Item #2 on the Consent Agenda) County Administrator Philip Morley clarified that the correct amount of the agreement is $2.850. Commissioner Austin moved to approve the agreement as corrected. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Washington State Department of Natural Resources County Income Report and Presentation on Forest Funds: Washington State Department of Natural Resources Acting-Regional Manager Susan Trettevik reviewed budget and staffing. Since January the DNR has eliminated 479 positions. Ofthose, 223 were funded positions and the remaining positions were vacant due to a hiring freeze. Of the funded positions, 176 were occupied by employees when they were eliminated. Some employees retired or taken jobs elsewhere and approximately 75 employees were laid off. The Olympic region had 124 employees in the 1990's. At the beginning of the biennium there were 104 employees and now that number is down to 80 plus 6 seasonal employees. The land base to which the DNR is obligated has not changed so they are having to prioritize and defer certain activities. She reviewed specific impacts to the Olympic region which include layoffs and reductions in stafftime. DNR staff has met with local governments, forest land owners and conservation groups about the opportunity to review the asset management strategy for positioning ofDNR lands in East Jefferson COlmty. No recommendations have been made to the Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark. There are also discussions taking place with various groups about how parcels can be kept in forest land even ifthey are not DNR managed forest lands. The East Jefferson exchange remains on hold. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14,2009 This is affecting timber sales because DNR is being asked to wait to harvest timber to allow time to find ways for the land to be acquired and the value ofthe land is affected by whether or not it is harvested. DNR representatives are taking the position that until those lands are actually transferred they still have a responsibility to the Trust which receives the timber sale revenues. Copies ofthe 3,d quarter County Income Report were provided. Jefferson County lands have generated $513,425 in revenue and are projected to generate a total of $668,000 by the end of the year. This represents a decrease of$ll,OOO from what was projected in July 2009. The decrease is probably due in large part to the net value under contact for harvest in 2010 which is estimated at $15,000. She noted that earlier in the year DNR was having difficulty selling timber harvest contracts, but, later in the year everything offered was sold. Prices are also beginning to increase and if the sales and price trends remain unchanged, and DNR keeps their budget reductions in place, then revenues will go up for the Trust and the Counties. That would also allow DNR to begin to rebuild their fund account. Acting-State Lands Assistant Drew Rosanbalm reviewed maps and spreadsheets ofthe Timber Sales Action Plan for 2010 and 2011. He stated that DNR has sold approximately 1/3 of its volume for fiscal year 2010, noting that it is typical to sell more volume in the 3,d and 4th quarters. Currently, there are 3 sales scheduled to take place in Jefferson County in 2010 (1 in March and 2 in June). In 2011 there are also 3 sales scheduled. Assignment of Rights and Resolutions for Conservation Futures Easements: 1) Brown Dairy; and 2) Finn River Farm: Environmental Health Specialist Tarni Pokorny explained that the Board is being requested to approve 2 resolutions and Assignment of Rights for conservation easements on 2 properties known as Brown Dairy and Finn River Farm which are both located in Chimacum. Both of these projects involve the purchase of conservation easements to protect these properties for agriculture in perpetuity. Specifically, approval of the Assignments of Rights will allow the County to execute a purchase and sale agreement for Brown Dairy and an option agreement for Finn River Farm. Approval of the resolutions will designate persons \vith authority to sign documents and provide assurance to the State that the Conservation Futures funding is in progress. Closing on these easements is anticipated for December 23,d. Jefferson County will be listed as the Grantee and the Jefferson Land Trust will be the Co-Grantee. Jefferson Land Trust initiated these projects through conservation futures funding. Finn River received an acquisition award of$203,500 in June 2008 while Brown Dairy was granted $77,500 for acquisition in 2009. Conservation Futures funding will provide no more than 50% of the total project cost for each project. In partnership with the County the Jefferson Land Trust sought matching funds from the State Recreation and Conservation Office. Jefferson Land Trust also independently found additional funding to complete the Brown Dairy project. Earlier this year the County hired Jefferson Land Trust to help carryout these acquisitions which included hiring subcontractors, drafting easement language, preparing baseline reports and coordinating the overall process. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14,2009 Sarah Spaeth, Jefferson Land Trust, added that together with the Land Works Collaborative they have been working on these projects for several years. The fact that the land owners are interested in selling development rights on these properties is a testament to their interest in seeing these lands remain as agricultural lands forever. Both the Jefferson Land Trust and the Land Works Collaborative are interested in seeing that the agricultural community remains a viable part of Jefferson County by providing local foods and supporting the local economy. She added that Brown Dairy and Finn River Farm are signature properties. Brown Dairy has a long history of being an active agricultural property which dates back to the 1850's. The Brown family is pleased to know that it will continue that legacy. Finn River is a newer farm which provides a creative and innovative agricultural use ofthe land and is a great addition to the community. Commissioner Austin moved to approve the Assignments of Rights for Finn River Farm and Brown Dairy projects. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 79-09 in the matter of purchasing a conservation easement on the Finn River Farm in Chimacum and designating persons with authority to sign documents, and RESOLUTION NO. 80-09 in the matter of purchasing a conservation easement on the Brown Dairy Farm in Chimacum and designating persons with authority to sign documents. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Adoption of the 2010 Budget: County Administrator Philip Morley explained that a public hearing was held on the 2010 budget on December 7, 2009. He reviewed corrections and presented an updated recommended budget and budget resolutions for consideration. After review, the Board unanimously approved the following resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. 81-09 in the matter of adoption ofthe Annual Budget, Including the General Fund, Public Works, Special Funds and Jefferson County Road Construction Program. RESOLUTION NO. 82-09 in the matter of adopting a salary schedule for the FLSA and Union Exempt Management and Professional Employees for 2010. RESOLUTION NO. 83-09 in the matter of establishing new salaries for the elected offices of Jefferson County. RESOLUTION NO. 84-09 in the matter of continued workweek reduction in 2010 for specific County departments. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14,2009 CONTINUATION OF HEARING (Continuedfrom December 7,2009) re: Port of Port Townsend Rezone; MLA09-00077: Associate Planner David Wayne Johnson noted that at the conclusion of the hearing on December 7th the Board directed staff to follow-up with State DOT representatives regarding any concerns they might have regarding traffic impacts by this proposal. He read an e-mail from Dale Severson with the DOT (see permanent record) which confirms that they do not have any objections to this rezone application. Chairman Sullivan opened the hearing for public testimony. Larrv Crockett. Port of Port Townsend Manager submitted a letter responding to the comment letter from the City of Port Townsend (See permanent record). He reminded the Board that the next step upon approval would be a binding site plan for which the Port is in the process of getting federal grant money and will be subject to a public process including hearings. The citizens of the community and adjacent property owners will be involved and have an opportunity to comment before a plan is submitted to the Connty for approval. In addition, every permit will be fully vetted. Carolvn Lake. Attornev. Goodstein Law Group submitted a letter responding to the comment letter from the City of Port Townsend. (See permanent record) Bob Sokol. Port Townsend stated he is a former Port Commissioner and a former member of the Port Townsend City Council. He urged the Board to adopt the 24 acre zoning for the Jefferson County International Airport as soon as possible. The addition of up to 100 good industrial jobs in Jefferson County must be of the highest priority in light of the current national and local economies, potential loss of the paper mill, and the shortage of funds for County operations. It is time to move forward with this project. He also submitted written comments. (See permanent record) Joe Daubenberger. Port Townsend stated that he is against this upzone. The Growth Management Act (GMA) went into effect in 1999 and down zoned a lot of commercial property and industrial property along Four Corners Road, Rhody Drive and Glen Cove Road. To consider an upzone before the County considers a rezone of property that was taken in 1999 would be an injustice for the taxpayers. This property was not purchased by the Port until 2002 which is after the GMA was in place. There is an argument that this will be an essential public facility for the Fire District. The Fire District, as an essential public facility can be located virtually anywhere. He thinks it would be appropriate for the private sector to have an opportunity to provide a location for the Fire District before it is given to the Port. The Port and all governmental agencies including the City, County and State are competing with the private sector for leased properties. The State has a woodworking school that could be located in Glen Cove. The Port has a number of businesses that are not marine related and should be located in Glen Cove or the business park. Many individuals in the private sector have paid taxes for commercial and light industrial property for many years and that zoning was taken away from them. He added that he doesn't own any property that would benefit from a rezone and he has nothing to gain. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14,2009 David Timmons. Port Townsend City Manager stated the City Council has directed him to express concerns about the process of resolving this matter. He thanked the County Administrator and Port Officials for their efforts in trying to achieve a consensus on this issue. He is not an expert on the Growth Management Act (GMA) or this process so he relies on his experts to advise him on what is permissible and what is not. He is an expert on economic development and has been in working in that field for 33 years. He gained experience from past recessions and believes that rezoning land is not the answer to economic development. There needs to be a plan and a market and needs assessment. From the City's perspective it is believed that we need to stop and take the time to develop a comprehensive strategy and finish what we started. The Hovee Study was done and began to address the needs, but never came to any final conclusion in terms of specific needs and costs to develop the infrastructure to support those needs. That is a reasoned approach and is supported by a variety of policies at the County, Port and City level. A meeting was held recently between the City and County and one thing that came out of that meeting was that we need to figure out how we can achieve a comprehensive solution and goal to work together toward economic development. Of particular concern is the policy framework and that this process reflects little incremental changes and decisions like a study he once read titled "The Art and Science of Muddling Through". At one time we looked at possibly doing an Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the airport and that didn't work. We couldn't do a stand alone Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD). Then we tried to look at a Major Industrial Development (MID) or an industrial land bank. Each of those met a certain amount of resistance. Nobody is objecting to appropriate development of the airport. That is why the City has been a party to these planning processes. The City would however, object to inappropriate development of the airport. As this proposal is being characterized, some of the types of uses he thinks are inappropriate based on the method that is being used to get those uses permitted. In this case, the proposal is to expand the airport as part of the Essential Public Facility and then allow industrial uses to take place so long as the only nexus is a financial nexus. The City does not feel that is appropriate or acting in the spirit of developing an overall comprehensive assessment in partnership with the Port, City and County which could potentially result in 500 jobs instead of 100 jobs. If the zoning as approved is modified and conditioned so it is consistent with GMA, the City has no objection. It is the loosely defined interpretation of that restriction that the City objects to. He submitted and read the following City's draft language for a proposed condition ifthe rezone is approved: "All uses, including any proposed non-aviation related light industrial uses, established within the expanded Jefferson County International Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) district shall functionally relate (i.e., be "primary" uses) or directly support (i.e., be an "accessory" use to) the operation ofthe airport. Additionally, airport related uses may include light industrial and manufacturing uses that are airport dependent (e.g., air and/or package delivery); dependent on overnight shipping (e.g., laboratories); and similar uses." This would be an interim point until a more comprehensive study was done to determine if other uses could be put there. (See permanent record) Rick SeDler. City of Port Townsend Planning Director said that looking at the face of the application it looks very compelling as 100 jobs are essential to the community. The City supports the creation of 100 jobs, but the question is where? As compelling as it is, it needs to be developed with a sound basis. What is the basis for 100 jobs? There is no assurance with those numbers. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 2009 Many uses have been put into the record for this site and it is confusing to try to understand what types of uses are most appropriate and what uses would likely be sited there. We have heard there will be warehouses with about five bathrooms. There is no assurance in the code that says that will be the outcome. We have heard it might be an eco park and the press has quoted Port Commissioners and staff as saying it may include solar manufacturing and a green park to do green energy and green development. However, in the application there is no specific reference to any business and the Port has actually cited that it has not agreed to any of those types of uses at this point. We heard at the last meeting that Lady Farmers might be able to come and do agriculture uses on the site, or storage. lt might be good to ask the farmers if that is a good site. It is his understanding from working with the Coop that they would prefer to have it on their own farmland because the trucking costs make it very difficult for them to work at a centralized site. What about marine related uses? Are they ok? Should uses from the boat haven be allowed to relocate to the airport? He is certain it would be less expensive and probably more efficient next to two highways. But, would that seriously erode the economic viability ofthe Port's property? He knows the Port is going to say that they do not intend to do any of those things and that it wouldn't disrupt it. He doesn't doubt that this group of individuals would try not to do that. However, we have no assurance in the use table that is provided or in the project that is proposed, that anything would be off limits for that site. Additionally, both the County's and Port's adopted plans refer to the development of design standards which need to be put into the Uniform Development Code to ensure that uses which go onto the site are compatible with surrounding uses. This is not done at the project level. A binding site plan application does not let you go back and modifY your legislative code. That should be accompanying this application. We should be discussing this now and those protections should be in place. The City thinks that this application might be in the public interest, however it is premature and inappropriate at this time. In order to be in the community interest we need to look at part of a coordinated strategy that directs appropriate uses to the right places. Some uses are great by the boat haven, some are perfect in Glen Cove and to be fair, some really belong by the airport. The City suggests that the agencies get together and quickly determine where our eggs should be placed, rather than saying anything can go just about anywhere. Stenhen DiJulio. Attornev. Foster Penner. PLLC represents the City of Port Townsend and submitted additional written comments and materials. He noted the zoning map of Port Townsend identifYing areas for commercial districts and marine and manufacturing areas. Recent aerial photographs are also being submitted which show mixed commercial and light manufacturing areas and demonstrates existing vacant lands available for this purpose within Port Townsend. This proposal is to simply place an industrial land classification on rural property. The central theme behind the Growth Management Act (GMA) is that spontaneous and unstructured growth and development is wasteful of our natural resource base and costly in the provision of public services and facilities. By managing growth and development the negative effect can be minimized and benefits can be maximized. The GMA is built on the principle that cities, counties, special purpose districts, and those agencies or jurisdictions involved in the delivery of public services will coordinate their efforts consistent \\lith each other and the provisions of the GMA. These words he just Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14,2009 spoke are not his, they are from the County-Wide Planning Policies. The call for coordination between cities, counties and special purpose districts is not his argument, but rather is the County's own policy for addressing these kinds of issues. He emphasized the provisions of County Ordinance # 16-1213-04 that call for a process for consideration of what would happen at the airport. Not just on these 24 acres, but within the airport generally. The County is proceeding to simply put an industrial land designation on rural land without any consideration of land capacity and demand and without finalizing the Hovee study that this jurisdiction and its partners were engaged in earlier. The Port will enter a market already at risk and will be competing with the private sector. That aspect is in contravention of the County's own planning policy. Specifically, County-Wide Planning Policy #7.1 which reads "The private sector is primarily responsible for the creation of economic opportunity in Jefferson County". The only difference in this application from any other application for industrial development in a rural zone is that the property is owned by the Port of Port Townsend. Any citizen can make the same argument that this area should be rezoned for industrial purposes. What is not in dispute under this application is that we are not talking about an Essential Public Facility, we are not talking about an aviation related facility, it is not within the fence as has been clearly set forth in the materials and it is not subject to FAA regulation. Any land that the Port purchases should be under the airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) and not rezoned because it wants the [mancial wherewithal to support the airport. The GMA provides that property should support the Essential Public Facilities, not be used as some economic model to fund money to it. Any property that would funnel money to the airport should be considered part ofthe AEPF. The City has already expressed support for the finalization for a needs and market analysis regarding industrial development in this community. It is a strategy that all 3 jurisdictions (County, City and Port) should be engaged in. The City is not saying "no" in it's consideration ofthis matter. The City is saying that the answer in this particular case is that until the study is done, to simply put an industrial land development designation on this 24 acres is inconsistent with the County's own planning foundation regarding industrial development in association with the AEPF. The area south of the airport is currently located outside of the AEPF and only the 24 acre parcels is being proposed for rezone. Under the Port's analysis, to buffer the airport from incompatible uses, what is to prevent anybody else from coming along and making a proposal for industrial development in that area? Why isn't that property located south ofthe airport any better suited to buffer the Port property than this 24 acres, and why is the Port different from a private property owner in that regard? The Port is saying they are going to do more studies and the Department of Transportation wrote that they will wait and see what the actually project is. But by approving this application the Board is opening the door to expansion of a industrial designation without doing the analysis, study or planning that the County said it was going to do when it adopted its ordinance in 2004. The City is not opposed to consideration of certain industrial uses at the airport. But the foundation work needs to be completed. He requested the Board defer action on this application until that study has been done. There is no penalty and nothing to prevent the County from considering this further. Do the analysis in the first quarter of20l 0 to be sure that the County is making the right decision and not jeopardizing the fundamental planning that has been laid out for the County. (See permanent record) Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 2009 Carolyn Lake. Attornev. Goodstein Law Group represents the Port of Port Townsend and stated that GMA downzomng of commercial and industrial property is all the more reason to support this proposal which provides an opportunity for economic growth where it can be legally located. The Port as a municipal entity is not in competition with the private sector. The Port is a conduit for the private sector economic growth and the private sector would benefit by this proposal if adopted. This proposal does precisely as envisioned in the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 2004 and has been under study since that date. She reviewed the submitted information from the legal counsel for the City and it appears to have 2 central themes. First, it concedes that the Port in fact does have the authority, if the proposal is granted, to carryout the uses the Port is requesting to be located there. Second, it makes policy arguments against the proposal. She pointed out that it does not contain much legal analysis and noted that the policy choices are for the Board to make and not lawyers. The City's legal counsel took time to restate what he believes to be the Port's arguments in favor of this proposal. The Board heard the Port's arguments and the arguments as restated by the City's legal counsel are not the Port's arguments. What was significant by its omission, is that there was no citation or pointing to any authority, no legal criteria, no legal case, no legal statute cited by the City's legal counsel that would prohibit the Board from moving forward with this opportunity for economic growth. It brings to mind the adage that we should not set aside what is possible today in favor of what might be a perfect future. They stand by their conclusion which was made and presented in the previous hearing before the Board. Those conclusions are continued in their written remarks which state that the proposal is consistent with State law protections for Essential Public Facilities and for airports and is consistent with past actions of Jefferson County. They disagree with the characterization that this analysis was muddled through, when in fact the analysis was considered and thoughtful. There are no legal prohibitions on the expansion of the Essential Public Facility to add supporting and complimentary uses to the regional airport uses. They urge the Board's adoption of this proposal which is consistent with State law and gives the needed support for the Port's State mandated mission for economic growth and job creation. (See permanent record) Joe Daubenberger. Port Townsend stated that the properties which were downzoned in 1999 were taken from the private sector and now we are considering giving it back to a public entity. That is what he disagrees with. Ifhe owned the property next door would he get the same consideration for an upzone? Joe D' Amico. Fort Discoverv said that he thinks the Board ought to approve this proposal. It is a great plan and he thinks it will open the door for Fort Discovery to rezone some property industrial. He supports the Board on a decision to approve this application. Larrv Crockett. Port of Port Townsend Manager stated it is interesting to listen to other people put words in your mouth that were never spoken. If you read the Port's letter that was submitted today, it will be abundantly clear. Having been involved in this project for a decade, it bothers him personally that it is being Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 2009 referred to spontaneous. This is not a spontaneous effort. Weare not talking about spontaneous growth. The 1971 Airport Master Plan discusses economic growth in and around the airport. The 1994 Airport Master Plan involved a public process with both the City and County, and specifically called out this parcel to be purchased for future economics. The 2002/2003 Airport Master Plan clearly identifies this parcel for future light industrial use. Throughout this process the County, City and Port have been working together on this project and nobody has ever protested, objected or appealed any ofthese efforts or ideas. He agrees that it is the private sector that drives the economy. It is the private sector that is going to develop these parcels, not the Port. The Port is simply going to put in the infrastructure like any government should be doing. The entrepreneurs need places like this because they don't have a million dollars to buy 20 acres in the City to build anything. They need the ability to get their feet under them and then buy parcels in Glen Cove or the City. This effort has been cooperative and consistent with the County policies. By law, under the FAA mandate the Airport Master Plan has to be consistent with the County's policies. Every step of the way has been cooperative. There will be penalties for a delay because there are families that need jobs now and in the near future. Bill Miller. Port Townsend stated that he supports this process of changing the land itself. The Planning Commission voted to change the zoning category. Anything that is built there will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and go through the public hearing process to see ifit is appropriate. This is not about approval of any buildings. It is about approving the potential. This is the time we need to start building potential and he would appreciate it if the Board would support this proposal. David Timmons. Port Townsend City Manager clarified his previous testimony and explained that it was not a criticism, it was basically an observation of what he sees as a process that has been haunting the County, City, Port and PUD because we take things on incremental. When Gordon Lindblom wrote the article "The Art and Science of Muddling Through" he talked about the government decision making process and how it goes based on the "root and branch" method. It continues to go along until it meets some type of impasse or resistence and then it modifies and redirects itself. That is what we have been doing with our entire economic strategy. For the decade that he has been with the City there has never been a coordinated effort that really is a unified strategy that we all agree with. The City's concern about this is that it is putting the cart before the horse. The policy is saying this is what we should do, but it is not asking if we should do it. That is what is written in the County's own ordinance where it says you need to do this analysis first to determine how to get this done. He thinks before this is implemented, the County should go back and review that ordinance and ask if that analysis has been done. The Airport Master Plan reads "Development of the property owned or acquired by the Port south of the runway should be utilized for rural level development activities that directly or indirectly support the operation of the airport as a self sustaining economic enterprise. This will not only reduce or eliminate the need to operating subsidies, but will promote more compatible land uses and provide for further economic development opportunities in the County. Future development plans should include provisions for Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 2009 additional hangar space as well as job generating, light manufacturing industrial uses that generate revenues to support airport operations. All development activities must be rural in character only requiring rural levels of service and must comply with FAA safety requirements for height, lights, smoke, etc. All supporting development activities must also comply with the provisions of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Code. A strict set of design standards shall be adopted to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses and to further visually screen the low profile buildings." We haven't received that information so we don't know what we are buying into to. The City is asking that this information be compiled and tied into a broader economic strategy so they can help promote economic development in the County. Eric Toews. Cascadia Community Planning Services Consultant representing the Port of Port Townsend clarified that what Mr. Timmons has read and outlined is precisely what the Port is proposing. It is for rural light industrial use adjacent to the airport to help the airport be a more self sustaining enterprise. From 1988 to the present approximately $7 million in federal taxes have been expended to support infrastructure improvements at the airport. This rezone, if approved and after development of a binding site plan and private enterprise development of those created lots, will help reduce the Port's current operating deficit and make the facility more self sustaining. The standards that Mr. Timmons cites are in fact contained within the proposal. The proposal would significantly reduce the amount of development coverage within this industrial area as compared to any other industrial area located within Jefferson County or the City of Port Townsend. This project proposes twenty-five percent maximum impervious surface coverage, thirty-five foot maximum building height, ten thousand maximum square foot building sizes, stripped vegetative buffering and screening requirements as well as the mandate that all future development utilize low impact development techniques. He thinks there is a basic difference of opinion as to whether or not the prerequisite studies have been completed and whether or not this complies with the process outlined in the Airport Master Plan and the County's Comprehensive Plan. They would forcefully argue that it does comply and that the Port's proposal is explicitly what was envisioned in both the Airport Master Plan and County's Comprehensive Plan amendments in 2004. John Watts. Port Townsend Citv Attornev stated that the Board has options. This is a legislative decision and the Board is not required to approve this proposed rezone. If the Board does approve it there are options in how it might be approved. There is no legal requirement for this matter to be adopted today or by the end of the year. It can be carried over into the following year. It can be sent back to staff or the Planning Commission for further analysis. Additional time might allow the parties to come to some understanding that provides a compromise or possibly a MOD. He commended the County Administrator for attempting to bridge the differences, but he feels more time might allow those differences to be further explored and possibly even reconciled. The crux of the differences are very simple. The Port wants to be essentially able to do any light industrial use on the proposed rezone area. The City seeks some limitations that might come out of a study that would identifY appropriate uses for the airport given the needs throughout the County. The City is also concerned about undermining the investment made by the City to develop light industrial zoning in the City. We also heard today that the proposal might undermine the efforts of the private sector Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 2009 in both the City and County. The Port's proposal is a speculative rezone. There are no uses or pending uses seeking to locate on the site. This is not a rezone to accommodate a particular owner who wants to develop a business. It is also speculative in terms of what it promises. As has been pointed out, there is no analysis or study upon which to support or base a conclusion that this will provide 100 jobs. There is no basis to support a conclusion that the proposed uses are going to be eco-friendly. There are no restrictions in the proposed development regulations that would limit the uses to eco-friendly or say how they would be any more eco-friendly than any other use that develops anywhere in the County that has to meet stormwater requirements and buffering requirements. He urged the Board to indicate that it would like to see a win/win/win in this matter, similar to what a Judge does in a civil case before making a ruling. He believes this would benefit everyone and he urged the Board to take more time to do an analysis to study the positive and negative impacts of this proposal. The City is willing to participate in such a study both with staff resources and funding. He commented that it has been stated that this is a programmatic rezone and that it will eventually result in a binding site plan. But, the uses that would be allowed by the binding site plan are being determined today, in the sense that if you don't limit the uses, then any use can be allowed under a binding site plan. This is not an Essential Public Facility rezone in the sense of GMA saying that these certain uses trump local zoning and can be allowed even if local zoning attempts to interfere with them. This is simply light industrial that is