MEETING: Untitled Meeting at Sat, Jan 20, 01:02 PM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP SUMMARY

Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary Adjustments and Legislative Fixes

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:55:09–00:56:05
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Implied: UGA/Comprehensive Plan Update)
  • Categories: land use, planning, ordinances

Topic Summary

Discussion centered on two approaches for managing growth: a larger-scale land swap and the more traditional method of expansion. The effectiveness of the statute governing land swaps, which was recently established, was questioned due to problematic implementation requirements. Efforts are underway to address these legislative issues in the current session. The county is also coordinating with the city on a land capacity analysis as part of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update.

Key Discussion Points

  • Current legislation regarding land swaps is problematic for implementation due to requirements, and fixing it this session would facilitate an easier, less risky process (Unknown Speaker).
  • External parties, specifically organizations with a statewide focus like "future wise," may be interested in a land swap action due to the precedent it sets (Unknown Speaker).
  • Traditional expansion depends on land capacity analysis, which the City of Port Townsend has already started or is embarking on for their 2025 update (Unknown Speaker).
  • The coordination of these timelines and complex issues contributes to the demanding nature of the work plan (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternative 1: A "bigger swap idea" involving current, problematic legislation.
  • Alternative 2: Traditional expansion based on land capacity analysis.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

No action taken; item was an informational discussion on progress and legislative constraints related to the work plan.

Short-Term Rental (STR) Regulation and Work Plan Timeline

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:57:37–01:01:14
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Implied: Work Plan/STR Regulations)
  • Categories: ordinances, housing, planning, personnel

Topic Summary

A Commissioner raised concern about the Planning Commission’s work plan, specifically the speed at which short-term rental (STR) regulations might be passed, particularly due to the anticipated departure of Chief Strategy Officer Brent from full-time status in March or April. Staff clarified that Brent's tenure is expected to be extended part-time through September via "clerk" hourly status to continue work on important items. The STR regulation is a board-directed priority that may be tackled sooner or woven into the broader housing discussion.

Key Discussion Points

  • Commissioner expressed concern about potentially rushing STR regulations before Brent leaves, noting the issue is a "really big deal for the community" concerned about housing and resource constraints (Unknown Speaker at 01:00:16).
  • Chief Strategy Officer Brent's full-time status is set to expire at the end of March, but the County is discussing continuing his work on a part-time special "clerk" basis (up to 69 hours/month) until the end of September (Unknown Speaker).
  • The STR work is a "board directed approach" that staff thought they would tackle first while working on the bigger picture and other proposals (Unknown Speaker).
  • STR regulation is recognized as a potentially controversial item that is likely to be a major topic (Unknown Speaker). Public meetings are being planned, including one mentioned as "coming right up" and others geographically interspersed (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • The STR regulation could be addressed first or "get woven into the entire housing discussion" (Unknown Speaker).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

No action taken; the discussion provided a personnel and timeline update, confirming STR work is a priority.

Short-Term Rental Scope and Public Engagement

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:01:14–01:04:19
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Implied: STR Regulatory Scope)
  • Categories: planning, housing, services

Topic Summary

Commissioners and staff debated the necessity and scope of STR regulation. Initial public meetings are intended to gauge the extent of public concern, balancing those concerned about housing limitations against those reliant on STR income. A key complication noted is the potential environmental health requirements related to sanitation systems, where the Environmental Health division lacks capacity. Data from a service provider shows 543 unique STR properties exist, compared to only 76 currently permitted.

Key Discussion Points

  • Starting with public meetings is key to gauging the scope: whether the concern is about limiting STRs or property owners needing STR income to pay mortgages (Unknown Speaker).
  • Expanding the scope to include technical areas like environmental health (e.g., septic systems for STRs) opens a "whole other can of worms," as the EH division reports lacking capacity (Unknown Speaker).
  • The discussion covers only the unincorporated area, not Port Townsend City limits (Unknown Speaker).
  • A service provider reports 543 unique STR properties in the county, yet only 76 are permitted (Unknown Staff/Commissioner).
  • Port Townsend City has an additional 150 STRs, noted for "very strange regulation" (Unknown Staff/Commissioner).
  • Commissioner Chris inquired about the impact of unpermitted STRs (including "glamp tents" and "little cabins") on the long-term rental market for teachers and others, asking, "Are we putting up barriers?" (Chris)

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Public outreach meetings will proceed to assess the necessary scope of regulatory changes.
  • Planning Commission members were encouraged to participate in these county district meetings.