being brought in under the framework of an Essential Public Facility, but it is not the kind of Essential Public Facility that is sanctioned or under the protection of GMA. Bill Marlow, Port Hadlock urged the Board to adopt this proposal today and not study it any longer. He has participated in various planning meetings since 1988 to do more studies and more analysis and it has been 20 years already and the arguments are the same. The City talks about cooperation, but he can think of a number of different instances where the City has sued the County and that is not the kind of cooperation the County needs. Adopt the proposal as soon as possible. Joe Daubenberger. Port Townsend stated that he is a developer and he has a pretty good idea how this process works. He knows that there has not been any proforma done on this application. He has not examined it, but today he is hearing talk about 8 sites, 10,000 square foot buildings and market rate. It will be about $50 per square foot to build. That is $4 million, not counting the land. There will also be ground work, septic systems, power and a lot of other issues that will come into play. Revenue from rent will bring in approximately $32,000 gross at $.40 per square foot, which today you can't get. There are a number of buildings at Glen Cove that are vacant. Specifically, there is a 6,000 square foot warehouse that has been vacant for almost 2 years. The payment on $4 million at 5% interest, ifthey're able to get an interest rate that low, will be approximately $4,300 per month. Without hardly any analysis, this project will be upside down. The private sector who pays the taxes to subsidize these projects and also has buildings to rent that are vacant, will be competing against the market rate. When the Port is unable to get the $.40 per square foot, they will rent it for $.30 per square foot because they have to get it rented. Then the private sector will be Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14,2009 paying for it. You can talk all day long about how there is no competition with government, but there are already many government buildings out there, such as Mountain View, that the private sector is competing with. This doesn't work and it doesn't take very much analysis to figure it out. Give the zoning back to Glen Cove. George Yount. Port Townsend stated that this has been an interesting dialogue. He asked why this wasn't discussed by all these parties 30 years ago when he was involved with the airport development? None of these arguments were given. The mission of the Port is to provide incubator facilities to allow businesses to develop and then to move on. He thinks this is the kind of activity that will happen here and he urges the Board to support the rezone. Bob Sokol. Port Townsend stated when he was a City Council-member he voted yes for the industrial park located off of Sims Way. The proposal at that time was for office space only to support the industrial businesses located there. If you drive through there today you will find a storage facility, dental office, insurance office, a locksmith, a title company, and Jefferson Mental Health. That area is no longer an industrial park. As a matter of fact, it is referred to all the time as the business park. Another one of the requirements he voted in favor of was that at a certain buildout level the developer would put in a stop light on Sims Way. The estimate at that time in the early 1990's was $250,000. Since that time the opportunity has been there for that to develop into an industrial park, but it hasn't. Instead it has grown as a business park. He is not saying it's not a good use ofthat property, he is saying that the industrial nature of the park has totally changed. One of the things about renting and occupying Port property that people don't understand is that tenants pay a leasehold excise tax which is 12.85% of the rentable value of the property. It has nothing to do with the amount of the rent, only the rentable value. The airport hangars are a good example of how public agencies and the private sector can work together for the benefit ofthe County. For the most part the hangars are privately owned. A group of eight hangars are similar to a condominium which sit on land that is rented. The value of the hangar itself is directly taxed as property. This would be the same for any other development that were to take place at the airport. Nowhere in the plan does it say that if this is approved today that there will be ground breaking tomorrow. But, if you don't approve it today there can't be ground breaking at all and this could be put off indefinitely. The argument to say let's put this off is very "Port Townsend", but it is not very efficient or practical. He has been involved in economic development for many years and in the time that he has been here there is virtually nothing to show for what the Economic Development Council has accomplished. There have been some programs to help people run a business, but the number of jobs created or saved is really hard to quantifY. He urged the Board to take the first step in this process and approve the rezone. Jim Pivamik. Port of Port Townsend Commissioner stated that the best example of economic development in our County is the boat haven. The boat haven does not have a single square foot of available rentable space. That model was built upon the same model currently being discussed which is the Port putting in the Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14,2009 infrastructure to allow businesses to survive and expand. Now with Glen Cove with 20% occupancy and the boat haven and Point Hudson fully occupied, some would dispute that the Port is undercutting the private sector. He says the Port is charging market rate. The value of government providing infrastructure in a central area to provide job creation and growth is a very important element that we do not have in the County right now. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed airport rezone MLA09-00077 submitted by the Port of Port Townsend, Chairman Sullivan closed the public hearing. The Board agreed to review the testimony and discuss this matter further at a later date. After discussing potential dates for scheduling a special meeting, Commissioner Johnson moved to schedule a special meeting on Tuesday, December 15,2009 at 5:00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers to continue deliberations and possible decision on the airport rezone application submitted by the Port of Port Townsend. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Commissioners: . Treasurer's Software Conversion . Discussion of 20 I 0 Work Program . Calendar Coordination . Miscellaneous Items NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Austin moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:44 p.m. until the special meeting scheduled for 5:00 p.m on Tuesday, December 15,2009. In the absence of Commissioner Johnson, Chairman Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried. MEETING ADJOURNED , i to- 'of \1 ........ , . _l,..>~ ' , 1" "';".', SEAL:, '. . 5 f · '-':'l "#\::\ ~';~t ,,~~;,~~ I' \~: "'"..." ' ,-,.",..,' .. . , ~'{. . ( ,'"V.~ . :'j}~'j '. -'. ", .. .. "j..1...) ~ '." . " .... J' <.7'1 II. . ~-- ....<; ./f v'1;;,.~"'._)\,;~/ ~ ,', .~ .;' "t v .. ,0 t:r~ST: " J . [~i:~A~ Clerk ofthe Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD JJf COMMI. S. SIONERS // /; ~ , 4d!~1////~~ DaVId sUllivan*i >IiE~ Page 14 '~c "be i'J \"2.11'S loq Regular Agenda II:OOAM JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) Philip Morley, County Administrator THROUGH: Al Scalf, Director of Community Development Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager FROM: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner DATE: Agenda request for December 14, 2009 SUBJECT: Continuation of BoCC public hearing of December 7, 2009 to hear testimony before deliberation and decision on 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment application MLA09- 00077 Port of Port Townsend "Airport Rezone." STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On November 16,2009, The BoCC made a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to JCC 18.45.080(2)(b) which requires a public hearing should the BoCC deem a change to the Planning Commission's Comprehensive Plan Amendment recommendation necessary. The BoCC shall conduct a public hearing to hear a Staff report and take public testimony before deliberating and making a final decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, MLA09-00077. ANALYSIS: On December 7, 2009 the BoCC conducted the public hearing and made a motion to hold the record open as requested by several parties to receive further oral and written testimony and comments on potential transportation impacts from the State Department of Transportation on Monday, December 14, 2009. Should the BoCC approve or approve with conditions, they are required under JCC 18.45.080(2)( d) to adopt the proposed Comp Plan Amendment by ordinance by the close of business on the second regularly scheduled meeting of December, which is December 14, 2009. ALTERNATIVES: After conducting the public hearing, the BoCC may adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation, findings and conclusions to approve MLA09-00077, or they may develop and adopt their own findings and conclusions using the same criteria as the Planning Commission set forth under JCC 18.45.080( I)(b)&( c) to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Finding 55 in the enclosed draft Ordinance has been recommended for inclusion in the findings by the Department of Community Development. FISCAL IMPACT/COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS: There is no fiscal impact by either accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation or approving or denying the application. rfthe BoCC decides to approve the application, the benefit to the County could be realized in terms of economic development through increased employment. ; ",. ~--' Regular Agenda 11:00AM RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: I) The BoCC approve the application MLA09-00077 2) Draft their own findings and conclusions 3) Direct Staff in preparing the adopting ordinance for signing on December 14, 2009 Should the Commissioners wish to approve MLA09-00077, a draft Ordinance is enclosed which the Board may review and revise as appropriate after considering the testimony of the December 7 & 14 public hearing and the Board's own deliberations. REVIEWED BY: ~ip- Enclosure: Draft Ordinance Approving One Comprehensive Plan Amendment, File Number MLA09- 00077 Port of Port Townsend , STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ONE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, FILE NUMBER: Ordinance No. MLA09-00077 Port of Port Townsend } } } } } WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as required by the Growth Management Act ("the GMA"), as codified at RCW 36.70A.01O et seq., set in motion and now properly completed professional review and public notice and comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended, and; WHEREAS, as mandated by the GMA, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan ("CP") that composed the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket ("the Docket"), and; WHEREAS, of the two (2) proposals that compose the Final Docket, one (1) was withdrawn by the applicant; and one (1) was approved or approved with modification: MLA09-000n (Port of Port Townsend), and the UDC amendment associated with Port of Port Townsend MLA09-000n, and; WHEREAS, an adopting Ordinance is required to formalize the Board's legislative action, and; WHEREAS, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact with respect to the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle and these four amendments: 1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development regulations or Unified Development Code (UDC), Title 18 in the Jefferson County Code (lCe) in December 2000. The CP was reviewed and updated in 2004. I 2. The GMA, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and adopt a CP requires that there be in place a process to amend the CPo 3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County [including corporations and other business entities] on a regular basis. In accordance with RCW 36.70A.130, CP amendments can generally be considered "no more frequently than once per year." 4. This particular amendment cycle began on or before March 1,2009, the deadline for submission of a proposed CP amendment. 5. All of the amendment proposals were timely filed by March 1,2009. 6. Two formal site-specific amendments and one suggested amendments (for a total of three) were placed on the Preliminary Docket through the CP amendment process referenced at JCC Section 18.45.050. 7. All site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments are included in the Final Docket in accordance with JCC 18.45.060 (4)(b)(i). 8. The Department of Community Development (DCD) issued an Administrator's Report on the Suggested Amendments on May 5, 2009, analyzing the proposed suggested amendments on the Preliminary Docket and offering the recommendation that only MLA07-104, Industrial Land Bank, not be docketed for the 2009 amendment cycle. 9. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed open public hearing on the Preliminary Docket for all suggested amendments on May 20, 2009. 10. The Planning Commission completed its recommendation on the Preliminary Docket on May 20,2009, recommending that suggested amendment MLA07-104, Industrial Land Bank, be placed on the Final Docket. 11. The Board of County Commissioners held a duly noticed open public hearing on the issue of the Final Docket on June 22,2009. 12. The Department of Community Development, the Department of Public Works, Fire District #1 and Port of Port Townsend met on August 6,2009, to review the amendments for possible transportation issues. 2 13. On June 22, 2009, the Board voted, that MLA07-104 not be included on the 2009 Final Docket but that the amendment application move forward to be reviewed during the next amendment cycle in 2010. 14. The Final Docket was established by the BoCC on June 22, 2009. The Final Docket for 2009 did not include any suggested amendments, and included only the two site-specific amendment proposals. 15. On August 17,2009, application MLA09-00064 was withdrawn by the proponent John Thomas Graham, leaving one site-specific amendment proposal. 16. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners held ajoint workshop on September 2, 2009 to provide an opportunity for the site-specific CP amendment applicant to make a public presentation on their proposal. 17. The Department of Community Development published the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, Staff Report and SEP A Addendum, an integrated Growth Management Act and State Environmental Policy Act document on September 2, 2009. The report analyzes the proposal on the Final Docket and offered a preliminary recommendation. 18. The proposed amendment has been subject to a SEP A analysis through the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum dated September 2,2009. The entire amendment cycle shall now be'considered cumulatively with respect to a county- wide environmental review of the associated impacts, if any, of these proposals. 19. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed open public hearing on September 16,2009. Oral public comment relating to the proposed amendment was taken during the public hearing, and written comments were accepted through the close of business October 5, 2009. 20. The text of the proposed amendments to the development regulations were made available to the public no later than the publication date of the applicable Staff Report, which was September 2, 2009, more than one month before public comment period closed. 3 21. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed amendment on their regularly scheduled meeting of October 7, 2009. 22. The above statements indicate that the proposed CP amendments were and are the subject of "early and continuous" public participation as is required by GMA. 23. For the proposed amendment included in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, the Planning Commission reviewed the growth management indicators found at JCC 18.45.080 and JCC 18.45.050. 24. The Planning Commission recommendations were transmitted to the Board through formal memoranda dated November 4, 2009, and are part of the record for the legislative decision. 25. Incorporated by reference in the recommendation report were the meeting minutes and audio recordings from Planning Commission meetings held on October 7, 2009, during which deliberations took place and the recommendation was formulated, and on November 4,2009, during which a motion to rescind the vote to recommend approval failed and the recommendation mernorandum was finalized. 26. The Planning Commission recommended approval ofMLA09-00077 to rezone approximately 24 acres from rural residential (RR I: 10) to Airport Essential Public Facilities (AEPF) and to amend the UDC by creating an Airport Overlay III underlCC 18.15.453 in Title 18.15 oftheJefferson County Code. 27. The Planning Commission found that the MLA09-00077 proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the County-wide planning policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. 28. The BoCC concurs with the Planning Commission and states that MLA09-00077, as adopted, is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the County-wide planning policies, any other inter-jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. 4 29. With respect to the consistency between MLA09-00077 and certain provisions found in Chapters 3, 7 and 9 of the current Comprehensive Plan, this finding incorporates by reference the text found in the September 2, 2009 Staff Report at pages 2-5 through 2-9 inclusive. 30. MLA 09-00077 is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan propounded by the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization because, in part, the Comprehensive Plan and this amendment implementing portions of Comprehensive Plan Chapters 3, 7 and 9 support "the economic vitality of airports that are designated as Essential Public Facilities by identifying appropriate land uses at and adjacent to airports in local Comprehensive Plans and development regulations." 31. The Planning Commission approved and recommends the UDC amendment that is associated with the Comprehensive Plan amendment in MLA09-00077. 32. The Planning Commission voted on the individual Comprehensive Plan amendment considering the Growth Management Indicators in 18.45.080 JCC. The Planning Commission also came to the conclusion that when applying the Growth Management Indicators found in 18.45.050 JCC regarding "cumulative impacts" of its decision on the site-specific amendment, they found no reason to change the recommendation. 33. DCD staff recommendations remained unchanged from the September 2,2009 Staff Report throughout the process. 34. The Board made a motion to change the Planning Commission recommendation on November 16, 2009, and hold a public hearing to hear testimony before deliberating and making a decision to either approve, approve with conditions or deny MLA09-00077. 35. All procedural and substantive requirements of the GMA, through the JCC (Title 18) and the Planning and Enabling Act (RCW 36.70), have been satisfied. 36. The Board deliberated on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on December 7, 2009 and made a motion to hold the record open until Monday, 5 December 14,2009, the required date on which any ordinance adopting any amendment on the final docket shall be signed. 37. Pursuant to JCC Section 18.45.080(2)(c), for all adopted amendments the Board is required to develop findings and conclusions which consider the growth management indicators set forth in a) JCC Section 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (vii), and b) items (i) through (iii) in JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(b). 38. JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(c), which contains eight criteria from which the Board must generate findings, is applicable only to site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. 39. Inquiry into the growth management indicators referenced above was begun for the 2009 Docket through the DCD integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum of September 2, 2009. 40. The Board adopts the Planning Commission's findings and conclusions with respect to the growth management indicators as detailed in the Planning Commission meeting minutes and audio recordings from October 7, 2009, and November 4, 2009, during which deliberations took place and the recommendations were formulated. 41. These findings are also augmented by the September 2, 2009 staff findings and conclusions, except when and as noted below. 42. With respect to the individual amendments adopted by the Board, the Board enters the following case-specific findings and conclusions: 43. 44. Specifically, the board adopts the staff Cumulative Impact Analysis in the staff report, including the Growth Management Indicators, beginning on Page 2-9. 45. Furthermore, the Board incorporates here by reference Table 2 found in the DCD Staff Report and SEPA Addendum of September 2,2009 at p. 1-9, particularly that part of Table 2 containing inforrnation on the amount of acreage in the Rural Residential designations RR 1: I O. 6 46. A review of that portion of Table 2 indicates that about 1/3 of the County's Rural Residential land has a designation ofRR I :5, about 1/9'h of the County's Rural Residential land has a designation of RR I: I 0 and the remainder, approximately 55-60% of the County's Rural Residential land holds the zoning designation of RR 1:20. 47. Those rough proportions will not be changed in any significant manner by the board's approval ofMLA09-000n and thus the County continues to have, even after the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan amendment, the variety of rural residential densities required by the GMA. 48. MLA09-000nfor APN 001-331-005 is submitted by the Port of Port Townsend. The parcel is located approximately 1/3 mile east of the intersection of SR 20 and Four Comers Road. The applicant seeks to rezone 24 acres from Rural Residential to Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF). 49. The Board adopts the map for MLA09-000n in Attachment "A" signed by the Planning Commission chair on November 10,2009. 50. The Board also recognizes the needed change to the Unified Development Code in association with the zoning change rnade in regard to MLA09-00077 to assure consistency, and unanimously adopts the line-in/line-out changes ofMLA09- ooon, shown in Attachment "B". 51. With respect to MLA09-000n [Port ofPT], the Board voted _ to , concurring with, and adopting as if stated in full here, the findings and conclusions in favor thereof of the Planning Commission (See Findings of Fact ). 52. The Board unanimously approved the motion to direct staff to write an ordinance to memorialize their actions. 53. Adoption of this Ordinance by the BoCC is authorized by both the Growth Management Act and the general police powers provided to local governments by Article XI, Section II of the State Constitution. 7 54. Adoption of this Ordinance furthers the health, safety and general welfare of the populace of this County. 55. The current Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan at page 9-6 acknowledges "The long-term economic viability of the airport, as well as the economic development goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, support consideration of the expansion of the airport uses to include appropriately scaled non-aviation related industrial development, provided that such uses are consistent with GMA." This is one reason why Staff has recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as follows: Section One: Under MLA09-00077 [Port of Port Townsend], 24 acres identified as APN 001-331-005 which is located approximately 1/3 mile east of the intersection of SR 20 and Four Comers Road and directly abutting the southerly boundary of the Jefferson County International Airport, Port Townsend, WA, shall be given in its entirety an underlying land use designation of Airport Essential Public Facility depicted on the corresponding map in "Attachment A". Section Two: In concurrence with the Comprehensive Plan amendment under MLA09- 00077 (Port of Port Townsend), an amendment to the Unified Development Code, Chapter 18 of the Jefferson County Code, is hereby adopted in accordance with the line- in/line-out notations set forth in "Attachment B". Section Three: Assessor's Parcel Number 001331005 shall be the location of the Airport Overlay III. Section Four: If any section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, then the development regulations and/or underlying zoning designations applicable to that parcel or parcels prior to adoption of 8 the non-compliant or invalid section of this Ordinance shall be applicable to that parcel or parcels. Section Five: Ifany section of this Ordinance is deemed either non-compliant or invalid pursuant to the Growth Management Act, such a finding of non-compliance or invalidity shall not nullify or invalidate any other section of this Ordinance. Section Six: The map is hereby incorporated by attachment (Attachment A). Section Seven: This Ordinance becomes effective on the date it is executed. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2009. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: David Sullivan, Chairman ATTEST: Phil Johnson Erin Lundgren Deputy Clerk of the Board John Austin Approved as to form David Alvarez, Chief Civil DP A 9 . \N. \ ~~f , \ 3 \ 0- ~ '" 0 \ 0 \ <D 0 ;0 -0 )> ;0 Ol -0 , ~ '2. ~ 0 0 CD C)" iii Ol ;0 ::J - c -0 ~ Ol !!!. 0 ;0 ~ CD !II Ii ",,,, CD 111' ::J -- - ..co iii' "", =c ~i >N 0 -0 ". 3 0 !1! CD 'C '" 0 c: ~ 'C ~ ::s \0 ~ ~ 0 p...n ~ 3 0 <... a. 0 ::J '" S ::J" CD ... ::S"d ::J ~ ':c; '" .... .... 0 (') ~g.. ." ::J" )> ~. "d '" !II _::s !II ..... en 0 n ..... 0 ~ -< or '" .... '" m l' ..... '"0 .. 0 Jl ::s ...... '" ~ c ::s i i .. .. = - !! ~ ,. .", -- - ~ 'P o o o --.t --.[ ;0 ;p '" m -0 " :l> ;0 c ~ !!!. ;0 CD !II Ii CD ::J - ~ m en !II CD ::J - ~ -0 c 2: o' " Ol g HJH~iFiP!'l-~ "" ~ t.-tli~_lq-ll 11. ~ :J> !!tH~h~,~Hi'i j:g ::;' HILi r..P.fH~ ~ l!~rl~;I~ ;f!I:'~ o ~-H "--!: -l .. ;::. pp-; 1l:. L '" o ,it. t.. ~ ~-~ ! ""n i ~ i~ ~: ~ ..." >i" :I . f i ; , o 8 . ~ . OI'~ in "'il> 1= " Attachment B: Proposed Amendments to the Text of Chapter 18.15 of the Jefferson County Code Proposed Amendments to the Text of Title 18 the Jefferson County Code: A. Amend JCC 18.15.1112. to read as follows: 18.15.1112 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this article is to regulate land uses within the airport essential public facility district (AEPF) in order to encourage orderly economic development in a manner compatible with the Jefferson Countv International Airoort Master Plan. airport operations and adjacent properties, and to protect the Countv's onlv existing general aviation public use airports from conflicting or incompatible adjacent land uses or activities. B. Amend JCC 18.15.1114. to read as follows: 18.15.1114 Permitted, conditional and prohibited uses. New development within the AEPF district shall be restricted principally to aviation support facilities and aviation-related manufacturingllight industrial uses that elireotly or indireotly support its operation as on essential public faoility. However, certain public and quasi-public nonovbtion related uses and non-aviation-related ruralliaht industrial uses may be permitted as specifically set forth in this section. and JCC 18.15.453. et sea. C. Amend JCC 18.15.405. to read as follows: 18.15.405 Designation. The JCIA has been identified as an essential public facility in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plans of 1998 and 2004. The airport represents a valuable public asset. It provides both an important transportation service and a vital asset to facilitate economic growth in the county. As such, proteotion measures are needed to preserve the continued future viability of the airport. Therefore, !we three airport overlays are hereby created, as follows: (1) Airport Overlay I. For the purpose of this section, the Airport Overlay I is that geographic area affected by the airport and defined on the basis of factors wf:lisl:l that include aircraft noise, aircraft flight patterns and airport safety areas. It is based on the Noise Contour Interval Map contained in the FAA-approved JCIA master plan, which projects the 55 DNL contour through the year 2022; (2) Airport Overlay II. For the purpose of this section, the Airport Overlay II is that geographic area that is affected by the FAA-mandated airport traffic pattern for the JCIA and defined on the basis of aircraft flight Appendix C C-1 PORT PROPOSED JCIAlEPF CODE AMENDMENTS patterns and safety areas. It includes areas that lie adjacent and to the south of Airport Overlay I and is based upon the Aircraft Accident Safety Zone NO.6 contained in the "Airports and Compatible Land Use" publication of the Washington State Department of Transportation's Aviation Division (2/99), to the extent that Zone NO.6 correlates with the FAA-mandated airport traffic pattern for the JCIA as set forth in the FAA-approved JCIA master piano: and (3) Airoort Overlav III. For the purpose of this section. the Airoort Overlav III is that aeoaraphic area that has been approved for inclusion in the airoort essential public facility district throuah the Jefferson Countv Comprehensive Plan text and land use amendment process. or other applicable process. and which the Countv has determined is appropriate for a limited ranae of non-aviation-related ruralliaht industrial uses that foster the Port's abilitv to assure the lona-term financial viabilitv of the AEPF. It is consistent with. and helps to implement. the FAA-approved JCIA master plan. which anticipates non-aviation-related industrial development to the south of the runwav areas. C. Add a new section JCC 18.15.453, "Airport Overlav III", to read as follows: 18.15.453 Airoort Overlav III. (1) PUrPose. The puroose of the Airport Overlav III is to orovide a limited opportunity for rural scale non-aviation-related industrial uses that contribute the lona-term financial viabilitv of the AEPF and to enhance the economic vitalitv and aualitv of life for the citizens of Jefferson Countv. (2) Overlav Map. Jefferson County will prepare and maintain an Airoort Overlav III map that identifies the parcels located within the overlav. (3) Permitted. conditional and prohibited uses. Notwithstandina the permitted. conditional and prohibited use limitations set forth in JCC 18.15.1114 throuah 18.15.1112. the followina uses shall be permitted within the Airoort Overlav III desianation: (i) Non-aviation-related Iiaht industrial/rnanufacturina. (4) Development standards. In addition to the standards for new development in the AEPF district set forth JCC 18.15.1124 throuah 18.15.1132. the followina provisions shall apolv: (a) Imoervious surface coveraae. buildina dimension and heiaht restrictions. (j) Total impervious surface coveraae shall not exceed 25%. (ii) No structure shall exceed 10.000 sauare feet in size. (iii) Notwithstandina JCC 18.15.1130. in no instance may structures exceed 35' in heiaht. Appendix C C-2 PORT PROPOSED JCIAlEPF CODE AMENDMENTS Appendix C (b) Veaetation retention and perimeter bufferina. Existina veaetation should be maintained to the maximum extent oracticable in order to reduce soil erosion. orovide habitat for wildlife. screen liaht industrial uses from view. and maintain the ore-develooment hvdroloaic reaime. Additionallv. the Port shall maintain a minimum 50' wide buffer alona the outer perimeter of each ownership Darcel (i.e.. not leasehold parcels created throuah a future bindina site olan orocess) within the overlav to screen industrial uses from view and maintain the unincoroorated rural aesthetic values of the locale. (c) Low imoact develooment (L1m. Develooment occurrina within the Airoort Overlav III shall incoroorate low imoact develooment practices to the maximum extent feasible. The most recent edition of the Low Imoact Oevelooment Technical Guidance Manual for Puaet Sound (Mav 20051. Develooed bv the Puaet Sound Action Team in collaboration with the Washinaton State Deoartment of Ecoloav. shall be used as a primarY source bv the countv in reviewina and mitiaatina develooment occurrina within the overlav district. C-3 PORT PROPOSED JCIAlEPF CODE AMENDMENTS (C l)cl) J ~occ C.k jeffbocc \-z-In I O~ Page 1 of2 ij~ARING__RECO_RD__._~._.._.... From: ASM INC [starrettmansion@cablespeed.com] Sent: Thursday. December 10. 2009 5:57 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: kinghyd@olypen.com; jmcmillien@cablespeed.com Subject: rezone of the 24 acres Commissioners Austin, Johnson and Sullivan: 12/8/09 Subject: Rezoning the 24 Acres Adjacent to Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) I urge you to adopt the 24 acre zoning change for JClA as soon as possible. The addition of up to 100 good industrial jobs in Jefferson County must be of the highest priority in light of the current national and local economies, potential loss of the paper mill, and the shortage of funds for county operations. I have read the city objections in the Leader (9/23/09) and there is not a single valid comment. Mr. Timmons apparently does not think the Port is able to be environmentally responsible yet I have first hand knowledge the Port has an exemplary record of protecting the environment at the same time it has developed infrastructure. The city claims that this proposal came out ofthe blue which is false because light industrial has been talked about since the property was purchased and is included in the current FAA approved JCIA master plan. The PUD states that they have 800 water taps available for future development which is more than sufficient for the 24 acres. Also, the Port and PUD built a standpipe and tunnel under the runway to assure water availability and fire flow. The area behind Goodwill was originally an industrial park with severely limited office and retail sales space allowed when I, as a city council member, voted in favor of that project. It is now a business park with numerous private and public entity offices and all real estate signs offer commercial property for sale Glen Cove has had years to develop as an industrial area but has not due to zoning and permitting issues as well as scare tactics by the likes of the People for a Livable Community. My research indicates the largest parcel available is 1 y" acres which is hardly large enough for industrial development. A sewer does not exist in that non-UGA area. An industrial park with the focus on small, environmentally responsible businesses constructed as a public/private partnership will provide good paying jobs, needed tax revenues to the county through real and personal property taxes and real estate excise taxes. Incomes from those businesses will generate sales tax revenues as well as additional businesses to serve the needs of the 100 employees. This could become a reality without direct county investment of funds. Side benefits will include providing local high school graduates with a place to earn a living and support a family which could also help reverse the declining school census. Boat Haven industrial businesses without need for direct water access could relocate to JCIA which would free up extremely limited marine trade space in the Boat Haven. Under GMA, the Growth Management Steering Committee was formed to develop countywide planning policies. The law requires continuity between the county and UGAs. This committee was formed and has met as needed over the years and I have had the pleasure of sitting on that committee. The city and the county each have their own comprehensive plans and clear lines of jurisdiction. The city has no zoning authority in the 12/11/2009 Page 2 of2 county just as the county has no authority in the city. The countywide planning policies are criteria only. Final jurisdiction on planning policies rests with you, the county commissioners and not at City Hall. As a city resident, i~ is highly offensive to me that Port Townsend hired a very expensive law firm in an attempt to force the county into their no growth agenda. It is my opinion that the city is only one of many with a position on the 24 acre rezone and it is irresponsible to pit the city against the Port to "work out their differences". The fact that the city lawyered up indicates to me that they want to kill the rezone and any potential competition rather than compromise. This action also forces the Port and County to spend their scarce funds on lawyers. As commissioners, it is your responsibility to make the hard decisions which will benefit Jefferson County and not concede your responsibility to City Hall. Again, I urge you to adopt the rezone of the 24 acres at JCIA as recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Sincerely, Robert H. Sokol Former City Council Member Former Port of Port Townsend Commissioner Cc: Philip Morley D. W. Johnson Larry Crockett 12/11/2009 (C \)C\) 12.1101oCj A HEARING RECORD RECEIVED Commissioners Austin, Johnson and Sullivan: 12/8/09 DEe 1 0 20ng Subject: Rezoning the 24 Acres Adjacent to Jefferson County International Airport . .... .. T \.1 (JCIA) JEFFERSON COUN . . f'nl\Jll\IIl~SlnNERS I urge you to adopt the 24 acre zomng change for JClA as soori"li's)l"o\;!imre~ '11:1e a~(lftlOn of up to 100 good industrial jobs in Jefferson County must be of the highest priority in light of the current national and local economies, potential loss of the paper mill, and the shortage of funds for county operations. 1 have read the city objections in the Leader (9/23/09) and there is not a single valid comment. Mr. Timmons apparently does not think the Port is able to be enviromnentally responsible yet I have fIrst hand knowledge the Port has an exemplary record of protecting the environment at the same time it has developed infrastructure. The city claims that this proposal came out of the blue which is false because light industrial has been talked about since the property was purchased and is included in the current FAA approved JClA master plan. The PUD states that they have 800 water taps available for future development which is more than sufficient tor the 24 acres. Also, the Port and PUD built a standpipe and tunnelllnder the rllnw~v to aS~I!re water availahilitv and fire flG\\ -- - . - ---- - -- --.I -~ -- - - -. . - - ---------'" - ~ - -- The area behind Goodwill was originally an industrial park with severely limited office :1nrl-rctnll sales space allo\vcd \\'hcn T~ n3 a city conn(",11 member; voteD in favor of that l ~- .:.~ ..... ,'.' ~.. .... ;::::;:;:':'.";1::: p:'h.".,:!-.f': :::;~~ >,;::+;1::-. 2n~-jt:i' r:ff;!~"".~ ;;-:;~ :;~~ real estate signs offer commercial property for sale (~~~::n C~)ve ",-,.~,....>".c~ .."~_ A,.....,..,.1_"'..,... ."'''' ,..".,.., g~f:n_ h:;~ I,::,_" ~""'""'~,..t,~,,,, h^'; permitting issues as well as scare tactics by the likes oftl1e People for a Livable f'nmrrnmlty ~v1y r~~scarc:h 1ndientcs the larecst pnTccl availnhl~ -i~ 1 Ii. acres \vhich i~ L,tdly large enough for industri~l development. A sewer does not exist in that non-I In .A area. i\ .,_ : ~,-A, ,,-,~....:,-,l "".-,.....1. ".<~Il"" ,._H _._.~!.,-,,-.;,c.,,-.j i''-'''''' .,~~u., C",-.,,,-, ,___yo. -< "-,"--- '-~ -' ,-." .,,~, ~,:,~,,'-"~'-;--~" '-,.'-"; .,ll~. """.~~,,-.-,..., .:,~1...1 ,-~ h, "__';''''''_::'':'''''''''''~ '-_._~l " .. ..'.". ,,-,.\ .,~u -~:f !,'~""l-!'-"-""'" \.._- L'UC"'.H-,-",',::'2>~_.~ constructed as a public/private partnership will provide good paying jobs, needed lax rc:vc~nijC:~ to th~ (';onnhr thrn'iwh r~:1! :1no n;.~rs:cmn! nr0rn':rtv t:TXf';~ :lnd f[';:ll [';~tnt(". (;xci~c .. ,,-' ..... .. - -'- ..... '" taxe:;:_ Ineon'es fronllhose businesses will generate sales lax revenues as well as :1drlitif)t1nl h-1Nin?~o;:.p:~ to .:;::~nrr. thf' nr-e:ds: nfthf': 100 f'fl1n!nV{':c's Thie;:; c{1~'rfd h,.....('omf';1 , . :'e~_~ti~_y \..r~:}~(:-::: :-H-rec~ ~_~G~_~::~!_Y ~~-:'::~:...-::'~~~~nt f.f r:_~;-::-~~-: Sidc bcncfits will includc providing local hig.'l school graduatcs witll a placc to carn a ". ';';~b w';.d ~UppG:t ~t fUTI~ily ....,b.i~h ~Guid uL.v help r~vt:r~t: the ~h:dining ~~hu01 ~en0t~::;, . , ,.., -;. ',~. 1 r " ,. l 1 , ,. ;,iJU:;LrJaJ UU;'mH_::i.',C':--; \','lUIUUi lll;t:U .-Uf- -U1P.:;t;1. \...aL~r at:-~e~;:-. ~Ul.HU .t.;.i4.;;;..HL Hi !!"'! ,A. ...~.:",.L .., ,,.1..1 r:.._,,~ "',--. Fk~;}t ~h:;.,~.;_"';-; . Under GMA, the Growth Management Steering Committee was formed to develop countywide planning policies. The law requires continuity between the county and UGAs. This committee was formed and has met as needed over the years and I have had the pleasure of sitting on that committee. The city and the county each have their own comprehensive plans and clear lines of jurisdiction. The city has no zoning authority in the county just as the county has no authority in the city. The countywide plarming policies are criteria only. Final jurisdiction on planning policies rests with you, the county commissioners and not at City Hall. As a city resident, it is highly offensive to me that Port Townsend hired a very expensive law firm in an attempt to force the county into their no growth agenda. It is my opinion that the city is only one of many with a position on the 24 acre rezone and it is irresponsible to pit the city against the Port to ''work out their differences". The fact that the city lawyered up indicates to me that they want to kill the rezone and any potential competition rather than compromise. This action also forces the Port and County to spend their scarce funds on lawyers. As commissioners, it is your responsibility to make the hard decisions which will benefit Jefferson County and not concede your responsibility to City Hall. Again, I urge you to adopt the rezone of the 24 acres at JCIA as recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Sincerely, ~L- ~/~~~ Robert H. Sokol Former City Council Member Former Port of Port Townsend Commissioner Cc: Philip Morley D. W. Johnson Larry Crockett ~~M;~~&; ~lRST WESTERN INVESTMENS @JOOl prBP LLC ED;~~~tU!CEIVE 0 DEe I 4 2009 December 14c 2009 Board of COllTlt)" COl11missioners PO Box 1221l Pori TO"IlSCllllc Wflshin;,>ton 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY'x COMMISSIONERS (360) 385..9382 Re: Jefferson County Site Specific Comprehensivc Plan Amendment MLA09-77 December 14.2009 Public Hc"ring Dear C:Ol11miSSlOners: As an owner of property zoned light industrial in the Cily of Port "rownsend, YVC \vould like to c.omment on the above referenced proposal 10 add light industri"l at the airport. We own both devclopcd property (the Port Townsend Business Park) and undeveloped property (vacant land on the south side of Sims at Howard Street) The addition of ne\V LI zoning al: the airport: would undermine our significant invcstlncnt. in 1..1 land av,ntable mthe Couuty. The rezone should not occur because (I) Ihe current supply of land is surlieient tor the foreseeable (iJture, and (2) the proposed rezone area is not adequately served by the inil"astructlll"c nceded Our compan)' has madc slgnlficanl'. illvcstnK~nts. in infrostrueturc (utilities and road.s) to develop the business park. In tlLct, \VC arc currentl:,>/ in the process erfdeveloping the road and utilities to open the eastern portion \lIthe business park In approximately three months, twcnty-thrce (23) more lots will be available for sale and immediate development. ^ business \villjust need a building pennit to develop a new bLLilding~ 110 Curthcr infrastructure improvements \vOldd be required, Since we purchased the business park in December of 1997c we have sold eighteen lots, tor an averagc of 1.5 lots sold per yeae Based on these results, the twcnt).'-t.hrcc lots coming avnilable carly next year represent a land inventory of approximately fiHecn (15) years. (There are also ten other vacant lots not owned hy existing users. vvhich represent another seven (7) 'years of land inventory, of,'vhich sixty percent are owned by JctTerson Connty.) In addition. our vacant property on thc south side of Sims (when developccl) will accOlnl1loda.t:c ~'lppro:Xllnatel~ thirt:\'-fivc (35) morc 101.s, another t\Vcnt},-thrcc (3) years of Ia.ndinvcntory at current absorption rates. If the POIt can ofFer land for tJ uses, or build out and offer rentable space, our investment at the business park will be undermiIled. Uses tl1at might locate 31 the business park \voukl be more likel:)" to locale at the airporL where rents \volJld hkcly be cheaper since the Port \vOldd not have to meet the: s.:ll'nc infrastructure requircments as 1VO have had to meet to dcvelop within the tlG A. The P0l1 wi II bc able to oiTer below market rents because it has its own financing sources, including taxation. The result would be an unlcvcl ph:l~/ing field that \vould affect all competing propertv owners. including the Count)'. There have been rumors of possible Ll uses at thc airport if the rezoue is approved, aU of which could be acconl1l1od,Hecl within our business park. This direct, unnecessary cornpctit;on wlth the business park and simila.r properties should not be allnwcd. Please consider the impact of the proposed rt,~zonc on a.fft~cted propcrt~y owners stich as Jefferson County and ourselves. SincGrcl\'. ~ Mar~;nger PTBP LLC Cl..", 2'~C c. ':; \ '2. \ I q \ oq DC \) :) David W. Johnson HEARING RECORD From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Severson, Dale [SeversD@wsdotwa.gov] Monday, December 14, 2009 9:42 AM David W, Johnson Jim Pearson; Maker. Debbie SR 19 Jefferson County requested comments - Was: Comp Plan Amendment Transportation Impacts Airport Traffic Analysis.pdl; Traffic Analysis Cover Memo 09302009.doc; WSDOT Aviation Comments.pdl; 2009 CPA Staff Report.pdl Attachments: Importance: High Good morning David, After reviewing the attached documents WSDOT has no objections to the Comp Plan amendment. As I read the documents the amendment is lor a 24 acre parcel being rezoned that will generate about 100 new employees or about 42 to 49 new PM Peak trips (demand model says 49 versus 42 per ITE). WSDOT supports additional review and analysis at the time actual development is proposed. The Transpo memorandum dated 9/29/09 second to last paragraph states "At which time a specific development Noposal is submitted. the County will likely reauire subseauent analysis of possible traffic Impacts as part of the prolect level review. " II that is the case then WSDOT has no objections to the amendment Any questions please ask, Thanks Dale C. Severson, P.E. Development Services Engineer WSDOT, Olympic Region Direct line: (360) 357-2736 Work cell: (360) 791-3105 Fax: (360) 357-2748 Email: seversd@wsdotwa.Qov From: David W. Johnson [mailto:dwjohnson@co,jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:00 AM To: Severson, Dale; Maker, Debbie Subject: Comp Plan Amendment Transportation Impacts Dale & Debbie, Nice to talk with you today. Attached are the comments from Public Works with the Transpo Group Traffic Analysis regarding the Airports proposed Comp Plan amendment. Also attached is the email from Carter Timmerman and another copy of the Staff Report and SEPA Addendum. Thanks in advance for any comments you can provide us before Monday the 14th. Thanks again for your help! David Wayne Johnson 1 Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 *** eSafe2 scanned this email for malicious content *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** 2 *** - /J#J.j/C1 <2c S",/Jlk<.f! ~' 6:; ~tU'I(( ?:::DC(... ) (A S \ z./ \ '-\ \09 OLD (;~JM."'~S, h14JlILJ"< (ir,!)' ,-f' ?I'rr ?6 IU"l5eN' HE:ARIN.e k"i!'."""'~\ . M rtt'!""URD DRAFT City-proposed condition if rezone is approved All uses, including any proposed non-aviation related light industrial uses, established within the expanded Jefferson County International Airport Essential Public Facility (AEPF) district shall functionally relate (Le., be .primary" uses) or directly support (Le., be an "accessory" use to) the operation of the airport. Additionally, airport related uses may include light industrial and manufacturing uses that are airport dependent (e.g., air and/or package delivery); dependent on overnight shipping (e.g., laboratories); and similar uses. RECEIVED ncr 1 4 2rrc ut.,. 1. 0d,; JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - PORT of4!) H~ING RECORD PORT TOWNSEND - - P.O. Box 1180 Port Townsend, Washington 98368-4624 Administration: (360) 385-0656 o,n::CClVED Fax: (360) 385-3988 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 DEe 1 4 2009 JEFFERSON COUNTyecember 14, 2009 COMMISSIONERS RE: City of Port Townsend Comment Letter Concerning Proposed Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) Essential Public Facility (EPF) Rezone (MLA09-77) Dear Commissioners_ The Port has reviewed the December 4,2009 comments from Mr. David Timmons, Port Townsend City Manager to you. This letter seeks, once again, to address the City's concerns. The Port wishes to reiterate its sincere intent to cooperate and collaborate with the City, County and PUD on economic development and water resource planning issues. On November 23rd, the Port Commission adopted Resolution No. 528-09, again demonstrating its good faith and desire to "promote comity between the County, City, PUD and the Port" by offering to defer moving forward with permitting and development of the rezone site, if approved. This proposed "time out" in the process was intended to provide the parties with an opportunity to discuss, and hopefully, resolve their differences regarding water resource availability and allocation. That said, the Port's desire to make common cause in serving the public's interest should not be misinterpreted as a willingness to simply accede to the City's position when the facts, procedural history, and - based upon the advice of our counsel - the law, do not support it. A brief review of the planning history of the Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) and industrial land in east Jefferson County is required to more fully understand the context of the Port's current EPF expansion and overlay zoning request. As you know, the County's initial GMA Comprehensive Plan designated the JCIA as an essential public facility (EPF) (August 28, 1998). The Plan restricted uses to aviation support facilities and aviation-related development. However, the plan also included policy language indicating that non-aviation-related uses "that are compatible with the airport Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 1 December 14, 2009 e-mail: Info@portofpt.com website: www.portofpt.com facility and surrounding area" would be evaluated in a subsequent planning process (EPP 2.2, page 9-8 of the Plan). In 2001, the Port initiated a multi-year public process to update its Airport Master Plan (AMP). Two advisory committees were established to assist in updating the AMP and to coordinate airport planning at the local and County levels: the Airport Review Committee (ARC), and the Community Review Committee (CRC). Together, the committees included local government officials, aviation users, and interested citizens and business community representatives. Notably, the CRC included representatives from the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. The committees provided a forum for citizens and local governments to participate in the JCIA planning process, provide input regarding development priorities, and to recommend a "preferred" course of action for future development. In 2002, during the AMP process, but well before its adoption, the Port purchased the site now the subject ofthe proposal before you. The property purchase was authorized generally by Port Resolution No. 235-97 (June 18, 1997), which established the Port's policy with regard to land acquisition in the vicinity ofthe JCIA. The purchase was also consistent with the then applicable 1994 version of the AMP, which specifically identified the area for potential future airport expansion and light industrial use. The policy established by Resolution No. 235-97 directed that the Port investigate the acquisition of properties adjacent to the JCIA to maintain and encourage a compatible environment for airport operations and development. The Resolution outlined seven objectives for the Port to pursue, as follows: . To increase the economic benefits of the airport to Jefferson County. . To prevent land use incompatibility and encroachment. . To improve the sqfety and efficiency of aviation operations. . To mitigate the noise impacts of airport activities. . To encourage the financial self-sufficiency and compatible economic development of the airport. . To mitigate the wetland and stormwater impacts of airport development. . To enhance connections to the surface transportation network. (Emphasis added). On December 22, 2003, the AMP was finally adopted. It was prepared in accordance with FAA requirements, the County Comprehensive Plan, and the GMA. It provides clear direction and guidance regarding future airport development priorities. With regard to the Port's present proposal, the AMP states in pertinent part as follows: "Development of property owned or acquired by the Port south of the nmway should be utilized for rural level development activities that directly or indirectly support the operation of the airport as a self-sustaining economic enterprise. This will not only reduce or eliminate the need for operating subsidies, but will promote more compatible land uses and provide forfurther economic development opportunities in the County. Future development plans should include provisions for additional hangar space as well as job generating, light manufacturing or Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 2 December 14. 2009 industrial uses that generate revenues to support airport operations. All development activities must be rural in character, only requiring rural levels of service, and must comply with FAA safety requirements for height, light, smoke, etc. All supportive development activities must also comply with the provisions of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code." (Airport Master Plan, page 7-6). In addition to this language, the AMP included a FAA approved "Airport Layout Plan," which unambiguously identified the subject property for future JCIA expansion and light industrial use. (Airport Master Plan, Chapter 9 - Airport Plan Drawings). In 2004, and subject to a settlement agreement between the County and PUD (WWGMHB Case No. 01-2-0016), Jefferson County undertook amendments to its Comprehensive Plan to protect the long-term viability of the JCIA as an essential public facility (EPF). The County used the AMP as the basis for its Comprehensive Plan amendments, which took the form of expanded and revised language relating to the JCIAlEPF via Ordinance #17-1213-04 (December 13, 2004). These prior planning efforts provide a reasonable and rational basis, and wholly support, the County's approval of the present EPF expansion request and overlay zone. Despite these considerable planning efforts, the crux of the City's present position appears to be that no additional land may be created for rural light industrial use, anywhere in Jefferson County (except perhaps the City itself), without a comprehensive study quantitatively documenting a precise need and allocation of industrial land base between UGAs, limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs), and major industrial developments (MIDs), and by inference, the JCIA/EPF. The City seems to confuse and conflate the statutory requirements for Industrial Land Banks (ILBs)/Major Industrial Developments (Mills) to conclude that the draft ED. Hovee and Company Study (July 2007) must be completed before any changes may occur at the JCIA/EPF. We disagree. The purpose of the Hovee study, abandoned in 2007 due to a lack of financial resources, was to help provide the foundation for implementing the "Major Industrial Development" (MID) provisions of the GMA under RCW 36.70A.367. The statute allows the creation of up to two locations for "major industrial development" outside UGAs. The Hovee study is germane to the master planning required to identifY and designate MID locations under RCW 36.70A.367(2), but not the present proposal. What is proposed by the Port in no way rises to the scale or intensity of development contemplated under the statute for master planned MID locations. While the JCIA, and areas in its proximity, have in the past been publicly discussed as possible future locations for an industrial land bank, that is categoricallv not the type or magnitude of development that would be permissible if the proposed amendments were approved. What's more, our review of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) reveals no requirement that a countywide industrial lands study be completed precedent to a modest airport EPF expansion that is supported by an adopted airport master plan and explicit corollary enabling language within a county comprehensive plan. In the Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 3 December 14. 2009 situation before you, the airport master plan itself contains the necessary data, alternatives, and analysis to support your decision. Clearly, not all industrial areas are created equal, and what is intended under the Port's proposal is far less intensive than the development that may occur within any MID or UGA. The standards proposed for the overlay (i.e., impervious surface coverage limits (25% maximum), maximum building size limits (10,000 square feet maximum), height standards (35 feet maximum) and buffering/vegetation retention standards) simply will not permit "major" industrial/urban scale development. We contend that the proposed overlay regulations will effectively limit the scale, intensity and amount of development within the 24-acre area to a level significantly less than is allowed under the standards applicable to the Glen Cove LAMIRD, or light industrial areas within the County's other LAMIRDs, or the Marine-Related and Manufacturing districts within the City's UGA (where gross floor areas range from 1 to 2 feet of floor area for every square foot oflot). We firmly believe the proposal to be wholly consistent with, and appropriate to, an airport essential public facility situated in a rural unincorporated area. Also relevant to the Port's proposal is the complex history of the unincorporated Glen Cove area. Authorized by County policy in the late 1980s, prior to the enactment of the GMA, the area is presently designated as a LAMIRD by Jefferson County. But, at the time of adoption of the initial GMA Comprehensive Plans of both the City and County, the area was identified as a potential future urban growth area for the City of Port Townsend. This was reflected in complimentary and consistent, if not mirror image, language in both plans that directed ongoing study and evaluation of a potential UGA expanslOn. Importantly, the Joint Growth Management Committee (JGMC) collaboratively designated this potential future UGA study area in June of 1995. At the time, a number of nascent rationales were advanced (principally by the City) to justify considering an expanded UGA, including the following: . An ostensible shortage of commercial and industrial land in-City, especially to serve a wider east Jefferson County employment base; . The purported unsuitability of areas zoned for commercial and industrial use in- City (i.e., too fragmented to support needed economic development); . The claimed inappropriateness of other larger ownership parcels in the City for industrial use due to the presence of environmentally sensitive areas or locations remote from regional transportation corridors (i.e., S.R. 20); . The present use and zoning of Glen Cove; and . The desire to stem the tide of "retail sales leakage" and promote a more balanced and vital economy in northeast Jefferson County. This UGA study area effectively ceased to exist on January 6, 2003, when the City of Port Townsend amended its Plan to eliminate all reference to a potential final UGA expansion into Glen Cove (Port Townsend Ordinance No. 2825). The City took this action unilaterally, as far as the Port is aware, without consulting the JGMC, and without having conducted the very industrial land needs study it now asserts to be necessary for Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 4 December 14, 2009 the County to create any additional industrial land. Perhaps our desire for consistency and predictability in local planning efforts is unwarranted; as the old saying goes, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Now, as the City extends its own infrastructure in the southwestern portion of the incorporated area, it appears to be re-examining the wisdom of its earlier judgment, intimating that Glen Cove be reassessed for potential inclusion in an expanded UGA This incipient change in City policy comes after both Jefferson County and the Port have continued their respective planning efforts, investing tens of thousands of dollars in the process, which factored the City's 2003 decision to call off the Glen Cove UGA study. Still, it must be admitted that the City's officially adopted policy position remains one of opposing any UGA expansion into Glen Cove (see Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, "Port Townsend Urban Growth Area (UGA)" narrative discussion, goal 16 and policies 16.1 through 16.4). Strikingly, the City's own revised Plan narrative hints at a considerable statutory barrier to expanding its UGA into Glen Cove. Specifically, "that no expansion of the City's UGA is needed to accommodate the urban growth allocated to Port Townsend through the year 2024" Under RCW 36.70A.ll0, counties and cities, based upon the growth management population projections made by the Washington State Office of Financial Management, must "include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period." Under current zoning, the City has a population holding capacity of some 30,000 - more than 20,000 over its present population - making a case for expanding the UGA problematic, to say the very least. In this broader planning context, the Port is having difficulty seeing what legitimate public interest the City seeks to protect by opposing the proposed JCIAlEPF expansion and overlay. The City baldly asserts that the "proposed airport rezone will undermine the legitimate future consideration to rezone privately held light industrial land in the City, the Tri-area urban growth area and Glen Cove" and that it will undermine consideration of planning options. Given the relevant planning history, we are mystified by this argument. Is the argument that, because the City is making investments in public infrastructure, it alone should hold a monopoly on industrial land - regardless of its character, intensity, location or statutory and local policy basis? While the Port agrees with the City that urban industrial development should be strictly confined within UGAs and Mills, we do not believe the GMA precludes all industrial development in the unincorporated areas, particularly not at an airport EPF guided by its own specific statutory and policy framework. We laud the City for its investment in urban public infrastructure within its corporate limits. These investments will create a more vital and attractive urban growth area, and serve to spur much needed private sector development and investment in the coming years. The Port of Port Townsend and its tenants will indirectly benefit from these improvements. But fairness and logic also require that the County and City similarly acknowledge the millions offederal taxpayer dollars that have supported the Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 5 December 14, 2009 development of infrastructure at the JCIA over the past twenty years, and its status as an EPF. Under the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), the FAA has identified the JCIA as significant to the nation's air transportation system, and therefore eligible to receive Federal grant funds under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP). The NPIAS designation does not include all airports. Instead, it comprises commercial service airports, reliever airports, and selected general aviation airports. The JCIA falls into this last category. At the time of publication of the JCIAlAMP, some $4,446,099 in federal grant assistance had been expended on infrastructure development at the airport between 1988 and 2003. Over $3,000,000 in federal grant assistance has been provided since then. Again, as a condition of receiving this federal grant assistance over the years, the Port of Port Townsend was required by the FAA to provide grant assurances that it would make every effort to maintain the JCIA as a self-sustaining facility. This federal requirement is reflected in both AMP and County Comprehensive Plan language. Significantly, these figures do not include funds expended to support operations and maintenance of the facility, and between 1994 and 2003, the JCIA operated at a loss of approximately $288,000. Addressing this operating loss and promoting a "cost-centers" approach to Port facilities management is vital to ensuring that revenue streams generated at other Port facilities will not be siphoned off to support JCIA operations. In turn, eliminating this operating loss will indirectly support Port infrastructure development at facilities it owns and maintains within the City (e.g., Boat Haven stormwater improvements). A number of specific claims in the City's December 4th letter are simply erroneous and fundamentally misunderstand the role and purpose of the port districts under state law. For instance, the City states: "The current proposal will create unfair advantage since private owners will need to meet urban standards with their investments and lack the same financing and debt considerations as the Port. The result is an uneven playing field - an undermining of the County and City investment in the UGA 's (sic). Under the proposal, which allows ill!!! light industrial uses, there is nothing that prevents the Port from re-locating marine trades in Port Townsend's Boat Haven and Point Hudson to Port land located at the airport. " Where do we begin? The proposed light industrial area will not unfairly disadvantage industrial landowners in UGAs: industrial landowners in UGAs will be able to more intensively develop their properties, and can avail themselves of a broader range of potential uses due to the presence of urban water and wastewater services. Urban industrial scale and intensity development will not be permitted at the JCIA. By way of example, a 20,000 square foot food processing facility (e.g., brewery) would simply not be allowed at the EPF: not only would such a use be too large, it would also require water and wastewater infrastructure not available at the JCIA, and inappropriate to an EPF situated in a rural unincorporated area. Similarly, a metal fabrication business that involved metal plating would also be precluded - regardless of its size - due to its demand for urban water and wastewater infrastructure. Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 6 December 14. 2009 The misplaced notion that the financing and debt considerations available to the Port create an unfair competitive advantage also demands correction. The reason the Port of Port Townsend exists at all, like all port special districts under Title 53 RCW, is to provide economic benefit to the locality and state. Ironically, the financing and debt considerations that the City finds objectionable if put into practice at the JCIA are the very characteristics that allow Port owned and managed facilities at the Boat Haven and Point Hudson (both within the City) to be engines oflocal economic prosperity and community identity. Does the City only object to the Port's special authority if used to generate economic development opportunities within the unincorporated County? Or does the logic of its objection extend to the Boat Haven and Point Hudson as well? If so, the City may wish to take up its objections with the state legislature in the form of a proposed repeal to RCW Title 53. The stated fear that the Port will relocate marine trades to the JCIA is, to put it mildly, wholly unfounded. Most of the marine-related uses at the Boat Haven and Point Hudson are water-dependent and water-related and would either require a waterside location by their intrinsic nature, or could not occur economically without proximity to the shoreline. The Port has every interest in maintaining and supporting the local marine trades industry within Port Townsend, and has no intention of moving marine trades five-miles out of town to a landlocked location where they would not be viable. In the larger economic context, the record before the Board of County Commissioners has heretofore been silent as to the import of the current recession. As you doubtless are aware, unemployment in Jefferson County has risen significantly over the course of the past year. In 2008, the County's unemployment rate fluctuated from between 4.9% to 5.6% (i.e., anywhere from 660 to 770 unemployed persons). In 2009, after the onset of the recession, the data show that the County's unemployment rate has ranged anywhere from 7.3% to 9.4% (i.e., from between 980 and 1,310 persons). (Source: Washington State Department of Employment Security). Clearly, there is a critical need to create opportunities for business owners and entrepreneurs to generate additional employment opportunities in our community and to diversifY the local economy. The proposed JCIAlEPF expansion and overlay designation will not result in these new opportunities being created overnight. However, it will prepare the way for 8-10 small manufacturing businesses in the future, businesses that will help the EPF become more self-sustaining, while also bolstering the strength and resiliency of our local economy. Finally, with regard to the legal opinion offered by the lawyers of Foster Pepper on behalf of the City, we must observe that the wrong questions appear to have been asked and answered, and critical facts omitted from the analysis. We would suggest the following questions as being more appropriate to your inquiry and final decision in this matter: . Is expanding an airport EPF to include limited areas for future light industrial development consistent with GMA provisions relating to EPFs if o The airport expansion area in question is clearly delineated in a FAA approved airport master plan (AMP); Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 7 December 14. 