On-Site Sanitation Regulation and Pit Toilets

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:04:19–01:11:48
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Implied: Environmental Health Policy)
  • Categories: public safety, operations, ordinances

Topic Summary

The conversation broadened to the challenges of on-site sanitation, specifically the legality and danger of pit toilets (outhouses) in Jefferson County. It was confirmed that while pit toilets are not explicitly illegal, the process to permit them is prohibitively expensive and the regulatory burden for continuous enforcement against seasonal differences and water table issues is too high for the county. The lack of low-cost, permitted sanitation options creates risks (e.g., well contamination) and exacerbates housing challenges, including farmworker housing and density limits not connected to sewer systems. The discussion noted statewide septic sludge crises and ongoing legislative efforts to secure funding for studies on this issue.

Key Discussion Points

  • Commissioner Chris questioned the county’s stance on pit toilets, noting they often "outperform a drain field" and are less expensive, yet are nearly impossible to permit (Chris).
  • The County stopped permitting new pit toilets in the late 1980s or 1990s (Unknown Speaker).
  • Pit toilets are allowed, but the amount of work required for an applicant to prove they are not a threat is "a very high threshold [and] expensive," and the county regulating a "very high risk environmental hazard" is "extremely difficult to enforce and regulate" (Unknown Speaker).
  • Contaminated wells and environmental risks are cited as reasons for the hard line on pit toilets, especially in a "largely maritime county" (Unknown Speaker/Commissioner).
  • Current regulations mean "almost every farm in the county is out of compliance" (Chris).
  • A low-income couple in their 80s who had a working drain field were mandated to spend $40,000 on a new system after their septic tank pumpers—who are mandatory reporters—reported a problem (Chris).
  • A cost-share program exists for income-banded repair or replacement of septic systems, potentially covering up to 100% of the cost, but even lower contributions remain difficult for low-income residents (Unknown Speaker).
  • There is a statewide "septic crisis" regarding where septic sludge can be deposited after pumping (Unknown Speaker).
  • Efforts are ongoing in Olympia to secure funding for a Department of Health study to articulate the severity of the septic issue, which is not exclusive to Jefferson County (Unknown Speaker).
  • The sanitation crisis relates directly to density questions: "How can we allow more destiny that's not on a sewer if we... how can we allow farm worker housing when there's not enough bathrooms?" (Unknown Speaker).
  • Environmental Public Health staff member Randy Marks will speak to the Planning Commission at the first meeting in March to answer questions related to this issue (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • An example of an unpermitted septic system replacement cost was cited at $40,000 (Chris).
  • Cost-share programs are available for septic repair/replacement, potentially covering 100% depending on income (Unknown Speaker).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Permitting pit toilets with strict rules ("These are the rules... this is how it's got to be done") was suggested as a safer alternative to unregulated use (Chris).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Randy Marks, a sanitarium expert, will speak to the Planning Commission in March to address questions.
  • No action taken by the Board/Commission; the issue is recognized as serious, complex, and potentially impacting future development planning.

Non-Conforming Use Expansion Clarification

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:11:59–01:12:42
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Implied: Land Use Code Clarification)
  • Categories: ordinances, land use

Topic Summary

Staff provided a correction/clarification regarding the limits on expanding non-conforming uses under County Code Chapter 18.20. It was clarified that a non-conforming use can be expanded up to 10% with a basic Type 1 Administrative permit, but using a Type 2 Conditional Discretionary permit allows for an expansion of up to 100%, effectively enabling the doubling of the non-conforming use's size.

Key Discussion Points

  • Referencing Chapter 18.20 (performance standards for non-conforming uses), expansion limits were detailed (Unknown Speaker).
  • A Type 1 Administrative permit allows expansion up to 10% (Unknown Speaker).
  • A Type 2 Conditional Discretionary permit allows expansion up to 100%, doubling the size of the non-conforming use (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

No action taken; this was a staff reporting correction for the "good of the order."