2009 o The relevant local jurisdictions (i.e., city and county) participated in the development of the AMP; o The AMP served as the basis for corollary County Comprehensive Plan amendments enabling the expansion; AND o The expansion would help to make the facility more self-sustaining as required under FAA grant assurances and County policy? . Within the context of such a limited EPF expansion area, may limited, low- intensity aviation as well as non-aviation-related light industrial uses be permitted within the limits of an airport EPF situated in a rural unincorporated area if o The scale and intensity of such uses is restricted to maintain the surrounding rural character; o The uses would not create a demand for urban services; AND o Allowing limited non-aviation-related uses is necessary to ensure the financial viability of the facility? The record and the law support the Board of County Commissioners in answering, "YES" to both ofthese questions. Accordingly, we strongly urge the County Commissioners, based upon careful consideration of the entire record before you and the recommendations of both the Planning Commission and DCD staff, and consistent with the broad range of discretion and deference expressly afforded counties under RCW 36.70A.3201, to APPROVE the proposed EPF expansion and overlay zone. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration, ~7 c:-..<d 1'" Larry Crockett, Director Port of Port Townsend ---- Port of Port Townsend Comment Letter 8 December 14. 2009 . , HEARING RECORD GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP PLLC 100 I Pacific Ave, Ste 400 Tacoma, W A 98402 Fax: (253) 779-4411 Tel: (253) 779-4000 Carolyn A. Lake Attorney at Law clake@aoodsteinlaw.com RECEIVED 14 December 2009 DEe 14 2009 Hand Delivered Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA 09-77, Port of Port Townsend - Rezone Rural Residential 1 : IOta Airport Essential Public Facility/Airport Overlay III for non-aviation-related light industrial/manufacturing. Dear Commissioners: This Firm represents the Port of Port Townsend in support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA 09-77, Port of Port Townsend - Rezone Rural Residential 1 : 10 to Airport Essential Public Facility/ Airport Overlay III for non-aviation-related light industrial/manufacturing. We urge the Commissioners' support for the Proposal. We appreciate our opportunity to address the Board at its 7 December 2009 hearing on this matter, in which we specifically addressed planning and legal aspects of the proposed amendment. We first thank the County Staff for their recommendation to approve the amendment. The County Staff has spent much time considering the Proposal's impacts and benefits, and consistency with the County policies and procedures. Staff s approach, especially Mr Dave Johnson, has been thoughtful, thorough and considered. We especially endorse the County's memo which addressees point by point the issues raised by representatives of the City of Port Townsend. On behalf of the Port, we endorse that response, and to extent it addresses legal issues - we add to it. A. Authority iu Support of the County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA 09-77 Support for the County's adoption of the re-designation is found in several numerous authorities: . State Laws: As you likely are aware, numerous state laws call for the protection and expansion of regional airports like Jefferson County International Airport, and its essential public facility designation. These citations are almost too numerous to list, we refer to RCW 14.07.010 (broad authority to acquire maintain and operate municipal airport facilities, RCW 14.08.120 (broad authority to enlarge, improve, . < Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 2 - maintain and equip airport facilities), RCW 36.70.547 (comprehensive planning requirements for airport and surrounding airport properties), RCW 36.70A.200 (GMA planning for Essential Public Facilities, such as airports), RCW 36.70A.510 (GMA planning for compatible uses surrounding airports), and WAC 35-195-340, (planning requirements for Essential Public Facilities). We also refer the Board to the September 7, 2004 notebook of authority on Airport Planning, ("Protecting the Future of the Jefferson County International Airport and an Essential Public Facility") authored and compiled by former Port attorney Mary Winters, which we referred to by County Staff in a memo supporting the Port's Proposal. We request that this treatise be included in the Board's record for this proposal. . Prior County Actions: We applaud Jefferson County for the steps it's taken to carry out that state law mandate. These actions include: . Designation of the airport as an essential public facility . Adoption of overlay protection zones to protect this resource from incompatible uses, . The 2004 Settlement Agreement and Comprehensive Plan provisions which laid the groundwork for the County's continued study with the goal of strengthening the airport's economic viability - to include zoning of compatible uses including appropriately scaled non aviation industrial and commercial uses. The County's commitment for future airport use study and action is found in Port- County Settlement Agreement at page4, County Resolution 71-98, No 6 and the County's Comprehensive Plan policies EPG 2.0 and 3.0 and EPP 2.2 and EPP 3.2 (pages 9-7 and 9-8) and Strategy B (page 9-11) which direct the County to cooperate with the Port to develop a plan to guide future development at the JCIA to include evaluation of non-aviation land uses and activities. The Board's current consideration this proposed re-designation addresses that next step envisioned in the Settlement agreement and the Country's past actions. Thus, after acting to discourage INCOMPATIBLE uses, the County's companion piece is to now act to allow for COMPATIBLE uses. . Consistent with Port State Law Mandates: The uses proposed (light industrial J. t~ S811Mn~1!ild) fit with the airport use, comply within state law mandates, and carry oftf the Port's mandate to be a promoter of economic growth for the county and region. The consistency with county state and even federal support is borne out by the fact that FAA already willing to issue a grant for JCIA industrial planning, as discussed in depth by the remarks to the Board dated 7 December and 14 December 2009 of Eric Toews and Larry Crockett, Port Executive Director. 091214. Itr. County BOC 28050 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 3 - Most significantly, the Proposed Re-designation is consistent with the vital and essential purpose the Port: to create jobs The state Legislature has issued a specific charge to Ports to promote economic development (see Title 53 RCW). The Port of Port Townsend's adopted Mission is to "responsibly develop property and facilities that encourage job creation, private investment, local economic stability and diversity, and to better the quality oflife for citizens throughout Jefferson county" The Port's District encompasses all of Jefferson County, therefore the Port's economic benefits are cast county wide. . Lastly - we write to assure the Board there is no legal preclusion for the Comprehensive Plan proposal The City of Port Townsend has a flat out losing argument when it cites City of Des Moines v. Port of Seattle (97 Wn. App. 920) as support for the notion that "only" uses "necessary to support an EPF" are protected by state law. The city argues that "Uses that are not necessary support activities, such as unrelated light industrial uses, cannot be afforded the same protection." (Emphasis the City's). The City is wrong. The relevant portion of the Des Moines case makes it clear that the case stands for just the opposite. In that case, the Growth Board found that cities could not preclude siting of the Sea Tac Third runway, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.200(1) and (5) 1 , which requires jurisdictions to provide a process for and not preclude the siting of essential public facilities, such as airports. The opposing Cities in Des Moines argued the third runway was an "expansion" and not the siting of the airport, and therefore this protecting state law did not 1 RCW 36.70A.200: (1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020. (2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall, not later than September 1, 2002, establish a process, or amend its existing process, for identifying and siting essential public facilities and adopt or amend its development regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities. ... (5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. 091214.1tr. County BOC 28050 . ' Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 4- apply. The Growth Board rejected this claim, relying on WAC 365-195-340, which directs that "the broadest view should be taken of what constitutes a public facility." The Court on appeal upheld the Board's decision. Even more damaging to the City's argument (and use of this case) is that the project at issue in the Des Moines case, the Sea Tac third run way, pre-dated a 1998 legislative amendment which strengthened the protections and ability of EPFs to expand. In 1998, seven months after the Board considered the Sea Tac runway issue, the Legislature enacted House Bill 1487, which added a new section, Section 7, to RCW 47.06 (which states that "[i]mprovements to facilities and services of state-wide si~nificance ... are essential state public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200." RCW 47.06.140 provides in pertinent part that: Improvements to facilities and services of statewide significance identified in the statewide multimodal transportation plan, or to highways of statewide significance designated by the legislature under chapter 47.05 RCW, are essential state public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200. In turn, the statewide multimodal transportation plan refers to aviation planning: WSDOT encourages ports, special districts, airport sponsors, aviation interests, and local jurisdictions to form partnerships and to work together to discourage incompatible development. The Aviation Division provides 2 RCW 47.06.140: "Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance - Level of service standards. (I) The legislature declares the following transportation facilities and services to be of statewide significance: Highways of statewide significance as designated by the legislature under chapter 47.05 RCW, the interstate highway system, interregional state principal arterials including ferry connections that serve statewide travel, intercity passenger rail services, intercity high-speed ground transportation, major passenger intermodal terminals excluding all airport facilities and services, the freight railroad system, the Columbia/Snake navigable river system, marine port facilities and services that are related solely to marine activities affecting international and interstate trade, key freight transportation corridors serving these marine port facilities, and high capacity transportation systems serving regions as defined in RCW 81.104.015. The department, in cooperation with regional transportation planning organizations, counties, cities, transit agencies, public ports, private railroad operators, and private transportation providers, as appropriate, shall plan for improvements to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance in the statewide multimodal transportation plan. Improvements to facilities and services of statewide significance identified in the statewide multimodal transportation plan, or to highways of statewide significance designated by the legislature under chapter 47.05 RCW, are essential state public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200. 091214. Itr. County BOC 28050 , ' . ' Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 5- research documentation and best managemeut practices and tools that cau be used by local jurisdictions and airports to address land use compatibility adjacent to airports. The Des Moines case discusses the amendment, but held it was uot directly relevant to that fact situatiou, as the amendment occurred after the SeaTac activity. Even without this strong legislative endorsement of expansion of EPFs, the Des Moines Court held that "... the expansion of an existing EPF, including necessary support activities associated with that expansion, is protected by RCW 36. 70A.200." The Des Moines case makes clear that uot just "necessary support activities" are protected, but instead any EPF expansion is protected, by the Court's language which describes "necessary support activities" as a subset of the protected activity: "expansion of an existing EPF". Relevant portions of the Des Moines case are attached in endnote i. i B. Response to Foster Pepper Letter of 3 December 2009 The Port received a copy of the City's Memo and attached 3 December 2009 letter from Foster Pepper Finn last 7 December 2009, and responded to it verbally at the 7 December Commission meeting. We memorialize the Port's response below. 1. Foster Pepper Conclusions Based on Incorrect Premise. Foster Pepper's initial description of the Proposal (rezone of property adjacent to an EPF) is incorrect. Instead, the current Proposal is to expand EPF and within that EPF to allow supporting non-aviation uses. The Law supports this in several ways: WAC 365-195-340 directs that "the broadest view should be taken of what constitutes a public facility." This law is further strengthened by the later enactment ofRCW 47.06.140, which specifically includes expansion uses which support EPFs as activity protected from a local jurisdiction's action to preclude. The comments received by the County from WSDOT support this point: where that state agency endorses the re-designation and points out "light industrial uses are considered compatible and ... complementary to aviation facilities". 2. Foster Pepper Challenges to County's SEP A process Also Unfounded - Both Procedurally & Substantively. (Procedurallv) - The County's SEP A determination is correctly in the form of an addendum. Addendums are non-appealable decisions because they issue when a proposal will not create significant changes to a prior determination. The review and studies undertaken by the County show that to be correct, as explained below. Substantivelv - Foster Pepper attacks SEP A on three grounds: water, transportation and as improper piecemealing (project review segmentation). All are unfounded. 091214.1tr. County BOC 28050 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 6- First, we will not address the water issues, as the County Staff rebuts this City claim aptly in its 5 page response to City comments - where the City properly cites to reliance on the water purveyors - the Jefferson County PUD which has expressed support for the proposal and assures the county that adequate water supply exists. We also cite to the remarks by the PUD's representative at the 7 December Board meeting as well, which left no doubt as to water availability for this Proposal. Second, the transportation study that focused on this proposal is complete, per Report of traffic experts the Transpo Group dated 29 September 2009. The fact that this sub element is part of a larger Transportation Plan (Quimper Peninsula Transportation Study) which is not yet complete does not detract from this portion's viability. 3. Third, Foster Pepper counsel uses select numbers to challenge the Transpo Group's traffic report, and cites them inaccurately. The Foster Pepper letter claims that by 2031 (20 years hence) "four intersections with SR 19 will be at LOS F". Yet, the letter fails to disclose that the Traffic Study points out that all four of these same intersections will be at LOS F with or WITHOUT the re- designation. The Transpo Study also goes onto to conclude that "Any planned improvement that would alleviate the "No action LOS F would likely alleviate 2031 With Project impacts" at these intersections." Thus, County's SEP A analysis & use of addendum is sound, based on the Traffic Study's conclusion that: "No significant impacts are shown to take place due to the proposed land use designation" One additional traffic comment to add is, as these site-specific light industrial/commercial Airport support proposals are planned and undergo their site specific environment review, the Count's review process provides a vehicle to obtain any needed transportation improvements as project mitigation. In contrast - the SEP A no action alternative leaves the LOS F intersections unaddressed & unfunded. 4. Finally, fourth, Foster Pepper's "Piecemeal" Argument is unpersuasive. The pertinent section of the SEP A regulations pertaining to "piece-mealing" is WAC 197-10-060(1) and (2), which provide in part: (1) The proposal considered by . . . the lead agency during the threshold determination and EIS preparation, shall be the total proposal including its direct and indirect impacts. . . . (2) The total proposal is the proposed action, together with all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the present proposal if: (a) The future activity is an expansion of the present proposal, facilitates or is necessary to operation of the present proposal; or 091214.1tr. County BOC 28050 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port ofport Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 7 - (b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary prerequisite to future activities. "Piecemeal review is permissible if the consequences of the ultimate development cannot be initially assessed". Cathcart-Maltby-Clearview Comm'ty Coun. v. Snohomish Cy.. 96 Wn.2d 201, 210, 634 P.2d 853 (1981). SEP A does not require that every speculative consequence of an action be included in a project specific environmental review. Richland v. Franklin Cy. Boundary Review Bd., 100 Wn.2d 864,868,676 P.2d 425 (1984). A project is not "piecemeal" under SEP A, where as here, the County properly reviewed the preliminary phase (here, this re-designation) because that action "does not preclude meaningful and comprehensive review of the environmental effects of future development that may occur at the site". The County's current programmatic non-project SEPA review will be supplemented by project specific SEP A analysis as specific projects are planned, details are known, and environmental impacts can be more meaningfully addressed. Tugwell v. Kittitas County, 90 Wn. App. 1, 12,951 P.2d 272 (1997) tells us that without site specific Project details, "Examination of [an anticipated development's] potential impacts" is speculative (and therefore meaningless) since "there are no specific plans to review and the impacts therefore are unknown." Here, the County's Traffic Report made appropriate assumptions about impacts - which will appropriately be supplemented on a site specific basis in the future as specific projects come on line and their environmental impacts can addressed in more detail. The Transpo traffic study points out this fact in its conclusion: "Subsequent analysis of site specific traffic impacts should be evaluated during project level review" (page 3) C. Conclusion In conclusion, we urge the County Board's support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA 09-77, Port of Port Townsend - Rezone Rural Residential 1 : 1 0 to Airport Essential Public Facility/ Airport Overlay III for non-aviation-related light industrial/manufacturing. The Proposal is: . Consistent with state law protection foe EPF and Airports . Consistent with past steps by Jefferson County, embodied in Comp Plan and iucluding its agreement with the Port . Not legally prohibited as state law supports expausion of an EPF to add supporting & what WSDOT called complimentary uses, . Consistent both with state law on expansion of EPF aud gives needed support for the Port's state mandated mission for ecouomic growth, and job creation. 091214.ltr. County BOC 28050 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 8 - We thank the Board for their consideration. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Goodstein Law Group PLLC Carolyn A. Lake CAL:dkl cc: Larry Crockett, Port of Port Townsend Robert Goodstein, Port General Counsel i Relevant portions of the Des Moines case are below. Note: the case refers to former RCW 36.70A.200(2), which now is codified at RCW 36.70A.200(5). 2. Application of RCW 36. 70A.200(2) ill The Cities next contend that RCW 36.70A.200(2), which provides that "[n]o local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities," does not apply to the Sea- Tac expansion. The Cities concede that this provision provides protection from local comprehensive plans that would preclude siting of essential public facilities (EPFs), but they argue that RCW 36.70A.200(2) is inapplicable here because it does not apply to expansions, nor to "remote, off-site 'necessary support activities,' " and that the Cities' plan would not have "precluded"*844 the project. Relying on WAC 365-195-340, which directs that "the broadest view should be taken of what constitutes a public facility," the Board rejected this argument. FN7 FN7. We accord substantial weight to the Board's fmdings. See Northwest Steelhead & Salmon Council of Trout Unlimited v. Department of Fisheries, 78 Wash.App. 778, 786-87, 896 P.2d 1292 (1995). Whether RCW 36. 70A.200(2) Applies to Improvements or Expansions of EPFs ill@RCW 36.70A.200(2) states that "[n]o local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities," and RCW 36.70A.200(1) defines essential public facilities as including "those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports." The Cities argue that because this provision makes no mention of "'expanding" or "improving" EPFs which have already been sited, neither the Board nor the trial court was authorized to expand the clear terms of the GMA. FK8 The Cities also argue that a recent legislative enactment supports its claim that a significant difference exists between construction and expansion. In 1998, seven months after the Board considered this issue, the Legislature enacted House Bill 1487, which added a new section, Section 7, to RCW 47.06 which stated that "[i]mprovements to facilities and services of state-wide significance ... are essential state public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200." The Cities claim that this **33 amendment supports their argument that prior to this amendment, improvements to airports were not considered EPFs. 091214.1tr. County BOC 28050 .0, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 9- FN8. The Cities point out that the Washington Supreme Court has indicated that the GMA does not "contain the requirement that it be liberally construed."' Skagit Surveyors & Engineers v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash.2d 542,565,958 P.2d 962 (1998). There are two problems with this argument. First, because of the political controversy generated by the expansion, the bill's co-sponsor explained that the transportation committee had to agree that the amendment would not deal with airports. Thus, the 1998 amendment specifically excludes improvements to airports from the EPF defmition, *845 and this amendment has no bearing on the Sea- Tac expansion. Second, the Cities do not acknowledge the likely possibility that the amendment was a clarification, and not an alteration, of the previous law. As the Washington Supreme Court has noted: When an amendment clarifies existing law and where that amendment does not contravene previous constructions of the law, the amendment may be deemed curative, remedial and retroactive. This is particularly so where an amendment is enacted during a controversy regarding the meaning of the law[[[[[[[[[[[[FN9] FN9. Tomlinson v. Clarke. 118 Wash.2d 498,510-11,825 P.2d 706 (1992)(footnotes omitted). If this amendment is a clarification, as the controversy surrounding the issue may suggest, then the Port has a valid argument that HB 1487 simply explains that the Legislature had always intended that improvements to EPFs should be protected under RCW 36.70A.200. Nevertheless, the trial court correctly reasoned that because of the conflicting conclusions that can be drawn from this amendment, "neither the rule of' expression unius est exclusio alterius' nor the argument that the EPF definition has now been legislatively clarified to include airport improvements"' is available to either party. Deprived of its HB 1487 argument, the Cities are left with a claim that the plain language of RCW 36.70A.200(2) says nothing about "expanding"' or "improving"' EPFs which have already been sited. But the DCTED regulations, to which the Cities urge this court to defer on other points, indicate that in "the identification of essential public facilities, the broadest view should be taken of what constitutes a public facility."' FNIO Accordingly, the Board determined that the third runway was an essential public facility. We defer to the Board's interpretation of the law and conclude, as the trial court did, that "the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200(2) apply to all essential public facilities (EPFs), *846 whether or not the EPF was in existence prior to the GMA."' This conclusion comports with the fundamental reasoning behind identifYing EPFs and giving them special significance under the GMA-the fact that cities are just as likely to oppose the siting of necessary improvements to public facilities as they are the siting of new EPFs. FNIO. WAC 365-l95-340(2)(a)(il. Whether EPFs Include "Necessary Support Activities" ru@l'W@fTheCities argue that even if the EPF provision applies to the Sea-Tac expansion, the "critical issue"' before this court is "whether the trial court and the Growth Board erred in determining that this provision is so expansive so as to cover remote, off-site <necessary support activities.' "' The trial court affirmed the Growth Board's ruling that off-site dirt-hauling activities conducted by the Port within Des Moines are protected under RCW 36.70A.200. The Cities claim 091214.ltr. CountyBOC 28050 .. l' ~ ~ Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Support for Port of Port Townsend Re-designation 14 December, 2009 - 10- that because "support activities"' do not appear in the GMA, the Board and the trial court cannot add them. But again, the DCTED regulations urge that an expansive view should be taken of essential public facilities. WAC 365-l95-340(2)(a)(i) indicates that identification ofEPFs should include "the full range of services"' provided both by government and by private entities. In addition, section 340(2)(c) states that no comprehensive plan may "directly or indirectly"' preclude the siting of an essential public facility. The legislative purpose of RCW 36.70A.200(2) would be defeated iflocal governments could prevent the construction or operation of an EPF. Thus, if an activity is indeed "necessary"' to an construction of an EPF, a local plan may not stop it from occurring. The Port has convincingly demonstrated that the runway cannot be built without constructing a site that is level with the existing airport, and that this construction**34 will require hauling dirt through the cities surrounding Sea- Tac to the site itself. The Port will undoubtedly be required to mitigate the impacts of this construction on the surrounding communities, but because construction is impossible without these support activities, the Cities cannot stop them from OCCUlTIng. 091214. ltr. County BOC 28050 cC I) 6) oS ~A; 5 \Z/I'-1/cA HEAR" i~~.'.I"""''''f''i\'''<<.f'\~''''''' ", " f"- ~ ';"\- ,;,~t-~"Il "-:, J J," :; ;."i" '. J, ''''''i~~'~.~i''i~U 1!0 Fa S T E R PEP PER '.U Direct Phone (206) 447-7909 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-2093 E-Mail drums@foster.com December 14,2009 K EIVE Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 DEe J COll Y 'S"CION~(~! '.... i ..;)._H~ Re: Port of Port Townsend Rural Industrial Zoning Proposal Dear Commissioners: The City of Port Townsend appreciates the County's consideration of these further comments. This correspondence briefly addresses questions raised during the recent hearing regarding the Port of Port Townsend's proposed 24-acre zoning/comprehensive plan amendment from a rural land designation, to authorize non-aviation, industrial uses ("Proposal"). 1. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Do Not Mandate The Proposed Zone And Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Rather, The 2004 Amendments Direct A More Thorough Planning And Development Process. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments do not "mandate" the proposed legislation, which would transform 24-acres of rural lands (currently designated R-lO), to a site for industrial uses. Rather, the Plan recognizes future planning will occur, while also recognizing the mechanism for siting industrial uses on Port property remains unresolved. In referring to future amendments to implement County Ordinance No. 16-1213-04, the adopted staff report stated; The amendments will address the future use and development of property owned or acquired by the Port in the vicinity of the JCIA. . . . The amendments may take the form of permitting non-aviation light industrial uses at an appropriate scale within the AEPF, or amendments utilizing other GMA-complianttools such as a major industrial development or an industrial land bank (pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365 and RCW 36.70A.367), or urban growth area (RCW 36.70A.llO).1 The Port also acknowledged this approach for a considered analysis of both use and development when it submitted its 2004 proposal to the County. The Port listed the mechanisms which could be considered to accomplish its goals. The Port listed not only zoning changes, but also "designation of the JCIA [Jefferson County International Airport] and surrounding I Ordinance No. 16-1213-04, Section 1, incorporating attachment (see pp. 3-4 ofattachroent, emphasis supplied). lFI.: 206.447.4400 FAX: 206.447.9700 11L THJRD AVL~Ut:. SUTE 3400 SEATTLE, \,lASHI ,\fGTO~ ~iHOl-3299 w\v\v.FOSTER..ul\l SEAfTLE WASJIL\lGTO'l SPOKANE W,\SHIJ'\GTO!\ December 14, 2009 Page 2 properties as part of a UGA; designation of the JCIA and surrounding properties as an industrial land bank site; or designation as a major industrial development site."2 This statement is consistent with GMA, which recognizes that industrial uses, when not properly sited, pose a risk for rural areas; and, trigger excessive costs when industrial uses contribute to sprawl. Similarly, the Jefferson County planning policies recognize new industrial uses should be sited in rural areas only where an existing UGA does not provide the preferred location. "The rural element of the comprehensive plan will recognize existing industry located outside UGAs, as well as establish a framework for the siting of industries, which due to their size, resource dependence, or incompatibility with UGAs, would be better suited to locate in rural areas."3 The County's SEPA analysis did not consider these issues, or other impacts, such as air quality and water supply planning issues.4 Rather than being planned for, the proposed industrial uses in the existing rural zone will require capital facilities and services, including stormwater, water supply, and transportation. Those systems are inadequate to serve the proposed industrial uses, as addressed in the City's previous correspondence. As all parties at the time recognized, a future planning process (including consideration of future development) would be required to address these issues. Consistent with the County- wide planning polices, this process was not designed to be a "rubber stamp," but a considered, GMA-compliant process which involves genuine City-County-Port consultation and coordination.5 The process identified in 2004 has not been followed. Instead, the Port asks the County to adopt, without further analysis, industrial zoning in a rural area of the County. The County properly directed the course of review in 2004. That course has not been followed. As a result, the Port's Proposal must be rejected. 2. The Port May Have Authority To Develop Non-Aviation Related Uses. However, As The Port Has Stated, This Does Not Mean The Uses Are EPFS. The Port has recognized that its ownership of the JCIA does not convert all property it owns into an EPF. "The JCIA consists of approximately 316 acres ofland owned by the Port, 2 Port of Port Townsend, Protecting the Future of the Jefferson County International Airport as an Essential Public Facility: Statement of Legal and Factual Position (September 7, 2004), pg. 33. 3 CPP 8(6). 4 See e.g. WAC 197-11-444; RCW 70.235.020. Attached documents include, power point, Meeting Future Demand In the Quimper Water System (May 12, 2009); Chapter 173-517 WAC; and Growing Cooler - The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute (2008). 5 "Incorporated UGAs will coordinate with the County to assure joint review for addressing those development activities of a regional nature, such as a regional shopping center or large industrial complex. The purpose of this agreement is to insure impacts of a regional nature are addressed and the goals of the GMA are realized." CPP 3(5); see a/so CPP 4(2) ("The County and incorporated UGAs will jointly develop specific siting criteria for siting essential public facilities. The proposed criteria will be considered in the drafting the comprehensive plan policy addressing this issue."); CPP 4(4) ("Criteria will be established that address the provision of services when siting an essential public facility."). December 14, 2009 Page 3 280 acres of which are part of the Essential Public Facility."6 The fact that the Port seeks to rezone a portion of its holdings from rural uses (R-I0) to allow for industrial (non-aviation) uses, does not mean it is "expanding" the Airport itself, or that the unidentified industrial uses are necessary support activities for the Airport. The Port has recognized the significance of a regional siting process, consistent with analysis submitted to the City dated December 3, 2009, which was forwarded to the County. As the Port stated, "[0 ]nce a regional decision has been made to site or expand an essential public facility, the city or county must re-evaluate and/or amend its comprehensive plan to determine if it still complies with the GMA."7 Here, no regional decision has been made to rezone 24 acres for non-aviation related, industrial airport uses. Simply because an entity engages in economic development does not convert proposed uses into EPF's. Such a rationale would support siting any use (e.g., a Wal-Mart) as an EPF. GMA does not support such a broad interpretation of EPFs. It would be a better use of public tax dollars, and better serve economic development objectives, to support infill and redevelopment within UGAs. GMA was enacted to address precisely this type of situation, and reduce the costs of sprawling development. 3. Conclusion The City urges the County to coordinate with the City to resolve these issues. The City is willing to contribute financially to support responsible planning. We hope the City, Port, and County are able to coordinate on a satisfactory resolution. Sincerely, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC .7 r/? 1""'\0 /) /-(.1f!6>/~JJ{>-L&~ P. Stephen DiJulio Susan Drummond cc: John Watts, Port Townsend City Attorney Attachments 6 Port of Port Townsend, Protecting the Future of the Jefferson County International Airport as an Essential Public Facility: Statement of Legal and Factual Position (September 7, 2004), pg. 4. 7 Id., pg. 9, citing to Central Puget Sound Transit Authority v. City ofTukwila, CPSGMHB No. 99-3-0003 (FDO 1999), pgs. 6-7 ("after the regional decision is made, the city then has a duty to accommodate the essential public facility."). ATTACHMENT 1 County-Wide Planning Policy COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY for JEFFERSON OOUNTY. WASl:l1 NGTON ~.l:UTA JEFFERSON COUNTY/CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND STAT$<Q$tt 'WAS':HINQ"fON In lha MatI/If 01 rhe Adoptioo } 01 County.wide Planning Policy ) COUNTY RESOUJTION HO.125-9~ CITY RESOLUTlOM NO. ~ WHEREAS. Chapter 3S.70A.l!1() FlC.W. (tIl.. Growll. Manageffl<mt Ad, GMA) <ll,ecl. tho county. In cMperllljM will\" jl$ eill'!$. 10 d,!velQP a CO\Jl1ly.wioa Planning PoHey 10 bl> used ... " polley <fl1l<fT","1>rk Imm which county an\! c!ly compr"h"n.llla plao$ an 10 be dl>veloped and adopled: and WHEREAS. hy jolnl m.OIYIIO" (County Re,olution No. ].07-91. City ~~,~<>!~l~...._t-IQ~:OJ :OO) ~",lt~~?(\-C~.J"iY_~I'l!!_:lfj!--~~W_-l>f f'~rtl"Q_W:J'\",!>"4; .Q~lr)i~~jj;hJ}~ ~ Growth M""3.goment CommIU.... 10 oYllrooe Ill.. devalopment of 1111$ policy: and WHEREAS, 111.. County and City h'IV" jolnll)' developed !his polley <as a loyndation Ir"", ",hloh w ju<!g" "",...i.lency between County and City "Qmpr"henslva plans. and lh" raquit"",,,nl$ 01 GMA; and ~j,:J~1J'r;A:g.: J~(ff:~l;,,,,~f .~~.:tl\.'- i?:"" "*-"'061_",~~~, >th"''"ArO'~Aft'~~_?~:t;}.rtr_..,:J CQmmitl~., con<l"otad. On Sepl"mber 21, 1992; a public hearing lor lhe adt>pllol'rof<lho County.Wide Pllln61n9 f>oUcy; arid WHEREAS. following the pvblie h".ring. and reviaw and dlseu$.iofl <>f lho put;r.o l".'imony. lho County-wid" Plafl!"!li1g "oliey was r<lVised by thil' Growth Management Commi<<.,,: and WHEREAS. Ihe Growth Man.gem"nl Gommill... <li<i. on No""mbof 24, 19!/2. COnduc, ilS final ,,,viow olllle County'wide Pfanning P~licy, 00<1 by formel mOlion ,,,corMieMS !hat the Jafferson County Board 01 Commls$iQner. ""d 111" City Council of 1"." City 01 Pon Townsend Joinlly adopt Ihese pollci.. con.i.tent wIth 1M 'equ"amenls 01 Ihl> OMA. NdWTN~PlEFCJREr::9~ 1T'-f1_t;sDtV:15n t~l ~h~Ct'itlnJY~w1A!!>PI1lrUlft"!" Polley, alll11c{1e<l M, e::x/1ibll A, I. ho(eby lldopled by Jeffe",on Cwnty ai'\d 100 City 01 Port TO.~~.:t'!'r~;;n' 10 1M joinl 'M"oIY~"" llOd/MI>te, 3ll.101\.210 Fl.C.W. ,,' ~, JlI ~ I :. \" r AF:PRQVEO. AND SIGNED Ihis SL. day 01 \}lo\ ><JL . 1 fl92. .. ~ ,''''':' $"-'It;t' \ '; !It _~_ \:; Am::sT: .' "'--:'., {~cy:~,;jIJ1;~ Lorna L Oela",,)'. q Cl,o.;;-k- _(\if ff't.!> 9,o$fr4 JGI"i=G"'SON COUNTY ~,;:~ ""'$on. halrmal1 ATTeST: / APPROVED AND SIGNED Ihi"~d"y of A<, .l~ ,1992_ TOWNSEND -- JfFFEfl::.ON COUNTYfCiTY OF PORT TOWNSE:NO STATE OF WASHINGTON INl1lEMATTE ROFafleso lu. 1'011 ."",nding1 CounW-wJdll Pla"ning l'".cy, County Re.Qlu1tq" No. 128-11Z an" City OOSOltJtl0n NQ.i92-",11Z;"IV'Lh.;,ugctho <l..f,nll(Qtl 01 . affordablo hovslng.' COUNTY RESOLtmON No, 112-9' CITY RllSOLUl'lON NO. "J.in WHEREAS, lhe pre.ont CQUllly.Wida f'iannlng Policy, roUe\" #G.l, .~1..~ '!"ol planning p"rl'o"" the ~efonltion ,,' 'sf!ofdablll'hOllslng' is: hou$ln · ~\~~l~l1f(i:ft\r' plJtt,htf!!l,A'.orrQntto irn~lyfdu. 'm. _ i~~t,\M1tttflJl' '~i){!'t.idl;'U'9'1!Y-{~PJ)r~;n;dPovenVI~y~J _ _ _ 9dt~rklMo/mOr() J,eff~f~b~I€JQo/lty_;,antfwho'I'i _ cpS,t>$im lXtlaiti(f$:.: _wQuJd. :no{<exce Qi-qSS'iOOqlT1(L"';:-and WHEREAS.lhe Jelfllnl'>nCo""ly H(j\J _ 16.' be changod to comply with the Act 01 1993-, RC\lV43.18$il.010. wtdc "AI~ t-IV\;l';;to""~ ~1''?li''''>>'_'\-Qd~1__Q:~n~ciyy::~_pb'';''':g,ri ~f~ ,s",lnc1t;J{ling,tjtHit1(3$ t}tflE~lc+~:a~ ,t(tl~p_hQJle)-:dQ' hckt's:rrmntl1ty,. incQme..;,:~nd wHEREAS, lhe eh.nge 01 dOlinitlQn was pro..l\led 1<.> tile "effe.."."" CQUfllY Growth Management Stoo,ing Commllle!' on Septernll.r 7, 1994; llnd l!:lev lev,lewll<! and .greed to this chango: and WHEREAS, tile J"ff.,,"on County t1oarOQt t;;0",",1$$1,0""," "Old . H".bll~' he~'ing on $\>pt_ber 26, 191t4 where no publie testimony """$9''''''' for (l' llgalnsr this ,,,oposed el18"O" and. motion was passod to .dopnhis chango.ln dllllni(ion; <lnd NOW THEREFDFlE i:lE tT Rl?SOLVED. thatlhe Counly,w,d. PlannIDiJ PoliCY. poliey #8. L b. amended It> '<l<><l ". the definition $tal"d in ttm',Wa"l>in;llM t,~~i0:9r(il-i~yAGl; b:f10DS.- A:CW1!:3.1n!?S',:OiJ'l.:39''\I:1;9tJ1'<'i$th~~r; ,', ,,' "', ' ,---i'-II APPROVED AND SlGNW this L'r-day 01 aft.{Mrl!~ . f994.' Jl:FFEf1S0N COUNTY BOAR!) OF COMMISSIONe/lS a APPROVED ANa SIGNED this iJ~Iie"'~ 1994, F ~ fiT TOWNSEND AT\'l:ST: jL)d~-, P~vld J';;f'()YC~ lilty t.;lt;fJ{ o~\11t-oUp.~lli~\.9mi"ewPP\htIl;JijnO';flV1Illl vtll 20 fit' 0 1.554 ,JEFfERSON COU""TYICITV OF POJ;l.TTO\\1'lSEND STATE OF W ASHINO'tON In the Malterof Adding the PUrl of l'on TowllSend OS'a Vor/nll Momllet of the JDinl GrDwth Managemelll SteeringJ'2.l1tmtllttee I , , COlJNTI RESOLUTION NO. 41l-!11t CITY RESOUJTIOl'! _'W. '19-0;10 \VHEREAS, by Jrnnt resolmion (County Resoluti<>n No. 107-9] Co\lflty a,lld the City of POri TOV\'Xlsend est.~blished a GrQWth devalol'ment of this, potiey: .nd Wt%IlliAS, by joint re.olulil>n (Couoty Resolytion No, 1211.92 and Cily Resolution No. 92.112) the Courtty .lId Cily,ol"l'ort To'vnsendjoinlly adoplCd Calmty'.wlde PlartnlJtI!'I'o!icl(J$ on l;"eemoor ..II. 1\I9~ Ms-a lbundaUonJr-otfl'!\.yhjch lt1jud~(vcoosistency het\Y~n;'C":~)uoty f):nd;eily:C(trnp:rehensh'eP-lJiut~;:ai)d WHFREAS, both lile County ComprebtmSlVe Plan And the City "fl'ort 'fown,"nd COOIpreheM'vl' Plm1 com~j'l (;h.ptl'r~ Oil economic devdopnV:J11; and WHf.:REAS. County.",vle Planning,l'ohc), #7 $Ubset:lion 5 ,tates thar the Pll,t I'or! TOWll~'l1d'5 le'l;i,J.1tive authority >hould be utilized as a tool to "nplemem industry and trade strntellie$; molndillg the :~1l9t~'fi of;q~l1J~lp~'n1Yrtt,,'lI,p(~r~'4ni~<i:$; i1\*e~'Hli;{)lid4ttiQ:n .;m~..p~~~jit1J3; 9tp_l'9~' _-~:th,~ develol'JUl'llt of infr.:;tructure to meet the ""OOs of indmtry cons[Sl<lm with oolllprehensive pllUl$ and d:evet@rn<:nt- n!![tII~t!ol)s~,-tll1d WHER,EAS, the Joint urowili Manaboemenl Steermg Committee al tb~-ir AI>ril 7. 1'(9!l m~cotillg voted ultllllimously to recommend (hat n public bearing be held in ""nsideranon of tlte Port of POrt T""'Xlserui tlpt;U:Il~ttlg-a :yuuuM-ni~mhec NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. lI",t the Port of POM TOW11"""G shall be lIlvited to rike a seil! on the lolnt Growth Management Steering Cummit\ee and If the invitalion is ac<:epu:d shall be <""Mdcred 3v(Jt:io!5'meUlhn::L Res'olutlcm: N{)o 40':99 APPROVE!)..uID SK1NED THIS OF SEAL JEFFERSON COt,'NTY BOARD Of COMMISSIONERS .G(jc{ 1<)<)<). ~~ Farr... Raruha..Mayar () J/ / 14%1 "'flL~Ji!~ PalllclaKolllcy U City Clcrk Ro,OJuuon No. 4U.<)<) -,~-,-'-;;-".~~''''"';~'=-=-~'---~--~=~~-~ COUNTY.WIIJE'. PLANNING POLlCleS A Powey fRAMBWORK TO GUIDE Tlffi DEVELOPMBNT OF COMPREHBNSIVE PLANS INTRODUCTION: The opening section of the Growth Mana/lel1lent Act {RCW 36. 70A) seL~ fortll the following legislative fulding: "uncoordinated and I1l1p1anned growth [oge!her with a lack of CQmmon goals ~p)"essing rue pu.blicrs. interest in the conservatioll :md tile wise use of our lan!;ls, lX'Se a threat to rue tlnvir(ll1l1lllllt. sustllillllble wonomic develop.mllll.t. and the health, safety, and high ljuality of . life enjoyed by ,th~,_:tIWtId~nu:-ottb~ rliit,.e-.-_ The legislaOll"!: went on ILl develop. a stale-wide. growtll IXWlllgement stratllgy encompassing tile fOllowing goals; . tlrbiIR growth. Encourage devdopment in ur"ban .ar~ where ad~\Illte plW1:ic facl.lit;e.~ lU'ld services .emt or call be f1wvlded ill an efficient mllllller. Reduce splilwL Reduce me iIlllpptopria~ conversjon Of I1ndevlllOjl(ld l:md into sprawJ~. low...aensity devlllopment TrlllUiportlllioll- Encourag<:: efficient multimoch!l ~lUItion Sj'SI(lIlls that arc based 011 regiollll1 priorities and coordinated willi c<lUnty IIfld City comprellensive plans. Housir!g. Bncollrage the livail!lblllly of .on:Iablli: honsing .to all eaonomfc seglllilnts of the population of lhis stale, prom<l~ a variety of residential densities and hOllsing typc:i, and encourage prnservatiOll ofciClstil1i! housing stllCk, Economic developlllellt. EncQu~e econo.mi!:<le~l'lllilnt thrOlJ!!inCllJt the stille that iSCOllSi$tQljt with adop\ed eOlllprl!llelll!ive>pJ!lllS.. promateWOnOmic oppor- ~uuty for all citizens Qfthis ~te. ~ialIy for Illlelllptoyed atld foc disad- Vllnl:lged persons. and CIlcollrage growth in .a~ m<:p:rienej~ lm;uffieienl economic l:TOwth, all within we cllJl'lcities of !he stille's natllml resOll1'\:ilS, public services, and pu~Jic facilities. Property rights. Pnvaw. llmpeftysnall not I)e Illken fur pubU. .u~ wllllUU! just compensation having \1ei:n made. '!'he property rights of bndoWllers shall be protected from arIli~ary atld i1lscrlmitillirory actions. Permits. Applications foc bolll stilte IIfld local government pmnit.~ sllould be proc.essed in a timely and. fair manner to ensure predictability. Natural resource lJiOllMlli\L Malnllllll will ",dIlUte" P..twaJ r,,~-ba3cd IndUStries. including productive tllllW, agriQUltllf.lll, and fISheries industries. Encourage tbe conserviltion of productive f(lre.~ l;md$ and productive agricultur:l.1 lantls. and discourage incomp:ltlllle uses- . . . . . . . . Open space and re<;reatiOl1. Encourage the r"lentTon of open space lllltl development of n:crealional opportunities, conse~ fish and wfllllife habitat. in<:Tease access to natural resource lantls alld Water, arnJ develop par1(s, Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's hlgtI quality of lif., includinG air and watCr 'lual;ty, dlld tlte dVilililvllity uf water, Citiun participation and coordination. Bncaurage the involvement ofdti~ens in the praMi"g process and ensure coordination between commUnities and jurisdic. tillllS tQ recQncile conflicts. Public facilities and :services. Ensure tIlat tIlose public 1;1cifitles and services ti~:~,~~ry ",.~9:$:~Pptr'ct, a~vet~p"M~_(lJ_4huU be,Q~eqU,4~C', to_$(;~~,:,:tl1:~" -"'!ycl{!pln~:ll{;~l tile time tOO develapment is available for occupancy and IISC without llecreasillg cutrent :servke levels below lotany established minimum mndards. Historic pteserva:tioiJ, ldelllify and encourage tile pt"(l.Servation of lallds, sires. and structures, that bave historical or archaeological significance. . . . . The passage of the Growth Mallagemem ACl (GMAJ fundamenl;dly Wnged tlre way com- prehensive land use planning is carried out in lI1e milL The :GMA requlrestllat cities iIIld counties update'thelr comprcllensive land use plans cOllslstel!t with stat~de g1lals lUlU minimumtequi.n::menls as est:Ibllshed by the statute and coordinate their 'plilnni"Z effoTts willi each other.1he central llIeme behind tile Growth MiIIlllgelllent AcliS tIlal SjlolltallCOUS and unstructured growth and development 15 Wtlsteful of mrr natural resourccbase'^^ ,;lnd cost.! Y in lI1e proli'lsion of public sernces and facilities; and by managing gl"owt!l iIIld deVelopment, tb. negative effects eanbe minimized and the benefits can be maldmized. . The act is built 011 the principle tIlat Cities and Counties, sp.ooilll putp9se districts and those agencies Or junsd:ictiolLS involved in the deli very of public services win coordinate their efforts (ll)llSlstflllt with each otller and the provisiollS of the act. tnlUl effort to assure these principles are carried out, the legislature passed complUlion legiSlation r Col.llltles iIIld Cities to coordlltale the independent development of local comprelJensiw tbrollgl1 It set of mutuallY aevllloped {.'Ounty,wide Planning Polici(l.S. These written polICY mlements. are to address eigllt S1ll;;ject areas and are intend to be used liS a gllidillg frameWorK ror $Ublrequent development and aiJopt1011 of comprellensive plans. The required County-wi'lle Planning Policy Sllbject al'ea$ inefllt$t': . !.be designation of Urban Growth Areas I''' UlllVUVU vf WfIUguOtlS ana orl!erly aeve,lOpmel1l lmll t.lle PfoviSlon 01 ur~an services to well development joilll county and city phtrllling wilhin urban growlh areas the siang of essential public faciliti(l.S of a county Of state wide sillni(lCaJIce county-wide trllll:ijlOl'Ult:ion facilities and strlItegje.~ the 1Ie<;d tor "fforo..!Jlc hO\lMll!; rQ' all ~Q"tl",k ~grm::m$ uf tile ,ptlpUlaliull coollty.wide ecooomic dewtlopr/1etlt and employment 1lIlJllysis ^Ctf fiscal impacl. . . . . . /. In additioll to the eight required policy areas, the City of POrt iownscl1d and Jefferson County l\~reed to ildd policies pertaining to rural areas and the COflleXI within which the County.wide PJallning Pulicies are to Ix: used. THE COUNTY,WIDE PLANNING PROCESS; . The C:ouIlly.wide Planning Policies were developed through a cQlJahorntive process between the Cily and County, puhlic service providers, utilities, special pUrpOse dislricts lIDd com. munity orl!.aniz.atioDs, The develQpment of these policies has been overseen by a steeritlR committee comprising the three Jeffensoo COunty COmmissioners (B.G. Brown, lQry Dennison, and Richard Wl.!tt', tWQ Port Townsend City Council members (Jean Cam(leld and Norma Owsley) lIDd POrt L9wllselld Mayor Jolm elise. Background information leading up to the development of these policies is found in a discussion .whitepape;r. paper titled County-Wide Planning Policies: A Str<ltegic Analysis, TbJs .white paper' provides iln in-depth dlScussiOll of the legisla(i\le back grollnd, strategic elemenlS or issuetl eOIlcerning local application lIDd polley cOll5ideratiollS for each or the policy areas. Copies of the 'white paper. are availll"ble from the Office of the County Commissioners, County CotlrtbOO$e. The 'white paper' is not adopted as pan of the COunty-wide Plannillg PoliCle$. The COlltlty-wide Pla.i:rning Policies represellt a cotllJlQSite framework, !lot a series of indi vklllal, slllml-alollll roncepts. The ideas represented IIere balance each other to create an oVllrall direction for development of individllal Qomprehmsi've plans. These policies establish me fOUlldadtlll for determlnlng conSistency of IlnJivldwtl ptWll> WW, each ulIlCI .....I;! wiU. I1J.o tenets of the Grow MllIlagemelll Act, as well as a meehanism to coordinate the provision of public facilities and services throughout the community. Finally, these policies encompass broad cdnc!lPlS encourJlginJ!; flexibility a..n<l innovation ill meOOnll the goals lllld intent of tbe Growth Management Act and will. like the planning documents they lIr" intended to gIlide., :t';l'vlvt<_ov~f (i'rllC. QI....TIQM,stUr OF COUNTY WIOE PI.AI':lNrlllG PQJ..lCIES TO ItltRRJM ~F.SOUR- CE I..AND AND CRlTICAt. ARc.A O{l:DlNANCE: The GMA envisions a process whereby resource lands lIDd critical areas are ide.lltified, designated, classified, conserved llnd protected as a initial first step in the growth mll1lage- ment process. Following tile adoption of these interim measures, comprehensive land UIle pI ans wilt be updated to meet the goals and provisions of tile act. It is intended that these inl~rim ""crt~etiv~ 'JU"."""~$ will be ,"""".tll.ltVl t1urine Ine Cnmprehensive Plan amendment process and revised to comply with the plan as required by the GMA. The principles encompassed by the planning policies will serve as a policy guide in the process of adjusting the interim proteetive measures. :) POHCY III POUC\' TO lMP16MENT RCW 36.70A.11O URBAN GROWTH AREAS I. Tile County and City wJlJ jointly prepll/1e a regional population forecast for growth mill.llilgernentplannillg purposes. The forecast will use the Washington State Office of Financial Manjlgement (OFM) population projection as the low or base projection, llnd establish a medium and high range pmjecdon. This forecast will delineate a ten, twenty and'fiff>'YM"n:ttim:;d~:pnrnjl~6on '~j:~t,tQA~d~::\JJ:~Jn<,th?:<pro'p~tionof~fi:tc,,) utility and !rllII$pOrtatiOll plans and fur the capital improvement plans to implement the same. To a.ssure coosi.'lient and coordinated !lmming boclrollS, !he populaUQll for~ will be designated a.~ !he official source tef~ll~ by the County and City, and utilized when determining collSistenCY of ~ia.l purpose district service plans. TIle forecast Yl- be reviewed and ll!Xhlled at leaS! eVery five: years. 2. For planning purposes, thc capacilyof Url>an Orowlh Areas {UGAs) will be sil.ed to aCCOmmOdate at leaSt 10ll% of the low"base or OFM projected population growth and if supported by an adopted capital facilitie,s plan, may be siud to accomll1<>date the locally adopted medium and hlgb range populatioll projection. (Note: Tbe GMA does not dire(:( where people llIay choose to !lye, however, it does require that urban development be; accommodated within wi:latI growth areas. Tllis policy is forwarded to ensurl:: !hat UGAs lU1d !bek attcrldan, fllCUiti"" "'" PJOl""ly ~;-.l UJ .I."'\mlluuwm, !\Im<<: VUJlUlal.iutl~.) 4 The site and delineation of boundaries of UOAs will be determined by the following "'Mreri!!: a<!equat.. amount of <lov<>l<>plIbl.. land to ac.c.omm<Xkt<> for.."""l",d growth ro.. (h" next :20 yearn based on me jomt popu laticm forecast. . sufficient developable liUld for residential, commercial and industrial uses to sustain a beal1bcy local and regional ccOtlomy. . lands within illctl'J'Drated city limits. . f"M~ already cbar:u'Iflrb:ed by III11an devlllopment which are currently served or lITe plantled ill be served by roads, water, W1iwry sewer and storm rlrairullle, scbools and other urbanserviccs within tfu::. next twenty YClll:S; proVided mat such urban services whICh are 1I0! yet in place are irn;:luded in a capita! facilities plan. . tfu:: type and degree of cltistlng um!ll1 serviees nec;essary tn Stlppart urban develop- ment at the m:lopted interim level of senricc SllllldlU"ds. . sufficient area ftlr the deSignation of g=belts and q?eIl space corridots. . topograplUca1 features (If enviromJlentdly scllSitive areas which may fOOl1 MIural llOOndades Such as bays, watersllell$, livers 01 li(1ge lines. 4. Poft Radloick and Pon Ludlow are considered being 'chaneUlOz{Mj by urb!ll1 growth" for the purJlOSC of de.ignating UOA in the unincQI"POrat<:d COUllty. The 1'ri-Area Community Plilh lllld the Port Ludlow Master Plan will be utilized as Jl guide in the deline:allon of UOA wm!tJwicl. l>""aJ QU U,e ccik;rla "troy,,_ ~ S. Lll.IId use plans, regulalions and capital facility plans wil11in cach UOA will be desigr to accommodate the projected population. Growth should be directed il!tO two tiers: first tier - eJdstinll' commercial centers ami Ilrhanj71'A arPA< wll"".. ,.1>.. .,r (li) Y"'" c"pital f"cilitles plm Is prepared to provide urban infraslrUCtUre; second tier - areas included within th~ capital facilities plan to receive Ule full !"lInge of urban services within twenty (20) y~. Infrastructure improvements necessary \0 support development in lite second tier will be provided by the developer concurrent with development, or by public entities as II result 1)f implementing all or a portion of Ule <lapital facilities plan. 6. UOA bmmdaries mey be changed whenever it can be shown that the criteria set forth abOve tor me ana bOundary delineation may IlO longer be met, provided, said J!!xpansiOll shlllJ only ocl:ur after l1le capital facilities plM is llpllaled and adopted assuring adeq1la urban llcrvice to support the additional area. Before adopting boundaries of UGAs, interim level of S/:l"Vice $tlllldard"li for pnblic services _<I roeiUtiQ(! located m.id<> lU1d ou13,dc of U(lA'. will be ..doptod by th.. CQlmt;r MO it! UOAs. !'tew"llrtlan public facilities will only be provided within and not be extended 'beyond UGAs. unless deemed lIS an essential public service to mitigate Ii threll! to the public hl:alUl. afe!)' or general welfare. 8. UOAs will M separatM from each other hy oMigMted n.ttlll or rt!SOt1TCe lAnds. open space corridor:s. or unique topographic fear:u.res such as a stre:<lID or ravine. ~ POLleY 112 POLlCY ON THE PROMOTION OF CONTIG1.JOLlS AND ORDI>RL Y DEVltLOI'MENT AND TH13 pnOVIS10H or Ul"UlAN SI::fWiClils 1'0 SUCH Dli;\!'I;l-OPMnNT 1. The full flInge of governmental urban services af the adopt\W level or service .stalldards ,viI! \:>.. pl:!ll",..d for l\nd pr""ldod ,,,ithtn UCAs, <!IS d..r.,.."d th" no Utlle. 1'l...(\, including community water, sanitary sewer, piped fire flow, and $l.Onn walllr liiystejlllii, 2. The County is the designated pllUllling agellcy lor Ilnineorporalild UGAs. eiti:tl!ns advisory eommi~ will be appointed for eacll (l1lim'~raItld UOA to $tilde dlWelopmmt of a communit)' plan lor these areas. Said plan 'will include the flillowing elementS: capilal :facilities, utl1ities, open space, ~tion. MQSi.llg, land IlSC and ~rtlIlion. 3. New dlllll::IOPmllnl will meet the adopted IlWel of service ~ emblislled for UGAs as a. condition of project approval. Said .stanwds will include inter!nl provisiollS for lhose urbanfaoilities identified in the capital fliCllilies plan bul not yet developed. New de\lIMQpmllnt will Wlltribulc its pr<lpO!'lionate share towards provision of urban :facilities identified in tile CIlpital facilities plan once adopted ill complilUlce with the Growth MlUlagernent Act. 4. Urban services and fliCilities will nol be exteoded beyond UOA boun<Wies unless needed to mitigate a threat to the public nealth or welfare, or to pro~t an area of .enyJron- mental sensitivity. To avoid enoouraglng the spreading of urban developrtlellt outside of 7 UGAs. this policy shalf apply only to tllreats cl\used by existing development, and only those existillg uses requirillg the service Of facility to mitigate the threal wlll be allowed to book up to any ext;!:llded ~rviees. 5. Priority for the funding of new or expanded pUblic services and [acilities will first be gIVen 10 those w!licll are responding to capacity deficiencies within UGAs or 10 those wbiell provide an inducement for development within UQAs or to those responding to a public he.tltJl tllreat. 6. Tlie minimum deliign capacity for all plmood capital facitiues will be based upon the total populatio" rOf I.l1e service iU"lla'ar tbe ernl Of me rwem:y year pertoo identIfied in the adopted population forll""'5t. 7. Tile County will, in consultation with City of Pelt T<lwnse.nd, and the Jefferson COllllty PUD, and other pubJj<: and private w"terpW'Veym-s, update the COllrditlated Water System '. .-' '.:" ........ Plan (PWS'P). "..sed on lh<> joint popu14tion fw_ !ImI new Mta p"......i..."!: to future Wllter supply and demand. The water supply and service provisions of 81I updated CWSP may require revisiollS to land use elements <lod cllmmUllity plans. COIllpreheosive plans sball irn::lude water quality !lOll water conservation polictes Iltld $lIll1dards. As the water resouree management dlseussiQl!.S ktlOWll as the .Cbelan Agreement Process" proceed, any agreemenlS arising frQm 'these discussiol!.S "\\-ill be irn::Qrpot'ated into local 111alJs and policies. Jl POLICY 113 POLICY ON JOINT COUNTY AND CITY PLANNING WITHIN URBAN GROWTH AREAS (Note: Currently !here only one incorporated UOA within Jefferson County. the City of Pun Tuwm~IIl.L A::, tbl.-'M: Jllall~!lll~ j.>\JlleiQ^ we ulleml<:ll tu guide 1.11" .s",,,)up1uem uf comprehensive plans now and ill the future, they anticipate that additional areas maY' incorporate in Jefferson County.) 1. Incorporated UOAs within the County and each provider of urban terviees within UGAs wl.11 MSisf. the COWlty .in the planning;. CC>OMlmtt<m. and "ct@llshm,,"t of urb.... te.rvi""" and facilities to serve the projected twenty year population. 2. The County lII1d mCOt"llOrated UGt\s will coordinate the development and implementation of plans for !he provision of cOIl"Ilt;y-wide services iooluding public safety. transportation, solid wa..<;le. storm drainage facilities. water and waste water utilities. 3. Incorporated UGA$ will work cooperatively with the CllUllty to identify alld protect open :;pace corridors. 'This process will include: . identification of open space conidors and l.lrbllll separators. . identification of open space lands lUld corridors within UGAs. 9 . idelllification of implementation strategies and regulatory and nOIHegutatory teclrniques to protecl !he corridors. 4. By illler!ocal agreement, Incorpo!1\ted urban areas and the County wilt establish a fulmework for joint planning. SEPA environmental review and decision making for uuima.JlVV'<!tetl ">HIM> l"",,,u!,.! wll1lln me IncolpO!1\lea url:lan area UUA.. 5. !llcorporated UOAs will coordinate wilb the County to assure joint review f<lr adtlre~sing thll5e development activities of a regional nalltre. such as a regional shopping center or large indumial complex, The .purpose of thls agreemetlt is ro. insure impacts of a ""giQni!l natun> ...... ad.dr""....! ....<1 the 1';""1.. of tM OMA lire ...,..I~. 6. Due to the large scale nature aM the impacts associated with fully ronw.lned COll'Ul1unities, :rueb developmellts should not be considered in the impellding update of the County CumprebensivePl;ll1. After the plan has been adopted, a thorougb stIIdy of there types of developmeut should be undenaken. If found 10 pc if. viable de\lel~ment option, the rompreb.ellSIVc plan will be modified to lru;lude pwvisions for fully containe<l communitie;. 7. The County Mil each incorporated UGA which has a pending deveJopll'le:n~ proposal shall ensure timely ctr<:t.I!ation of development applications for review IlIltl comment by other agencies with jurisdiction. 10 POLJey 114 POUCY ON THE SITING OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 01' A COUNTY OR STATE WIDE SlONIFICANCe L Essential pu~lk facUities are deflned as: 'Pul;Uc or priv3lely.owned facilities thaI are ....."i,w tv """.,,,,JnOdat,, ba.ic public .>=1>, j"cludu'!l tit""" r..ciliti"-'! that an:; l;rpicclly difflcult to site, ineluding local waste handling and trealment facilities such as landfills, drop-box sites and seW<lge treatmenl facilities, aiJports, state educationa:! facilities, essential state public facilities, regional transpoItaliort and stonllwaler rlrninlIge, utility facUities, stale and local ~orre;c:tional facilitie$, and in.patiem facilitie$ (incil,ding substance abuse facilities, m"nt:tl h"altb fae!Jjti,,~ and woup 'l""Ill"')' The County and incorpofllted UGAs will jointJ y develop $jleCiflc sitlng criteria f(lf siting eI',SUntial p\l~1ic facititie$. Tire proposed criteria w!ll be considered in tile drafting of cQmprellensive plan policy addressing this issue. Elements of siting criteria should illclude. "but not be limited totlle followinlt: . proximity tl} major trllnsporfation routes and essential ittfrastructute. . land use compatibility \vim SU,T1Dunding area, . potential envirolllllCl'ltal impacts. . effects on resomce and critical are3.!:. . proximity to UGA. . public costs and benefits illcluding operation and ltIaintenam:-e. . current capacity and location of equiva.lent facUities. 11 . the existence, within the community, of reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity. 3. Comprebensive plilDS and developnrent regulations will not preclude thl) siting of essential public faeilities, however standards may be generated 10 insure that reasonable con1- patlbility with other land lISes <:an be achieved. 4. Essential PIlblic facillties sited outside of urban erowtlJ areas should be self,su]J!1Ort;ng "nn not require the eJltension, construction, or maintenance of url>an services and facilities unless liP practicable alternative exl:sts. Criteria 'i'lfn be: es!al:>liShed that address the prO'Vision of services when slting an essential public facility. Essential publle facilities sball not be located in resource lands or critical areas if incompatible. III POUC)' 115 POLlCY ON COllNTY-WIDE TRANSPORTATION FACIl..lTlES AND STRATEGIES I. The PenillSUla Regional Transportation Planning Oq).anizalion (PRTPO) wm develal' a regional ttansportatJQo plan for tile Easlern Olympk and KllSap peninsula area. The City and Count)' will each develop a trllftllpOrtatlOtl elemenl to the c.omprehensive pl'lD _that emphasizes local ttansportation Deeds. In developing tiles:e trllftsportaDon elementS, s:pecif- ie linkages with the regional plan will be unUertllJ(en 10 llSsure col"l.~l8lency tmWellil tile twO documents. 2. Service standards for higbways:, arterial. Md trllft$lt ralites wilt be cooniinaled and adopled at a cottnty~wit:le level. These lItandartlli roa y vary deFfldlng 011 tile type of development pall"'" Hlll.lLip"tt;d (i.<::. Ill"." ... lmal) QC by tho sp<Xiil'le vo- .m""'ll"ment objoctivq,; beIng eOllSidered. Wlren a variance m level of service sllI.ntlanls is established. it will be clearly delineated ill the transportatiOll and land use elemenl of the eomprehellSive plan. In developing the County's six year road program, the priority of focus: should be: RtsA~ 1.:0. ..lflaintAin Qce;:;ptlrtde-"Apacity 'Witltinth~ tJl1A\t . SllCOlld, to maintain or expand capacity for transportation to and from UGAs and regional cenlers. 4. The land use and 't:rllnSpOrtllthm clelIlent!i of the comprehensive plan will be used by Jefferson Transit as a guide in lhe development of ilS service delivery strategy. The 1:1 thrust of this strate.!lY is to increase ridersbip IInd expand transportatiOl1 options williin UGAs, betWeen UGA5-, and between the OOtInt)' lIlld the region at large. S. Jefferson International Airport wiD remain the public link to the larger air ttallsportanon system. The Port <if Port Townsend will have the lead r~nslbiJit)' to develop a service delivery strategy for lhis mode of l1artsportlltion conslst<mt will! the ttlIllSpol:/lltlon and lalld use ellllNin19 of the Coont)' comprehensive pllln. 6. The d"evelq.ullenl or expau<5iOl1 of auy air-based {)f water-based transportation system will require specific lillkage with the ground trllnSpQrtlItion system and compoubU.ity with me lantl use eJem~1t 01 tIW comprehensive plans. 7. In establishing tile land use cI<:lmenl ofeomprellensive plans and the level of servk:e standards for transportation S)'Slel"llS witllitl UGAs, the eit)' and Coont)' will ins\ll:ll that use dellSilies, design' e1emoolS and deveJopmelll policies are supportive and make nc..:qn'tnOO"tion f<;lf publi;: ~t and nDwmotofilMl form~ of trn.n~pol\ollo". 8. The transportatiOll eJemllflt of tlIe comprehensive plans wiD designed lIfOuM the 1'0110w10g principles: . llCClc to irwrease efficiency of !he existing ~tion system. . ~1TlrMi:i?~lhf'" f'tlbv~*rh~gt<(1f_~r&!2J1ir,~ond~ firm.a:nd vehid~1';t :~..ennd,. ." . encourage lUll! integrat~ nan-motorized modes amI lIigll occupancy vehicles in transportation system design. . encourage employers to implement Trall!;pOrtation Demand Management (TOM) techniques, This is particularly true in the fCview of new ellrployment generators lit a fixed IoclltlOO. . seek 10 assure that the j"lmportionare share of c~tS new or upgradlld tr~spor- tation facilities are oorne by those who create Ihe ne-ed for tOe facility, .as~well those who benefit frQffi it, The Transportation Pliln chlment wlll provide a summary and llllaIysis of pllUUling mfOTmlltion lIlcllll1ing: . . land ose assumptions trpon which the trllnsportalion element is based including: population, employ1lrent by type, recreation. comprehensive llUll! nse designations, and the densiIy of current and projected development including the ratio of single and multi.f.tmily units to total housing units within UGAs. level of """"lee stm>dard. for attl::rials ..00 ",,,li""'Ori:, . an lllllilysis and forecast of future tnlnSpOttation needs, . evaluate the operation and roainlellJUlCe of trallsportation facilities in II manner which con.~iders present and future operation and maintenance costs. . incorporate pedestrian and bicycle travel as part of the transportation element within ~ <""rdi ".,..<:1 "nl( "'".e,n",,\ ""~i., 11le bicycle lIDd pedestrian comj)Ooent shall be II IS part of the funding component of the capital improvement program for tr"alLSpOrtatiOll improvements. 10. The adopllld level of :service $l.lU!dards will be used in c1Illluating COncurrency for long- range transportation plalllling, development revi ew and programming of trallSjlOrtation ulIplVwmelll.s. 16 POLICY #6 POLICY ON THE ~ROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING For pluning purposes the definition of 'affordable !lousing" Thos~ houSing units avllilabl'e for purebase or rent toindividuab or families witll a gross illCoTlle between the federally recognizl!d poverty level and tile median income for W<;)r1dng famflles in Jefferson County; and wbo's c~. Including utilities, would not e~eed S6'!1\ of gross: mcome. 'The provision of affordable !lousing is acknowledged as II general public ~ and will lle addressl!d ill Jet'fuflJonQ)unty through private ;SeCtor progJ'ilffis alld projects. Local gOVmtment should ootmsome a direct role in theownersbiPor admin1S'1tl!tioo of public assisted housing to meet low income needs, ratlltlr this should be It!'ft to private. non- profit or quasi-public cnnti elf. J. The bousing Mdt or Iud use elements af comprellemiive plans will inclooe an aSSessment of land av;Ulllble lIDd the process of siting special ~ hoosing, {SUCll as IlOmetess shelters, group oom.es, etc.), lIJ ensure tbatSUcb !lousing call be necllmmodllted. 4. A sufficient quantity of land will be appropriately lOned or designated to accommodate" wide !:!Ing.: of housing types, densities lllld mixtures. Multi.family hOl.l$ing should only be locat<<! wlUtl1l UCiAS or ru!:!lt cerll:ers. 11 5. An affordable housing strnt~gy will be developed as part of the housing element of ti' cotllprell~nsive plan. This affordable hOllsing strategy will ex.amine existing regulations and policies to identiry oppol1Un!lies to encourage the provision of afftlrdable tlousing mecha.nisms such as accC$Sory dwelling units ('mother-in-law") or efficiency lIPartments, density bonuses, mitigation fees waivers, priority permit processing and the like. 6. Eacb UClA shall llCcolnOlQ(late its fair share of housing affordable to low and mOderate income households according to its percentage share of the county population lIlld by promoting II balanced mix of diverse hOllsing typeS. 1_ Umt"v"lo~ lwJ.d ownp<i by !he l,ublil.: cntit.iQ wlll Lc illvcllwrie<l MU thllli9 Illal <trIO appropriattlylocaled should be considered for development of low income housing. Coosldmltion of assembling these parcels for development by non-profit housing organizations or private developers should be encouraged. R TIll'! ho""i"8 element ""rn io'Iom.. ,.ri,Mi" fo, loe.ting highey .reosity cMid.."l,,,) "c.."'. "t'...c public flIcil.lties lIlld ~ir.:es, commercial ~ices, arterial or within wa1lcing dlstllllce of jobs or !rlllISit. III POLICY trI POlley ON COUNTY-WIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT 1. The private $eclor i~ prilllllli!y l"espoosible for the creation of <::alllolllic OjJportunity in Jefferson Count}'. The responsibility of the public sectof is to asStlre thaI tIIese activities life carried out. consistent with defined community and environmelll1l1 values. To t.his end, comprel1el\Slve 1,lan should cIeMl)' identify these values in order that economic opportUnity :~~ n()t:J<5$:t-~~ t:() eon:~i()~-'-O;f "~tl~b:i:Jiit'y():f- ~J:fi',P:~euhr:';):t;tf!'1ttioti ,"lit,} -~8iven to the needs of non-service sector bllSinesses llXld industries a;> a strategy 10 increase wage ea.mll"lg potential within the community. 2. An ecooomic development element should be prep<lfed and included in the County's Md i1ll:orpotllll:d lttea:;' comprehel1S1ve plllI!. 11U.s element shonld idennlY and designate aooquate areas fur COOlll1lilfcill1, retail, and indllStrial growt.ll necessary to sustain and meet future popullltioo and employment forecasts. Tbe <::alllo.mic development element shall be coordinated with the capital facility, land use lII!d utlllties elements of we cOll1preJIensiVe plait. 3. Each UOA and rural center i~ considered tbe commercial and bu.~iness "hub" in their rr;:spective area of We County. UClAs sMuld be viewed as regional service llXld retail centen;. wIllie Ille rWol <.:eo= foc"," i. "" 19Q11 ",,,,,..nullity """II and ....