Planning Commission Composition and Diversity

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:13:01–01:34:41
  • Agenda Item: Process Improvements/Workshop Discussion
  • Categories: personnel, planning, operations

Topic Summary

The Planning Commission asked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for input on desired characteristics or criteria for Planning Commission appointments. The consensus among the BOCC was that diversity in interests, expertise, experience, and geography (especially within districts with varied sub-geographies) is important. Recent successful recruitment efforts allowed for focus on representation, such as appointing a renter still in the workforce. The BOCC stressed the value of the Planning Commission as a "citizen board" rather than one composed solely of representatives from specific, large organizations.

Key Discussion Points

  • The Planning Commission is set up to have three Commissioners from each district, and they value the existing diversity and expertise (Unknown Speaker).
  • The BOCC appreciated the diversity in interests and experience, focusing on representation of the community rather than "issue advocacy" (Unknown Speaker).
  • Commissioner Kate reported being pleased with the quality and quantity of applicants in the most recent District 1 vacancy round (3 highly qualified applicants), and noted focusing on appointing someone who was a renter and still in the workforce (Kate).
  • Commissioner Richard wondered about technical gaps, asking if the BOCC ever thought, "They have no idea of reality when it comes to building" when reviewing recommendations (Richard).
  • Commissioner Matt stated that deficiencies in the outcome are usually on the County's end (not providing the Planning Commission with necessary tools) rather than the Commissioners' performance; he valued that they take their job seriously (Matt).
  • The BOCC changed its process to allow new applications for a seated role that is seeking reappointment, encouraging diversity and new representation as the population changes (Matt).
  • Commissioner Aaron emphasized the importance of geographic diversity within the districts (e.g., people living near the UGA vs. Chimacum) and subject matter knowledge (Aaron).
  • Commissioner Kevin stated his appreciation for the Planning Commission being a "citizen board" where members serve the community rather than representing external organizations as part of their job hours (Kevin).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

No action taken; item was an informational workshop discussion.

Community Engagement and UGA Visualization

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:24:07–01:57:43
  • Agenda Item: Process Improvements/Community Connection/Outreach
  • Categories: planning, operations, land use

Topic Summary

Commissioners discussed strategies for improving community engagement, particularly for the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion. A major concern raised by neighboring residents of the UGA is their inability to visualize the future changes: "What is that gonna look like?" The Commissioners suggested better outreach tools, including visualization rendering, and a physical road show to meet existing community groups in their districts, rather than relying solely on online methods which have yielded mixed results in the past.

Key Discussion Points

  • Commissioner Richard noted his outreach efforts in District 3 involved the community center's webpage and a Google Group posting (Richard).
  • Commissioner Kevin expressed concern that, despite significant work and controversy (UGA), he is only hearing from a small number of people, underscoring the need for broader input (Kevin).
  • UGA neighboring residents are demanding to see visualizations of the proposed changes, asking "How's the intersection or QFC is gonna change?" (Kevin).
  • Staff suggested including visualization tools/rendering in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update consultant to help answer questions like "What is that gonna look like?" (Unknown Speaker).
  • A Habitat for Humanity rendering (of a new project) was described as a successful example of communication (Unknown Speaker).
  • Staff confirmed they are working on the RFP with DCD’s assistance for consultant management of the 2025 update (Unknown Speaker).
  • The idea of developing performance standards for rural areas, bringing housing flexibility back to the UGA/rural area, was enthusiastically discussed, with the potential to protect more area and ensure development "looks beautiful" (Unknown Speaker).
  • Commissioner Richard noted that past engagement events using large boards and sticky notes generated a "massive amount of comments" the last time the Comprehensive Plan was updated and serve as the foundation for the current approach (Richard).
  • The County must develop a public participation plan for the 2025 update (Unknown Speaker).
  • Past website portals (through Granicus) only yielded about 200 responses and were not cost-effective (Unknown Speaker).
  • There is a drop-off in participation, and Commissioners recommended "meeting people where they're at," including presenting to the Rotary, home builders, and the school board, instead of expecting groups to come to the Commissioners (Kate, Aaron).
  • The Planning Commission members themselves could potentially divide up and present materials to different district meetings, ensuring consistency (Richard, Chris).
  • Commissioner Kate asked staff to research best practices for community engagement and new technologies in other jurisdictions, noting that COVID forced a review of past business practices (Kate).
  • Staff confirmed the new Strategic Plan (2024-2028) is posted on the county website but is difficult to locate via standard search function (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • Past website portals were deemed not cost-effective due to contract costs and low response rates (approx. 200 responses) (Unknown Speaker).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternative 1 (Current Practice): Relying on formal public hearings and static development tables.
  • Alternative 2 (Recommended): Using visualization tools (renderings/pictures) as part of the RFP/Comprehensive Plan update.
  • Alternative 3 (Recommended): Implementing a "road show" concept where Planning Commissioners meet existing district groups (e.g., Port Ludlow Village Council) and host district meetings, potentially on a Saturday, to increase accessibility.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Staff will update the RFP for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update to include visualization tools.
  • The Planning Commission Outreach Committee or district groups will begin generating a list of community organizations to reach out to.
  • Commissioner Aaron offered to host one or two Commissioners on KPTZ radio show "County Connection" on an upcoming Friday to discuss the Planning Commission’s work.