-vice needs., and transient accommodations. w 4. Certain imlustries due 1.0 !heir siu or type of opet1ltion, or du<: to their dependance the locaL resource base should not be located within the boundaries of UGAs. When locating these typeS of activities outside of UGAs, ~iaJ attention IllUst be given to l\l;sure that the activi~ wit! not promOte "urtJlUJ development" 1)f the surrounding area. These ac!ivities will need 1.0 be self-supporting IUld not require the C\Xtell$ion of urban services. J. The Port of Port Townsend's legislative authorl~ should be utilized as a tool to implelllent iJldustty lIlld trade strategies; including the promOOQll of employment opportunities, the consolidation lUJd ~ling of property. lUId the development of i!>l:I""U u<.:lUS ~ lU (0<%1. We ne<:<ls of industry cowisWtlt wilh q:ruUJrelleusi ye !'tillIS mu development fegulatiOllS. :1/"1 POLICY IS POLICY ON RURAL AREAS Rural areas are !hQ5e lands located outside Qf UGAs Md resource lands. ihese areM are characteriw:! by low density development, open spilce&, minimal public liCrvice&. resource dependent activities, and industries; II:l1d outdoor recreati\lllal facilities. Activities sileo lIS rcgiofUll retaiI-COI11Ull:rciaI Illcilities. business uffice parks and similar high intensity land uses are coosid1lred urban in nature and are illCons!ste.nt with rural area designations. The rural elemellt of the comprehensive plan 'wID be designed tQ r~ognize and ttlllilllllin !he unique character of individual n:tral areas with.out degmding !he environment or creating lIle ,need ((lr urban leVel of sel"Vl.<;CS. 2. The concept of clustering or deDsity tranSfer is conSidered a positive tool in maintaining the cbmd.er of n:tral areas. This concept assisCs in more efficient delivery of public services, millirnlzes the !leed for additional lnft'astrucu.u-e, and lit tile liltll:\!ii time max.imiteS land ayailable fo, nmoI~. Cluot~ of new dvvelopm<:on\ ,,, Fd"..-....J ,n <ural """"'. 3. Level (If Service SImldards will be adopted whicl1 identifies the type and scale of public facility and infra..'itructure impro"l{ements anticipated for r\Ifltl areas and rural centers. T)'Picallythcsc will include: e_mgrs~ncy SmilC'es. . transportation and roads. 21 . individual septic systems. . individual Qf community water systems. . storm water and walllr lluality. :5. R Ill<ll centers are those existiug lJllincorpara!e<I places which serve the retail commercial and service 1Iliecl5 of 1he local:area. These art1!lS will be delineated and rellOliIIl2cd in !he eUlIlprel,,:uslvl:: pl"'l WIISl:;tl'llt WIEh level vf service staDtlanls. l..all~ m~ wl\lIl/l mese centers include: . shopping, employment, and services for residents, SlJpplles fQl' resource industries, including commerclal, industrial, alId lOtlrism development at a scale !hat preserves !he S!lfrolmding rura1 llhm'al;:t:erlstics. . .......IlMfi.1 """,,1"1'_"', 1..",..<11"8 .m.I1~IOl: ",,,gb"'mily It"d ",,,lti.fA,,,ily; .M mtxed.ose develQJlments. . community facilities liDd St;I'Vices necessary to support the rural center and promote pedC5ltiIltl mobility. 6. The 1"IlI"d! element of the comprehensive plan win rocogni<.e existing industry located outside UGAs, as well 3S establish a framework fOr the siting of induslries which, due to 12 their size, resource dependence, or Incompatibility with UGAs, would be better suited ltl locate ill ttI1"1il Ilreas. Provl.slollS will lle made to ellSllre that adjacent land uses are not ll'IVI'VP.rted to'um::m H!tP..~th'l~ fr\'f:be:,pifl'!yJrrliry of dleQ~ c$p:v~l"Pri1pnn~ 'orfn'-in~stMJdu:rl'!! neees'lllry to support them. 2:> POLICY 119 POLICY ON FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. Include a fiscal impact assessment on the provision of public capital facilities, lI1at are intended to serve lI1e community, as an ongoing pllJ1 of tl1e comptebensive planning process. nus assessment will mclode project revenues and e>:.petldijures and an analysis of the cumulative fuclll impacts of providing govenunental ,services to accommodate the targeted population. The pwpose of lIle fiscal as&eSsment is to llSsure that projectec1 capItal costs can be reasollabIy supported within the capabilities of the community. 2. Within 1h<; ",1",..",,1;'; of Ill", <;ofUl',,,,I>ens,v(; plau. i","""uVe/l llml 'lQu.,(;gUlllW'Y vl,llvll' wJll be identified and developed as alternatives to regulam<y prOgrllDlS In the implementation . .. . .. ,- .'. .' '.. .. ... ", . comprebensive plan policy. 3. The City. any future incorporated UGA, md the County wifl address issues of laX '''e!Vetllle:~~mng~ th~. . provision of #sion:dS>erVi~s... ~t;rn~~ti()~s:~' ~_od -$imH~>fis<i'jd components throogb the development of interlocal Jlgreements. '4 '^ ~'~~~",",~_,~""=,,C"'~'" POLICY 110 POLlCY ON USE, MONITORING. REVIEW AND AMENDMENT ne County-wide Planning Policies will be \lli!bed w: . eStablish a framework for the development 1ll1d adojltiOll of comprehensive plans and lWppottillg -regulations. provide 1I foundation for eStablishing locally defined terJllS, and to d~et"mine conststewz:y with the criteria of the Growln M"""$"mi>nl Art . cooroWite and assurc ooll$istency among plllllS of theCOUllty, UGAs, SpeciaI pt.ll1l6s:e d1strlet.s and service providers. TIiCl Growth Management Sleermg Committee will s:etVe lIS II rCjl;lonal ov~gIll body during the developmellt of the comprehensive pllllls. Once ullineorporated UGM lite iden- tified, representatiOll of the unincorporated UOA will be illCluded OIl the steerint committee. The committee will review draft plans for COIlsIStcllCj' with thliSe polities in lW atl~ C<lpaclty ana repol1 ilS ttntlmgs w lIIe appmpfillle jurisdiction. 3. Tl:l~ policies sllall be periodically reviewed llIld may be amended ill tire following maooer: . the amendment is placed in writing and includes a brief cxplanatioo of why the tuneridt:na'ti: i<, w~tcd.~ and ,&) 20 ATTACHMENT 2 Chapter 173-517 WAC Chapter 173-517 WAC WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE QUILCENE-SNOW WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA 17) PART A - GENERAL PROVISIONS NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-010 Purpose and Introduction. (1) The purpose of this chapter is to retain rivers, streams, lakes and ponds in the Quilcene-Snow water resource inventory area (WRIA 17) with instream flows and levels necessary to protect and preserve wildlife, fish, stock water, scenic, aesthetic, recreation, water quality and other environmental values and navigational values. (2) WRIA 17 is located on the northeastern Olympic Peninsula and includes portions of Jefferson and Clallam counties. This chapter excludes part of the Clallam County portion of WRIA 17. (3) This chapter sets forth the department of ecology's (ecology) policies to guide the protection, use and management of WRIA 17 surface water and ground water resources. It establishes instream flows and closures, and sets forth a program for the administration of future water appropriation and use. For the Chimacum subbasin, where water availability is severely limited, a small amount of water is reserved for restricted out of stream use to provide a transition until alternative sources of water can be developed. (4) This chapter designates two types of management areas for administering future water appropriation and use: (a) Reserve management areas. This chapter establishes reserves of water within specified reserve management areas. (b) Coastal management areas. This chapter designates coastal management areas. (5) This chapter does not release anyone from complying with other relevant laws and rules. ( 1 I OTS-2234.8 NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-020 Authority and applicability. (1) This chapter is adopted under the authority of the Water Resources Act of 1971 (chapter 90.54 RCW) , Minimum Water Flows and Levels Act (chapter 90.22 RCW) , Watershed Planning Act (chapter 90.82 RCW) , Water code (chapter 90.03 RCW) , Regulation of public ground waters (chapter 90.44 RCW) and the water resources management program rule (chapter 173-500 WAC). (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, this chapter applies to the use and appropriation of: (a) All surface waters within WRIA 17, including all streams, and their tributaries, that drain to salt water; and (b) All ground water within WRIA 17, including ground water hydraulically connected to surface water bodies, as well as ground water that drains to salt water. (3) The following portion of WRIA 17 located in Clallam County, as shown in Map B in WAC 173-517-070, will be addressed through future rule making and is excluded from coverage under this chapter: . Johnson Creek; . West Sequim Bay; . Dean Creek; . Jimmycomelately Creek; . Chicken Coop Creek; and . The portion of Miller Peninsula in Clallam County. (4) This chapter shall not affect existing water rights, including perfected riparian rights, or other appropriative rights, unless otherwise provided for in the conditions of the water right in question. An existing permit-exempt withdrawal is not subject to the rule to the extent such withdrawal has been put to beneficial use on the subject property for the purpose of use in question. (5) This chapter shall not affect federal or Indian reserved rights. The Jamestown S' Klallam, Port Gamble S' Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, and Skokomish Tribes reserve the right to claim a treaty-derived off-reservation instream flow right with senior priori ty. The extent of such rights can only be determined in other forums outside of this chapter. (6) This chapter does not limit ecology's establish flow requirements or conditions under including hydropower licensing under RCW 90.48.260. authority to other laws, NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-030 Defini tions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply. If these definitions differ from those in related rules, the definitions presented here [ 2 ] OTS-2234.8 shall apply for this chapter: (1) "Allocation" means the designating of specific amounts of water. (2) "Appropriation" means the process of legally acquiring the right to specific amounts of water for beneficial uses, as consistent with ground and surface water codes and other applicable statutes. This term refers to both surface and ground water right permits and to ground water withdrawals exempted from permit requirements under RCW 90.44.050. (3) "Commercial agriculture" means the production of crops for sale, crops intended for widespread distribution (e.g., markets), and nonfood crops such as hay and lavender. Commercial agriculture includes livestock production and livestock grazing. Commercial agriculture does not include crops grown for household consumption (e.g., household vegetable gardens or fruit trees). (4) "Consumptive use" means a beneficial use of water that diminishes the amount or quality of water in the water source. (5) "Domestic use" means use of water associated with human health and welfare requirements, including water used for drinking, bathing, sanitary requirements, cooking, laundering and other incidental household uses, including potable domestic water requirements associated with commercial and industrial purposes. (6) "Ecology" means the Washington state department of ecology. (7) "Group domestic system" means domestic use of the ground water exemption for two or more residences. (8) "Hydraulically connected" means saturated conditions exist that allow water to move between two or more sources of water, either between surface water and ground water or between ground water sources. (9) "Individual user" means all uses on an individual parcel or adjoining parcels under common ownership that do not qualify as a group domestic system. (10) "Instream flow" means a stream flow level set in rule to protect and preserve wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic, recreation, water quality and other environmental values, and navigational values. The term "instream flow" means a base flow under chapter 90.54 RCW, a minimum flow under chapter 90.03 or 90.22 RCW, or a minimum instream flow under chapter 90.82 RCW. (11) "Interruptible use" means a use, authorized under a water right, which must cease diversion or withdrawal when stream flows fall below the instream flow levels established in this rule. (12) "Mitigation plan" means a plan, submitted to and approved by ecology, to offset the impacts of a proposed consumptive use. A mitigation plan may address impacts to a stream, basin, reach, or other area, for an individual withdrawal or for multiple withdrawals in a subbasin. (a) A mitigation plan must show that the proposed withdrawal with mitigation in place, will not: . Impair existing water rights, including instream flow rights; . Be detrimental to the public interest; or [ 3 ] OTS-2234.8 . Consume water from a closed source. (b) The plan must include financial assurance, ensure mitigation measures for the duration of the water use and prohibit water provided for the purpose of mitigation from appropriation for any other purpose. (c) The plan must include a monitoring and reporting plan, including a quality assurance/quality control plan. (13) "Outdoor irrigation" means watering greenhouse or outdoor plants, lawns, or gardens. (14) "Permit-exempt withdrawals" or "permit-exempt well" means a ground water withdrawal exempted from permit requirements under RCW 90.44.050, but otherwise subject to the surface and ground water statutes and other applicable laws, including this chapter. (15) "Reserve" means a one-time, finite allocation of water for future appropriations. (16) "Stream management unit" means a stream segment, reach, or tributary used to describe the part of the relevant stream to which a particular instream flow level applies. (17) "Subbasin" means a reserve management area or coastal management area as shown on Map B in WAC 173-517-070. (18) "Withdrawal" means the appropriation or use of ground water, or the diversion or use of surface water. Withdrawal includes both withdrawals under a water right permit and permit- exempt withdrawals. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-040 Compliance and enforcement. (1) In accordance with RCW 90.03.605, to assist the public in complying with this chapter, ecology shall prepare and distribute technical and educational information regarding the scope and requirements of this chapter. (2) When ecology determines that a violation has occurred, it shall: (a) First attempt to achieve voluntary compliance. One method is to offer information and technical assistance to the person, in wri ting, showing one or more means to legally accomplish the person's purposes. (b) If education and technical assistance do not achieve compliance, ecology may issue a notice of violation, a formal administrative order under RCW 43.27A.190, or assess penalties under RCW 43.83B.336, 90.03.400, 90.03.410, 90.03.600, 90.44.120, and 90.44.130. (3) Nothing in this section is intended to prevent ecology from taking immediate action to cause a violation to be ceased immediately if in the opinion of the department the nature of the violation is causing harm to other water rights or to public or tribal resources. [ 4 ] OTS-2234.8 NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-050 Appeals. All of ecology's final written decisions pertaining to permits, regulatory orders, and related decisions made pursuant to this chapter may be appealed to the pollution control hearings board in accordance with chapter 43.21B RCW. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-060 Regulation review. (1) Ecology reserves the right to review and amend this rule as needed. (2) Ecology, in consultation with the counties, the city of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD #1, tribal governments, other state agencies, and the WRIA 17 planning unit (if active), may initiate a review, and if necessary a modification through rule making, of this chapter as appropriate, including whenever: . Applicable statutory changes are enacted. . Significant new information becomes available. . Significant changes in conditions such as population growth trends, water service areas and ground water levels occur. (3) Ecology, in consultation with the counties, Jefferson County PUD #1, tribal governments and the WRIA 17 planning unit (if active), will annually review the allocated and unallocated amounts for each reserve management area. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-070 Maps. For the purpose of administering this chapter, two maps are provided. Map A shows the boundaries of the stream management units and the control points. Map B shows reserve management areas, coastal management areas, and the portion of WRIA 17 not covered by this chapter. [ 5 ] OTS-2234.8 MapA WRIA 17 Stream Management Units and Control Points [ 6 I OTS-2234.8 MapB WRIA 17 Sub Basins L~~J Coastal ManagementAreas ~. No Out<ioor Irrigation Reserve r:::J Re;serve Management Areas 11!tH~1 Clallam CounlY Sub Basins C County Bound:; CQvel':!tg" Pet'ilp01led} 2 Mites .[S~rQG PART B - INSTREAM FLOWS AND CLOSURES [ 7 ] OTS-2234.8 NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-080 Establishment of stream management units. Ecology hereby establishes the following stream management units, with accompanying control points. A control point is a designated location on a stream used to set and measure instream flow levels. Each control point location is identified by estimated river mile and approximate latitude and longitude in Table 1. The control points and boundaries of the stream management units are shown on Map A in WAC 173-517-070. Table 1 Stream ManaO"ement Unit Information Control Point by River Mile (Rl\I); Stream Latitude North Stream Management (Lat) and Longitude Management Unit Name West (Long) Reach Big Quilcene RM 0.4 From mouth to River Lat 4r 49' 07" N, headwaters, Long 1220 52' 17" W including tributaries. Chimacum RMO.3 From mouth to Creek Lat 48003' 00" N, headwaters, Long 122047' 07" W including tributaries. Donovan RM 0.4 From mouth to Creek Lat 470 49' 58" N, headwaters, Long 1220 51' 43" W including tributaries. Howe Creek RMO.5 From mouth to Lat 470 52' 43" N, headwaters, Long 1220 55' 24" W including tributaries. Leland Creek RMO.l From mouth to Lat 47050' 18" N, headwaters, Long 1220 53' 10" W including tributaries. Little RMO.8 From mouth to Quilcene Lat 470 49' 48" N, headwaters, River Long 1220 52' 30" W including tributaries except Leland and Howe creeks. Ludlow Creek RMO.5 F fom mouth to Lat 470 55' 00" N, headwaters, Long 1220 43' 00" W including tributaries. [ 8 I OTS-2234.8 Control Point by River Mile (RM); Stream Latitude North Stream Management (Lat) and Longitude Management Unit Name West (Lon!!) Reach Piddling RMO.2 From mouth to Creek Lat 47' 57' 27" N, headwaters, #] 7.0200 Long 122' 41' 54" W including tributaries. Salmon Creek RMO.8 From mouth to Lat 47' 58' 49" N, headwaters, Long 122' 53' 49" W including tributaries. Snow Creek RMO.4 From mouth to Lat 47' 59' 02" N, headwaters, Long 122' 53' 12" W including tributaries. Spencer Creek RMO.O From mouth to Lat 47' 44' 45" N, headwaters, Long 122' 52' 33" W including tributaries. Tarboo Creek RMO.8 From mouth to Lat 47' 52' 08" N, headwaters, Long 122' 49' 03" W including tributaries. Thorndyke RM1.2 From mouth to Creek Lat 470 49' 24" N, headwaters, Long 122' 44' 23" W including tributaries. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-090 Instream flows. (1) Instream flows established in this chapter are flow levels which protect and preserve wildlife, fish, stock water, scenic, aesthetic, recreation, water quality and other environmental values, and navigational values. (2) Instream flows established in this chapter are water rights, which protect instream values from future consumptive appropriations. The priority date of the instream flows is the effective date of this chapter. (3) Instream flows will be protected from impairment by any new water rights commenced after the effective date of this chapter and by all future changes and transfers of senior and junior water rights, including both surface and ground water rights. The following water rights are not subject to instream flows: (a) Water rights existing before the effective date of this chapter as explained in WAC 173-517-020(4). [ 9 ] OTS-2234.8 (b) Water rights appropriated from the reserves of water established in WAC 173-517-150. (c) Future withdrawals for environmental restoration purposes under WAC 173-517-200, unless included as a permit condition. (4) Instream flows are expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs), and measured at the control points identified in WAC 173- 517-080. (5) Instream flows are established in Tables 2 through 4 below, for the stream management units identified in WAC 173-517- 080. Table 2 1nstream Flows (in cfs) for Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, with Ecology Gauge Number and River Mile (RM\ Big Quilcene Little Quilcene River Ecology River Ecology Gauge #17 A060 Gauge #17D060 Month RM 0.4 RMO.8 January 120 61 February 120 61 March 190 100 April 190 100 May 190 92 June 190 66 July 190 66 August 167 27 September 94 30 October 180 48 November 120 61 December 120 61 Table 3 Instream Flows (in cfs) for Named Creeks with Ecology Stream Gauges {includinl! e:au!!e number and River Mile RM\\ Tarboo Creek Chima cum Salmon Creek Snow Creek Ecology Thorndyke Creek Ecology Ecology Gauge Ecology Gauge Gauge Creek Ecology Gauge #178050 #17F060 #17E060 #17G060 Gauge #17H060 Month RMO.3 RMO.8 RM 0.4 RMO.8 RMI.2 January 25 21 35 20 24 February 25 21 35 20 24 March 46 40 50 25 45 April 46 35 50 16 45 May 32 26 50 8 30 June 10 26 35 8 30 July 10 9 17 8 12 August 10 9 15 8 12 September 17 9 20 8 12 October 20 12 35 8 12 [ 10 ] OTS-2234.8 Tarboo Creek Chimacum Salmon Creek Snow Creek Ecology Thorndyke Creek Ecology Ecology Gauge Ecology Gauge Gauge Creek Ecology Gauge #17B050 #17F060 #17E060 #17G060 Gauge #17H060 Month RM 0.3 RMO.8 RM 0.4 RMO.8 RM1.2 November 25 21 35 20 24 December 25 21 35 20 24 Table 4 Instream Flows (in cfs) for Other Named Creeks (includin!! River Mile (R'VI\ Donovan Leland Ludlow Piddling Spencer Creek Howe Creek Creek . Creek Creek Creek Month RM 0.4 RM 0.5 RJ'VIO.1 RMO.5 RMO.2 RM 0.0 January 15.5 17.1 33.1 32.1 5.8 13.3 February 10.2 11.3 21.8 21.2 3.8 8.8 March 29.8 32.6 58.3 56.8 12.4 26.1 April 29.8 32.6 58.3 56.8 12.4 26.1 May 19.7 21.5 38.5 37.9 8.2 17.2 June 19.7 21.5 38.5 37.9 8.2 17.2 July 6.1 6.8 13.9 13.5 2.1 5.2 August 6.1 6.8 13.9 13.5 2.1 5.2 September 6.1 6.8 13.9 13.5 2.1 5.2 October 6.1 6.8 13.9 13.5 2.1 5.2 November 15.5 17.1 33.1 32.1 5.8 13.3 December 15.5 17.1 33.1 32.1 5.8 13.3 NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-100 Closures. (1) Based on past and current low flows, ecology has determined that no waters are reliably available for new consumptive uses from the streams and tributaries in WRIA 17 listed in Table 5, with the exception of certain times of year in the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek. Therefore, all surface waters listed in Table 5 are closed to any further consumptive appropriation, except as provided in WAC 173-517-110. Ecology finds that there is some water available above the instream flows at specific locations and times of year in the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek that could be appropriated for storage or other projects that do not require year-round water supplies. These withdrawals require a water right permit from ecology and are subject to the seasonal restrictions in Table 5, the instream flows established in WAC 173-517-090, and the allocation limits defined in WAC 173-517-140. (2) Closures in subsection (1) of this section include future withdrawals from ground water that would have an adverse impact on [ 11 ] OTS-2234.8 closed surface water, including permit-exempt withdrawals. (3) Exceptions to the closures are provided in WAC 173-517- 110. Table 5 Surface Water Closures Stream Management Unit Name Affected Reach Timing Big Quilcene From mouth to June 16 to River headwaters, November 15 including tributaries. Chimacum From mouth to March 1 to Creek headwaters, November 30 including tributaries. Donovan Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. Howe Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. Leland Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. Little Quilcene From mouth to All Year River headwaters, including tributaries except Leland and Howe creeks. Ludlow Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. Piddling Creek From mouth to All Year #17.0200 headwaters, including tributaries. Salmon Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. Snow Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. [ 12 ] OTS-2234.8 Stream Management Unit Name Affected Reach Timing Spencer Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. Tarboo Creek From mouth to All Year headwaters, including tributaries. Thorndyke From mouth to All Year Creek headwaters, including tributaries. PART C - FUTURE NEW WATER USE NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-110 Future new water use--Generally. A new surface or ground water appropriation (including any permit-exempt ground water withdrawal) or other new use may occur only if consistent with the surface and ground water statutes and the applicable requirements of law and if anyone of the following seven conditions (subsections (1) through (7) of this section) apply: (1) The proposed use is nonconsumptive. (2) The proposed surface water appropriation would not have an adverse effect on any of the surface waters closed in WAC 173-517- 100 (1) . (3) The proposed ground water withdrawal is located where it would not adversely affect any of the surface waters closed in WAC 173-517-100 (1), by meeting either condition (a) or (b) of this subsection: (a) The person or entity seeking to commence a proposed ground water appropriation shows, through scientifically sound studies and technical analysis, that the ground water use would not have an adverse effect on any of the surface waters closed in WAC 173-517- 100(1), and receives approval of a water right. (b) The proposed ground water appropriation occurs in a coastal management area designated in Map B of WAC 173-517-070. (4) The person or entity seeking to commence the new appropriation submits a mitigation plan as defined in WAC 173-517- [ 13 ] OTS-2234.8 030(12), and such plan is approved by ecology. If monitoring shows the mitigation is not effective, use of water under the appropriation shall then be subject to the instream flows. In the case of a closed basin, the use shall cease until an effective mitigation plan, approved by ecology, is put in place. (5) The proposed water appropriation qualifies as an interruptible use and meets the criteria in WAC 173-517-140. (6) The proposed water appropriation qualifies for the reserves established and conditioned in WAC 173-517-150. (7) The proposed water appropriation is for an environmental restoration project and meets the criteria in WAC 173-517-200. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-120 Conservation standard. Ecology has determined that a conservation standard for new permit-exempt withdrawals authorized under RCW 90.44.050 is necessary to conserve available water and protect instream resources. (1) For the purposes of this chapter the conservation standard for permit-exempt withdrawals is defined as follows: (a) Water use from a permit-exempt well must be consistent with Jefferson County or ClallamCounty code, as applicable, and other applicable laws, including the statute on permit exemptions, RCW 90.44.050, and this rule. (b) A permit-exempt well serving an individual user shall not exceed a maximum of 500 gpd or an annual average more than 350 gpd, for all permit-exempt uses authorized under RCW 90.44.050. (c) A well serving a group domestic system shall not exceed a maximum use of 500 gpd or an annual average more than 350 gpd, for each residence, and shall not exceed a total use of 5,000 gpd for the group. The design and construction of group domestic systems must be consistent with applicable state department of health requirements and applicable Jefferson County or Clallam County requirements. (2) New permit-exempt well use exceeding 500 gpd for an individual use, including individual uses associated with a group domestic withdrawal, may occur provided all of the following are met: (a) Water use greater than 500 gpd must be offset through implementation of an approved mitigation plan as described in WAC 173-517-030(12). If monitoring of a mitigation plan shows the mitigation is not effective, departmental approval of the mitigation plan shall be suspended and the water use shall cease until the department approves a new or revised mitigation plan; and (b) Total water use shall not exceed 5,000 gpd. (3) New permit-exempt withdrawals must measure water use in accordance with WAC 173-517-180. [ 14 ] OTS-2234.8 NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-140 Maximum future allocations for interruptible use. (1) Ecology finds there may be water available in excess of instream flows at certain times of year, which may be appropriated for interruptible uses. This water is only available from the Big Quilcene River from November 16 to June 15 and from Chimacum Creek from December 1 to February 29. (2) A person or entity seeking a new interruptible appropriation must provide assurances that any negative effects on surface water that may result from withdrawals will be limited to the above locations and times. (3) In no case shall total cumulative appropriations exceed the allocation limit specified in Table 7 for each river. However, ecology may lower these allocation limits on a case-by-case basis, upon consultation with the state department of fish and wildlife and tribes, whenever more protection of habitat-forming functions is needed. (4) Interruptible uses must not impair existing water rights and instream flows set in WAC 173-517-090. Table 7 'nen eriod and Allocation lmit Allocation Limit in Cubic Feet Per Second (cfs) and Gallons Per Water Source Ooen Period Dav (~pd) Big Quilcene Open Period: Allocation River November 16 to Limit: 15 cfs; June 15 . 9.69 million gpd Chimacum Open Period: Allocation Creek December 1 to Limit: 3 cfs; February 29 1.94 million gpd o p L' NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-150 Reserves of water for future use. (1) Ecology has weighed the public interest that supports reserving a limi ted amount of water for new consumptive uses against the potential for negative impact to instream resources. For the subbasins discussed in this section ecology finds that the public interest advanced by limited reserves clearly overrides the potential for small negative impact to instream resources. Based on this finding, ecology hereby allocates an amount of water for each reserve management area as indicated in Table 8. [ 15 ] OTS-2234.8 These reserves of water are not subject to the instream flows established in WAC 173-517-090 or closures established in WAC 173- 517-100. The priority date of an appropriation from a reserve is the effective date of this chapter. These reserves are available to a set forth in this section are met, requirements of law, including, but resource laws and regulations. (2) These reserves shall be available for use only after the county with jurisdiction commits to ecology in writing confirming that determinations of adequate potable water for building permits and subdivision approvals will be consistent with this chapter. (3) Permit-exempt well withdrawals from reserves may not occur where a public water supplier can provide a connection in a timely and reasonable manner. Determinations of what it means to provide water service in a timely and reasonable manner shall be consistent with public water system plans, if applicable, and applicable state and local laws including, but not limited to, Jefferson County or Clallam County code. (4) Donovan, Ludlow, Piddling, Spencer, and Tarboo subbasins. Withdrawals from the reserves of water in Donovan, Ludlow, Piddling, Spencer, and Tarboo reserve management areas shall be limited to permit-exempt well use consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120. (5) Salmon and Snow subbasins. Withdrawals from the reserves of water in Salmon and Snow reserve management areas shall be limited to permit-exempt well use consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120, and the following: Up to 5,000 gallons per day of the Salmon Creek reserve, and up to 3,000 gallons per day of the Snow Creek reserve may be used for a permit- exempt withdrawal for commercial agriculture. (a) Each user must register with ecology or its designee before water use for commercial irrigation begins. (b) If the commercial agricultural use ceases, then the balance of the water returns to the reserve and use of the well shall be consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120. (6) Little Quilcene and Thorndyke subbasins. Withdrawals from the reserves of water in Little Quilcene (includes Leland and Howe creeks), and Thorndyke reserve management areas shall be limited to permit-exempt well use consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120, and the uses listed below through approval of a water right permit subject to a public interest evaluation that takes into account water availability for future domestic use in the subbasin: (a) Municipal or community domestic water supply with domestic hookups consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120. (b) Agricultural irrigation. (c) Industrial. (7) Big Quilcene subbasin. Withdrawals from the reserve of water in the Big Quilcene reserve management area shall be limited user only if the as well as any not limited to, conditions applicable all water 16 ] OTS-2234.8 to permit-exempt well use consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120, and the following: (a) Permit exempt withdrawal for commercial agriculture. (i) Each user is limited to 5,000 gpd as a permit-exempt well under RCW 90.44.050. (ii) Each user must register with ecology or its designee before water use for commercial irrigation begins. (iii) If the commercial agricultural use ceases, then the balance of the water returns to the reserve and use of the well shall be consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120. (b) The uses listed below through approval of a water right permit subject to a public interest evaluation that takes into account water availability for future domestic use in the subbasin: Ii) Municipal or community domestic water supply with domestic hookups consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173-517-120. (ii) Agricultural irrigation. (iii) Industrial. (8) Chimacum subbasin. Future withdrawals from the reserve of water in the Chimacum reserve management area shall be limited to domestic permit-exempt well use as defined in WAC 173-517-030(5), and such use shall not include outdoor irrigation, except for the following: (a) When alternative water supply or a mitigation strategy is approved by ecology and implemented, this limitation to domestic use for the Chimacum basin no longer applies and permit-exempt well use consistent with the conservation standard defined in WAC 173- 517-120 is allowed. (b) If the report for U.S. Geological Survey ground water model currently under construction for the Chima cum Creek subbasin identifies specific areas within the Chimacum subbasin where new well pumping will not have any effect on creek flows, withdrawals from new wells in those areas will not be deducted from the reserve and will not be subject to the restriction on outdoor irrigation. Instead, use of new permit-exempt wells will be regulated by the statutory permit exemption found in RCW 90 _ 44.050. If such a change occurs, ecology shall notify the public of these findings through publication of a Chimacum Creek Water Supply Bulletin. (9) The place of use of water taken from the reserve is limited to the reserve management area from which it is withdrawn unless ecology, in consultation with the applicable county, department of fish and wildlife, and tribes allow specific transfers between subbasins. An applicant for a water right that includes out of subbasin water use must comply with WAC 173-517- 210. (10) When each reserve is fully appropriated, the applicable reserve management areas are hereby closed to any further consumptive appropriation. Under such circumstances water for new uses may be available in accordance with WAC 173-517-110, such as: . Mitigation is provided; . The proposed use is nonconsumptive; [ 17 ] OTS-2234.8 . Alternative sources of water are available; or . An existing water right can be changed or transferred. Table 8 Reserve Mana ement Areas, Reserve Quantities and Allowed Uses Reserve Management Area Reserve Quantity Maximum Water Source (including Average Daily Use in Gallons tributaries) (~nd) Allowed Uses of Reserve* Big Quilcene 200,400 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 . PermitMexempt withdrawals for agriculture . Water right pennits subject to public interest test for domestic availability Chimacum 1.940 gpd . Permit-exempt withdrawals for domestic use, no outdoor irrigation Donovan 2,326 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 Little Quilcene (includes Leland 38,800 gpd . Permit~exempt uses under the and Howe creeks) conservation standard per WAC 173- 517.120 . Water right pennits subject to public interest test for domestic availability Ludlow 7,830 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517.120 Piddling 1.845 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 Salmon 9,050 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 . Permit-exempt withdrawals for agriculture Snow 4.140 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 . Permit-exempt withdrawals for agriculture Spencer 2,200 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 Tarboo 7,110 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 Thorndyke 31,670 gpd . Permit-exempt uses under the conservation standard per WAC 173- 517-120 [ 18 ] OTS-2234.8 Reserve Management Area Reserve Quantity Maximum 'Vater Source (including Average Daily Use in Gallons tributaries) (gpd) Allowed Uses of Reserve* . Water right pennits subject to public interest test for domestic availability *This table lists the types of allowed uses. See the text of the rule for specific requirements for each use. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-160 Accounting for use under the reserves. (1) Ecology shall maintain a record of all appropriations from the reserves. (2) For an appropriation under a permit, ecology will account for water use under the reserve based on authorized quantities under water right permits or certificates, and metering data. (3) For permit-exempt ground water appropriations from reserves other than Chimacum subbasin, ecology will deduct a standard amount of 250 gpd for each single domestic use. For a permit-exempt agricultural use, ecology will deduct 5,000 gpd for the Big Quilcene and Salmon Creek subbasins and 3,000 gpd for the Snow Creek subbasin. The amounts deducted from the reserves may be adjusted periodically by ecology, to reflect actual use during low flow conditions based on metering data or other measurements. (4) For permit-exempt ground water appropriations from the Chimacum reserve, ecology will deduct a standard amount of 13 gpd for each single domestic use. (5) If a water user permanently ceases use of water, ecology may credit the water to the appropriate reserve, upon demonstration, through written certification, that the well or surface water diversion has been decommissioned. (6) Ecology shall notify the county (or counties) with jurisdiction, and publish a public notice, when it determines that fifty percent, seventy-five percent, and one hundred percent, respectively, of a reserve is appropriated. (7) If a new appropriation, located in a subbasin with a reserve, is fully offset through implementation of an approved mitigation plan as described in WAC 173-517-030(12), then ecology will not deduct the amount of new water use from the reserve. [ 19 ] OTS-2234.8 NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-170 Lakes and ponds. RCW 90.54.020 (3) (a) requires, in part, that the quality of the natural environment shall be protected, and where possible, enhanced, and that lakes and ponds shall be retained substantially in their natural condition. Any withdrawal from a lake or pond in WRIA 17 requires a water right permit from ecology, and must be consistent with the provisions of this chapter. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-180 Measuring water use. Each future new appropriation of ground water or surface water, including permit- exempt well use, is required to install and maintain a measuring device (water meter) meeting specifications provided by ecology. The user must report to ecology, by December 31 of each year, meter readings demonstrating water use for the previous water year, October 1 through September 30, or as directed by ecology. NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-200 Future surface water withdrawals for environmental restoration. Ecology finds that the public interest advanced by future withdrawals for environmental restoration proj ects (ERPs), as defined and conditioned in this section, clearly overrides the minimal negative impacts on instream flows. (1) Ecology may approve a future withdrawal for an ERP only if it meets all the following: (a) The proposed water use is for a bypass flow for salmonid habitat restoration, or for riparian planting, and the primary purpose of the project is restoration of salmonids; (b) The proposed project will result in aquatic habitat benefits, and such benefits will exceed any detriment to aquatic habi tat that may be caused by reductions in flow at specific locations and times of withdrawal; and (c) The proposed use qualifies for a temporary permit. (2) Ecology, in consultation with the department of fish and wildlife and tribes, will evaluate proposed ERPs. ERPs approved by ecology are not subject to closures or instream flows set in this chapter, unless otherwise conditioned by the permit. [ 20 ] OTS-2234.8 NEW SECTION WAC 173-517-210 out of subbasin water use. (1) Ecology recognizes that rainfall patterns, and the rain shadow effect of the Olympic Mountains, affect water availability in WRIA 17. In addition, population growth patterns in WRIA 17 have historically shown highest growth in areas with less rainfall. For these reasons, ecology recognizes that future water right applicants may request using water from one subbasin in a different subbasin, and that such out of subbasin water use may have lasting effects on the community. Such use may occur only if consistent with all applicable requirements of state and federal law. (2) An applicant for a water right that includes out of subbasin water use shall: (a) Provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed application. The applicant shall: . Advertise and convene a public meeting to explain the proposal; and . Allow for public comment use to be harmful to the public (b) The applicant shall identifies: . Alternatives examined; . Any alternatives/modifications that the applicant has rejected and why; and . Any alternatives/modifications that the applicant accepts and, if relevant, have been made. (c) The report in (b) of this subsection shall also summarize the comments received through the public meeting in (a) of this subsection on the potential for the proposed use to be harmful to the public interest. on the potential interest. provide ecology for the proposed a report which [ 21 ] OTS-2234.8 ATTACHMENT 3 Power Point Presentation/Water Supply May 12, 2009 c E I-IQ) -c:J ....... C en co~ E 1- Q) Q) 0....... co Q) > Ii 1- >' ~ :J I 1- ;, ....... Q) I :J 0..; LL E I 0).- C :J :pO Q) Q) Q)..c ~....... 8 ~ ..00 -I-J .- :J (1) Co.. ..c:J (j) -1-1 ~ 0 og1::o -1-1 .- :J N '"0 CO.... (1)CUN -1-1 co ,...; co::: C ~ ~r--..~co (1),...;1-~ 1- (1) o..<(tt: 1-1(1) O:::I'J $ c o .- ........ ro ........ c CIJ (/) (]) 1- a.. 4- o ........ c (]) ........ C 1--1 ...(/) o >-=> 0.0... 0.Q) :J.c (/)-1-1 1-.c Q)~ 10s SOl C ro.- -1-11:: :Jro 0-1-1 ..o(/) ro"'" C..-I I 0 <( ~ -- t--f ! U) 0:::: I a$ I .5:!2 C -a .- roM] Q) '61 iU ~ . :ProC .- 1- S C-I-Io I-l U) . o c .- U) Q) . -. Q) . E Be ~x .~ :p a3 .5:!2 2 r-T\ 19 0. >- C _, C '" - 0 c 'v 0. U :P ill (/) 0. >- U) Q) 1- ::J O'l ro 1-0 U)Q) U 0. t: U)-I-I Q) ... Q)'" ro 1- ... r"'\ 1- o -aQ)L...J.j....J 4-- 1- _ :::> U) -r-t ro..o 0... 1- - 0 .- OJ C ..0 U) Q).j....J ro Q)U).cro E .j....Jo.j....J> . - 0... ::> Q)..c 4-- C >...,...; Oro "0 . - ::> \,J 1-(/):::: Q) Q)e OJ ro >< E'- .j....J..o ro.- '" '" 4-- 0 'v 'v E .c (/) U) Q) S U.- 1- U) a :J Ol 9< <:( U) E C ~...!.. ro . - 1- a E >-E b ~ U) . - 1- -1-1 U) OJ .-.c Q) 0 OJ ou>zo:6 . . . I.. cu Q. E ._ U) :1.5 O'U) c RS .- .Q I U).Q E :s cu(/) 1;; E >:s U)u I.. RS B E ta.- ~O c:;n"C C C .- ta ..., U) .- >< w - (1) :e.... (1)0. ....'1- _c 0 " .- _c(1)l;' In C 1.._ CN'sU,..:.. Cc~EE N ._ Ioi- 0 (1) C C a) I..... .- 0 U) 'I- U) 1tJ:i:i ItJ ~ ~ (1) U .c .... I. < (1) ~ ItJ (1) I c~::Q. 'i: C Q. (1) E .... 8 .... -'- C 1tJ::::S 5 "C (1) U) 0' .- (1) U (1) (1) :: 't ~ O.c "C ItJ __.c.... (1) ~ (1) :: 'E .5 ~ ~5't .g C = .;: ItJ -- 1tJ'- ;:> Q. .c-> .... :a (1) ~ ItJ ::::s ..., == ~.... O-.cLO I.. (I) C 0 (1) C CIJ (1) .s ~ U) > Q.n:J>U)u Iii E (1) 0 ::.- M C .- I. U 0 Q.:t4: (1) ~c:(c~EO~ O'...!. (1) ItJ >::) ~ Qt:.G~O...l~ ~ . . . . . E CIJ t) ~ I.. CIJ ...., RS 3: . 8 E (1) .... Ul > (I) I. ~ ~ ~ = 3:~E~Q. "C~~(I) g C VI I. I. ~~~!~ c1ijl.ltJ....... ~3:~3:~ U)....(1)3:"g3: E 't E:'.... 1tJ_ C1JoociiiltJ ...., 0. (1)'- ..... ~ U)'I-~oc"C >- 0 0. ItJ 'S; U) >. 0.(1) 1tJ.-.- 1.."" -"C"C CIJ .- ItJ ItJ C C .cuu:::.::.......... c:> · · · · · . U) c o :p CO U o ....J - - (]) $: '"0 C CO E (]) -I-J U} >-- ". (f) 1- (]) -I-J CO $: 1- (]) 0- E .- ::J a & ~ . to >< "0 o C C a.. ._ = Q.CI)o Q.tO_ c:cm... ~: ij .n [1 . ;/ 1 ~ (~ .-'-.,.....--............ /" .....~.,.'y.,. \,~ ~ co .- u -_.- tt: o c ::J '--" re>- co) o 0) . - -I-' -I-'re CO ~ 1--1-' aJ(f) 0..0) Ou o:S :::>0 c.. (f) ~ GJ .- ..0 . 0 (/) Clo::::"' "'Cl GJ 3: c t).c:::.. C ~ :5 GJ '(0 o.~ ro ::l 0 C .I-J U Cl. (/) 0 ..0 ........... W GJ E 1: (/) \.i- Ol U l... >- Ol l... 0 .S 0- .- 2 .I-J Cl. -g E8 ~ ro (;::. E ro GJ c 2 3: GJ~~ ~ ':>..e Ol ro GJ .c:::.. ~ ~ ~'c 3: :6 ..00 GJ ::l l... GJ . 0 ro GJ........... .!::::! u ro..o0:::::> c :5t: E ~ iO >- GJ 0.. W 0 GJ 'c - > .I-J.I-J E .- ....ero> Ol.- E C .I-J.I-J >- c"-" ro (/) c .- (/) C GJ :.a.,.., (V) GJ . GJ 0 0 :0 ~ GJE "5 .~:t:l:: .N (2' ~ .l...>.I-J . . - l... . - x - l... CJ):J >-.,.-::.., X ::l c~ Q) Q) Q)<( 0 c 0l0l ,i ~ (/)0 e 3: .l-Ju 3: tJ ... ~ Q)Q) O.S , .- Q) ro l... l... 0 I "'Cl > Q) Ol l... GJ .e l... ! "'Cl Q) C Z .I-J C ro.I-J C.I-J C ro R (/) Q). O.-.e ro.- .e Cl. ro::l ~ l..."I: U $ (/) ""0 U CJ) (/) ""0 "'Cl > Cl. ro ro ro c 2.I-J Q) C C:E "'Cl Cl. "'Cl Q) ...0 ro ro ~ roroo C~~(/)b~ 3:.e ::l Cl. Q)........... ro (/) GJ GJ (/) o 0.> GJ .I-J ~ ~ ro ~ E C ro ~ GJ tJ Ol ~ ~ i::.e 0 0 ~~ > > Q)CU t:::l GJ~ GJt)=u Q) oQ) tt=;= Q) 0 "'Cl (/) (/):J .I-J CU Z GJ > 0.. (/) I-l...........:::::> u ::J...o . . . . . . OJ en co -- > OJ -- ..0 o ~ u -- c.. E ~ o "'0 c:: ro -I-' c:: ~ro CJ)1- QJ en 10 ro 1- .c -I-'CJ) U> :J o 0 :::) 1- 0-:6 ~ ! "I- E i 0 ; i QJ I QJ-I-' - U> E~ ro CJ) X c:: QJ .- 1- "'0 o o 19 11 · · .- . :JU> erQJ u-I-' <(~ @ . .... ~-I-'E~ I roQJ cL QJ .c -I-' 1- 1--I-'(/)U UQJ>-ro ro u(/)- LJ') 1- 1- CO _ :J QJ c:: N 0 0. 0 N ...(/) E E ....... .- "'0 E .~ ~ "'0 0. (/) "-' CO en~QJ1- OO"l-cJ2 LJ') 0 QJ ~ M-I-'(/)- QJ:JO 0. 1- 0 -I-' 0. . CO:::: "'0 CO ro (/) c:: QJ >- b 1: ro (/) OJ -I-' CJ)QJ:J9.~ .- ..c QJ - I 1- ..c=QJ 1- "'0 .- 1- 2-s:Q$:u CO 0:J QJro $ $ 8 $~ .. . c.. o o -I CJ) O'l C -- -I-' CJ) ro :c ..c -I-' :J o (f) (V') :t:t: o :::::> ....J o -1-1 0.. :J M ::J:t::v> Oc =>0 .....1= ~ro 00) ~o v>o QjO C~ , ~-...... ! 00 ! U Lt") ~ II Ii ~~ I :J~ I~@ -1-1>- roro v>-o ~C> roo -1-10 o ... =>~ o...N . ... (Y') ~ o N >- ..0 4-1 C O)ul E~ -1-10) roC O)~ ~o 4-IU ~ ~ O):J ~o IV u.. $~ v>0 -1-1 .- E O)ro -00) ro~ ~ -1-1 0) v> o..C ::J$ 00 4-1 -0 v>o -0 v> 0)0 ~-o C~ LJE . J.. o E 1:! .!5!~ c.tI) ...., J.. C OJ OJ...., .s~ ta ~ ~ ...., c. ....,~E 1- c .- .- O)OJU::2 E.s;:~ O)taOJ...., oOJCM -I-IbE% wcOQ >;:J:::>> roO"C'" ...c .., OJ ...., ...c-cOJU -1-1 ._ ~ OJ .- >.:.:: c $ 0 u C J.. ta 0 o c..Q u => 0...... . ~ -1-1 V> o E E 0) 0) V> . EC o 0).- -1-1 -1-1 v> co >--1-1 U')C ~O) 0) v> o..~ Eo.. .- V> :J.- 0:5 o~ -1-10 c~ 0-0 .- w uE O):J Cv> Cv> oro Uv> ....- >--0 O)c tOro E>- .- 0) ~~ =>:= . ~ , en (]) ..I-J ,-...., C C M 0 ::J:I:: +-' OJ (/) .a ""00 s E c:::> 1.... 12-1 00 ..I-J (]) La 0.. (/) '--'" L'T"'-I .- l-I 0.. co co 'T"'-I (]) E en 0 1.... (])o+-, ~ 1.... E c 0.. COC 1....0.3 0 (]) o -I (]) ~-:J . tl (/) (/) . 0 .- L(/) co \.I- ..I-J co+-, S Q)~ 1.... (/) +-' (]) U u u o C 0..2 +-'0_ ,-....,. - C+-'..o (]J 0.0 1....'- (]) co (]) co'Vi .... :::> .!:Q LtlLS en c EL(/) -1""0 coco+-, ..I-J C '--'" ~:cC(]) (/)00 C (/)"'0 C.c (]) 2: (/) ~ 0.. 0 (]) (V) 1.... (]J +-,(]) U uu o+-'E(]) ~*i:O E , (/):J(/)(/) 1 'C C ~ COo::: ~ +-'co 1....0(/)0 en -0 ! ,!:Q C (]){/)~+-' -::::>(/) I - +-' en C Oli= CL(/)+-, :J C. \.1--1 (/) OJ co I SOCOC C(])C .at: 0,,-..- (]) a'-Eo en :.=(]) >- ""'"'"5 E o +-' ._ en PE \,00.- tJ <( +-,'T"'-I\.I-;!:: +-,oE(]) :::>(/) Qj::J:I::coE :JLOEc - (/) o..o.c E 0 CO(]) o ""0 0 C u(/) o :J;!:: 0 ...ocuo ::> o(/) O:~s u <( ro~ u -I co --I . . . ~ 0'\ o o N ........., U) C o 1- ..., U CU C C o U U) CU U) I.. CU > U) ..., C CU E ..., I- E E o u Ol.n'" 1.n\OI.n OQ\N MNM II II II I.. QJ Q. E .- ::::J..-., 0'.... I..:E:M o "...... ""'-"t1' U) g 0 e._ _ 0.......- .- I.. ..J 1)QJ+ QJ Q. I.. e E QJ e ._ Q. o ::::J E u 0'._ "0 I.. ::::J ~ 2 0' O"O"t:J I.. QJ QJ Q.oIJ:t Q. oIJ ._ ct'S E J: E E 000 ouu - --ra rara..., ..) ..L> oIJ 0 '~~~I- . . . .. QJ I.. 2 ~ QJ .c I- " U) e ....0 -.- QJ1) J!)QJ .- e I..e QJo ~u U)"O CO) 0> Uo "t:J1.. -Q. ::::JQ. Ora ==C\ 0.5 ::)ol?i U) 0. .- ....>< MQJ :t:I:e 00 ::)"0 ..Jcv .cU) ...,ta .-"Q =="0 QJCV .- :t ~.- cvE 1:E .- 0 CVu ==cu B~ e o e Q. o - ~ cv "0 o ..., o ::> 0. cv .c ..., en e .- ..., ta > .- ..., o E (/) .- <C C) ::) ta QJ I.. <C I .- I.. 1-. U) CVQJ .cu ..., I.. e::::J taO .cU) ..., - ra CVe 1..0 0._ E:!: "0 .c"O Uta ::::J :t: .... Q) c .am U) I.. ~<C o.~ I.. I.. 1..1- fa-c ~c QJ fa I..Ml B=I;i ::JQ! LL.:::) ~...I QJ Z - <1J $.+-J <1J:J ~..o "'ell) · '" C I.. .;::: >: = Q) !- n""O 0 .... ~ · '" a.. Q) 0$ ~E <1J!- ~~ 0l<1J ....Q) C -g .5 c ro:J lI)M ..c a.. M U CJ) ~ I X'- OJ Q) <1Je E1ij <1J 0 N "'e ~:p 00 :Ju N.... o <1J I en CJ)C .coo ccoo <1JOSON cUO~b .8 E"O o~ CJ) "'era S20lc~ O CJ) C W VI >-.- cCJ)S. · 1'000 :E.+-JCJ) . @ . !- <1J Q. E C C 'S S 1'000 0 .+-J Lf') 0 C C (V') .+-J ~ <1J C CJ).+-J >- :J <1J :J CJ) CJ) !- 0 :J ._ Q...o 0 ~roQ)~ "0 !- C 1'0 -OroE :JQ).+-J o 01 C Q) sc19"O !-roCJ)<( Q) ..c.~ 19 > ~ "0 ::> OQ)Q) 1'0 <1J Q) "0 Q) 01 U "0 !- c!-ro<( 1'0 :J CJ) I ..c 0 !- 'C uCJ)<1Jl-oj (V') .+-J E Q)- ::t:I::co !--2 O ro.+-J :J._ .+-JCJ).+-J!- ::>CJ):J:Jro --I .~ U u.. > . . .... 00 0 0 LL n:s 0 .... (1) ('oJ n:s .... (1) <C /'- >- I 0 .- 0 .... .... ('oJ (1) ..... a. "C CD 0 U) c: 0 c: n:s ('oJ 0 ..c: LO .- -+-' 0 -+-' :;j 0 0 (1) 0 ('oJ c: en ...q- c: (1) 0 0 > 0 o 0 ('oJ '+-0 C"0 0 c: 0 0 .... (1) ('oJ (1) - ..0 (!) ('oJ E ~ 0 M 0 :;j =It: ('oJ Z C ~ - ::> 0 n:s 0 -+-' ...J ('oJ 0 ..... 0 0 0 ('oJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 L.() C"0 ('oJ ('oJ ~ ~ I' . _,,_'u___ ---- -- .----- --- I -----n--.---..--.-.--.-m~-.c==c::::c.:=::::::=c==::::=:-1-------------------.---.-..-.........-.-.-----1 8 1C'Cl C"0 . ~ ::j:j:: <((/)0 .~ 0 ::) 1-<.9--1 o II ~ L___.....__._._.___________. - tn s::: o - - ctS 0> - s::: o .- ..... (,) Q) s::: s::: o U s- Q) a.. Q) tn :::) .......-...-.............-......------.-.-1 (V) co ~ ::J:l:U)<c: o 1"" I :::J ......" . i:: --I <.9 f-' I I I l_ __...____.________.__. 000 L!) 0 L!) """ """ (V) 0000000 o L!) 0 L!) 0 L!) (v)NN~~ ~co "",'S -- ~~ "'" \S ~ro "'" 'S ~<::> "",'S ~ix "",\S ~':> "'" \S ~~"'" ~ ~, "'" \S ~~ "'" 'S @ c o .- ...., U GJ C C o U I- GJ D- GJ U) :) @J ... ~(]) $ COOl 0 . 0.. ~ C (])CO (]) (])... 0 l.... .j...I > 01 .j...I <(2co c "'0 ...!... CJ) 01 '0.. 0) "-............c CO l.... ~ ~ 2 '$ ~ ~ 0) ..c c ~ -g (j) ..0 ~ (])(J) CO ~ c E(J) (]) CO (j) C ::J 0) (]) l.... U .- "-..c E E CO co. C (]).j...I 0 (J).j...Il.... > ::J CO (]) o 0 0 ..c (/) (]) "'0 0.. t 010 $ 5~ (])E w WOW u W (j) .- C ,,-..c c o..::J :::J roU "-""0 rv C CJ) O' o..l.... l....\,.J o (j) ...j...I 0 O)l.... u"-'" -:::J 0.. .j...IO W(J) 0)0 0>- ro~ Qj E~ :::J.j...I....J C S (j) 0.. 0 CO "'0:= (j) CO c: .j...I 0.. ...c:::J 01 E . ('.. 0 C (J) ___ W ..0 C -.j...I .- o ::J C::J 01 .- ro C 1:) :p uc-Et) t)~OC row 0.. .j...I ::J ro ro :::J.- t: c: E ~0>:6~ IroiU Oc: ::J 01 U C ::J - ..c u (]) 0.. 0 (j) l.... ....0 0 ro .j...I..oW "- E U C ro CJ).j...I CJ) ...::J WU.- W O-19U Wtl:: OCl.... (/)l.... u ...(J) CJ) ~ > 0 CJ) 0::::::- :.c 0 t) ill:::> c 0 01 ;:;;t ro .j...I E W l.... ... 0 U C :ij: W 5 .~.s: ..c <( ~ u C W 0:::> CC CO(/) ..c>- ~ .01 .:.... ro l.... W > - Il-z~l9(])....J8~s-g . . . . . 1-- l: o .- .... o ~ "C o l.. 0.- )o,l.. Q) <1l -~ > .- l.. ~ Q) ~ a. Q)~ Z Q) l.. (/l 0 ~ <1l -- a. O'l l: .- i: <1l a. (/) N 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I/) 0 I/) 0 I/) 0 1'0 CO CO I/) I/) o::t o::t 00 o o N 1'0 o o N co o o N I/) o o N o::t o o N M o o N @ to ev ..., .... -~.- .... ~OJ~ g OJ 100 OJ N :5V"C .. to ~ .: ~Oo "C O~~ .! ~""'OJ 'i OUlV .., --c Ul .Q to ._ c. ...., Ul .- C UlO"C "'0 .:.:: .., c._ to a OJ ev .., OJCa SV -._ C ..L.>:S .......1: to tij"C "Cto.c evO OJ c. V 100 100 .., en c .., c. 5"C:S .'iloo o c >-Ul >~ ~ to G) ~ O"C to >- e'S E ~ C~tOoOJc ::) > _.., 100 .- "C Ul OJ .. + ~ ev:S Uli lI-cvOJ "C 0.- C ~ ~ C Ul to._ ~ E.1:~~cv ev a 100 to to!2 C .- OJ S.... 100 Ul 100 II 100 to V "C OJ ev.cc v c .., c'- c:s o to 0 0 to"C ._ ==.- 0' c ~ t = to e :s to :s......--g "C~"C"'~c. o > 0 to ..,- 100 100 OJ .... ev 0. 0 0. C Z.c . .. . E Q) ..... U) >. en s- Q) D.. s- Q) ..... ~ s: s- o LL "'C Q) ..... s::: :::s o (.) (.) ~ s::: ::::> ..... s::: Q) (.) s- Q) D.. --r==~c;;.~~ - - -1 ~ ~ ~ I o ~ ~ ~,p I :::J U "i:: "" - ..J C) t-, 0') CU I I I j I I _____________1 LO (II') o LO (II') N o o o o N o N LO ...... o LO ...... 00 o o N <.0 o o N -.::t o o N N o o N I i I I , j ____I ::: 1- OJ +-oJ co $ ('\.. 1-..c: ~cn .- -o..c: OJ 0 t:(f) ::J~ o (f) u .- u>. CO..c: 5$ ::: I "C cu (1)(1) · (l)fUC ~.c.!2 J.. "C Q. OJ..fU fU ~ "C Q. o cO OfU- ...-f...,cu (1)(1)> cu ..., cu ...,cu"C fUCUJ.. "CEO ~ ..., cu E(I)~ ::s~ 3:E~ .!2 J...... fU I J..cu~ ~ ,., ~ C i w.w ..., :::.'- fU;:>= 3:l..e iti~1.. Q.cufU ._ ~ cu .~ fU > C~M ::SfUC ~~o . ..., C cu::so ~o..., ~uu fUu..., cufUCU .... .s i E(I)o cuE- ..., III- (I),Bcu > fA I.. r ~ v~._ VI >11I- C (I) .... o (I).~ ._ :::. C ..., ;:>.- ::SOJ: .c-(I) . i: iti.:! ui ...,...,11I-(1) (1).- ,., 0 .- '" - Q -c.= cu cul..-~ J: fU ....fU ...,-g~~ (l)fUOfU fU...,:::.CU (1);:>- ~,.......ocu ;:> -..., o .....c fU c~l..o ~ ........-~ .!!! . (l) g,) ~~ ii~ ~fU .e.5 (I) ~...,cu ~(I)::s .~ cu_ .ti >- fU ~m > CIj ..... 1...t;U) ()~Q ~ Q.. I.. ~CLlcu :::i 'S ~ CIj 0 ~ .S: ~ tS~G 1:) ~ cu s::~3: (I) 01;1 (I) · fU~S~ J:::5I;"""" uC Q~fUfU ::) "'1-0 U Q. ~ \i: ftii cu._ cu",(I)c J:~~cu~ t- J: .- ...,(1) . G ~ 0'\ I..l"l I..l"l 0'\ (V) (V') 1..0 1..0 ~ 1..0 0 01 0 '" (V) (V) ~ 1..0 <( c N (V) ~ 19 :.p => "-- ro N c ~ O"l CO 1..0 (V) (J) U) 0'\ "'" 1..0 "'" CO ..c (J) N CO "-- C (V) (V) "'" 0 ~ ro 0 0 N ~ ~ OJ N (V) 0 >- "-- ,- 01 ~ ...., c U ~ 0 T"""'I I..l"l L.!) 1..0 ro OJ CU (V) ~ N N ::::l :J C N '" (V) (V) ~ 1..0 c 0- 0 CO c OJ C (V) (J) . N ro N 0 N .0 .,...; ~ :J C 0 U OJ (J) N O"l L.!) CO "'" U c >llIt I..l"l "'" "-- :.p ,-l 0 N N OJ :R c !:OM"""'" I..l"l T"""'I 0 N Cl.. 0 :J 0 (V) (V) "'" .,...; .cQ~ N (V) ~ "-- ,N '"' c OJ ""'No N OJ ~ ro ~ ,-t ;O"l ..c ~ c ~ O.c. CO I..l"l N I..l"l ro -0 C :L.tn iO 0 CO 0 0'\ Cl.. c CJ::J~ '0 N N ro U f. 0'\ (V) (J) , ~ 00 IN T"""'I N .> L() >- E:L.M , (J) N .0 I ~ .c '-"" c ~ -0 1- (J) 0 CU...., >- 1- ~ ..c L() OJ ...., -.... I >- ~ (J) ~ 2: U) ~ -.... .... 0 (J) > 1- ~ e 0.. 0 (J) 0 >- E .,...; U') (V) 0 C'O 2: OJ -.... T"""'I I :::l o . .0 ~ U(J) ro :L. I I 1- -I-J ~ -0 C CU 0 u ~ C'Vi 0 .~ C'O M C'O C ~ ~ Co <IJ I (V") ~ I I:::l ::::l :J -0 CV) E 1- *i:: 0 o 0 -0 :j:j: <( M C'O ~ u~ ro 0 I- I U) 0 -I-J .S o c => ::J .- U :::> ~ 0 +JOJ (J) 1- ..... U (J) ...J 0' I- 19 .....J :E I- .~ 01"-- E (J) ~ c OJ .- 0.. :J OJ . . . . . -0 (J) E "-- .,...; (J) . 8-0 roO :J .,...; (J) U C ......0 ~ <(ro :;EN . . . cm~-=il------@ I B :1 I ! ~ (9 .... I I I- j o II II 1_____.___ - Q.) Q.) E '" ~ j::l:,e J.. .2 ~ Q.) ...., Q.) > 0 '" OQ.)- l: Q.) ,el:~ ~8~ o '+- ca J.. 0 Q.) (!)J..<i: J.. Q.) I Q.) ..0 . i: o.EI- E ::J ~ .- l: 0 ::J_u) o I": C\I I i 1.______._..___.__._...____.._ 000 000 o I!) 0 I!) o:::t o:::t 000 0 000 0 I!) 0 I!) 0 ('1)('1) N N C'C) 02- LC) o~ 6'0 o~ <0 o~ -->'d o~ C'o o~ Lc o~ 6'L 02- <L 02- o o~ o o~ LL o~ o 0 0 0 6.) ~ g 0 vQ I ~ ~ I!) ___._..:._1 n:s eu I- <C I I- I- l- e l- eu 01..1 ~ .c 01..1 ~ o I- ~ - n:s ::I 01..1 ~ e O'l 0 0 N co 'It " 'I"'f 0 'It M \0 \0 0 00 M . . N " \0 . " 'I"'f '" 00 00 ,..., 0 M 00 00 0 00 'It . . N " M " " 1.0 'It 'It' '" 0 0 0 00 0 00 00 N . N " M " l.() 00 " M 0 \0 \l) 00 0 ,..., 00 . . N " M Pi Pi '<T 0 M /"II 0 'It Ln 0\ 0 '" M . . N Pi 'It /"II Pi (Y) '" ..t .-I 0 0\ M M 0 \0 /"II . . N Pi M Pi Pi N Ln 0 '" 0 \0 N Pi Q) >- 01 '- Vl Q) -r:: c ro c u ro "U ro ~ 0 c ...., Q) .g) .c :p (!) c>- (!) u u '- (!) (!) en ...... ~ co c 0 (!) ~en c ro c (!) c ::J ro '6 "U c Cl 0.. ro c: .c c 0 .c c: u Q) w U u <( :E ..., c cu V I. cu Q. ..-t~ ~M ..-to @N .c .ccn ..., ~ ~ 0 o I. I..c ~..., EM cu=l:l: ...,0 (I)::) >.... (/).c ta..., cu.- I. ~ <( I .- I. t- cno 0 "\T'l:tLn'l""l\O\OO'l""l (V')'l:t\OCO'l:toLnM OCOMM 'l:tN'l:t NN (j)\OCON\OM;~ NN'l:t\O'l:tCONO ~~MM'l:t~ 'l:t "\TLn'l""lLnLnLnO~ NNM'l:tNNMCO O'l:tMM'l:tLnMM NN M (j)coLnCO'l:t~~fri T""'IM'I""INONM\O ~~MM'l:tM M NLn'l""lM ocnocn NM\ON N M Q)COLn CDOCO C!>cnN rlJ'I""I I a.. >- ....... . ~ e ~ ~~ - e e .....0 ta 0 '1""1""0'1""1 :JU e I ()' I ~'tj.o ta'l""lMO_CU cu '1""1 -'- < I:J:I:lt6taet6 .tnC ...., ...., .- U ::>> I-l 0 cu 0 ~~..I~I-C::I- . . . . . . Vl :J C E ~ . ~ .0 Eo (1),-1 ~,-1 >- '-" Vl (I) 4- C 00 t:~ . ro S ..c: 00.0 ...... 0...... t: S ,-1Oro e (I),-1C~ CJ'l "0 - .- ro (I) "0 Ul Ul......VlC :J ......O:J :J ...... ro ro i5.. OVlUM Vl ......>-(1)""'- ...... cro..o,.,.. c (j) S en 0 (j)E u_ -. '-roO--' (j) 0...-1 Vl o.~N E ID ,-1 B .c e ~ "OVl"O...... ro CS(j)Vl E roo............ <'-cc e 19lo5(j) ...... ::)~u.s ~ C "0 ...... 'E C .- C 0 (j) ..c:roZE E ...... . 0 ...... S (V) N U 'E 0*,-1_ '-ooro E Ol::JNO 0 ro...-1>-...... U :J E ..0 (j) . Vl cOClo~(j) C'-O 0"0 ro <i- :p ~ ,_ :J ......VlUCt)U C ...... (j) (j) '" C (j) C C .... ,_ U(j)CE~Vl '-Eo...... ...... (j) .- 0 C D..:!::uEu(j) ,-1 E (V) E J-< E ,,..., E * o~...... """: 0 U .- ...-l 8 ::J CJ'l -g E CJ'l Vl ...-1 C ro E .c (j) (j) 'eM 8 -e E E 'm * ro o :J :J Eo ...... U Vl Vl (j)::J 0 ~ ~ ~ ~...-1 I- .... . -----1 @ I I I I I I __.........._.,.._..__......___......___...____________mm___._____._~,______________.__.___.______.____._______,__'_..N "." _ _____ ______ '_00_ ~n---n-nn n~1 o CJ) <(' '::> - () .~ l'C;~~~i -.-..........--.--...-...----...-...-----------.....j ~ 0 ~ .. ca - ~ N <f: ~ Q) 0 E .- N ~ .- l- e: l- .- ~ ~ "'C Q) 0 Q) ~ > CD "'C 0 . "'C ~ ..c ca ~ U) M 3: e: ::J:I:: 0 0 c .- ~ ~ => C) (,) Q) ...J ~ e: Q) .. c. e: Q) 0 I.. E Q) (.) ..c .- :::s l.I- 3: a 0 ~ Q) Q) tIJ - ..a Q) E :::s e: - 0000000000 000000000 L()OL()OL()OL()OL() -.:::t'-.:::t'C0C0NN...---...--- [I~ o~ L'~ O~ 82 O~ <'2 O~ ~2 O~ [12 O~ L'2 O~ 6} O~ <'L' O~ S} O~ C} O~ L'L' O~ 80 (?~ @: C'0 =I:t: o :::::> --I o - ---. .-.-...._.._.__.__."'----_.._~---,...-..~.._...__..,....,-.....---.- - ---------i-l U) <e- O .2- CD .= III 6iI ~f'l;) - ~ tn ~, s::: 0 ~ .- ~ ...... J!] (.) ~r'\; Q) = s::: OJ ~ s::: E ~'\; 0 ..... .- ~ (.) E - ~ ~ E 0 ~ s::: u ~~ Q) tn E = , c& ...... .- .- = E .- to ~ E E ~ 0 OJ U ~ 0 - ~ co ~ ...... 0 ~ I- ~f'l;) ~ ~, ~ ~Oj ~ r----.-.~-'-_.----_..--.,-._-.-..--...-.- 'E o o <D 0::: . ::2: o ~~~~~~c:>~~c:>~ ~~~c:>c:>c:>~~~~ C:>1O~1O~1OC:>1O~1O lO"'<T"'<TC'0C'0NN...--...-- @ ......, ......, -1-1 LL LL I -1-1 -1-1 I LL ~ E .f-J LL u.. U I 0.. u.. U 01 I I <( U U <( '<t OJ N~ <( <( Lt1 "" . cXS C s...... . OOu. U 0 0 Lt1 . 0 N Oc::( <( N l..D 0 ~~ .- N +-J ~ ~ ~ -.. M CO ~ ~ (f) ro ::J a> E +-J ro (f) .- I Cf) Z- 0 +-J ..c ..c ...., :E E E E E E .~ 01 C- o.. 0.. 0.. o..~ .- 01 0:::: 19 01 01 01~ 0 i 0 0 0 0 o u i- 0 0 ".t" Lt1 (J)~ OJ I N N ~ ~ l..D ro ...., "Cl 0.. +-J N N -- E E a> CO I 0.. X 01<lJ S >- 81 I - 0= OJ - CJ) g :s: 0 01 > Nr-. C 0- I 1M ~ I ~ :J o- M U - 'l:I: 0 a.. !0..- S (j') > 1'0 0'5 1'0 :::l ro :E ......, -'I 0.. OJ U 0 (j') Z 19 0 r- . . . . . . . @ . ........ VI ~ + c o en r-.. 0 ~ 0 \O.-f N M M .- "':0 .... 0 0 0 u NN N N N Q) '"'" :a.. C Q) C C.O ("-. C U ........ 0 + + + ..I-J o Q,J (fLn ~ ~ ~ ._ :a.. :J ~o .-fN M M M E E \00 0 0 0 0 ....i N N N N ;,"" '"'" VI Q) C Ctn o 0 u"" . :J ::.s! C C NO .-fCO 1- o~ 0 -ta U en en r-..N li-Q,J Ii- Ln.-fLnO (]) o~ 0 ..... ..... ..... ... N M~~Ln ....... $ '0>- :a.. 0 0- Q) N :a.. Q,J ~ c c.~ E - (V') -0 'a_ ;, :j:j: c= Z I I 0 ta :: ::> C C C C ...J :J C Q,J Q) C C C C l:l 0 .2 :: .... 0 0 0 0 <2 l:l .... ~ U U U U ru ta ... ...... ...... ...... ...... I Vl S '= 5 'a"C'a'a ~ 0 > c.c.c.c. u ';:: (1)'- 0 tntntntn ru ru Vl1j c :a.. c OJ C Q,J C.OOLnO 0 u C o C C.Lnor-..Ln "0 Vl U C taMMNN OJ ..c OJ Vl ...... .co s@@@@ ru 0 ....u co co ..c .- s: c . . . . . . $ en c o .- ......., ::::J o (f) o ::J 0... @ .... co o o N C ,,-.... > ~ o "'0 (J) .... 001---) ,,-.... - ro ,,-.... <IJ (J) (J) 1- 01 ~ .b M (J) ro c 01 :> - CJ') -. c [;:> ,,-.... aJ ~ :.c CJ') <IJ~E 0 ctl ctl.- 0 0 "'0 Cl.. ~ C-gNU (J) (f) <( O~ c 1-~1O "'0 I :P 0:::::... .- ::J .. I (J) (J) . C ro u >- 0 01 1-"-:" = I- .C .- "'0 LL C 001---) CJ') . C E Cl.. ::J "'--" . - 1- 1- "'0 1- ~ ._ E 001---) C '"'C J2 m "'--" (J)::J >- CJ') 0 ctl CJ') 001---) 001---) <IJ - ':>.' - Cl.. ':>. >- 001---) ctl::J.:::c.O...j:...1oo1---)(f)..j:..J1- ..c ~ ~ ro "'--" : = B "'--" U <IJ 01 (J) <IJ CJ') ..0 . - CJ') > 'C 4-0 ..I-J .- Cl.. 001---) ..c 0 CJ') ......c CJ') ..c 001---) 1- "-""::J ro Cl.. . - CJ') ~;:: MJ (J) 6 ~ (J) ro ,01 ~ b.. ro 0 u c:t::..- LL 001---) 1- 001---) E ~ N :J 1- 10 aJ "'--"..c 01 ~ (J) C 0 ill 2:: ~ C .00.S 1-:Jj 01._ CJ') 001---) (J) .... 0 1- 001---) 001---) C ro ~ .- CJ') C ro ~ ~ ~ $ ~ 10 aJ 'x 8 >- ._'_ (J) 0 ro .N 10 (J) c ~~~~~g~~~EE t)(J)0Cl..1->-U}~1f::~"'--" (J)..o (J) X 0 ::J (J) ill (J) 1- If::- >w:Ecoozo.. ~~ .. I & .~ ~ · · · · · ...9 ~ . . . @ t'\o. t'\o. 0 Q,J I.. Q,J ..... UI I.. .- ..... Q,J Q,J t'\o. ..... ::s C Q,J .cUI m ..... m ::s .......... ~ ~ V C ~ UlV I.. t'\o. .- Q,J .....m C (I) 0 (I) ..... .- Q. .c C C \l-e .- (I).c m ..... (I) 0 (I) ......- ..... C t'\o. V .cc V > ~~ UI (I) I.. I..m ::s .- ::s Q,J 0 I.. (1)- == I.. .....0 UI t'\o. "C ::s 0 >Q. Q. Q,J- >"d' (I) ..... UI (l)C UI Q. e\l- ..... ::s =M V Q,J c.2 m m Q,J~ mc (I) \I- "C l/) J:'- ::SN C (I) .- 0..... (I) :I: .c > '-m I.. Ve C C .....C'l ~ C 0 UI.- ._ I.. 0 ..... E m._ .....(1) Q c:n.: Cd: V C Q. v..., C __a_ 0 .- 'E.e =t'-. .:E 8m UI C .s 0 .- UI UI Q.(I) .- -- ~! Q.> oC'l (I) 0 ..... ........ E= - .- "C m.c m .....c ..... - l/) cm ::s.!2 (1)..2 I.. Q. (I) .......... ::s 0"C 0 0 N .c"C Q.t'\o. Q...... - .- OJ .- Q. .ce (I) - C'l-: OUl 1j::si m~ (I) .- .- ::s m(l) I.. - ..... 1..0 Q.Q,J (l)c 0 .c ::s V :J Q,J..... Q,J..... ~~ ES Cm! .....UI .cUI e m Q,J c- ! m.c .- .c .......... ::So a 1..> > o Q.l Q,J::S (l)U) (I) mm .cUI Vel I..UI .c m ~ ~.c V (I) VUI qo. I.. 1..1.. I..(I)! .- (I) Q (I) m UI~ -m ::SQ. (1)1.. E ~..... j Q,J ::;) .c ...I I.. Ull "C= gE 0. c C (1)0 E! (I) > ! CUI 0(1) .- 0 0 1..\1- Em 1- .....<<^ e~ C'l::S "C .- 0.- ::s== ml.. .:0' c ..... UI I.. U"C QJ I..Q,J U)UI 1:(1) m m Q,J <<^(I) eij ~m N ..... I..C cu<<^ .e- .- I- Q.~ (I)<<^ m.c C Q,J ::sm .cCU Q...... .- .- 0. O"C ......c C'll.. ::;)C (1)0 U - 0 m C U-(I) -..... en .....Q,J (1)'- (I)..... Q,J <<^ m (I)<<^ =c. mQ. .c1j .c> .c Q,J V .c<<^ ~o .cE .....(1) .....- ..... "C .....(1) - C ~.- C...... -Q. - - ~ _v ~cu =D. - - ::0 0> .....::s me .- .- 0 0 <CO' UQ. 3:~ 3: 3: :I: 3:s. :I:~ ....J . . . . . . . . @) (".. (.f) ..J-I C (]) E E o u (".. (.f) c o .- ..J-I (.f) (]) :::J CY . . ~ ..c c o .- +-J CO +-J C OJ CJ) OJ 1- 0... ...... cnN ::t:t: MO g"C~~~ J.o.ltScn)(q IV :>...9 <C C1J "C C'loiJloIoo;:O:J ItS cEo ~ ~ :J :J ~.. CO C1J E 11III:" UO U U U') ...., ..:. ItSOI@ ItSlVcE::a~ .c u 0 .- ItS M E 1tSJ."..c ItS J.:Jt:uJ:_.c ~~~o~~~ :=IVIVMOMC'l CCo::,.,No.__.c Contents CHAPTER 1 Overview 1 CHAPTER Z Emerging Trends in Planning, Development, and Climate Change 17 CHAPTER 3 The VMT/COz/Climate Connection 37 CHAPTER 4 The Urban EnvironmenttVMT Connection 55 CHAPTER 5 Environmental Determinism versus Self Selection 91 CHAPTER 6 Induced Traffic and Induced Development 99 CHAPTER 7 The Residential Sector 107 CHAPTER 8 The Combined Effect of Compact Development, Transportation Investments, and Road Pricing 113 CHAPTER 9 Policy and Program Recommendations 129 CHAPTER 10 Conclusion 155 Notes 157 References 159 Related ULI Publications 170 Overview The phrase "you can't get there from here" has a new application. For climate stabilization, a commonly accepted target for the year 2050 would require the United States to cut its carbon dioxide (CO,) emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 leveis. Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing rapidiy since 1990, and so would have to level off and decline even more rapidly to reach this target level by 2050. This publication demonstrates that the U.S. transportation sector cannot do its fair share to meet this target through vehicle and fuel technology alone. We have to find a w~ to sharply reduce the growth in vehicle miles driven across the nation's sprawling urban areas, reversing trends that go back decades. This publication is based on an exhaustive review of existing research on the relationship among urban development, travel, and the CO, emitted by motor vehicles. It provides evidence on and insights into how much CO, savings can be expected with compact development, how compact development is likely to be received by con. sumers, and what policy changes will make compact development possible. Several related Issues are not fully examined in this publication. These include the energy savings from more efficient building types, the value of preserved forests as carbon sinks, and the effectiveness of pricing strategies-such as tolls, parking charges, and mileage-based fees-when used in conjunction with compact development and expanded transportation alternatives. The term "compact development" does not imply high-rise or even uniformly high density, but rather higher average "blended" densities. Compact development also fea- tures a mix of land uses, development of strong population and employment centers, interconnection of streets, and the design of structures and spaces at a human scale. THE BASICS Scientific consensus now exists that greenhouse gas accumulations due to human activities are contributing to global warming with potentially catastrophic consequences (IPCC 2007). International and domestic climate policy discussions have gravitated toward the goal of limiting the temperature increase to 20C to 3'C by cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1.990 levels. The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, and every gallon of gasoline burned produces about 20 pounds of CO,. 1 2 OVERVIEW Driving Up CO2 Emissions The United States is the largest emitter worldwide of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause global warming. Transportation accounts for a full third of CO, emissions in the United States, and that share is growing, rising from 31 percent in 1990 to 33 percent today. It is hard to envision a "solution" to the global warming crisis that does not involve slowing the growth of transportation CO, emissions in the United States. The Three-Legged stool Needed to Reduce CO2 from Automobiles Transportation CO, reduction can be viewed as a three-legged stool, with one leg related to vehicle fuel economy, a second to the carbon content of the fuel itself, and a third to the amount of driving or vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Energy and climate policy initiatives at the federal and state levels have pinned their hopes on shoring up the first two legs of the stool, through the development of more efficient vehicles (such as hybrid cars) and lower-carbon fueis (such as biodiesel fuel). Yet a stool cannot stand on only two legs. As the research compiled in this publica- tion makes clear, technological improvements in vehicles and fuels are likely to be offset by continuing, robust growth in VMT. Since 1980, the number of miles Americans drive has grown three times faster than the U,S. population, and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations (see Figure 1-1). Average automobile com- mute times in metropolitan areas have risen steadily over the decades, and many Americans now spend more time commuting than they do vacationing. This raises some questions, which this report addresses. Why do we drive so much? Why is the total distance we drive growing so rapidly? And what can be done to alter this trend in a manner that is effective, fair, and economically benign? The growth in driving is due in large part to urban development, or what some refer to as the built environment. Americans drive so much because we have given our- selves little alternative. For 60 years, we have built homes ever farther from workplaces, located schools far from the neighborhoods they serve, and isolated other destina- tions-such as shopping-from work and home. From World War II until very recently, nearly all new development has been planned and built on the assumption that people will use calS f?Nery time they travel. As a larger and larger share of our built environ- ment has become automobile dependent, car trips and distances have increased, and walking and public transit use have declined. Population growth has been respon- GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON URaAN DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3 sible for only a quarter of the increase in vehicle miles driven over the last couple of decades. A larger share of the increase can be traced to the effects of a changing built environment, namely to longer trips and peopie driving alone. As with driving, land is being consumed for development at a rate almost three times faster than population growth. This expansive development has caused CO, emissions from cars to rise even as it has reduced the amount of forest land available to absorb CO,. How Growth in Driving Cancels Out Improved Vehicle Fuel Economy Conventional pollutants can be reduced in automobile exhaust with sophisticated emission control systems such as cataiytic converters, on-board computers, and oxygen sensors. In contrast, CO, is a fundamental end product of burning fossil fuels; there is no practical way to remove or capture it from moving vehicles. At this point in time, the only way to reduce CO, emissions from vehicles Is to burn less gasoline and diesel fuel. An analysis by Steve Winkeiman of the Center for Clean Air Policy, one of the coauthors of this publication, finds that CO, emissions will continue to rise, despite technological advances, as the growth in driving is projected to overwhelm planned improvements in vehicle efficiency and fuel carbon content from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (U.S. Congress 2007). The act requires pas- senger vehicle fuel economy improvements to at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) for new passenger vehicles by 2020, which would lead to a 34 percent increase in fleet- wide fuel economy by 2030 (green line in Figure 1.2). The act also sets renewable fuel requirements that Winkelman calculates would reduce Iifecycle GHG emissions by 10 percent by 2025 (purple line). Absent growth in driving, these measures would reduce CO, emissions from cars and light trucks by 23 percent below current levels. 