UGA Non-Conforming Use Expansion Clarification (Revisited and Corrected)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:11:59–01:12:42
  • Agenda Item: Land Use Code Clarification
  • Categories: ordinances, land use

Topic Summary

Staff provided a correction/clarification regarding the limits on expanding non-conforming uses under County Code Chapter 18.20. It was clarified that a non-conforming use can be expanded up to 10% with a basic Type 1 Administrative permit, but using a Type 2 Conditional Discretionary permit allows for an expansion of up to 100%, effectively enabling the doubling of the non-conforming use's size.

Key Discussion Points

  • Referencing Chapter 18.20 (performance standards for non-conforming uses), expansion limits were detailed (Unknown Speaker).
  • A Type 1 Administrative permit allows expansion up to 10% (Unknown Speaker).
  • A Type 2 Conditional Discretionary permit allows expansion up to 100%, doubling the size of the non-conforming use (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

No action taken; this was a staff reporting correction for the "good of the order."

Housing Solutions: Congregate Housing and Environmental Constraints

Metadata

  • Time Range: 1:59:19–2:18:23
  • Agenda Item: Housing Solutions/Work Plan Discussion
  • Categories: housing, planning, environmental health, ordinances

Topic Summary

The Housing Committee of the Planning Commission is advancing two key proposals to address housing and density: a complex overlay proposal and a newer, simpler independent proposal. Both aim to use performance standards to allow for small, "congregate housing" clusters that demonstrate less environmental impact than single, large family structures. The major obstacle remains environmental health restrictions, particularly those concerning septic/gray water systems, where Jefferson County standards are often stricter than the state. Commissioners stressed the need to create a framework that allows for future innovations like pilot projects or blackwater treatment systems, and the importance of using density calculations that support rural character while being economically feasible for workers.

Key Discussion Points

  • The goal is to produce more small housing, congregated, with less environmental impact than unrestricted single-family houses on large parcels (Unknown Speaker).
  • Housing design must contend with environmental health logic, such as avoiding elements that staff could define as a "bedroom," which triggers a larger septic design requirement based on estimated flow (Unknown Speaker).
  • There is a concern about Jefferson County implementing stricter standards than the State of Washington, such as the prohibition on pit toilets, which can stifle low-cost housing (Unknown Speaker).
  • Studies show living small housing (clustered tiny structures) can result in a 70% reduction in energy use and a 50% reduction in material use, encouraging pro-environmental behavior (Unknown Speaker).
  • Both current proposals revolve around dividing "non permeable surface area" to create clusters with smaller, localized impacts (Unknown Speaker).
  • Performance standards, which are highly congruent with agriculture and sustainable forestry, are viewed as key because they offer freedom to implement policy goals (Unknown Speaker).
  • The goal is to quickly implement workable solutions (like performance standards) so entities like the Land Trust can use them to develop housing and protect land (Unknown Speaker).
  • An example was cited where cottage construction on forest land used pier foundations and managed stormwater such that the "arborists came back saying that the trees won't know that the cottages are there" (Unknown Speaker).
  • The Growth Management Act requires the County to plan for "different income" levels (a "brand new thing" for counties), providing a strong rationale for these innovative approach (Unknown Speaker).
  • The final challenge is translating these concepts into specific "development regulations" (Unknown Speaker).
  • Board Commissioner Aaron cautioned against raising public expectations too much regarding housing innovations that may be prohibited under current state law (e.g., blackwater separation), and requested that the work clearly call out the legal barriers that need to be pushed against in Olympia (Aaron).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternative 1: Complex Overlay proposal (from last year).
  • Alternative 2: Simple and independent proposal (written from an administrative point of view for easier implementation).
  • Alternative 3: Pilot projects and future innovations within a "vessel" framework.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Staff will meet with Joe to review density calculations for housing proposals.
  • Staff and Planning Commissioners will review the two housing proposals before submitting them to the Planning Commission for formal review.
  • Staff and EPH will meet again soon to discuss environmental health constraints.