4 OVERVIEW Even when these more stringent standards for vehicles and fuels fully penetrate the market, however, transportaUon-related emissions still would far exceed target ievels for stabilizing the globai climate. The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy InformaUon Administration (EIA) forecasts a 48 percent increase in driving between 2005 and 2030 (orange line in Figure 1-2), outpacing the projected 23 percent increase in population (EIA 2008).' The rapid increase in driving would overwhelm both the increase in vehicle fuel economy and the iower carbon fuel content required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks would remain at 2005 ievels (blue line), or 26 percent above 1990 levels (light blue line) in 2030. For climate stabilization, the United States must bring the CO, level to approximately 33 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to be on a path to a CO, reduction of 60 to 80 percent by 2050 (red line). As the projecUons show, the Unned States cannot achieve such large reducUons in transportaUon-related CO, emissions without sharpiy reducing the growth in the number of miles driven. Changing Development Patterns to Slow Global Warming Recognizing the unsustainable growth in driving, the American AssociaUon of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), represenUng state departments of transportation, is urging that the growth of vehicle miles driven be cut in half. How does a growing country-one with 300 million residents and another 120 million on the wirf by mid-century-slow the growth of vehicle miles driven? Aggressive measures certainly are available, including imposing ever stiffer fees and taxes on driving and parking or establishing no-drive zones or days. Some countries are experimenting with such measures. However, many in this country would view these measures as puniUve, given the reality that most Americans do not have a viable alternative to driving. The body of research surveyed here shows that much of the rise in vehicle emissions can be curbed simply by growing in a way that will make it easier for Americans to drive less. in fact, the weight of the evidence shows that, with more compact development, people drive 20 to 40 percent less, at minimal or reduced cost, while reaping other fiscal and health benefits. How Compact Development Helps Reduce the Need to Drive Beller communny planning and more compact development help people live within walking or bicycling distance of some of the desUnations they need to get to every day-work, shops, schools, and parks, as well as transit stops. If they choose to use a car, trips are short. Rather than building single.use subdivisions or office parks, com- munnies can plan mixed-use developments that put housing within reach of these other desUnations. The street network can be designed to interconnect, rather than end in culs-de-sac and funnel traffic onto overused arterial roads. Individual streets GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON URBAN DEVelOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 5 fiGURE 1.3 Housing within One-Quarter Mile of Commercial Centers for Contrasting Developn.ellt Patterns ill Seattle can be designed to be "complete; with safe and convenient places to walk, bicycle, and wait for the bus. Finally, by building more homes as condominiums, townhouses, or detached houses on smaller lots, and by building offices, stores and other destina- tions "up" rather than "out; communities can shorten distances between destinations. This makes neighborhood stores more economically viable, allows more frequent and convenient transit service, and helps shorten car trips. This type of development, which has seen a resurgence in recent years, goes by many names, including "walkable communities; "new urbanist neighborhoods," and "transit-oriented developments" (lODs). "Infill" and "brownfield" developments put unused parcels in urban areas to new uses, taking advantage of existing infrastruc- ture and nearby destinations. Some "lifestyle centers" are now replacing single-use shopping malls with open-air shopping on connected streets with housing and office space above stores. And many communtties have rediscovered and revitalized their traditional town centers and downtowns, often adding more housing to the mix. These varied development types are collectively referred to in this publication as "compact development" or "smart growth." How We Know That Compact Development Will Make a Difference: The Evidence As these forms of development have become more common, planning researchers and practitioners have documented the fact that residents of compact, mixed-use, transtt-served communities drive less than their counterparts in sprawling communi- ties. Studies have looked at the issue from varying angles. They have: SOURCE: A.V. Moudon, P.M. Hess, M.C. Snyder, and K. Stanilov. "Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use, Medium-Density Environments." Transportation Research Record. Vol. 1578, 1997. pp. 48-55. 6 OVERVIEW "compared travel statistics for regions and neighborhoods of varying compact- ness and auto orientation; "anaiyzed the travel behavior of individual households in various settings; and 10 simulated the effects on travel of different future development scenanos at the regional and project scales. Regardless of the approach, researchers have found significant potential for compact development to reduce the miles that residents drive. A comprehensive sprawl index developed by coauthor Reid Ewing of the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland ranked 83 of the largest met- ropolitan areas in the United States by their degree of sprawl, measured in terms of population and employment density, mix of land uses, strength of activity centers, and connectedness of the street network (Ewing, Pendall, and Chen 2002,2003). Even accounting for income and other socioeconomic differences, residents drove about 25 percent less in the more compact regions. In sprawling Atlanta and Raleigh, residents racked up more than 30 miles driving each day for every person living in the region. In more compact Boston and Portland, Oregon, residents drove less than 24 miles per person per day. This finding holds up in studies that focus on the travel habits of individual households. The link between urban development patterns and individual or house- hold travel has become the most heavily researched subject in urban planning, wtth more than 100 rigorous empincal studies completed. These studies have been able to account for factors such as the tendency of higher-income households to make more and longer trips than lower-income families. One of the most comprehensive studies, conducted in King County, Washington, by Larry Frank of the University of British Columbia (Frank, Kavage, and Appleyard 2007), found that residents of the most walkable neighborhoods dnve 26 percent fewer miles per day than those living in the most sprawling areas. A meta-analysis of many of these types of studies shows that people living in places with twice the density, diversity of uses, accessible destinations, and interconnected streets drive about a third less than otherwise comparable residents of low-density sprawl. Many studies have been conducted by or in partnership with public health re- searchers interested in how the built environment can be better designed to encour- age daily physical activity. These studies show that residents of communities designed to be walkable both drive fewer miles and also make more trips by foot and bicycle, which improves individual health. A recent literature review found that 17 of 20 studies, all dating from 2002 or later, have established statistically significant links between some aspect of the built environment and obesity. Two other types of studies also find strong associations between develop- ment patterns and driving: simulations that predict the impacts of various growth options for entire regions and simulations that predict the impacts of individual de- velopment projects when stted and designed in different ways. In regional growth GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 7 simulations, planners compare the effect of a metropolitan-wide business-as-usual scenario with more compact growth options. Coauthor Keith Bartholomew of the University of Utah analyzed 23 ofthese studies and found that compact scenarios generate up to one-third fewer miles driven than business-as-usual sce- narios (Bartholomew 2005, 2007). The better- performing scenarios are those with higher degrees of land use mixing, infill development, and population density, as well as a larger amount of expected growth. Under a plausi- ble set of assumptions, the reduction of miles driven with compact development would be 18 percent by 2050. Even this may be on the low side, since the travel models used in these stud- ies only crudely account for travel within neigh- borhoods and disregard walk and bike trips entirely. Atlantic Station today. Of the project-level studies, one of the best known evaluated the impact of building a very dense, mixed.use development at an abandoned steel mill sHe in the heart of Atlanta versus spreading the equivalent amount of commercial space and number of housing units in the prevailing patterns at three suburban loca- tions. Analysis using travel models enhanced by coauthor Jerry Walters of Fehr & Peers Associates (Walters, Ewing, and Allen 2000), and supplemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Smart Growth Index (to capture the effects of site design) found that the infill iocation would generate about 36 percent less driving and emissions than the outlying comparison sites. The results were so compelling that the development was deemed a transportation control measure by the federal govern- ment for the purpose of improving the region's air quality. The Atlantic Station project in Midtown Atlanta has become a highly successful reuse of central city industrial land. An early evaluation of travel by residents and employees of Atlantic Station suggests even largerVMT reductions than projected originally. On average,Atlantic Station residents are estimated to generate eightVMT per day, and employees to generate 11 VMT per day. These estimates compare favor- ably wHh a regional average VMT of more than 32 miles per person per day, among the highest in the nation. The Potential of Smart Growth The potential of smart growth to curb the rise in GHG emissions will, of course, be limited by the amount of new development and redevelopment that takes place over 8 OVERVIEW WHAT SMART GROWTH WOULD lOt)l( LII([ How would this shift to compact development change U.S. communities? Many more developments would look like the transit-oriented developments and new urbanist neighborhoods already going up in almost every city in the country, and these developments would fill in vacant lots, replace failing strip shopping centers, and revita~ ize older town centers, rather than displacing forests or farmland. Most developments would no longer be single- use subdivisions or office parks, but would mix shops, schools, and offices together with homes. They might feature ground-floor stores and offices with living space above. or town homes within walking distance of a retail center. Most developments would be built to connect seamlessly with the external street network. The density increases requIred to achieve the changes proposed in this publication would be moderate. In 2003, the average density of residential development in U.S. urban areas was about 7.6 units per acre. As a result of Shifting market demand, new developments between 2007 and 202S would average 13 units per acre, and the average density of metropolitan areas overall would rise to approximately nine units per acre. Two recent publications-This Is Smart Growth (Smart Growth Network 2006) and Visualizing Density (Campoli and Maclean 2007)-provide a glimpse of what this future might look like. the next few decades, and by the share of it that is compact in nature. A great deal of new building will take place as the U.S. population grows to 420 million in 2050. According to the best available analysis, by Arthur 'Chris' Nelson of Virginia Tech, 89 million new or replaced homes-and 190 billion square feet of new offices, institu- tions, stores, and other nonresidential buildings-will be constructed through 2050. If Nelson's forecasts are correct, two-thirds of the development on the ground in 2050 will be buin between 2007 and then. Pursuing smart growth is a low-cost climate change strategy, because It involves shifting investments that have to be made anywWf. Smart Growth Meets Growing Market Demand for Choice There is no doubt that moving away from a fossil fuel-based economy will require many difficult changes. Fortunately, smart growth Is a change that many Americans will embrace. Americans are demanding more choices in where and how they live, and changing demographics will accelerate this change in demand. While prevailing zoning and development practices make sprawling development easier to build, developers who make the effort to create compact communities are encountering a responsive public. In 2003, for the first time in the country's history, the sales price per square foot for attached housing-that is, condominiums and townhouses-was higher than that of detached housing. The real estate analysis firm Robert Charles Lesser & Co. has conducted a dozen consumer preference surveys in suburban and urban locations' for a variety of builders to help them design their projects. In every location examined, about one-third of respondents prefer smart growth housing products and communities. Other studies by the Nalional Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the Fannie Mae Foundation, GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 9 high-production builders, and university researchers have corroborated these results- some estimating even greater demand for smart growth housing products. When smart growth also offers shorter commutes, it appeals to another one-quarter of the market, because many people are willing to trade lot or house size for shorter commutes. Because the demand is greater than the current supply-according to a study by Chris Leinberger of the Brookings Institution-the price-per-square-foot values of houses in mixed-use neighborhoods show price premiums ranging from 40 to 100 percent, compared to houses in nearby single-use subdivisions. This market demand is only expected to grow over the next several decades, as the share of households made up of older Americans rises with the aging of the baby boomers. Through 2025, households without children will account for close to 90 percent of new housing demand, and single- person households will account for one-third. Nelson projects that the demand for attached and small-lot housing will exceed the current supply by 35 million units (71 percent), while the demand for large-lot housing actually will fall short of the current supply. Total Estimated VMT Reduction and Total Climate Impact When viewed in total, the evidence on land use and driving shows that compact devel- opment will reduce the need to drive between 20 and 40 percent, as compared with development at the outer suburban edge with isolated homes, workplaces, and other destinations. So, as a rule of thumb, it is realistic to assume a 30 percent cut in VMT with compact development. Making reasonable assumptions about growth rates, the market share of com- pact development, and the relationship between VMT and CO" smart growth could, by itself, reduce total transportation-related CO, emissions from current trends by 7 to 10 percent in 2050. This reduction is achievable with land use changes alone. It does not include additional reductions from complementary measures, such as higher fuel prices and carbon taxes, peak-period road tolls, pay-as-you drive insur- ance, paid parking, and other policies designed to make drivers pay more of the full social costs of auto use. 10 OVERVIEW This estimate also does not include the energy saved in buildings with compact development, or the CO2-absorbing capacity of forests preserved by compact develop- ment. Whatever the total savings, it is importantto remember that land use changes provide a permanent climate benefit that would compound overtime. The second 50 years of smart growth would build on the base reduction from the first 50 years, and so on into the future. More immediate strategies, such as gas tax increases, do not have this degree of permanence. The authors calculate that shifting 60 percent of new growth to compact patterns would save 79 million metric tons of CO2 annually by 2030. The savings over that period equate to a 28 percent increase in federal vehicle efficiency standards, gen- erating one-half of the cumulative savings of the new 35 mpg CAFE standards. Every resident of a compact neighborhood would provide the environmental benefit expected from, say, driving one of today's efficient hybrid cars. This effect would be compounded, of course, if the resident also drove such an efficient car whenever he or she chose to make a vehicle trip. Smart growth would become an important "third leg" in the trans- portation sector's fight against global warming, along with more efficient vehicles and lower-carbon fuels. A Climate-Sparing Strategy with Multiple Payoffs Addressing climate change through smart growth is an attractive strategy because, in addition to being in line with market demand, compact development provides many other benefits. Documented co-benefits include preservation of farmland and open space, protection of water quantity and quality, improvement of health by providing more opportunities for physical activity, and reduction of road and other infrastruc- ture costs. For example, the Envision Utah scenario planning process resulted in a compact growth pian that will save the region about $4.5 billion in infrastructure spending, leave 171 square miles of additional open space, and reduce per capita water use by more than 10 percent. Among the co-benefits of compact development, perhaps the most important is greater energy security. Compact development uses less energy per capita than does sprawl. As the world approaches and then passes peak production of conventional oil, in the face of ever-rising demands, Americans in compact urban areas will be better able to weather the economic storm of rapidly rising gasoline prices. Moreover, to the degree that the United States makes the transition to compact development, the country as a whole will be less dependent on regions of the world that are unstable, hostile, and/or especially vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Finally, unlike hydrogen and cellulosic ethanol, which get a lot of attention in the climate change debate as substitutes for gasoline, the "technology" of compact, walk- able communities exists today, as it has in one form or another for thousands of years. We can begin using this technology in the service of a cooler planet right now. GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 11 The Combined Effect of Compact Development, Transportation Investments, and Road Pricing Accurately forecasting the implications of compact development forVMT requires an understanding of the network of interactive effects of population growth, land use, transportation investments, and road pricing on driving patterns. Analyses of historical data make It clear that VMT responds to a variety of forces in a complex w~. Growth of metropolitan areas during the past 20 years has been characterized by an actual decrease in population density, as urbanized areas have expanded faster than popu- lation. This trend has started to reverse itself, but current conditions reflect the legacy of this era of sprawl. During this period, the emphasis in the majority of urbanized areas has been on increasing highway capaCity and the result has been a steady rise in VMT that has exceeded population growth (see Figure 1-2). Increases in average income during this period have contributed to substantially greater use of and reliance on personal vehi- cles. Rising personal income, while positive in other respects, has worked to promote sprawl, discourage mass transit ridership, and increase VMT. During the decade from 1985 to 1995, decreases in inflation-corrected gas prices appear to have contributed to increases in VMT. During the past ten-year period, however, gas prices have increased as has traffic congestion, and both of these forces have begun to create pressures to reduce VMT. Nationally, mass transit has contributed relatively little thus far to reducing reli- ance on personal vehicle use in the majority of urbanized areas. increasingly, cities are attempting to build more mass transit capacity, and it is clear that such a development could act to reduce VMT if the right set of associated circumstances prevails. Internal 12 OVERVIEW FIGURE 1.7 Urban VMT Reduction IInder a Low-Carbon Scenario (2030) forces such as further increases in traffic congestion and delays, along with sustained elevated fuel prices, can be expected to automatically produce reductions in VMT as they affect personal decisions. A deliberate strategy of compact development and smart growth has the potential to reverse historic trends to an even greater degree. In Chapter 8, we mathematically model the interactions described above using a statistical technique called structural equation modeling (SEM) and relying on his- torical data for 84 urbanized areas. Two modeis were estimated with our combined datasel: a cross-sectional model for 2005 and a iongitudinal model for the two ten-year periodS between 1985 and 2005. The cross-sectional model was used to capture long-term relationships between transportation and land use. Each urbanized area has had decades to arrive at quasi equilibrium among density, road capacity, transit capacity, and VMT. However, there is not enough spatial variation in fuel prices across the United States to detect effects on VMT in a cross-sectional sample. So a longitudinal analysis was required to capture short- and medium-term responses to fuel price fluctuations. Together, the cross-sectional and longitudinal models give us a sound basis for deducing the elasticities of urban VMT with respect to different urban variables. An elasticity is the percentage change in one variable, such as VMT, with respect to a 1 percent change in another variable, such as density or average gasoline price. Using reasonable assumptions about future density, average gasoline price, and other variables, we project that under a trend scenario, urban VMT in the Untted States will experience a rise of 48 percent by 2030 and 102 percent by 2050, leaving the nation far off a climate-stabilizing CO, path. In contrast, under a low-carbon scenario of higher densities, higher gasoline prices, less highway expansion, and more transit service, the nation can come close to a climate-stabilizing CO, path by 2030 (see Figure 1-7). Policy and Program Recommendations Intentionally or not, many current public pOlicies increase sprawl, auto dependence and, hence, GHG emissions. Many local zoning codes require low-density, single-use devel- GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 13 opment Public spending frequentlY supports development at the urban fringe rather than in already developed areas. Transportation policies remain focused on accom- modating the automobile. Implementing an effective smart growth strategy for climate stabilization will require reorienting these and many other policies and programs. Here, we summarize key policy initiatives at each level of government that could form the basis for this policy transformation. The speCifics of these initiatives can be found in Chapter 9. Federal Actions Enact a "Green-TEA" Transportation Act. Beginning in 1991 with the Inter- modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (known as ISTEA), federal surface transportation acts have put increasing emphasis on alternatives to the automo- bile, as well as on community involvement, environmental goals, and coordinated planning. The next surface transportation bill, scheduled for adoption in 2009, could bring yet another paradigm shift by emphasizing environmental performance, climate protection, and green development. We refer to this proposed new legisla- tion as "Green-TEA." The key feature of Green-TEA would be a requirement that states and metro- politan areas achieve articulated national goals when spending federal transportation funds. These goals would include GHG emission reductions necessary for eventual climate stabilization, "fix-rr-first" prioritization for transit and highway rehabilitation and maintenance, and "complete streets" that provide for all transportation modes. Other Green-TEA provisions would: .. create state and metropolitan funding formulas with incentives for reducing transportation demand instead of rewarding increased driving, as current legislation does; .. enm.lnate funding and procedural inequ'lties between highway and transit projects; " give deteriorating roads, bridges, and transrr systems priority in funding, lim- iting highway expansion until existing facilities are brought up to reasonabie standards; II require any subsequent highway expansions to meet economic, transportation, and climate performance standards; II provide direct project funding for metropolrran planning organizations (MPOs) instead of routing federal funds through state departments of transportation; II provide technical assistance to MPOs and state and local governments, including improved data, models, and scenario planning tools to help in devel- oping and implementing smart growth solutions; and "establish a new National Transportation System Administration to oversee a national high-speed rail network and integrate that network with the nation's aviation system. 14 OVERVIEW Extend Transportation Conformity Requirements to GHGs. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the EPA's authority and duty to regulate GHG emissions under the current federal Clean Air Act. The EPA could meet its obligation by adopting national GHG reduction targets, requiring states to develop state imple- mentation plans for meeting these targets, and mandating that state and metropolttan transportation plans and programs conform to state implementation plans. Use Cap and Trade to Support Smart Growth. Many Congressional proposals for climate stabilization would authorize a national cap-and-trade market system similar to those in use in Europe and under development in several states. The revenues generated from auctioning allowances under these systems could be used to support smart growth. Uses of funds might include providing technical assistance to MPOs and state and local governments, including improved data, models, and scenario planning tools; a "Smart Location Tax Credit" targeted at compact development; and support for travel alternatives such as transit, bicycling, and pedestrian infrastructure that are important complements to compact development. Although land development is unlikely to become a regulated activity (like electrical power generation) under cap- and-trade systems, it may have a role to play in "offset" markets. It could be included as an allowable offset in any cap-and-trade climate legislation. State Actions Adopt and Suballocate VMT Reduction Targets. In the absence of federal leadership, many states have adopted goals for GHG reduction. These goals could be translated into VMT reduction targets. The targets could be proportionally allo- cated to metropolitan regions within a state, and each MPO could be charged with developing a plan for meeting its respective target. VMT targets could even be sub- allocated to localities. Align State Spending with Climate and Smart Growth Goals. After adopting targets, states will want to ensure that funding programs-whether carried out directly by the state or executed through grants to local governments-support such targets. States can begin by analyzing the criteria used to distribute all state and federal funds in housing, economic development, water and sewer infrastructure, schools, transpor- tation, and recreation. States could earmark and distribute at least a portion of these funds according to local performance in meeting GHG and VMT reduction targets. Adopt a Statewide .Complete Streets" Policy and Funding Program. A complete streets policy would require that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be provided on all new and reconstructed streets and highways, and that pedestrian and bicyclists' needs be considered in routine roadway operation and mainte- nance. To create complete communities, the pOlicy might mandate that new streets GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 15 be interconnected and culs-de-sac be discouraged so that travel distances for pedestrians and bicyclists are minimized. Regional Actions GIve Funding Priority to Compact, Transit-Served Areas. By giving funding priortty to compact, transit-served areas, MPOs can heip reduce GHG emissions. In concert with local governments, MPOs would designate "priority funding areas" where local governments have planned for compact development In addftion to receiving prtority for public funds, areas could qualify for streamlined development approvals and other financial incentives. Establish a Regional Transfer of Development Rights Program. Transfer of development rights (TOR) programs enable landowners to sell their development rights to other landowners through a market-based system. Effectively crafted, TDR programs can help reduce YMr by directing growth to compact, transft-served areas and away from low-density greenfield sites, thus reducing the need for long-distance travel. While lOR programs typically have been administered by local governments, a regional lOR program likely would encompass more rural and urban areas, thereby providing greater market opportunities forlOR transfers. Create a Carbon Impact Fee for New Development. Suburban and exurban development has a cost advantage over urban infill development because of low land costs and subsidized infrastructure. Regulatory reforms alone cannot overcome this advantage. For decades, governments have charged impact fees on new development to offset the costs of schools, librartes, sewers, parks, and transportation. Creating and implementing a regional CO, emissions impact fee would internalize carbon impacts into development costs, thereby rewarding best development practices and raising the price of carbon-inefficient development. Fee revenues could be used to help fund transit, bicycling facilities, sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities, and similar proj- ects in compact areas. Local Actions Change the Development Rules. Local regulations often prohibit the type of climate-friendly, compact development discussed in this book. Outdated land de- velopment codes-often from the 1970s or earlier-effectively mandate sprawl by re- stricting the mix of land uses and requiring large amounts of parking as well as large minimum building setbacks. Many localities have trted to address these issues on a development-by-development basis, granting exceptions to the rules through arduous review and approval processes. Instead, a better approach would be to amend local policies and regulations-including general plans, zoning and subdivision ordinances, parking standards, annexation rules, adequate public facilities requirements, and 16 OVERVIEW design guidelines-to facilitate smart growth through normal approval processes. They also should consider ways that permitting processes might be accelerated for compact development projects that meet specified standards. Channel Growth into Compact Development Areas. With surprising regularity, MPOs and localities have settled on a common approach to VMT reduction-channeling growth into dense, walkable areas that can be efficiently served by transtt, and giving these areas priority for infrastructure funding. This Is the idea behind "smart growth areas" In the San Diego region, "urban development areas" in Virginia, and "metro- politan activity centers" in Orlando. Public infrastructure, amenities, and good urban design will guarantee that such areas are attractive places to live, work, and shop. Provide for Workforce Housing near Jobs. In most metropolitan areas, the cost of housing declines with distance from job centers and other desired destinations, while the cost of transportation increases. With gasoline costs rising, the financial tradeoff between a longer commute and less-expensive housing is changing, and the potential savings from living in a convenient location with transportation choices is becoming a more important aspect of affordability. Locai governments could make the provision of affordable "workforce" housing a condition of approval for large-scale residential and commercial developments. In addition, localities could give priority to transit acces- sibility when allocating housing assistance funds. The Organization of this Book Chapter by chapter, this book addresses the impacts of the following: '" emerging market and policy trends on urban development II vehicular travel on GHG emissions; II urban development on vehicular travel; .. residential preferences on urban development and travel; " highway building on urban development and travel; '" urban development on residential energy use; " the combination of urban development, transtt enhancements, and roadway pricing on vehicular travel; and, finally .. policy options to encourage compact development and reduce vehicular travel. 0_Z m ~ ~ ~ " ;~ ~~~I ~~?ll.Wi l~~~ 0 ' ., in " ~ i~ ~ ~ i: i-oI ,"~ ("'l I " .... > t"" N o Z .... Z ~ i DII~.~ 111111 f III1IJ "? ~ "e"" ~::::?:: -oo~ ==flt} ~,!!i: ~! "@>: E; ft ~ tI; ~ <>- ::::::::::)d' i g: ~.~ ? ~ 8. ~ :0 ~ g g... (j 8: <> "" (Il :I: _ 3 g f~... [q~ <> ~. Q; g ~ " ~ ~e~';' i~e:s' ~ g~. E!i a" t: "" "'!;l s." '& 0 1 ~ ~ i: a" ~ [ g c:.. c: ~ i ~ ~ '" ,fg" Iii tI om I ~ ~_~~~.~ E '< 0.'=::'"" ~ 0 i ~~0';;'~' ~ :g,i! -a fr 8: g~. 0 6" ?' so:? 00 ..,. s:; ~ ~ ~ ~-~.g ~ [ g [ ~ Q , "" 3: o8:~i ill ~ ~ ~ S' ,.., O! _:::J . .... .g:~.;..,::; f~Fg~ ~ q e e t ~t P' ;" 08 .~~E [ g. ~ i ii n I , ('I ("1 ('I 0 ? =.=::: Z [ :cg;r2.9- 5'~g~~. ::1.1'> eL 0 ~_ <>':i!.n3- ~ ~ 38- 3 '=' 3 (') ~ ~ ~. 3 iIi" ~ !!!. 3 - [ ~. ~ ..i ~B .' 2g~ ~ 8: 9- ~ ~ ~. 3 ~ , ~ ~. 3- ~8. ~ ir ~. ~. ~~ ~. ~ ~ , c ~ ~ [ g Q ~ & g g -;N "OJ 10 is is, g a:: ~ ',:; E. ! 1f p..~' >-:l ~ ~ c,l ~ g~ a ~ - a g; .. -~ Jefferson County Port Townsend ~ 3: g" 0 h ~ ~ 0 " ...., a d' [ ., ., r oJ '" 0 " ~ R ~ ~ '" " " 0 ;c " c "'- ~ g .~ 5 ~ - ~ " '- ~ n " ~ " ;fI n " '" n ~ n g o' " n "'- e. 0 CJ " n " >0 n ~ 0 '< .~ ;:: N 0 " East Jefferson County Vicinity Map I Iflc!l= 1 Mile December H. 2009