Black Point Development Status

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:20:18–02:22:28
  • Agenda Item: Not Stated (Implied: Status Update)
  • Categories: contracts, land use, planning

Topic Summary

Staff provided an update on the Black Point Development (formerly called "Black Point/Nash Development"). The developer is moving forward, targeting a 7-8 year build-out. A staffing agreement, involving a third-party contract planner to review the voluminous materials, was successfully resolved after months of negotiation, ensuring the developer pre-pays for staff costs via a retainer and is invoiced monthly. The developer has formally applied for the subdivision, which the County is currently reviewing and has deemed incomplete, requiring additional information.

Key Discussion Points

  • The County is using a consultant (contract planner) to manage the plan review process for the Black Point Development (Unknown Speaker).
  • A staffing agreement was resolved after months of negotiation (Unknown Speaker).
  • The developer paid off outstanding debt owed for county staff work (Unknown Speaker).
  • The developer is working on a schedule aiming for a 7-8 year build-out for the whole project (Unknown Speaker).
  • The developer is now required to pay a retainer and is provided monthly invoices for staff costs, making the process a "pass-through" to the developer (Unknown Speaker).
  • The subdivision application has been submitted but staff has deemed it incomplete and requested "a few other pieces" (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • The developer paid off previous outstanding debt (Unknown Speaker).
  • The developer now maintains a retainer to cover staff/consultant invoices (Unknown Speaker).

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Staff is requesting additional information to complete the subdivision application review.
  • The project is proceeding with a target build-out timeline.

Strategic Plan and Tribal Engagement

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:22:18–02:31:37
  • Agenda Item: Strategic Plan/Tribal Element
  • Categories: planning, infrastructure, ordinances

Topic Summary

The meeting concluded with brief discussion and appreciation. There was an exchange of thanks for staff's work during a period of staff turnover and on complex projects like the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The discussion also touched upon the coordination needed between different groups regarding infrastructure projects (Tip List) and the mandatory tribal element required for the Comprehensive Plan update, which staff is still exploring how to shape out, potentially through a "tribal element" despite the challenges of engaging tribes without reservation lands in the county.

Key Discussion Points

  • Board Commissioners expressed gratitude for the work of staff and Planning Commissioners, particularly for improving the department’s organizational status since 2015 (Unknown Speaker, Kevin).
  • The BOCC acknowledged the quality of the Planning Commission's SMP reports, noting that any potential changes being considered are for gathering "more information" and not questioning the original work (Unknown Speaker).
  • Coordination is needed between different restoration/folks doing different things (e.g., on the County Tip List projects and stream files) to leverage these efforts (Unknown Speaker).
  • The County must invite tribes with reservation lands to participate in the planning process as part of current planning policies (Unknown Speaker).
  • Staff is exploring options for the required tribal element under the Comprehensive Plan update, noting the complexity of engagement given that the tribe they met with does not have reservation land within Jefferson County (Unknown Speaker).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Joel’s presentation (mentioned in the packet) laid the groundwork on tribal history in Washington State (Unknown Speaker).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

No action taken; the meeting provided final acknowledgments and a request to schedule a follow-up discussion in the fall regarding future workshops.